Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006-07-25
0 .~ ,.; ,r„ y CITY OF ~ ~~ T ~' ~~_. ~~, ~`'::, e~i~t~n IDAHO ~ /~ tiFc~~R ~. TRF.~suae vim'` ~~ .1993 Revised 7-24-06 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, July 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "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." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Gordon Slyter, with Treasure Valley Worship Center: ~~lL,+~+S~'C~ 4. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~-~~ 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 22, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting: ~~,~~~""`-' B. Approve Minutes of July 5, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: ~~~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06- 003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R-4 (Low-Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) zone, including modifications to the existing Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Subdivision for Hastings by Monterey, LLC - 2300 West Everest Lane: c,.~~,~~' Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 1 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • ~ Revised 7-24-06 D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06- 004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC -1021 West Pine Avenue: ~~~•~... E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: yvhs.• F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC -1021 West Pine Avenue: a~j~r~vv~.• G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District -1120 S. Locust Grove Road: ~~^svK-~ ~~ H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: - f~/,~ - ~ ~ j,,~ow ~v/~ °' I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: /t, ..-~~~ ~.~w ~1~. J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi- family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4- plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: ~-~~/~, d f~~l7.~ ~- w~~ p/~ K. Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement for Bellingham PI_ace: ~~~-~-n-u~..~ L. Professional Services Contract for Scope of Services for Cooperative Tasks with Sanitary Services. Inc.: ~~v.~f Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 2 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 6. • Revised 7-24-06 M. Permanent and Temporary Easement contract for the 2006 Trunk Sewer Project with Dyver Development, LLC: ~ N. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Agreements for Properties at 2820 South Eagle Road: G~~~- Department Reports: A. Legal Department 1. Update of Impact Fee Committee: ~~~' 2. Contract /Agreement with Petra, Inc. for Construction Manager: ~ lnof ~"G~dy B. Public Works Department 1. Purchase of Permanent Flowmeters for the Sewer System with the 2005 Sewer Master Plan Project with JUB Engineers: ~~~~~- C. Parks Department 1. 2. Reauest for Additional Funding for Recreation Programs and Back Up Documentation: ,~~,r,,o~,,,~„ ~,,r,~„~,Q,~„y,,,~,~ D. Mayor's Office ~~ ,TGhhi~Cl- ~iol~c~lca~ 1. Scholarship Presentations: ,~,~,,t y,h,~, fro h !~h- 2 - rld~~0, ®r. 7. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: 8. Reauest for Reconsideration of Denial for Annexation and Zoning and Prelimina Plat for Bara a Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: 9. Tabled from July 11, 2006: FP 06-030 Request for Final Plat approval for 88 single-family residential building lots and 9 common lots on 29.7 acres in an R-4 zone for Madelynn Estates (f.k.a. Basin Creek) by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: ~~rv 10. Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: CPA 05-001 Request to Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for Approximately 50 acres from Medium and Low Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional, by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 3 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. i , Revised 7-24-06 Alliance -Land at or near the northeast and southeast comers of South Eagle Road and Victory Road: ~,~,~y.,py~ 11. Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C-C and L-O zones for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance -east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: ~~~, ~~~-f' Cl,~ ~,~`c~.(, 12. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Offcce by John Homan - 2835 an 2825 North Meridian Road: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development -northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: ~~ ~~,F' ~ r/f,~ ~,~-c~.~v~-~ 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development - northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: 15. Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South Linder Road: ~,~,r,~~,,c ~l~ ~ ~~ fit' ~v~-C 16. Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South Linder Road: ~/+G~~{ ~~~'~ Gl.~ ~~Va~ 17. Approve 2007 Fiscal Year Tentative Budget: ~j°/~'~~`e-- 18. Ordinance No. ®~ _ 1~~~- RZ 06-002 Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L (Light Industrial) to O-T (Old Town) zones for Stan Lantz by Stan Lantz - 608 West 3rd Street: ~'~~~'~- 19. Ordinance No. ®~'y l2~'~ AZ 06-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.08 acres .from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) zone for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road: ~i~vrd/+c- 20. Ordinance No. ~ Parking Lot Exchange Ordinance and Real Property Exchange Agreement: p~ y,,~,µ,~, ~'~,,.~ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 4 of 5 ~ g~ d~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. i Revised 7-24-06 21. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) - (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) and (d) - (to consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 3, title 9, Idaho Code): tea(„ ~G~ ... ~- ~ o-t ~,G wx irk I~~z--.thy . K,c~d {+ ~c. sib a.cd. w.•~.d.. h'Pi~tvl~tJL~++ ~--~17 ~~ /~ l ~~ L~f ~' /?•1~ /4/i.+~.. s dh wi~~ ~6s~%- r~e.~+~~o+tir w~`A'~- tit. ~~#- 6~'~l~IGF-. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 5 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • i ~. i P ~~~, ~r~5-~ ~wl~(~~ ~c~ ~ ~- Lc~~,~,~ s a~rv of ~A ' - _ _. ,~ ., ~, ~'~l ~' IC)AHO V' :' R C' ~~7 ~~ ~ ~'Paea.~cru;. Vnti~` , ~ sauce 1943 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, July 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. 1. `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 Charlie Rountree 2. 3. Pledge of Allegiance: Joe Borton Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Community Invocation by Pastor Gordon Slyter, with Treasure Valley Worship Center: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 22, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of July 5, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06- 003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R-4 (Low-Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) zone, including modifications to the existing Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Subdivision for Hastings by Monterey, LLC - 2300 West Everest Lane: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 1 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. i ~ D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06- 004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC -1021 West Pine Avenue: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District -1120 S. Locust Grove Road: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi- family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4- plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: K. Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement for Bellingham Place: L. Professional Services Contract for Scope of Services for Cooperative Tasks with Sanitary Services, Inc.: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 2 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • M. Permanent and Temporary Easement contract for the 2006 Trunk Sewer Project with Dyver Development, LLC: N. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Agreements for Properties at 2820 South Eagle Road: 6. Department Reports: A. Legal Department 1. Update of Impact Fee Committee: 2. Contract /Agreement with Petra, Inc. for Construction Manager: B. Public Works Department 1. Purchase of Permanent Flowmeters for the Sewer System with the 2005 Sewer Master Plan Project with JUB Engineers: C. Parks Department 1. Request to Reject Bid for Adventure Island Splash Pad: 2. Request for Additional Funding for Recreation Programs and Back Up Documentation: 7. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: 8. Request for Reconsideration of Denial for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: 9. Tabled from July 11, 2006: FP 06-030 Request for Final Plat approval for 88 single-family residential building lots and 9 common lots on 29.7 acres in an R-4 zone for Madelynn Estates (f.k.a. Basin Creek) by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: CPA 05-001 Request to Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for Approximately 50 acres from Medium and Low Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional, by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance -Land at or near the northeast and southeast corners of South Eagle Road and Victory Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 3 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 11. Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C-C and L-O zones for South Eactle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance -east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: 12. Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan - 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development -northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development -northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: 15. Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South Linder Road: 16. Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South Linder Road: 17. Approve 2007 Fiscal Year Tentative Budget: 18. Ordinance No. RZ 06-002 Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L (Light Industrial) to O-T (Old Town) zones for Stan Lantz by Stan Lantz - 608 West 3rd Street: 19. Ordinance No. AZ 06-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.08 acres .from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) zone for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road: 20. Ordinance No. Parking Lot Exchange Ordinance and Real Property Exchange Agreement: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 4 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 21. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) - (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) and (d) - (to consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 3, title 9, Idaho Code): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -July 25, 2006 Page 5 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council Meeting July 25, 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday, July 25, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Joe Borton and Charlie Rountree. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Gene Trakel, Ron Anderson, Len Grady, Doug Strong, Leanna Thomas, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Thank you for coming and joining us tonight. It is Tuesday, July 25th. It's a few minutes after 7:00. We will start tonight's agenda with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our pledge of allegiance. If you will all rise and join us. Jennifer Bokenkamp will be leading us. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Gordon Slyter, with Treasure Valley Worship Center: De Weerd: Thank you, Jennifer. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Gordon Slyter with the Treasure Valley Worship Center. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Pastor. You can be either place. Slyter: Let's pray. Our Father and our God, we come before you tonight humbly and thankfully. In these troubled times we thank you for the privilege of living in here in Meridian where there is the security and peace and prosperity and we thank you for that. We do pray, Lord, that in our city and amongst our people wisdom would triumph over expediency, charity over selfishness, compassion over hardheartedness, and that your grace would triumph over all. We pray, Lord, that you would give wisdom and guidance to everyone who speaks tonight, those who will be making decisions, those who will be presenting evidence and facts and opinions and we pray, Lord, that when the evening is over we will be able to look back and say that we have been guided by Meridian City Council • • July 25, 2006 Page 2 of 77 your providence and your grace. We thank you for this and we pray through Christ our Lord, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you for your words tonight. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On our agenda, on the Consent, which we will go through this again, Items H, I, and J need to be pulled to make 7-H, I, and J at the request of the Council. And with that little modification I move we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda before you. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 22, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of July 5, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06- 003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R-4 (Low-Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) zone, including modifications to the existing Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Subdivision for Hastings by Monterey, LLC - 2300 West Everest Lane: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06- 004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC -1021 West Pine Avenue: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: Meridian City Council ~ . July 25, 2006 Page 3 of 77 F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation by the Ada County Highway District -1120 S. Locust Grove Road: K. Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement for Bellingham Place: L. Professional Services Contract for Scope of Services for Cooperative Tasks with Sanitary Services, Inc.: M. Permanent and Temporary Easement contract for the 2006 Trunk Sewer Project with Dyver Development, LLC: N. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Agreements for Properties at 2820 South Eagle Road: De Weerd: Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda are Items 7-- or H, I, and J will be moved to 7-H, I, and J, and the rest of the Consent Agenda I move we approve and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Items H, I, and J. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: D. Mayor's Office 1. Scholarship Presentations: Meridian City Council ~ • July 25, 2006 Page 4 of 77 De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6. We have a number of department reports before my office and we do have some guests here with us tonight. Council, would you mind if I moved Item D ahead of the legal department? Bird: No problem with me. De Weerd: I know our legal department is very short and brief. Nary: No problem from me either, Mayor. Bird: I don't know who is the longest, the Mayor or the legal. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Did all of you -- are you okay with that? Okay. Tonight we have two of our committee -- or our community members that have served our community in various ways that we get to recognize this evening with a scholarship. Both were seniors. One at Meridian High School and the second one at Mountain View. And they have worked hard, in addition to their school work. They have been great students, but they have been great community members. And so it is with great pleasure that I get to recognize these two young ladies tonight. If Council doesn't mind, I will leave my seat here. This last year Council has really stepped up our commitment to recognizing the youth and the value they have in our community and funded two scholarships that were applied for. We had a committee of our Meridian's Promise board members evaluate the applicants and they made a selection and so right now I'll call -- now is it Gina -- Gina Holder -- or Holler, as well as Jennifer Bokenkamp. If you will come forward. They will both be moving onto higher education and we have a scholarship to present to them that the money will go directly to the education institution of your choice, but we just wanted to have the opportunity to ceremonially recognize you and thank you for what you have done in our community and I always get emotional, so -- Jennifer, thank you so much for what you do and I'm sure you will continue on to make a difference in everything you do as you move into this next step or next phase. And, Gina, thank you. Both these young ladies have done tremendous things and have shown compassion and leadership. So, welcome -- or congratulations and good luck in this next endeavor. Would you like to say anything? Bokenkamp: I would just like to thank you guys for giving us this opportunity and for furthering my education. Holler: I'm truly honored to be accepting this award and I will use it towards my bachelor's degree in nursing at BSU and I just want to congratulate Jennifer, too. A. Legal Department 1. Update of Impact Fee Committee Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 5 of 77 De Weerd: Congratulations go to the parents as well. We know that behind every successful student are caring and giving families. So, thank you. Okay. Mr. Nary, you're up. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I have one -- one item. The second item we aren't prepared to discuss tonight. But I have an update on the impact fees. The impact fee committee has met, has made a recommendation to be brought forward. We are in the process now of some of the paperwork that's necessary, a recommendation letter. A draft has been prepared. Mr. Strong, as chair of the committee, has had an opportunity to review that. We need the committee to review that as well. Tonight was originally to be a scheduled Public Hearing. Because of some delays in getting this process completed, we have had to put that off a little bit, but I did want to advise you there is a couple of steps that are still in the process that need to be done. One of them is that it's been a recommendation by our consultants that we have used in this process that we also have the Planning and Zoning Commission review the recommendation as a Comp Plan text amendment, so we have worked with the clerk's office to schedule that for a Planning and Zoning hearing on the 17th of August. It doesn't have to be a lengthy Public Hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but it was the recommendation from the consultants that we follow that part of the process under the local Land Use Planning Act and so we have scheduled with notices to be published in Monday's edition of the Valley Times for a Public Hearing to be held on the 17th of August. The statute does not allow us to publish a hearing before the City Council prior to the Planning and Zoning hearing, so we will -- if all goes well at the Planning and Zoning hearing and no significant changes are made, then, we will be publishing a notice in August for a City Council Public Hearing for the final hearing to set the fees, hopefully, on the 5th of September, is the target date that we are looking for now, if no further significant changes are to be made. Again, the committee's done a very good job in trying to flush out what the consultants have brought to them. They have had some very good discussions at their meetings and trying to formulate a good policy and rationale that they could, then, bring forward in a recommendation to you for your final consideration as to what those fees should be set. As you well know or recall in the discussion on these that we are looking at not only an impact fee for park development, but also an impact fee for public safety for both police and fire. At the last impact fee committee meeting both the builders groups that have participated, the Building Contractors Association, as well as the Ada County Association of Realtors, we are in agreement we will want to present testimony at the Public Hearing about their position on these impact fees and the like, but they were supportive of what the committee's recommendation was and so I believe at the public hearing stage you will hear both that -- both their concerns and issues, as well as their support. So, I think it's been a very good process to this point and I just wanted to make you aware of kind of what the next steps were in the Public Hearing process, so we can bring that back in front of you. Do you have any other questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 6 of 77 Bird: I have none. 2. Contract /Agreement with Petra, Inc. for Construction Manager: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that update. Item No. 2. Nary: We are not ready to discuss that in the meeting tonight, Madam Mayor. B. Public Works Department 1. Purchase of Permanent Flowmeters for the Sewer System with the 2005 Sewer Master Plan Project with JUB Engineers: De Weerd: Okay. Okay. 6-B. Public Works Department. Len. Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have about 30,000 dollars remaining in our sewer master plan study. We would like to take some of that remaining money and purchase flow meters for next year's sewer master plan. So, it's a little bit of a change of contract, but JUB would still be purchasing the meters and we would not exceed our contract amount with JUB. So, I'm just looking for approval, if that's acceptable. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for Len? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we authorize the Public Works Department to purchase flow meters for the sewer system utilizing the remaining 30,000 dollars in the sewer master plan project. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request in front of you. Is there any discussion? If not, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Parks Department Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 7 of 77 1. Request to Reiect Bid for Adventure Island Splash Pad: De Weerd: Thank you. Item C. Our parks director has the next two items. Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We are requesting that we refuse the one bid that we received to do the install for the Adventure Island water splash pad. The one bid we received was for 241,000 dollars. This does not include the equipment, which has been purchased separately, that you have already approved to purchase that equipment for 134,000 earlier. We are recommending that we refuse this bid because we feel it's higher than it should be and what certainly our budget can allow. So, we would like to refuse the bid and put it out for rebid. De Weerd: Okay. Strong: To give you some idea of just the costs involved, we have remaining in that line item 236,000 dollars. 134,000 of that will be spent for the equipment that will be a part of the total install, which leaves 102,000 dollars remaining in that budget item for the install portion. So, we need to get it closer to that amount to fully bring it back. De Weerd: So, Doug, is that what the estimate for that project would be is closer to 100,000? Strong: The initial estimate was somewhere around 90 to 100 thousand dollars. So, this came in considerably higher than what we were expecting. We know that costs keep going up, so we may, even in the next go around, not get down to that 100,000 dollar amount. We certainly want to get closer before we propose accepting a bid. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor. Doug, rebidding, unless you change the specs and stuff, how do you expect to get it done cheaper? I mean our engineer -- or whoever designed it, the estimate was 100,000 and it comes in at 241,000? I mean how are we going to change it? Every time -- every time we have had something rebid, if we don't change it, it comes in higher. And I realize we only had one bid on this one. Maybe next time you will have two or three, but I don't think you will. You would have had two or three now. Unless you want to put it off six months when everybody slows down and see what the deal is. Where are we getting -- where are we getting our professional estimates at? Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, part of I think the reason that the bid was as high as it is is because of the time frame we have attached to it in the first bid, because everybody is so busy. The reason we got one bid, I think, was because of -- we wanted to construct it before the end of the summer season. I think at this point we are facing -- and our bid is going to be rewritten for a longer install time frame to go clear through the fall months, so that we can get more bids and, hopefully, a lower bid, because people won't have to reroute through the different work like that. There were some items in the bid that will be clarified in addendums, that type Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page S of 77 of thing that will bring the cost down. So, we have been working with the architect and with our new purchasing agent and this is where we have ended up, the recommendation. That's a lot of separation between what we have in the budget currently and what we thought the cost was going to be, recognizing that costs have been continually going up and up. That's about 139,000 dollars separation, so -- what we have and what it would take to accept this bid. Bird: Yeah, but -- follow up, Madam Mayor? If we put it out and your professional -- I don't know whether it's architect, engineer, whoever drew your drawings and they are doing all these different things, they are going to charge you for it, unless they are donating their work, and that would be a first. Strong: We have been working with the Land Group on that and we have already paid them for the redraw the first time around, we don't have to pay for the -- Bird: You have to pay for them to change all these bids and specs and stuff. Strong: They are very minor changes in the documents at this point. Bird: If they are minor changes and we are going to take out 141,000 dollars or hope to? Strong: We hope to, yeah. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I -- well, that's not what the estimate is and what we are finding and you had to do the same thing to one of our sewer projects to add a great deal more to that as well, but people don't need the work right now and so they are padding their bids not necessarily thinking they are going to get it, but -- and I have heard this from a number of contractors, so -- and I can't tell you in this case if that's the situation here. I guess when you put this out and find the same thing, then, they need to start looking at it a lot closer in the design and that sort of thing. And it probably did have something to do with the time schedule. Is there any other questions? Comments? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Doug, in your professional judgment do you think that rebidding it and changing the time frame for performance will reduce some if not all of that gap, by allowing them to complete the installation later, the mid summer, the mid fall? Strong: That's our best thinking at this point, is that that's -- that's an opportunity that we want to -- before we ask for money to cover this bid, we want to go down that road first. Because at this point in the season we are not going to get the splash pad built so that it will have any utility for use in the summer season. So, to push it and hung it at that much difference in cost doesn't seem practical or good use of public money. So, Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 9 of 77 • we want to at least go down this road and see if an extended time frame when people's schedules free up, that we can get a lower bid. And we know there is several other contractors that would -- would have bid on this project, because we talked to them, if they had had a longer time frame. They said they couldn't do anything until in the fall, that their schedule was so full that they didn't even want to bid on it, because they knew they couldn't get the work done, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? I do need a motion to approve the request to reject the bid, if you so desire. If not, I guess I would need a motion to put more money towards this project. So, the ball is in your court. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: It sounds from what Mr. Strong is telling us and his judgment as to what he thinks would be available, should the bid be rejected and an opportunity, should it be rebid and the time frame extended for performance, could provide and should provide some significant savings to the city, would clearly outweigh additional expense incurred to rebid it. It seems like it's a net savings to the city to rebid it. A lot more than we ever anticipated. So, all things considered, it makes sense to me to reject the bid and to rebid it, so that would be indicated to save the city a little money to get this thing done right. So, those are my thoughts. De Weerd: Thank you. Do I have a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor, I would move that we -- that we reject the bid from Hillside Landscape and Construction on Adventure Island splash pad and direct Director Strong to rebid it as he has indicated. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request to reject the bid for Adventure Island splash pad. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. 2. Request for Additional Funding for Recreation Programs and Back Uu Documentation: Strong: Thank you. Madam Mayor, on item two I have asked Leanna Thomas, our recreational superintendent, to address you regarding that item. Meridian City Council • July 25, 2006 Page 10 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thomas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening. The park's staff is requesting approval of a budget amendment for our recreation programs and classes and the adult sports programs in the amount of 31,786 dollars and these -- this request is specifically related to our expansion of our programs this summer, which have been -- I'm not going to say a surprise, but it's not a pleasant experience. We have added four additional weeks of our day camp for youth or play camp, five weeks of sports camp, four weeks of outdoor adventure camp, and six weeks of our camps which have all filled and we have also had an increase in our adult sports programs and our softball leagues specifically and due to the expansion of the programs we have had to add additional staff for the camps, as well as increase the amount of supplies that are needed to run the programs and the equipment, as well as transportation costs for field trips and other related items specific to the day camp program. De Weerd: Congratulations. Thomas: Thank you. De Weerd: It is offset also by the additional revenue you have been bringing in. Thomas: That is correct. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. De Weerd: You're right. Council, any questions for Leanna? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Leanna, I think it's fantastic that you have the increased participation. My only question is is this something that is eligible or could have been done as part of the budget for next year versus amending the current budget? Thomas: Well, our costs are occurring during this budget year and so when we looked at the budget submission for next year, we did take this into account. So, the budget that we submitted for next year was reflective of the growth that we have had this year and for the anticipated growth that we would have next year as well. Does that answer your question? Borton: It does. Thomas: Okay. Meridian City Council i July 25, 2006 Page 11 of 77 De Weerd: And, traditionally, our programs haven't been at this scale, but because of some of the modifications that Leanna did in her tenure so far with the city, it has seen great and vast improvement and involvement participation. This is exactly what we have been hoping for, but haven't quite got there yet. So, thank you, Leanna, we appreciate your work. Council, I would need a motion to approve this request. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve the request for a budget amendment for additional funding for the recreational program in the amount of 31,786. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve this request for additional funding. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi- family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4- plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 12 of 77 C~ De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Leanna. Okay. Removed from the Consent Agenda, Item No. 7 is H, I, and J, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I asked these items to be taken off the Consent Agenda for some discussion and possible reconsideration. A couple areas that -- reflecting on the testimony. One was that there wasn't any dialogue or discussion as to what's going to happen in the Ten Mile specific area plan in which this particular subdivision will reside and there has been some questions and some issues related to private roads and the narrowness of private roads in this particular subdivision. It utilizes those rather extensively. So, with that as background, I throw that out for some discussion and if there is no further discussion or if there are some concerns, I'm ready to make a motion on these three items for reconsideration. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any comments to add to what Councilman Rountree has stated? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Additional concerns, agreements, or I guess we could always try a motion and -- Bird: See where it goes. De Weerd: And see -- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Question for Bill. Is there -- if I recall, one of the requests that I voted in the negative. Does that impact my ability to vote on reconsideration? Nary: No, it does not. The only impact it would have is that the prevailing side of the motion are the only ones that could move to reconsider it. But you can second it if you wish and you certainly can vote on the motion. Borton: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we reconsider and move back to Public Hearing Items H -- 7-H, 7-I, 7-J, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, AZ 06-013, PP 06- 011, and CUP 06-006. And I have a question for the clerk and/or Council. Do we need a date certain for re-calendaring that? Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 13 of 77 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you don't need to pick a specific date. You can -- they will have to check the hearing schedule and we will have to notice it up. And, technically, what you're doing is moving to reconsider the decisions on the AZ, the PP, and the CUP applications and tabling the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Rountree: And knowing that we don't have to have a date certain, the motion also includes that these items be tabled until we have reconsideration. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: For the motion -- or -- now that includes any cost we will pick up; right? Like re- noticing, redoing that, we will do that? It will not be up to the applicant in your motion? Rountree: That was the intent of my motion and what I heard previously. De Weerd: Okay. And, Mr. Nary, I guess my question to you would be as this is reopened, is it reopened specifically for the items noted and the concern to be addressed or -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, once you have made a decision to reconsider an earlier decision, it can be only for those specific items or for a rehearing over the entire project. Since it is an annexation application, my recommendation would be is that although you may want the specific questions answered, you're going to rehear this entire project, because it would be as if no decision had been made yet. De Weerd; Okay. Okay. Council, any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 8: Request for Reconsideration of Denial for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 8 is a request for reconsideration of denial for annexation and zoning for -- yeah. Thank you. I don't know who names these subdivisions, but -- and who is -- who is up on this one? Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 14 of 77 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think Mrs. Canning -- if Mrs. Canning has any input, but I think the applicant, Mr. Schultz, appears to be walking to the microphone, has filed the request. I think the request in front of you is, essentially, a delay of this decision for denial until some of the Ten Mile study process has begun, as it appears to be maybe not as long as anticipated. It doesn't mean you can't deny it in the future. I think all he's asking you is to delay that final decision. Maybe Mr. Schultz has a different perspective. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Schultz. Schultz: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. My name is Matt Schultz at 2127 Alaska in Meridian with RMR Consulting, representing this application that was denied last week -- last Tuesday night. There is two -- two things that have changed since the denial that I'd like to present as a basis for reconsideration. One it seemed to be the biggest issue was the sewer easement, which I know has been granted. And, secondly, the Ten Mile specific plan, which staff had indicated previously might take 18 months, we are anxious to work with -- work with the other members of that planning effort, including staff and other stake holders and zeroing in on some certain areas first that staff believes we might be able to work through that in 90 days, 100 days, something like that. So, therefore, we are asking for reconsideration and a continuance of the Public Hearing to re-hear it -- I'm asking for a date certain October 17th, but that could be modified if we need more time, if these progressed, to come to a consensus, if you will, on that particular area of the Ten Mile plan, which is four square miles. We are 80 acres -- 90 acres of four square miles and we would humbly ask for that reconsideration for roughly 90 days until October 17th. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, any discussion or questions needed of staff? Procedurally, Mr. Nary -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on a request for reconsideration, if no one makes such a motion, then, the motion would, then, die. You have -- the Findings haven't been completed yet I believe for this, so we don't have it in front of you, so there may be another opportunity if you wanted to do that. You have a couple of choices here. You can table the Findings and the denial until October and see where this -- where this process is at that juncture. Or you can reconsider it, set it for another hearing, but the problem you have is you're going to send out notices, there is not necessarily any new information today, but you would send out notices -- notice of the hearing, you may end up continuing it if the Ten Mile study hasn't evolved to that point yet. So, I mean you have a couple of choices, one of them being you don't have to do anything. But my recommendation would be is if you want to choose to do that, that you table this decision until later and, then, see where your study is and, then, you can always either implement the Findings and denial that you have already done or if you believe it is, then, appropriate to have a new hearing, you can, then, reconsider the matter and set it for hearing. So, you can put this decision off until October 17th, if that's a viable date. I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different thought as to that timing. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 15 of 77 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the charrette will wrap up prior to -- prior to October, the last days of September, whether it's the 30th or the 29th, I'm not quite sure. So, we should have a really good idea of what we will be presenting to Council for the Comprehensive Plan amendment or the Ten Mile specific area plan come October 1st. Most of the issues should be resolved by then on what we are presenting. So, I do believe that -- that the October date at least gives us time to find out what -- how this property will be moving or what we will likely see there. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Speaking for one negative vote last week on this, the sewer easement, whether we got it or not, was not within my decision to deny it. I don't know how -- I can't speak for the other negative votes, but the sewer easement had nothing to do with it. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: And if there is no other discussion, I will make a motion that we table the decisions on AZ 06-025, PP 06-024, to October 17th, 2006. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Rountree: I will second. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I heard what Mr. Nary said. I just need to have that square with my understanding. I know we have to make decisions one way or another within a prescribed period of time. By tabling this item do we still fit within that window or are we going to exceed it? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, your ordinance requires you hear it within a certain period of time. Rountree: Okay. Nary: So, you're fine. Rountree: All right. Nary: And so, no, tabling this matter, especially since it's at the request of the applicant, I don't think you have any problem. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 16 of 77 Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Point of clarification. Mr. Nary, they table it? There is not an item on the agenda, there is just a reconsideration. Don't they need to wait until the Findings get on the agenda before they can table them? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess to make it easier, Mrs. Canning is technically right. I mean you don't have the Findings in front of you, but if your motion is based on their request for reconsideration you want to table that decision, the Findings will be prepared for October 17th. Canning: Okay. Nary: If that's the intent of your motion, which is I think -- but Mrs. Canning is right, you technically don't have them in front of you to table them, but rather than not taking action tonight, waiting two weeks, preparing Findings of Facts and, then, setting them over for two months -- if that's your intent that's what we will do. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, abstain. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN. Berg: Motion carries. Just as clarification, we will put the Findings on the October 17th meeting for decision of the Council. Thank you. Item 9: Tabled from July 11, 2006: FP 06-030 Request for Final Plat approval for 88 single-family residential building lots and 9 common lots on 29.7 acres in an R-4 zone for Madelynn Estates (f.k.a. Basin Creek) by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 9 is tabled from July 11th on FP 06-030. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, staff is recommending approval of this, but since we discussed it last week, I wanted to give you a brief update. The issue last week was that in the preliminary plat you will recall that there were some landscape islands at the two major intersections that the applicant was struggling with keeping those islands and they couldn't -- they weren't to ACRD standards, so they had to modify them. What they have done -- if I can find the right -- oh, here they are. They are substantially smaller. However, they have compensated by making the -- by providing landscape islands in the cul-de-sacs where they weren't previously. We also discussed the fact that this lot around the existing home had changed shape. There Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 17 of 77 • used to be about a 20 foot strip up above and, then, it came straight down. It's now close to 40 feet, I think, and they have chamfered this comer, so they have made up some of the missing open space in this lot and, then, they have increased the size of -- I think I'm missing a sheet, unfortunately. They increased the size of the other open space lots. So, they have about a thousand square feet more in the final plat than they did in the preliminary plat and it shifted around, it's not quite the same. The landscape islands aren't the same size, but given the options that ACHD was giving them, I felt it was in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comments to add? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Morgan: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ryan Morgan. WRG Design. Our address is 453 South Fitness Place, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. We would just like to thank the Council and the Mayor, along with the planning department to work with us in this matter and understand that we did have some circumstances with ACRD and we do appreciate the fact that they are recommending approval, even though we have reduced the size of the landscaping and we look forward to working with you in the future. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Having resolved the -- what seems to be all the issues from our last meeting, I would move that we approve Item No. 9, FP 06-030. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 9. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: CPA 05-001 Request to Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for Approximately 50 acres from Medium and Low Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional, by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 18 of 77 Owner's Alliance -Land at or near the northeast and southeast comers of South Eagle Road and Victory Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C-C and L-O zones for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance -east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 10 is continued Public Hearing from July 11th on CPA 05- 001. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Alliance project and the properties involved are highlighted in blue and they do extend south of Victory. So, here on the east side of Eagle Road, north and south of Victory Road. It shows up a little better on this one. This is the Comp Plan for the area. The colors are kind of washed out. They are shown as medium density residential north of Victory currently and low density residential south of Victory. And this is the proposed concept plan. The applications before you tonight are a Comprehensive Plan amendment and an annexation and zoning of the property. The request for the amendment to the future land use map for the Comprehensive Plan is for approximately 50 acres. So, it includes some of the properties to the north of this site up to Easy Jet Way, which is right here closer to -- De Weerd: Anna, I didn't open both. Do I need to do that? Canning: Oh, I'm song. De Weerd: I only opened the Comprehensive Plan one. Canning: I'm song, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The Planning Commission has asked that you consider these in conjunction with one another. De Weerd: Okay. Well, then, I will go ahead and open Item No. 11, continued Public Hearing AZ 06-008 as well. Canning: Thank you, ma'am. So, the boundaries I described before were primarily -- these are for the rezone as shown on the -- on the overhead. The Comprehensive Plan amendment does go up to Easy Jet Way, which is about two more properties to the north. So, the Comprehensive Plan amendment is for approximately 50 acres. It's currently designated medium and low density residential and they are -- their original proposal was for mixed use regional. As we go through this presentation you will hear that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended mixed use community for that designation. They did apply for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2005 and this application has been held for sometime waiting for the rezone application, because Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 19 of 77 the Planning Commission recommended it with -- for approval only with an accompanying annexation application. So, we have received that now and are bringing it forward to you. For the annexation and zoning, they are proposing -- that's only for 23.39 acres. They are proposing 19.41 acres of -- to C-C and that's what's shown in this brown or tan color, 1.43 acres of the site to L-O, and that's this kind of purple color down in the southeast area. And 2.55 acres to R-4. And this would be the area that abuts the existing residential development. The proposed square footage for the commercial isn't known at this time. They have presented this concept plan, which currently shows about 25 structures, all fairly small in area. This project is a little bit more difficult to talk about, because there is not a lot of development plan accompanying it, so I'm going to kind of try and go through what the Planning Commission saw as benefits and what they saw as concerns and, then, I will go through the development agreement and some of staffs outstanding concerns. The Planning and Zoning Commission was very encouraged by the fact that these property owners all came together and wanted to develop their property as a unit, rather than having these individual ownerships and as you saw, they are rather odd shaped and would probably be difficult to develop individually, so they saw it as a real benefit that this alliance had formed, that they were willing to cooperate with one another and to develop the property as a whole and that was one of the very positive aspects mentioned by the Planning and Zoning Commission. They felt that this would help to facilitate future driveway locations and access points to Eagle Road and Victory Roads and to prevent fragmented development. So, in order to achieve what they saw as that benefit, they did look at a number of development agreement provisions to accomplish this concept plan and I will go through those. A lot of these came from the kind of -- the points that the alliance was making as part of their application that -- their commitment to the city. That the Alliance believes there are advantages to selling the subject properties to a single development entity. The Alliance property owners have joined together for a unified development and they are willing that no building permits would be issued until there is a recorded plat for the property. That because the development approach is to lessen land use intensities approaching the existing neighborhoods, that they would place the following restrictions on the development of property. The first one being they would have a 40 foot wide landscape buffer between the L-O zoned property and the Sutherland Farms Subdivision. That's this landscape buffer. That there would be a 25 foot landscape buffer between the L-O zoned property and the R-4 zoned property to the north. So, that's located here. And that the L-O zone will be limited to single level structures up to 5,500 square feet. All buildings with frontage on Eagle Road and Victory Road north of Eagle -- Victory Road will be limited to a 12,500 square foot building footprint. That all buildings will have a variety of building materials and colors. That there will be variations in building setbacks from the road, e.g., not a strip mall. And that buildings will be oriented toward the adjacent arterial streets, so they would have at least two-sided architecture, and a blank facade facing the street. That the area directly west of the proposed north-south street, located here towards the eastern portion of the property, would be limited to a single level up to 7,500 square feet in size. That they would have two-side construction, so that there are windows facing the R-4 homes to the east and internally to the west. That the commercial buildings will look similar to the homes constructed in Sutherland Farms and that no retail stores, fuel Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 20 of 77 sales, or wireless communications facilities will be allowed in the area. That the internal commercial buildings north of Victory Road shall not exceed 20,000 square feet. That at least one centrally located plaza gathering areas with some covered seating shall be provided within the commercial area north of Victory Road. That the building south of Victory Road shall not exceed 20,000 square feet. That all buildings will have a variety of building materials and colors. That there will be variations in setbacks, again, not a strip mall. And that buildings will be oriented toward the adjacent arterial street and not have a blank facade facing the street. That the future R-4 lots located next to Sutherland Farms shall contain at least 8,000 square feet -- the lots, that's the lots, and have dwellings of at least 1,400 square feet. That unless specified otherwise in this development agreement, all landscaping along the perimeter of this property internally shall comply with all provisions of the Unified Development Code. That Publisher Street will be extended into the site and circuitously connect to Eagle Road. This is Publisher Street here on the east side, the stub street coming out of Sutherland Farms. That a public stub street will be provided to the property to the north to eventually tie into Easy Jet Drive. And that's this property, again, on the easterly portion of the site. That Eagle Road access points be restricted to a maximum of one full access between Easy Jet Drive and Victory Road and one right-in, right-out driveway north of Victory Road if approved by ACHD. And that only one right-in, right-out driveway to Eagle Road be allowed south of Victory Road. That's down here in this location. And that's, again, if approved by ACHD. That access to Victory Road shall be restricted to a maximum of one full access and one right-in, right-out driveway on the north side of Victory Road and that only one access on the south side of Victory Road be allowed. And all of those were, of course, contingent on ACHD approval. And that the Alliance agrees to facilitate awell-planned neighborhood compatible development. That the Alliance agrees to submit legal descriptions for each approved zone. They have done that already. And that the submitted concept plan is not approved as there are too many access points to Eagle Road as shown. So, the access provisions I have talked about are not consistent with this Comprehensive -- or this conceptual site plan, so they wanted to make sure that was clear in the development agreement. The Commission did recommend approval at their May 18th, 2006, hearing. Marty Thomason, Dennis McKibben, John Sharp, and Bob Carpenter all spoke in favor of the application. Mark Olsen, Darrell Hines, Scott Romello, Tonya Merical, and Brent Ernesto spoke in opposition. And no one was just commenting. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were access points to Eagle Road, proposed zoning designations, and the concept plan. The key changes to stafFs recommendation -- the big one was staff had recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, so that was a major change on that -- on that one. But the Planning and Zoning Commission did decide to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment with three provisions. One was that it be mixed use community, not mixed used regional. That the recorded development agreement with those provisions I just read to you and that they wait on the final action of the Comprehensive Plan amendment until an annexation application had been submitted and that they hold a neighborhood meeting. And so they have done all those things. The outstanding issues for City Council -- one is always whether the Comprehensive Plan amendment is appropriate at this time. Staff does -- has consistently expressed a number of concerns and I feel it's important to reiterate those. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 21 of 77 There may be a potential oversupply of commercially zoned land in this area. We have fielded several phone calls from neighbors in Sutherland Farms, Tuscany Subdivision, and Thousand Springs about this proposed amendment and rezone. One of my greatest concerns is that this concept plan as proposed I don't think is based on a market reality and I have always been concemed about this, that if this went forward I think we will have to spend several hearings trying to get it to reflect market reality. I think that with a C-C zoning that the size of the buildings that are conceptually depicted here just aren't realistic, nor the designated parking areas, or the number of structures. So, I think that although I support the owners in trying to come together with a unified division -- or vision for this, I think that it's lacking some reality checks with the market. Staff is concemed about the cross-access agreements and the access restrictions in the DA. Those are very important. And finally -- and I don't think that this got enough attention, perhaps, in the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings, but I'm very concemed about this property to the south of Victory. This is in an area -- here is Dartmoor Subdivision and Kingsbridge is down here. I'm sorry. This isn't Dartmoor. That's Eagle View Estates or -- I think that's the name of that subdivision. But Dartmoor is right down here. You have Kingsbridge coming in here. This was that project that was denied. We have seen folks gathering up these five acre parcels to resubmit them for more dense development, but this commercial comer will have a huge impact on how these other five acre lots develop around there. It's a very odd-shaped lot. It's got a lot of frontage on Eagle that is, quite frankly, probably not usable for commercial development, it's just a long, narrow strip that most of that would go to your landscape buffer. It's an awkward site in a very -- what Council has told me at the last hearing is a very sensitive area that you want to preserve for low density residential. So, I'm very concemed about, in particular, this property. The argument made for having this commercial is that we have gradually approved a number of nonresidential uses in this area through the planned development process, some of them are existing nonconforming uses in the county, and that an extension of those nonresidential uses along Eagle Road is appropriate, but it needs to stop at some point and, clearly, Victory Road would seem to be that stopping point. With that very talkative -- because I don't have any pictures to show you -- presentation, I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, questions for staff at this point? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. For the record, Shawn Nickel, with SLN Planning, address 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle. And I was asked by the South Eagle Victory Neighbor Alliance to speak on their behalf. Sorry for the last minute packet. Most of them are pretty pictures and it's just kind of to help you follow in my presentation and if staff will get the projector going I will begin. De Weerd: We appreciate the extra packets. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 22 of 77 Nickel: I know. You always do. I did give one to the clerk at this time, so -- I know you like that. De Weerd: I know. I only have to tell you once. Nickel: Yeah. If you could put page two on, Anna, that would be great. And thanks to staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, they did a great job at reviewing this before it came to you. The reasons for the request by the Alliance -- as you know, this area, it is an area of rapid urban development. There is an evident lack of service- related commercial plans south of I-84 and I'll elaborate on that in just a moment. The Alliance wants to guide the future growth by planning now at the same time that the major improvements are underway with the transportation system in this area. And I will elaborate on that as well in a moment. The current Comprehensive Plan land use chapter states that mixed use designation is an area situated in highly visible or transient parts of the city where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. Again, to point out, this is a major comdor north-south on Eagle Road. Lower density residential on these properties is less desirable due to the increased noise associated with Eagle Road now and when it is improved in the future. Anticipated uses would be higher density development, such as what you recently have seen coming in the past over the past year south of -- south of this property and also immediately to the west with some higher density four-plexes and assisted living. It's more appropriate to transition uses from Eagle Road and Victory Road back to the existing single family residential. Again, your Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend a change from the original request for regional commercial or regional mixed use to a community mixed use. What I did for the Alliance is I did an analysis of this area and what I did is I took an area bordered by Overland Road to the north, Columbia Road to the south, Meridian Road to the west, and Five Mile Road to the east. And what I did is I just did an analysis of your Comprehensive Plan and also Boise City's comprehensive plan. I put those two together and I will show you real fast. They actually fit together very nice. I was happy that they were both to the same scale. De Weerd: Is that something we can put up on the overhead? Nickel: I can show the crowd. And what I looked at with both comprehensive plans is what's the current comprehensive plan designation for residential in that area and if you follow with me on my page one, there is 10,240 acres, which is about a 16 square mile area on those boundaries that I spoke of. This does not include your referral area, which is this area right here, it's just your impact area and, then, that portion of Boise City's impact area. Of that -- of that area at a build out of three to four dwelling units per acre, which is the low and medium density residential, it is anticipated that you will see 23,120 units, if all development occurred with those designations as approved in the Comprehensive Plan. Of that area, again, that 16 square miles, 460 acres are designated as mixed use regional, approximately 120 acres is designated as mixed use neighborhood, 17 acres is designated as commercial and office. And there is no mixed use community designated within that 16 square miles. Now, I went further in my Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 23 of 77 analysis and I looked at what's a reasonable distance from the intersection of Eagle Road and Victory and I came up with a mile to a two and a half mile distance and that's that pink line that you see that's drawn right here. I also took into consideration the existing mixed use developments at Overland and Five Mile and also the existing and up and coming development at the intersection of Five Mile and Lake Hazel, both in Boise City impact area. I took those under consideration and that was the basis for my -- for my area. Of that distance, there is three, four hundred acres. Taking into account mixed -- let's see. Sorry. The current Meridian-Boise comp plan build out would be approximately 11,680 units. Again, that's at a three to four unit per acre build out. Within this new area there is 120 acres of mixed use neighborhood designated. Now, I want to point out that the two areas that you have south of the freeway that are designated as neighborhood centers, I just recently found out that one of them is proposed for redevelopment that would include only approximately four acres of commercial, which leaves you with this one remaining neighborhood commercial node on the south side of Victory between Locust Grove and Eagle Road. Your Comprehensive Plan states in the mixed use regional definition that these areas regional, which includes the Silverstone and the EI Dorado development, in addition to this area at Meridian and Amity, it defines those as employment designation centers and major employment centers. Your Comprehensive Plan also defines neighborhood centers as a mix of high density residential, commercial, entertainment, office, to serve all residents within a one to two mile area. And, then, finally, the Comprehensive Plan statement for the mixed use community, which is what we are proposing here, includes all mixed uses allowed in the neighborhood use designation, including clothing stores, garden centers, hardware, restaurants, banks, drive-thrus, service stations, and department stores. I finally want to point out that on the entire south boundary of your city from Overland Road south you have one area that is designated as mixed use commercial and that's at the -- at the intersections of Ten Mile and Overland Road. So, in this whole southern section you have one and -- let's just say one and a quarter neighborhood center nodes, you have all this regional mixed use, and you have one mixed use community, which his over at Ten Mile and Overland. So, I believe that you have a significant lack of future planned service commercial on the south side of your city and that's one reason why I believe that this recommended or requested comp plan amendment is an appropriate one. The Silverado and the EI Dorado developments are both excellent developments that have shown to be very desirable. However, they are more a business campus with larger employers, offices, future hotels, and the definition of regional mixed use, multi-family, again, has been approved and you are seeing multi- family come in at the intersection of Eagle and Victory. The other main concem, in addition to the viability of having commercial in this area is the traffic issue and as we all know, traffic's a major concem in this whole valley. But we do have a unique opportunity in this location to see road improvements occur as they are needed or in the case of this Comprehensive Plan, before development occurs. If you look at page three and four of the handouts that I gave you, I have included the ACRD staff report. ACHD does have this intersection slated for the 2007 fiscal year. It is budgeted and their intentions are to build this intersection five lanes with a traffic signal. They are going to widen -- ultimately widen Eagle Road north to Copperpoint Drive. They are also going to widen to the east and to the west Victory Road and they are also going to widen a Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 24 of 77 • little bit to the south. And so this entire intersection is going to be built out -- or going to be built and widened long before you see any development on this intersection of commercial -- or potential commercial. And this results in an increase in the capacity of the transportation system. Comparison with the residential with the commercial, we have been working with a traffic engineer and there is going to be an increase in overall traffic. However, it will be spread out over the entire day and not so much in the peak hours, like you would see with higher density residential. If it is a service commercial related business, it's going to capture trips, it's going to be a convenient -- more convenient location, rather than going up Eagle Road passed the intersection -- passed the interchange at some point just to get certain services. And, again, that regional commercial that's at the intersection of Overland and Eagle, is -- you know, it's building out. Sure, there is some service -- there is some pizza and some things like that, but most of the services are related to those campuses that are building out and if you're getting future hotels that, again, is going to increase the need for service commercial in this area. As far as the use of the compatibility, the Alliance has worked with your staff and your Commission and with the neighbors to draft that concept plan that Anna showed you. And I do have that in my packet as well. And that plan right there is the result of all of the issues that were brought up to this point. The accesses onto Eagle Road and Victory Road. The future stubs north to the existing Publisher Road to the east, the buffer zones, the transition to residential to the east, those are all part of bringing this into a compatible type of project. The detail is lacking and it's lacking for a reason. The Alliance originally submitted this as only a Comprehensive Plan amendment, again, looking towards the future, what is needed in the area, and what can be marketed to a resident -- or to a commercial developer that knows exactly what they are doing when they are laying out a design. So, I do agree with staff that there is a lack in detail, this concept plan, with good reason. The details are not -- they are premature. They will come when there is a preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and in the case of your Planning and Zoning Commission asking for the annexation and the rezone, that's why it's kind of vague at this point. One thing I tried to do is -- at the request of staff is -- if you look in the back of your packet, I did provide some elevations of some concept office and residential that we would be more than happy to put as part of the development agreement that kind of gives a better idea of the intent or the -- the intent of the alliance on what you could see in the future. De Weerd: Anna, could you kind of put those up briefly one at a time? Nickel: Thank you, Mayor. The Alliance did -- again, within the -within the concept and within the development agreement or the access point issue, the transition to residential, the buffers, the landscaping, the limits of square footage, those are all agreeable to the Alliance and they are in favor of putting that as conditions within the annexation and development agreement. There is also in your packet some supportive and supporting letters from surrounding property owners in favor of this use and the recognition that commercial is and will be needed in the future in this area. Real briefly, because I know my light's buzzing or beeping there. The benefits of this proposal -- it's a different type of traffic related to this type of mixed use commercial than you would find with residential, which is mostly peak hour traffic patterns, compared to commercial, Meridian City Council i July 25, 2006 Page 25 of 77 which is more spread out through the day. There is, obviously, no impact to schools, because it's a commercial development, as opposed to a residential, as they go in there, it's higher densities, increase in the highway district impact fees, and I guess to leave off, it's a responsible way to plan when you have a group of property owners come in together, rather than piecemealing development. They are going to get up and they are going to speak and they have lived out in this area for 20 years or so, they have seen this area change. As I stated at the very beginning, this is an area in transition. You have seen me in front of you many times in the last couple years with developments south of Victory between Eagle Road and Locust Grove and those properties are about gone. It's all preliminary platted or soon to be. And so you're really seeing that area change. I hope I have demonstrated briefly with my map that there is a need for commercial definitely south of Overland Road in that area. Perfect timing. I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none right now. De Weerd: Okay. Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I do have a number of people that have signed up to testify or signed up to indicate their support or opposition to this application. When I read your name, if you would like to provide testimony, I would invite you to come up at that time. Marty Thomason. For. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Thomason: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilmen. Marty Thomason. I live at 2960 South Eagle Road, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Thomason: I moved to this area in 1986. Twenty years ago north of me was a turf farm. There is -- Silverstone and EI Dorado are there now. West of me was a dairy. That's a fire station and a subdivision, Thousand Springs. To the other side, east of me, was a 130 acre horse farm. That's now Sutherland Farms Subdivision. I took my daughter to first grade in 1994 at Mary McPhearson up on the hill. We stood at the back of the playground and we looked towards the freeway and we saw farmland and we could see our roof top from there, two and a half miles away. Now today if I stand there I see an ocean of roof tops, residential roof tops. I see one of the fastest developing business parks in the valley in Silverstone and EI Dorado. I see light office almost to my northern border of my property. I border Kibbey's Kennels directly to my north, which is a commercial dog kennel. And, then, if I stand at my front door, I see tens of thousands of cars going by my house every day. About the Alliance. In 2004 Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 26 of 77 • and 2005 ACHD made the decision that they were going to widen South Eagle Road. They approached the property owners along this area in the attempt to purchase the right of way and the easement. During this process we got together as property owners and talked about what we were going to do here. We all purchased our land, because we wanted to live in a rural setting, a country setting. And, of course, the city's come to us. I have fought that most of the way tooth and nail. And so, you know, I have made the point that I'm going to live in a rural setting at some point again. My point there is that we are all going to sell our land. We all want to live in a rural setting and what has occurred out here isn't where we want to live. In our discussions we asked ourselves what was the best and highest use of our land. We hired a consultant to help us make that determination. That consultant helped us. In the process we found out and became convinced that our land wouldn't develop under its current zoning as a whole. It would probably develop -- some of it light office. All these parcels are under three acres. Some of it would develop with higher density residential, with the bump up option to an R-15. Most of us are currently designated as R-8. And during this we realized that it might be better for us if we joined together and tried to offer our properties up as a whole and in doing that it would be better for us if we offered -- or we attempted to get a rezone in that process. So, the Alliance formed and we believe what we are proposing is in the best interest of the area and the best interest of all parties. For us we get to sell our land based on its highest and best use in having it zoned that way for a developer when they come in. For Sutherland Farms directly to -- directly on our border to the east, they get a residential buffer, rather than a hodgepodge of development that might occur over these three acre parcels over a several year period with multiple developers. They get a coordinated development next to them and they have this residential R-4 buffer. De Weerd: Sir, can you, please, summarize. Thomason: Yes, I'm wrapping up. Sorry. I will hurry really fast. For the rest of the subdivisions, they get -- with commercial it's less impact on overcrowding for the schools. We believe that it's abetter -- it's an improvement on what would happen versus high density residential dumping onto Eagle Road and Victory Road and for you we believe that we offer you the opportunity to plan one block of land at one time at the time when the infrastructure is developing in this area. Thank you. I'll stand for questions. De Weerd: Thank you. That was an amazing wrap up. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Dan Bauman. For. Thank you, sir. Dolly Bott. Thank you. John Sharp also signed up for. Sharp: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is John Sharp. I reside at 3020 South Eagle Road, Meridian. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 27 of 77 De Weerd: Thank you. Sharp: I'm a member of the Alliance and I also have been there since 1986 and have seen all these changes and I think because of the -- the rapid development that we are seeing around us and the commercial areas to our north, that it's a definite transition area that we can plan one whole unit to fit within the community as a commercial area that supports the community and in doing that we have less impact on the schools and I think that the traffic will be -- it may be a little bit higher at times, but during the peak hours in the morning and evening it should be a little bit lower. That is my opinion and I'm sure there will be other people that disagree with that, but I certainly feel that that's the way it should be and we have lived there for many years and really want to see the area develop at a more rational way than piecemeal. All of us have been offered at different times offers for the properties individually and when we asked the developers what they have in mind, almost all of them indicate that they want to put in higher density condominium or apartment buildings or something like that and that's not what we would want to live next to and we wouldn't want the other neighbors to have that burden either, so I definitely feel that this commercial area is an asset. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Sharp: That's all I have. De Weerd: Bob Aldridge signed up for. Aldridge: Madam Mayor, Members of the can get this on. Right there. 3300 Falcc moved in, as indicated, there was no ii occasional. There was no traffic. Eagle a major effect on my life. This road, wl hours, Falcon comes out right here and friendly neighborhood people that let me hour, because that road -- that traffic strE goes out of sight sometimes. We have hour traffic. In addition to that, somE discussion -- you may not have seen. Commission, I am Bob Aldridge, I live at -- if I n. I have been there for 21 years and when I ~terchange, there were no stop signs, except load now has changed and it has already had ien you attempt to come during normal traffic if it were not for the grace of God and some in, I would not be able to get in for at least an aches at rush hour down passed Tuscany and major problems out there in terms of the rush thing that staff may not have seen, but in Sutherland Farms is now extending. Trevor Roberts has had his neighborhood meeting and all of these properties here on around and on the south side of Falcon are going to be an extension of Sutherland Farms, will be a relatively high density subdivision paralleling that. The road for that will come approximately through here, come out and come into the comer of my property and to Falcon Road. In addition to that, across the street you have already approved planned and assisted living units that are being constructed. So, that leap across Victory has already been made. My concern is very simple. Number one, I wish the world would go away and I could live there without all of this happening. It isn't going to happen and I understand that. And so what I want to see is organization. My major frustration has been that the planning has been reactive, not proactive. There have been thousands and thousands of living units put in to the south that are all channeling into Eagle Road Meridian City Council S July 25, 2006 Page 28 of 77 and are coming passed Falcon Drive. We worked very well together with staff and with the developer on the -- immediately across Eagle Road development, moving where that road came in. It was planned to come in right at Falcon Road, which would have been a disaster. That took innovation. It took planning. And that's what we are asking for here. I want to be able to live there and see that traffic spread out, see the view spread out. I would like to be able to walk to places and bicycle to places and not have to go miles to get the types of things that can begin in this sort of thing. It's difficult to lock in the future. Reality will drive it. And in this case economic reality will drive it. What will go into that neighborhood usage will be what developers think will actually work there. And that's what's going to happen. And if we attempt to change that reality, all we end up with is a mess and we have seen too much of that in Ada County already. We need to look to the future and see what is an innovative use of this and will help the surrounding areas, help the surrounding neighborhood, especially help the massive traffic problems that we have in that area. I'd be glad to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Jim Henderson signed up against. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Henderson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Henderson, 3000 Taluca Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Henderson: And as eloquently stated by the folks that are for this, we understand that Eagle Road has changed and we know that it's not changed for the better. What we don't want to see is we don't want to see more commercial development -- excuse me -- heading further south on Eagle Road, so that it will just lead to more congestion and more traffic. We see additional traffic congestion heading that way as the development is planned and the commercial site is allowed in that area. We are satisfied with the amount of commercial and retail access that we have on the south side of Eagle Road, excuse me, on the south side of the interstate. That's the reason why we moved to the south side of the interstate is so that we don't have to get in the gridlock of Eagle Road and all the commercial development on that side. So, we are perfectly satisfied with the commercial and retail access there. We know that there is extremely heavy traffic already at the Eagle and Victory interchange -- or the intersection there. While we appreciate the upgrade that ACHD is going to do, this will only increase the traffic as more people are able to get through that intersection with stop lights and such. There will be more people coming through that intersection and I believe that this development will not be of benefit to that area. And there is no definite plans that the applicants are not the developers and so see that as a benefit and it's just a crap shoot to allow this and not have a development plan in place when the property is rezoned. That's all I have. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Cheryl Henderson is also signed up against. Okay. Thank you. Andy Aparicio. Meridian City Council • • July 25, 2006 Page 29 of 77 Aparicio: I hope to live here for 21 years. I moved two years -- De Weerd: If you will, please, first state your name and address. Aparicio: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Andy Aparicio. I lived at 3031 East Collabria Drive in Tuscany. De Weerd: Thank you. Aparicio: As I said, I hope to live there for the next 20 years and I can appreciate the position that the Alliance has found themselves in. I concur with Jim that -- I am concerned about the amount of traffic that we are talking about at that particular intersection. I look at what happened on the north of the freeway on Eagle Road and I don't want to see such a high concentration of traffic so close to the freeway. If, in fact, we do need commercial, which I personally do not feel we do, would it not make more sense to have the commercial maybe extend further south into other areas of Meridian, instead of taking all this traffic and driving it up to that particular intersection? The neighborhood that I live in has a proposed school. When that's going to be built I'm not sure, but I understand that the Meridian School District actually owns that. I worry about school buses kind of coming back and, you know, taking kids to school, obviously. I worry about school buses trying to make it across that intersection. I wont' about response time from the fire department to areas that have to drive kind of through that intersection and so I have a lot of questions. I also worry that this Comprehensive Plan really is not even a work in progress. It is simply a concept or an idea that was designed to kind of sell this rezoning. I don't know how it works here. I don't know if a developer is going to come in and say, you know what, that little concept plan doesn't really work for me. Here is my idea, here is what I'm going to do instead. So, how enforceable is that, I guess, is a question that I would have to leave to you. I have heard the concerns from Anna Canning. I think they are legitimate. We share the same concerns that the staff did and the Planning and Zoning. We have been going through this for a very long time and really just haven't seen the benefits. I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. I don't see any. Thank you. Howard Hill. There is not a box marked. Would you like to provide testimony? Thank you. You're here to listen. Okay. Mark Hartenstein. Sony. Hartenstein: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mark Hartenstein, 3210 South Eagle. I came to the Alliance late. I moved -- or attempted to move to 3210 South Eagle, the odd-looking property south of Victory, about six years ago. 2001. I thought that would be a great place to have some acreage and be able to open my law practice out in Meridian and be able to live in more of a county setting. But almost as quickly as I moved there the setting changed and I went through, in microcosm what my fellow Alliance members experienced. So, I began rethinking my plan to move out there and as the noise and traffic increased I decided that I really did like Boise and I liked the convenience of being able to get to stores and services easily. As Cheryl Brown told Meridian City Council ~ • July 25, 2006 Page 30 of 77 me when I met with her briefly a few weeks ago, she said everyone knows there is a need for community retail and community services south of 84. She knew it, so I suspect the members of the City Council perhaps are aware of it as well. And, of course, our presentation by Shawn demonstrated how little commercial property there is available down south of Victory. When I realized the property didn't work as a residence I approached my neighbor Bob Carpenter, who pulled together the Alliance before you tonight. At that time and even more strongly now I feel by putting services and retail, we -- where people can eliminate or shorten their trips, will reduce the burden throughout the rest of the city north of Eagle Road and on the freeway exchanges. The other point I'd like to make is that the comer --the southwest comer is now going to be four-plexes, hardly low density. Hardly makes the comer more attractive for low density residential south of me, as Bob Aldridge pointed out, we have got R-15, elder housing, senior assisted living going in. So, consequently, with thousands of homes planned to the south, why not put community shopping services south of the freeway, so people can get into -- going to and from work. And our project, of course, will not swell the schools and given the emphasis around St. Luke's for the medical services and medical offices, it makes a lot of sense to me to put the services that we can provide in our corridor to serve the people in Silverstone, EI Dorado, and coming from the St. Luke's area, as well as south of Victory. I just wonder why they want to drive all the additional miles to accommodate daily shopping and service needs when they are driving by it right now. We can save gas, we can save time, we can save frustration. I think we have tried very hard to come up with a proposal that works for what's happening along the South Eagle Road corridor. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. Robert Carpenter signed up for. Carpenter: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, Robert Carpenter, 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Carpenter: I live on the northeast comer of Victory and Eagle Road. Moved out there 16 years ago with my wife and we own four parcels within this area. The -- next year when that -- when the road is going to be -- fiscal year 2007, so the road and intersection will be widened fall and next spring and when that's done we will have six total access curb cuts to our properties. Four on Eagle Road and two on Victory. We have been approached by several developers in the last couple of years wanting to buy one or several of the parcels owned to develop and they are basically -- we are looking at high density, because of the way it -- the Comp Plan was. High density housing. And while appealing even a couple years ago monetarily to us, we didn't really feel like the proposals would be appropriate for that comer if it was going to be widened to five lanes. I have looked at Eagle Road for the last 15, 16 years, that corridor between Victory and Eagle, that eight mile stretch, remember the land pattern that used to be there. Ten years ago every comer was either residential or agriculture and now there is none of that left. It's all gone either retail or commercial. There was one light at the time, one full stop light on -- at Fairview Avenue. Today when I drive back from Eagle I Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 31 of 77 counted 18 lights, full lights. Not one of those comers exist anymore as residential. And with the expansion of Eagle Road to five lanes -- it will have five lanes, a bike path, and a nice seven foot wide sidewalk, my understanding is. That intersection really, logically, is no longer going to be residential. I really don't even think it would be good to have high density residential. That would put more cars onto that road versus the community commercial during the peak hours, morning and evening, would provide hundreds of children, which would probably go to the Tuscany Elementary School. The commercial would provide none of that. So, in conclusion, while housing and residential developments for Eagle and Victory intersection may have seemed logical at the time the last Comp Plan change was done, it was started in 2000, completed in 2002, it's changed, it's just not logical to me to plan a housing development in that area. So, we got together and are providing this opportunity to provide a consistent use for that area, rather than sell the parcels off individually. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Nedra Carpenter signed up for. Thank you. Betty Flemming signed up for. Okay. Thank you. John Johnston signed up against. Johnston: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is John Johnston and I live at 2632 East Mercucio Way in Tuscany Subdivision. I fail to see the need for commercial building there, just based off of what I see further up the road up towards the interstate. There is a gas station there. There is restaurants there. There is a movie theater up near that direction. I fail to see anything that could be provided here that wouldn't necessarily be both an eye sore and without really being able to say what goes in there, there is a potential that just about anything could end up in there and to say that the residents in that area have a use for X building right now is -- especially when you don't have any idea what the developer is going to put in there, I find that hard to -- hard to believe that anybody would have any kind of idea of what that would entail in the future. So, with young kids my concern, along with the others, is the school that will be going in there, having the commercial area in there, and there is -- there is easy access to most the other commercial areas in that part of the region. I like Tuscany. I love the Meridian area. And (definitely -- I definitely am against this proposal. De Weerd: Thank you. Scott Romello. Signed up against. Romello: Hello. My name is Scott Romello. I live at 3293 South Capulet Way. And I don't know if this is appropriate -- I don't know if I get the ten minutes, because, basically, I'm speaking for the Tuscany Subdivision, rather than the three minutes for individual. I guess that's up to you. De Weerd: Okay. Romello: Okay. I'm going to try to make this brief. I gave a much longer speech at Planning and Zoning. Tuscany right now has 600 residential lots, 425 homeowners and approximately 1,200 residents right now. The one thing we want to agree on is that we are very supportive of the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance decision to come together to have the property zoned and developed as one large Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 32 of 77 parcel. We believe this is good for the city, good for Eagle Road, and good for the neighborhood. What we disagree with is that it should be commercial instead of residential. The preference for the vast majority of the residents of Tuscany is for there to be no change to the Comp Plan and for the residential zoning that was initially planned for these comers to take effect. We all bought property here just in the last few years with the understanding that the immediate area would remain residential in nature. An important thing for us is that we do not want South Eagle Road to resemble North Eagle Road and we feel that this will kind of open up a Pandora's box to push Eagle farther -- commercial farther south on Eagle from the interstate. I did have slides. I'm going to skip those. There is several major points that I wanted to address this evening. Number one, commercial development will make a bad traffic situation only worse on Eagle Road. Number two, there are both compatibility and design issues with the existing neighborhoods that are surrounding this proposal. Number three, there is no pressing need for any further commercial development in this part of Meridian. Number four, we want to know what the impact on the future Tuscany Elementary is going to be, is planned in our neighborhood within the next two years. Number five, this project seems to flaunt many of the goals and objectives of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. I'm going to go into each one a little bit more in depth. I also -- several times in here I was paraphrasing from the original staff report of October 2005, which was very relevant, refuting most of the reasons for having this development, but I'm going to skip that, because it's all a matter of public record. Number one, this is going to make a bad traffic situation only worse for us. We believe turning this comer into commercial would negatively impact the traffic flow on an already very busy road. During rush hour traffic backs up to Eagle Road clear on the interstate. Cars are illegally pulled off onto the shoulder just waiting to exit onto Eagle. Eagle is already overburdened from the existing traffic it gets today. This is not projected traffic, this is traffic as of this aftemoon. Eagle Road and I-84 is the most congested road in the state of Idaho. According to the Idaho Transportation Department as of 2004 the I-84 interchange at Eagle was handling more than 50,000 vehicles on a week day. This interchange was designed for only 30,000 vehicles a day, which means it's more than 40 percent over its designed capacity. This is two years ago. And anyone else who lives around in the area and fortunate to be driving south on Eagle Road in the aftemoon already knows that the wait time is going to be ten minutes just to get south of the intersection. Mr. Thomason in one of his presentations to Planning and Zoning told us that there could be as many as 24,000 people living in this area in the next couple of years and we see this as an excellent reason why not to put commercial at this comer. Many of these residents are going to want to reach I-84 for work and they are going to be driving passed this intersection on a daily basis. Retail will mean higher traffic, slower speeds, additional traffic lights, and more curb cuts than will be required in a residential use. There are already three existing traffic lights between I-84 and Victory in a span of less than a mile and this commercial development would require more. We do believe that prudent city planning would be to place community shopping hubs away from the interstate as is allowed for in the 2002 Meridian Comprehensive Plan and not next to it in order to reduce the traffic demands in these arterial collectors. Number two, design compatibility issues. Those are, basically, covered in the staff report. Number three. There is no need for additional commercial in this part of Meridian. The Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 33 of 77 Silverstone and EI Dorado business campuses alone within sight of this comer offer a potential of two million square feet of commercial space on South Eagle. We'd also like to comment for a moment on the commercial developments that have already popped up south of the canal, both in Southstone and Sutherland Farms. These were done without ever having to go through the formal rezoning process. They are both -- they are all sitting on residentially zoned land. Some were done in an exception, others were done in a variance. Homeowners basically woke up to see commercial office buildings springing up next to the residential properties. If we had been noticed these were going to be built, we would have certainly shown up to oppose them. Now their presence on Eagle Road outside of their assigned zone is being used as justification by the Alliance to force commercial further down Eagle Road, outside the guidelines of the current Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Alliance has stated that several real estate appraisers have told them their land is -- that residential is not the highest and best use. We would like to make the point that just because an appraiser believes a parcel is not currently zoned for its best use, this does not automatically make it so. We would hazard a guess that the land and the buildings that St. Luke's occupies might be worth more commercially as a multi-story corporate headquarters than a hospital, but that's not what it's zoned for, so it doesn't matter if that would be its best use. By their way of thinking, any property at any major intersection will automatically be worth more commercially than residentially. Our fourth point. We want to know how this change in zoning is going to affect the future Tuscany elementary school, which is currently projected by the Meridian School District to open in the 2008-2009 school year. Within a few years there will be an elementary school less than a quarter mile from this intersection. The school board already owns the land. It's not a matter of if it's going to open, but only when. We'd like to make the point this is not a high school, not a junior high, but an elementary. That means that you have got young children in Thousand Springs, Sutherland Farms, and Tuscany will in many cases be traveling to the school, perhaps walking. Turning these two comers into commercial does not help in our mind create a safer environment for them to get back and forth to school on a daily basis. My fifth point. This development contradicts the Comprehensive Plan guidelines. Some of these points were addressed in the October staff report. I'm not going to paraphrase those for you. I'm going to summarize. We believe that the whole way this project has been moving forward is problematic. In order to have it amended to the comp plan, the local municipality is providing essentially services and the nearby neighborhoods are supposed to be consulted to give their input. Since the Alliance is not going to end up being the final developer of this property, they are primarily seeking a zoning change. The original application didn't even include a development plan. Without a formal development plan the municipality serving this area cannot give proper guidance to the city and we don't believe this is how the zoning process has been designed to work. It is our opinion that the Alliance is seeking a zoning change first and foremost for financial reasons. They are applying for annexation and submitting a development plan in order to achieve this zoning change, which has basically been their own admission at some of the planning and zoning meetings. We do not doubt a desire to work with their neighbors and piecing together a larger parcel. We think that that's a good idea. But they also have strong financial reasons to do so. These parcels are worth more joined than they are individually and they are also worth considerably more commercial than Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 34 of 77 they are residential. They basically want commercial land prices for what is residentially zoned parcels. They are going to, basically, cash out these properties, selling their rural residential land at commercial prices, and they are going to leave the neighbors in the immediate area to deal with the aftermath of whatever commercial development crops up after they are long gone. And to summarize our objections, we believe, one, it will worsen an existing traffic problem. Two, this is a strip type development. Three, it is a commercial development surrounded by existing low density residential neighborhoods on all sides. Four, it is aone-side-of--the-street-only commercial development. The west side of the street is all going to remain residential. Five. In our minds it has not been proven that there is a compelling need for additional commercial in this part of Meridian. Six. There has been overwhelming opposition to this plan from both the adjoining and nearby property owners. We are not asking for commercial, we are not clamoring for added convenience for us to, you know, get the businesses. We think it's fine how it is right now. We don't want commercial next to us. Number seven. There is an elementary school being planned down the road that we don't believe has been taken into proper consideration. Another thing that I would like to talk about is from the beginning of this process -- this has been at least ayear -- there have been repeated statements by the Alliance members that we should just end this opposition to the zoning change, because, if not, they are just going to put up multi-story apartment complexes instead and there is going to be all these curb cuts on Eagle. So, basically, it's like a carrot and a stick. You know, let us put in this commercial and we won't put up apartments. Even the -- the concessions they made to Sutherland Farms, they put in a strip of residential on the side of the property. I don't know who is going to want to buy homes that are directly across the street from offices, but that's, basically, the compromise they made with them. We believe that these 23 acres should be developed residentially and we ask you to reject the commercial development plans for this comer. I am confident in saying that most opposition to this development would cease if they decided to, instead, develop this residentially, instead of commercially. I want to thank you for your time and I'm open to any questions you have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Sir, I reviewed your submittal that you summarized today. You mentioned that you speak for Tuscany Subdivision. Romello: Right. Borton: The vast majority. Romello: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 35 of 77 Borton: You had indicated that there is 600 homes. Can you tell us what percentage or what number of homeowners or individuals in Tuscany that you're speaking for and -- if you know or how many refused to join your cause? Romello: I would say of the people I have spoken to, more than 95 percent have said they don't want commercial. There are a couple of people who said that we do want commercial, but the large majority -- I have spoken to dozens, because I have gone basically house to house on several occasions trying to get people to come to the meetings and the vast majority have been against it. Atone of the Planning and Zoning meetings I turned in about 35 signed petitions against this project, but I didn't repeat that process this time. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: And those are part of the public record. Romello: Okay. De Weerd: Any further questions? Mr. Bird? Bird: No. De Weerd: No? Okay. Thank you, sir. Romello: Thanks. De Weerd: Steven McDonna. I'm song. McDonna: Mayor, Councilmen, my name is Steve McDonna. I live at 3854 Tuscany. I'm sorry. In Naples in Tuscany. And to clarity just a little bit, he does -- the gentleman before me does represent the vast majority in Tuscany. I'm on the homeowners association and I'm on neighborhood watch. In all of the meetings that we have been it's been a vast majority of the people that have voiced their concerns and their unapproval with commercial on that property. I do want to commend the property owners on Eagle Road for going together to try to find the best use that they can -- that they consider, but I do want to point out it's their consideration, and it is a money issue and that's what -- that's what real estate is. As far as the gentleman that started this, the engineer that was talking about the size of the businesses in Silverstone and EI Dorado, almost all of the businesses that line Eagle Road and Overland are in the same square footage size of businesses that are proposed in this particular commercial request. And in those I think Mrs. Canning noted that she felt that it was unrealistic and that's, really, what my point is. It's not really whether it should be commercial or high density, it's the realistic planning of commercial in that area in an overbuilding commercial area of EI Dorado and Silverstone and all the way down Overland Road. There is too much of it and just further pushing it south does nothing more than spread that area of commercial and overtax the transportation, the roads in that area. And by Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 36 of 77 improving the intersection of Victory and Eagle Road, is not going to fix the traffic that is growing in that area. I travel that every day and it is backed up well passed the canal every day from 4:00 o'clock until 6:30 whether you're going east or west or north or south. And that commercial that this is supposed to bring in, is not going to be 24 hour commercial that is going to bring in a steady stream of business, it's going to be more along the lines of your doctors and your dentists, your smaller type of commercial, which is going to be more in your 8:00 to 5:00 type workers, which is going to tax that particular intersection and the traffic in the area. Don't rezone this plan and, again, it's just not realistic. It needs to stop at Easy Jet and, unfortunately, all of us weren't involved when that went through, but we would like -- we would have liked that not to be there either, because we can see the increased traffic on Easy Jet, whether it be from the building of the subdivision or the commercial traffic that goes in there, it's dangerous right now and it's only going to get worse, you know, and the real question out there is controlling the traffic and controlling the growth. Those people -- there is over 2,000 roof tops -- all come -- I'll bring this one very quickly. There is over 2,000 roof tops in that area that people moved out there and they didn't move out there because there was a lack or that there was -- they moved out there because it wasn't congested. They didn't move out there with the promise of future commercial. Okay? So, please, take that into consideration when you're voting for rezoning this, because 2,000 homeowners that are expected to support this commercial, did not move out there in hoping that commercial would come to them. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Warren McDaniel signed up against. Thank you, sir. And Marvin Neusbaum. Signed up against. I'm song. Neusbaum: Against, yes. Madam Mayor and Council, Marvin Nuesbaum. I live at 3674 South Leonardo Way in Tuscany. I'm rather new to the area. Been in the area for a long time, but just recently moved out there in a newer section and, you know, I concur a lot with what the folks have said against tonight, because it's -- we are bringing much more business out into the -- what really should be residential housing areas and, you know, the increase in traffic in areas that really don't need it, I think it's horrible to develop an area that should be residential on a comer. You know, you're only going to have a major amount of congestion there and so I would ask that you would vote no on the rezoning, because business is going to bring much more traffic and it's going to be all day long, whereas aresidential -- obviously, you're going to have traffic throughout the day and the redesign of Eagle Road and even I'm sure Victory Road eventually will be redone, that will take care of the additional traffic that a residential would cause in that area. So, I would, again, ask that you would vote no. Thanks for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Those are the names that signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Yes, sir. Please state your name and address. Krasinski: Madam Mayor, Council, I'm Harold Krasinski, at 3475 East Falcon. Well, I'm down at the end of East Falcon Drive, which is just below that L-shaped property there. And Mr. Aldrich spoke earlier about his being in favor of the development in this area. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 37 of 77 We are the property down at the end and, as he pointed out, the developer of Sutherland Farms has purchased all these other properties on our road, leaving us as the last five acre parcel here, with Dartmoor and Kingsbridge here. My concern -- I guess I'm somewhat neutral on this, although I would prefer to see the development work out much like the Alliance has asked for, as opposed to some of the alternatives that could bring even higher density. We do already have some four-plexes here and I would much rather see an attractive low density business park of some sort in this area, as opposed to having them all fill in with some of the higher density that could come into play with the zoning as it is now. We certainly are going to be one of the last large acreages in here and I'm also afraid of other high density going in there and that might influence the Sutherland Farms South, which I don't believe has been submitted to anybody yet, but that is going to be coming in the next few months. So, I would probable prefer to see it much like they have envisioned now, as opposed to even higher density, because we are going to be putting more burden on the schools and I think the traffic, if you look at the amount of people that could live on that comer, I have got to believe that that would turn out to be more trips per day than the community commercial that might be proposed now. So, I'm -- we are hoping to stay there and preserve our little patch as long as we can and, actually, if and when this all starts to develop here, we would certainly urge you all to take into consideration the nature of the area now and the fact that Kingsbridge has agreed to put in somewhat larger lots here and what I have seen proposed, anyway, is what might happen through here, a little bit larger lots, so I would certainly urge you all to take into consideration in the future that if we could make this transition go slowly from high density to low density, I would certainly like to stay here as long as I can in that area. So, thank you all -- De Weerd: Thank you. Krasinski: -- for your consideration. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony before we invite the applicant to have closing remarks? Okay. Nickel: Madam Mayor, Council, thanks again. For the record, Shawn Nickel. First of all, I do appreciate the concerns of the neighbors. However, some of their testimony brings up the whole reason why the commercial is needed in this area. One of the comments was 2,000 roof tops, in Tuscany 560 lots. By requiring those people to travel on the roadway system further out to get to their services, it's only going to increase the traffic for everybody. Again, we are not -- we are not asking for the regional commercial. We have got plenty of regional commercial up at Silverado, EI Dorado, 460 acres that I spoke of earlier. Those are destination type of commercial uses. There are services within those, as has been stated, as you know from driving out there, but the majority of those issues, again, are destination uses, large engineering companies and offices and Idaho Athletic Clubs and the -- to point out -- and I think I was very liberal in my map in my estimate of the residential down in that area, but, again, 3,400 acres, 11,600 possible homes based on the current Comprehensive Plan, both cities. And I'm not even going to say 120 acres designated for neighborhood commercial Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 38 of 77 anymore, because as I found out today, half of that might be going to R-8 residential, which further increases the need for service oriented commercial on the south side of Overland Road. As I stated, Eagle Road is planned in the 2007 budget for improvements, five lanes that will connect Eagle Road five lanes from Victory all the way up to the interstate. Yes, that's going to increase the travel time and the traffic lights and stops, but that's one reason why this area is not viable for residential, is because you are turning this into a North Eagle Road with five lanes and increased noise and the compatibility issues of anyone wanting or desiring to have lower density residential there. So, you are probably going to see some higher density residential. And I don't think that's a threat on the Alliance's part when they state that, I think it's reality based on what they have seen and those people have been out there for 20 years and they have seen this increase out there. I do agree with staff and a majority of the neighbors when they say that the concept plan that we have in front of you is not viable. It concerns them. I agree a hundred percent. If you look in your packet on page seven that I have listed, that's an alternative plan -- concept plan that we would like to have adopted, if you approve this this evening, and all that shows is that shows those access points and those buffers and the stub streets and the compatibility issues that I think are so important to this type of request, where the Alliance is really just asking for a Comprehensive Plan designation. They are not commercial developers, there is not -- there is probably not a need right now today for commercial development out there for services, just like there is not a need today for that elementary school in Tuscany. But they have planned for it and I guarantee that that school will open and it will be at capacity immediately and at some point the need will be there, just like at some point the need for this commercial will be here. We need to designate it now and the market will determine when and whether that develops as commercial. No one is going to go out there today and pop up a bunch of service commercial if they are not sure that they are going to have the roof tops, but, I'll tell you what, 11,000 or 23,000 or whatever I anticipated is going to be out there, you're really lacking service-oriented commercial in the area. Again, we have provided a lot of information for you here, if you want to soak it up, we would be more than happy to let you think about it and table this. We did provide some elevations just to get some ideas. But, again, the Alliance is wanting to plan for the future. Of course they are looking at the highest and best use. The best use for the property is commercial, in their belief. So, with that I thank you very much for your time and I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, questions? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I have a question for Shawn and, then, kind of a procedural question for staff. Shawn, I heard you say that the -- and I understand procedurally Planning and Zoning Commission heard the Comprehensive Plan amendment, recommended that the City Council hear that with an application for rezone. We have heard some comments from both from Planning and Zoning staff and I think you stated the same thing, that the Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 39 of 77 rezone is not -- that this is a conceptual idea of what could happen and I know that the Council has had some different experiences with conceptual sorts of designs. So, what short of things do you feel would need to be agreed upon before the Council could consider fully what that commercial development would look like in a rezone perspective? Nickel: Madam Mayor and Councilmember Wardle -- and as stated in the past, the original application or intent from the Alliance was to have just a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Your Planning and Zoning staff -- or your Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the annexation and zoning. If the Alliance had their way, they would just consider just a Comprehensive Plan. I think it's important to have the annexation and zoning, because we can incorporate a development agreement that will lock in those specifics that will make this project whenever it comes before you from a real commercial developer, compatible -- and I think that's some of the concerns that you have had in the past with approving concept plans and not knowing, really, what you're going to see. So, if we had our way we would just want to do the Comprehensive Plan, designate the area, and see what happens. But you really need those conditions as part of the annexation development agreement to kind of lock in what this Alliance has really -- all along has agreed to every time staff has added a new concern, I believe that they have addressed that. And as far as anticipating what can happen -- what's going to go on in the future, that's why I came up with that alternative concept plan. Staffs right, this is very unrealistic and it is just to demonstration the right-in, right-out, the full access, the stubs, the access to the existing streets, the buffers, the residential buffer, and compatibility. It wasn't to show roadways going in and out and the commercial or a building here, buildings right there, it, really, to give -- was to give staff an idea of what you would see. So, it's really hard to come up with a concept plan when you're not really trying to develop it right now. I don't know if that answered your question, but -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: It did answer my initial question. For staff procedurally, understanding the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that we consider these together, is that I assume it's procedurally -- before the Council can act on any type of rezone we have to act on the Comprehensive Plan amendment; is that correct? Canning: Yes, in the sense that the rezone would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Wardle: Got you. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council ~ • July 25, 2006 Page 40 of 77 Rountree: None. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you all very much. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no questions for staff, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing, unless you would like to continue. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 10 and 11. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 10 and 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm not sure where to begin, so I'm probably going to ramble. First off, I appreciate the applicants for coming together and doing something that we have been asking folks to do in these kinds of areas where you have multiple parcels that are very difFcult to do anything with on an individual basis, yet we see them time and time and time again. I also want to compliment the citizens for coming together and expressing their opinions. And, again, the applicant for at least working with one neighborhood, apparently, and getting them involved in taking care of their concerns with yet another adjacent development in the area that have issues as well. I'm not sure how this is going to go this evening. Please keep in mind we hear lots of information. We hear about traffic. We hear about schools. We hear about we don't want this in our neighborhood or we want this in our neighborhood. If we always went with the fors, we would have lots of things -- more things that people don't like. If we always went for the againers, most of you folks out here, except those that have expressed an opinion that have been in Ada County for some 15, 20 years, wouldn't have a place to live. Having said that, I'm always concerned when we open up the Comprehensive Plan for amendment. And the only thing I have, really, to judge at this point is experience. And, occasionally, that's okay to have as an elected official and a City Council person. And though I have been a City Council person concurrently for as many years as I have experience, I can go back a few years and my gray hair will attest to that. This is not Meridian City Council ~ r July 25, 2006 Page 41 of 77 dissimilar to an action that -- I'm trying to think when we did it, but it's in excess of ten years ago, so it predates all of the Council Members and the Mayor here -- where, in fact, the Council did take affirmative action on a request such as this. That property sat until about a year ago or two years ago as a commercial property and struggled once it started to be developed through the Public Hearing process, conditional use process. I have just teamed now that we take away from that is that I feel, looking back on it, that the Council erred in the speculative aspect of that particular decision. So, not going to my I'm-not-in-any-big-hurry drum, but my experience with another similar project, I'm inclined not to be in favor of a Comprehensive Plan amendment at this point in time and the rezone. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comment -- other comments by Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Before I make my comments, not having the years of experience of Councilman Rountree -- Rountree: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Rub it in. Wardle: I won't elaborate on that at this time. Bird: You don't have gray hair yet. Wardle: While I was in the City of Meridian -- I'm not sure which project you're talking about. Rountree: I was teaching you how to play baseball. Wardle: Exactly right. Which project were you refemng to? Rountree: Eagle Road and Overland. I don't know the name of the development at this point in time. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: I guess I'll make my comments. I certainly would like to thank the applicant and all the citizens who came here as well. My bar for opening up the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is certainly very high. One of the things that I look for is some type of a -- something that the city could gain from this proposal that the city would not, in any other circumstance, gain. One of the things that I do like about this proposal is the ability of the neighbors and the property owners to bring this together. I didn't hear an Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 42 of 77 unwillingness to do that in any other form of application, but, certainly, it was a well thought out presentation, that these people came together, did some research, hired some professionals and sought public input, even from their neighbors, through this public process, to arrive at a conclusion of what should this property be. I have heard arguments, obviously, on both sides. I can say that I don't find it unreasonable that these properties should or could be commercial. On the rezone application I don't think I have enough specific evidence to approve a specific project. We have heard both the applicant, neighbors, and planning staff say that this proposal at this time is not as thought out as it could be, but I have heard arguments that lead me to consider that -- the ability for this to be a successful commercial development. The one thing that I can say that planning staff had -- that we have struggled with in this area of town and that is the large lot subdivisions and the lower density, lower than R-4, the R-2 density, the five acre parcels, I heard those neighbors that are directly affected by this development say that they would prefer it over a residential zone and that, in my mind -- certainly everyone is going to be directly affected, but those people are neighboring directly and have worked with the applicant and have a comfortable level for what could happen adjacent to their property. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments? I guess since I never share my opinion, I -- I thought I'd better comment. Well, I guess I would share some of the indecisiveness on whether this is where it belongs or not. My office gets a lot of calls from the residents from the south end that there is a grocery store needed, that -- and, in fact, I have heard that for the last six years, and EI Dorado and Silverstone are not the -- not the business parks -- I mean those are business parks. This is something that would not go into one of those. I also have heard from enough developers that residential and business or commercial, they are valued the same. In fact, residential is almost going higher in some areas than business. So, I don't know if that's -- the price of their land is motivated by whether it's commercial or residential. I guess we also get concerned when there is an elementary school in the area -- developed as residential, those kids will be crossing a very busy street and so those are also concems. You know, we have to look at this as a big picture and seeing community safety, services, and there is a lot of things that dictate the decisions that this Council makes. With that said, I don't know I'm necessarily opposed to the Comprehensive Plan change, because the Comprehensive Plan is a living document and when we set that document, we try and anticipate how things are going to be develop on the ground and sometimes it dictates, as development occurs, that things need to be looked at a little different. And I agree that trips can be captured by having services closer to the homes. Is this the right place? I'm not sure. But as far as the Comprehensive Plan, I think this is a reasonable look at a mixed use at a lower density than -- or a lower impact than the regional mixed use. But I think that this Council has seen several incidences where we have rezoned or annexed without a plan where we had the opportunity for the public to comment and that is what concems me. It's that I appreciate that the applicants have come together - - actually, we have been asking that in other parts of our community, what -- and that you have brought examples of the type of quality that the buildings would be, the materials -- I think that Shawn has been in front of us long enough to know that those are all things that we are going to ask and expect answers to. So, we have seen a Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 43 of 77 ~J mixture of residential with the office and commercial in one other instance that I know of and that's over on Linder and Cherry Lane. There is a mix there that they have done the same thing. What impresses me is I haven't seen anyone from Sutherland Farms or Thousand Springs, which this is on both sides of, so the development, the applicant, the property owners, have been doing their research. Again, the Comprehensive Plan, it seems to make sense. We deal with a lot of the traffic from the south and it's not necessarily Meridian, it's a lot of Kuna and southeast Boise, because they don't have access to I-84, so we see a lot of traffic that crosses through us. Will that help capture some trips? Maybe. I just am concerned to the annex or -- and rezone without a specific plan, because we have seen how some of those result -- or at least to limit the accesses even on the conceptual to be in line more with what we are doing on the north side and we are trying to limit those accesses. The advantage is we are going from about 16 accesses on these roads to, hopefully, just two or one. Okay. Council, if I have stirred the pot enough, if there is no further questions or information needed, are you at a point where you want to make a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Question for staff. Anna, do you think it's appropriate to take a look at the south Meridian region as a whole and review and possibly amend the Comprehensive Plan for the larger portion? Has that been discussed? Canning: Yes. It's actually underway. And we are -- we are doing a market study of everything south of I-84 to determine the appropriate amount of commercial development. We anticipate that we will see those closer to around some of the east- west roads that ACHD is proposing. I think Lake Hazel is one and -- I know Lake Hazel is one of them, but I can't think of -- the other one that goes into -- I don't think it's Victory Road that goes all the way through Canyon county. I think it's -- Amity. Thank you. So, we are anticipating that we will see commercial clusters at those major intersections. We have, actually, done preapplication conferences with a developer that's bringing in a large proposal that has those planned out and integrated into the neighborhood. So, we do anticipate that there will be additional commercial services along those roads. Borton: So, part of that -- part of that analysis encompasses this area? Canning: Yes, sir, it does. And -- Borton: Would it be sort of counter-productive to those efforts to -- before that's completed to hold portions within that region and make amendments without having that completed? Canning: I think the area we are looking at is large enough that it may not, but if the concern to the Council is that there aren't sufficient services in the south, I think that Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 44 of 77 there is certainly other opportunities to make that available to folks, if this isn't viewed as the appropriate place. Borton: The reason I asked the question is a concem that I have got and it was told to me by other Council members in a different context with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendments. The benefit of a comprehensive plan is that it, in fact, focuses on the forest and not the trees and I think the remarks that have been presented by the applicant and by the public here are probably right on the money for this region and what needs to be addressed in this location and, to my perspective, for the southern Meridian portion as a whole, which invites the very analysis that Meridian is taking and this might be -- could be at the conclusion of that analysis a viable and proper Comprehensive Plan amendment. But to my perspective, I'm more comfortable making that analysis with the forest picture, looking at the larger region and how it might tie into other comp plan changes, which we would make in the southern portion. So, I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept at this point. This region might change. To my perspective I'm not willing to at this point perhaps undermine our efforts to analyze the larger region. I also agree with Council and the Mayor with regard to annexing property, we don't have real specific plans in knowing the city is going to be taking in and the applicant candidly knows that those concerns are there and recognizes that we would have those concerns. So, with regard to the annexation, have further comment that Council Members and the Mayor have expressed some concem that with regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendment those are reasons why at this point I would not be in favor of it. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, could you give an overview of some of the options that -- it's similar to the area by Ten Mile with a specific area plan we are doing, seeing the Comprehensive Plan in south Meridian and the market analysis, is there an opportunity to delay this application or do they need to take action and then -- if you can just layout their options. Nary: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, at this juncture, because you have held a public hearing, you can certainly continue this matter. I don't know that you have a date certain and that's probably the problem with -- I don't think -- I heard Mrs. Canning say it was underway, but that there is a target date, like we dealt with the prior action that the Council took where there was at least a specific date we set that to. You certainly don't have to agree with the Comprehensive Plan amendment if you don't feel that it is in the best interest of the city at this time. You don't have to approve it, if part of your discussion or part of your reasoning, at least for the purposes of the Public Hearing, is that there is an ongoing study and there is an analysis that's forthcoming that still may impact this area and you're willing to wait for that circumstance to happen that at least lets these folks know what the reasons are. You're not obligated to do that, but if that's your rationale you can. but I would be cautious in trying to just set this over for some open-ended time period, because you just don't have any real sense for these folks to have some finality to this application to do that. You can set it over for 30 days, but Idon't -- again, maybe Mrs. Canning has more insight, but I think we would be setting it over three or four times, which isn't very helpful for these folks that are trying to Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 45 of 77 make decisions on their property. Did you have any -- I didn't hear you say you had some specific time window that you thought this might -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, our contract with our consultant is -- is geared toward a Comprehensive Plan amendment submitted to -- or a complete application within our office on December 15th. That December 15th cutoff would be for a February Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Typically, it takes them a couple of hearings to get through Comprehensive Plan amendments, so it probably wouldn't get up to you until March or April. The fast wheels of government progress. Yeah. Sorry. Nary: I'm thinking you may have the opportunity to do that, but that was my only concern, Madam Mayor, is trying to leave this one open ended for that length of time probably leaves it a little too much in limbo for too long as to a decision on this application. You have the ability to do that, I just think it would maybe not be the wisest choice. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: I do want to compliment the Alliance and the people that live around it, Tuscany and all that, the way you have come together and it's been very calm and collected testimony and stuff. I do appreciate that a lot. I'm not too sure that this isn't a good plan for that comer, you know, really, I don't know what the plan is. You didn't come forward with any kind of a preliminary plat or any idea of what's going down there. I mean we could wind up with some big -- all we are doing is giving a conceptual look. We could wind up with some big box things or we could wind up with 30 or 40 dentists offices -- I don't know. I just -- I have to agree with Councilman Rountree, I know which one he's talking about that -- what happened and without some kind of a plan I just can't support this. The amendment, I -- I don't have a problem with the Comprehensive Plan change, but without some kind of an idea of what the zoning needs and stuff, why I can't support it at this time. De Weerd: Anna, we have three different mixed use designations, the regional, the community, and the neighborhood? Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Can you maybe tell the difference between -- or explain the difference between the commercial and the neighborhood? Canning: Community and neighborhood? Give me just a moment. Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 46 of 77 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Just some additional info. I think part of your question that maybe I didn't answer was -- is there other -- is there any legal reason you can't delay that decision and there is not. The legal requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments are placed at the Planning and Zoning level and, then, the recommendation has a time period in which they can come to you for map amendments and that's all been satisfied. So, there isn't a legal impediment to delay. The other issue is you have the ability -- the Council has the ability to recommend different Comprehensive Plan changes than what has been requested and you have the ability to do that. Depending on the significance of those, you may want to have another Public Hearing to allow for further input. If you don't want what's being requested, but they do -- a Comprehensive Plan amendment is felt to be appropriate, then, the Council has the ability to do that. But depending on, again, the significance of that, another Public Hearing may be necessary just to make sure that if anyone has any other concerns about that change, that they have an opportunity to be heard. You don't have to as well -- and you probably all know this, you don't have to approve both of these. You certainly can approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment. You don't have to approve the annexation request or you can certainly deny them both or approve them both. The only reason you're hearing them together is because the Planning and Zoning Commission had felt that they didn't feel comfortable initially in making the Comprehensive Plan recommendation without some conceptual idea of what was in front of them and I think that's part of the testimony you heard is why it is a conceptual plan, is because that was really driven by the Commission's desire to see what would fit and what would be appropriate with this type of change. You can certainly approve a change without the requested concept plan that's being brought in the application in Item 11. So, there is a couple of options there and I didn't say that before and I didn't know if you would find that helpful, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'll read from the Comprehensive Plan. For mixed use neighborhood it talks about up to ten acres may be nonresidential uses. So, that's approximately half this site, I believe. Or a third of this -- that conceptual plan as shown. I accidentally -- there we go. It talks about up to 100,000 square feet of nonresidential building area. Residential densities would be three to eight units per acre, which would be consistent with Sutherland Farms. Sample uses include grocery stores, drug stores, coffee, sandwich shops, dry cleaner, Laundromat, solons, day care, professional offices, medical, dental, clinic, retail gift shops, schools, parks, churches, clubhouses, and public uses. For mixed use community it's up to 25 acres of nonresidential uses, up to 200,000 square feet of nonresidential building area. Residential densities of three to 15 units per acre. Sample uses include all those that I mentioned before for the neighborhood and further adding clothing stores, garden centers, hardware stores, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service stations, department stores. Meridian City Council • • July 25, 2006 Page 47 of 77 De Weerd: Thank you. In the discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission have they had their log on the neighborhood on consideration of the neighborhood center? Canning: I'm sorry to be picky, but neighborhood center or mixed use neighborhood? De Weerd: Mixed use. Canning: Okay. I wasn't at all -- De Weerd: Tragically it -- Canning: Well, it actually is. I'm sorry. I was not at the hearings. I am not sure. I know there was a lot of talk internally about it and I'm not sure what the Planning Commission -- I can look through the minutes if you'd like me to. Quickly. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: If I can -- the application we have in front of us is for mixed use regional by the applicant; correct? Canning: Yes, sir. Wardle: And the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with the designation of mixed use community. Canning: Correct. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would imagine that the applicant had -- was in agreement with the mixed use community, since we did not hear otherwise. Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If I can get a second on a motion, maybe have further discussion. I would move that we approve Item 10, CPA 05-001, Comprehensive Plan amendment to mixed use community as suggested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bird: For discussion I'll second it. Meridian City Council • July 25, 2006 Page 48 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request for the CPA. Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have no further comment. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: If there is no discussion I call the question. De Weerd: Okay. Since you called the question before you got an answer if there was any discussion, I guess procedurally I just have to ask for the question. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: So, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. Berg: Madam Mayor, tie breaker. De Weerd: For many of the reasons I stayed before I would vote aye. Berg: Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Procedurally, we have had some comments from the Council, as well as applicant's and planning staff. Legal counsel or planning staff, I didn't get the sense that the Council was in a mind to act on this motion as it currently stands before us. Would it be appropriate to open the hearing and continue that or to deny the application, wait for future application? I guess I'm looking for some direction on what procedurally would be the -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I heard you expressing was -- was denial, to be frank, and I think that the applicant has only ever wanted the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, so I'm not sure that the rezone is of high importance to them. They probably wouldn't have minded, but I don't know what else to say. Wardle: Okay. I can do that. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 49 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion on Item 11? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we deny Item 11, AZ 06-009, based on the testimony from applicant and public and further an incomplete conceptual plan. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 11. Is there any discussion? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R- 4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan - 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: De Weerd: Thank you for bearing with us all. Okay. Item No. 12 is Public Hearing RZ 06-005. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Meridian Professional Office. It is located -- find a better highlight color. It's located at the -- 2835 and 2825 Meridian Road. It's the southwest comer of Meridian Road and Sedgewick Drive. So, it's approximately a thousand feet south of Ustick Road. This is an application for a rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O. This falls within our exemption for properties that face arterials -- residential properties that may be suitable to redevelop just as office uses. The applicant is proposing four buildings and as depicted here, there are 3,270 square feet each, and are limited to a single story. The applicant -- or this project comes forward to you with a recommendation for a development agreement. Some of the site specific conditions of that development agreement are that the only uses that would be allowed on the property are those that are principally permitted uses within the L-O zone. That hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. That any new structures or remodel of existing structures shall be generally compatible in appearance and bulk with the surrounding residential properties, as determined by the planning director or otherwise approved through a Conditional Use Permit. That up to four office-type buildings may be constructed on the site and that those buildings would have a maximum size 3,270 square feet each and be limited to single story. And that Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 50 of 77 ~~ each building have some stucco and brick accents. And, finally, that the applicant agrees to construct a masonry fence along the south and west property lines as proposed. One of the neighbors had a question about the height of that fence. They are proposing a six foot fence. Six foot. Yes. I do have some elevations. The Commission did recommend approval at their July 6, 2006, hearing. Amber VanOcker spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the uses allowed in the L-O zone and, then, the proposed fencing or screening of the residential properties to the west. There were no big changes to staffs initial recommendation and I think we have still gotten some neighbor concems. As I said, they called regarding the height of the fence along that western property line. That may be the only outstanding issue that we know before Council. With that I'll answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none at this time. Rountree: None. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? VanOcker: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. Amber VanOcker, LKV Architects, 1735 Federal Way in Boise, representing the owner John Homan. Anna has done a good job of outlining our project. The only thing that I think I would add to her comments -- the property is going to be landscaped fairly heavily. We will be providing a 25 foot landscape buffer along Meridian Road. A minimum of a 20 foot buffer that actually extends where the property line starts to angle to the north, that that connection actually increases to 40 feet as you get to Sedgewick and, then, John Homan, the owner of the property, has agreed to provide the six foot solid masonry fence and we are actually going to design that fence to have some additional detailing to it, so it's just not a CMU fence on both the west property line and the south property line. So, that would be an additional requirement that you probably wouldn't normally see in your ordinance and I think I'll probably just stand for any questions and wait for any additional comments of the residents. I think there is a handful of people here that have some concems and if I could approach you after to answer those questions. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. De Weerd: Okay. I do have some people signed up. They didn't check a box, so we will find out if they are for or against. Douglas Gregory. If you will, please, state your name and address. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 51 of 77 Gregory: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Doug Gregory. I live at 62 West Claire. On that map it would be on the far left south comer. My two nearest neighbors live directly south of that property. My concern is about 1,000 feet, if I understood correctly, on the northeast comer of Ustick Road -- I'm song, Ustick Road you already have a commercial planned area. This is residential. Approximately 3/10th of a mile to the south there is American Tile and I'm assuming it's a limited business park there. I talked to the gentleman across the street. He is now the only residential property there, the two homes to the west of him are now commercial. His property value has gone up, but he hasn't got any offers yet. I guess my concern is from Overland Road to approximately where that commercial light office is, we have commercial everywhere. We have residential. We have a mess. I'm sorry. It's ugly. I'm concerned about the fence. If -- can you go back to that other picture for me, please? On the south -- on the left bottom comer of that, my property line only extends into that fence about 18 feet. What will I do with the rest of my backyard fence? Also, I haven't heard anything said about lights. I know there will be lights in that parking lot. I don't know what kind of lighting there will be on the back side of the building, but there will be some. My concerns are you have got commercial property all the way from -- like Isaid, from Overland Road clear up passed Albertson's north of where Loric Construction is. Do we really need commercial there, even if it's light office, when less than 3/10ths of a mile away you, again, have a commercial plot already set out, platted, and in your development. I stand for any questions. But that's all I have to say. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Thank you, sir. Mary Gregory. Thank you. Dennis Coffman. You can pull that mike up. Coffman: Pull it up a little here? De Weerd: Yes. Coffman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Dennis Coffman. I live at 16 West Claire Street in the Landsbury Subdivision. Our property is -- I don't know how to turn this thing on. Our property would be right -- we are on the comer of Meridian and Claire. So, our property is right at the end of the parking lot. On the surface I'm not opposed to this project, because I think it would be much preferable to what's there now, which is kind of a junk heap. But I have some -- we have some concerns. I have some questions that I think need to be nailed down and answered prior to approval of this. As the gentleman before me talked about the fence, the fence has been designated six feet high. We don't know what kind of lighting is going to be in that parking lot. Is that lighting going to shine over the fence into our backyard and into our bedroom and so forth? We would prefer to see an eight foot fence put there. The cars will be coming in that end of the parking lot, aimed directly at our back fence, at the back of our house, and those car lights are going to shine into our backyard and also into our house and so we would like those things nailed down and addressed and in such a way that our property is protected, because of the five houses that this impacts, ours, I think, will be impacted the most, because of the parking lot right behind our backyard. Three of the residents could not be here tonight because of work schedules. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 52 of 77 So, there is just the two of us here. But those are the concems that I have. One more. I guess we have a question as to why the hours of operation were changed from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. It sounds a little late to have traffic driving in and out of that parking lot on -- particularly on summer evenings. So, there is some concems that we would like to have as conditions of approval on this and we would request an eight foot fence, rather than a six foot. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Coffman, we have a question for you. Borton: I have got one question for you. Anna, if you could put up the satellite image? I was just trying to get apicture -- which house is -- Coffman: Ours is right there. Borton: You mentioned five property owners. There is not five on that southem border. Coffman: No. Well, these three and, then, those two there. So, there is five of us that that will impact. Borton: So, the property owners that you spoke with all on that southem portion all wanted an eight foot fence? Or is that your request? Coffman: Yeah. My wife talked to them rather have a taller fence there, because parking lot lighting, we don't know where clarified as a condition, in our opinion. and she could answer that, but, yes, we'd of the lighting. And our concern with the it's going to shine and so that needs to be Borton: Thank you. De Weerd: I guess I would have afollow-up question to what he's asked. They do have shields and we have a number of residential and light office that we have found -- I think we have perfected a better lighting system and shielding system to those, so it's not intrusive to the neighbors nearby. I would ask have you seen an eight foot masonry wall? They are pretty dominant and so that's -- that's my question, do you really prefer an eight foot -- did I say an eight inch? Okay. Eight foot, rather than a six foot, if you had some reassurance as to the shielding of the lights and placement thereof. Coffman: We just want the assurance that the car lights and street lights or parking lot lighting is not going to impact our lifestyle and our backyard. De Weerd: And I understand that. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 53 of 77 Coffman: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: Since there has been a lot of discussion about an eight foot tall fence, I need to point out that code only allows a six foot fence in this area. De Weerd: I know. I still had to ask the question. Canning: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Jan Coffman also signed up. You can now pull that down. J. Coffman: I'm Jan Coffman and I live at 16 West Claire with him and thank you, Council and Mayor. The only thing I have to say is we have a six foot fence right there now. My husband is six three. Anybody walking along that fence looks directly into our backyard. Right now we have nobody there, but if we have businesses and people coming and going, we will not have any privacy in our backyard from people, tall like him, looking into our backyard. There is a safety issue also. You're going to have more people coming into the area and we are not going to know them and they are not going to be our neighbors anymore. They are going to be strangers. And just for our own protection and for privacy -- yeah, all of the neighbors have requested an eight foot barrier. Not a fence, but a wall, to protect their houses. The one on Sedgewick and on Claire. We have all asked for that eight foot barrier, so that it gives the privacy and protection that we need in a residential area. Thank you. De Weerd: Now, ma'am, I guess can it be in terms of landscaping, like columnar junipers or -- instead of an eight foot wall, which is against our ordinance? J. Coffman: I know it is. I know it is. But also it -- it was told to me from planning that the Council can do anything. De Weerd: No, they can't. Nary: Wow. Rountree: Thank you. J. Coffman: No. That would be fine. You know, they could build a berm and, then, build a fence on top of that. That would be fine, too. That would work. And we have a berm along our side with a fence on top of it and it makes it taller. So, that would work also. But I'm just thinking of taking away what little bit of privacy we have in our little lot Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 54 of 77 there when we moved there 11 years ago. We are like these other people that had all the traffic, we didn't have that traffic and now we are lambasted with a lot of traffic and we just would like to keep our little place as private as we can. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony on this application? Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, would you mind if I asked the last speaker a question? De Weerd: Yes. Mrs. Coffman, could you step up again. Our staff would like to ask you something. Canning: Ma'am, did you testify that you actually have a berm on your northern property boundary or was that adifferent -- J. Coffman: On the east boundary. Canning: Okay. And if -- J. Coffman: And this would be the north. Canning: If the applicant wants to offer to build that berm, would you let it go partly on your property, so that they could get the fence at the top of the berm? J. Coffman: No. Canning: Okay. J. Coffman: We are already short four feet on our property. It's us and Slonikers next door have been shorted four feet of our backyard and we would like that back. We would like that property line put on the -- on the line as it should be, not the way it's sitting right now. Our fence is four feet in off of our property line on the north side. Canning: Okay. I'm confused. It's not my place to ask more questions, so I won't. De Weerd: Why is your fence not on the property line? Are you suggesting that the property line is not correct? J. Coffman: It's -- it was -- this was designed so that the people that had a ditch that now these people are gone and there has been Indian Rocks Subdivision now has moved in in there, there was a ditch that they used for imgation, so that ditch was accessible to them through our yard, so instead of making a fence and letting them walk through our backyard when the developer developed it, he pulled it in four feet, so that they could get back to their ditch and open up the headgate, which is no longer needed. De Weerd: That explains it. Did that explain it for you, Anna? Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 55 of 77 Canning: Yes. So, if the applicant were to build a berm in that four feet and put a wall at the top of it, you would be gaining four feet of backyard. I believe. This issue has never come up, ma'am, and I apologize for asking all these questions. It's not my place and I'll try and be quiet, but it would help if somebody had a drawing of it at this point. De Weerd: I guess her question is if they use some of that four feet where your fence isn't, to be able to berm to get additional height, would you been supportive of that? They wouldn't take anything else from where your fence currently is, but in order to get a higher berm, they need some on your side as well. J. Coffman: I can't speak for my neighbor. My neighbor would be impacted exactly the same as we are. De Weerd: Are they impacted with the same four foot easement, basically? J. Coffman: There are two of us that that was withdrawn and put in four feet. So, we actually own four feet more than what we -- what our yards show. De Weerd: So, you didn't have to give access for the ditch. J. Coffman: Correct. De Weerd: Okay. I follow you. Thank you. J. Coffman: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, would you like closing remarks? VanOcker: Madam Mayor, Council, I'll hit the items that I know I have answers to initially and, then, we can deal with the fencing. The hours of operation, the type of office uses that we are targeting, we actually requested a less hours of operation and I think that staff went with what was normally done for the hours of operation. So, that could be adjusted if need be. The type of uses are going to be 8:00 to 5:00 and people are going to be out of there. So, it's not going to be something that is going to extend into -- you know, you will have occasional uses, but that's not the type of use that we are targeting. De Weerd: So, the original 7:00 to 7:00 is -- VanOcker: That actually came from us. De Weerd: Okay. VanOcker: And they adjusted that in the conditions of approval, because they have some set hours that they -- at least that's my understanding -- that they'd like to Meridian City Council i July 25, 2006 Page 56 of 77 suggest. Lighting. The owner really didn't want to pursue with any parking lot lighting, just because of a maintenance issue. It's a very small development as far as parking is concerned and we are going to be putting lighting on the entrances to the buildings and our electrical engineer feels as though we can probably get adequate lighting in the parking lot that we would need. So, we really weren't looking at doing any extensive lighting in the parking lot, because of Meridian Road I think that there is already going to be enough light that's traveling up and down that road and because of the hours of use we just didn't see it being a huge issue and we will light the buildings for safety reasons and to prevent anyone from gathering around those spaces. But we really weren't looking at any extensive parking lot lighting. Let's see. The fencing on the south property line. We have proposed a six foot fence. We know that there is regulations against the eight foot. If there is a way that we can work with these property owners and develop that six foot fence on top of a berm, we are completely willing to do that. As far as the location of their fence, this came up in our neighborhood meeting just briefly. We are not trying to take any additional property that is not ours and if there has been something that has been done and a ditch has now been vacated and we can do that -- that berming, we can definitely work with them and do that. We are not looking to -- I think it would be problematic to develop that berm right on our line if we do not have their assistance and able to get that berm partially on theirs or we are going to have drainage issues and it's just not going to be successful. But if we are able to do that with them, we can definitely look at that. I think I have covered their concerns. The only other thing I would add is just that it's -- we are just really not looking to develop this as areal intense use and so I think a lot of the lighting issues and parking, headlights, you're going to -- yeah, you're going to have occasional issue, but a six foot high masonry fence and even it's on a -- you know, a foot berm or so, is definitely going to take care of that. And I don't have any other comments. De Weerd: Anna, with lighting can it be that they don't have to have any pole lighting or -- I mean overhead? Do we have an ordinance that suggests that they can't do what they are proposing? Canning: Typically you -- on small ones like this where they are just trying to light the two -- the single load back -- try it again, okay? Typically, in this type of configuration with soffet lighting on those entrances, they are able to get enough light out to the edges of the parking lot to make it a safe place to be. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. If you do not need further information from the applicant orstaff -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council S July 25, 2006 Page 57 of 77 Bird: Hearing nobody jumping up, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-005. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 12. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Hearing no further discussion, I move that we approve Item 12, RZ 06-005, and to include specific comments on fencing type. The applicant's expressed interest to work with the neighbors and the specific lighting on the buildings. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Would that include the hours of operation? Wardle: And would include hours of operation. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I guess the only concern I have with the motion is that -- what if there isn't general agreement with the fencing? Do we see it again? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If I could clarify my motion on the fencing. Specific comment from the applicant was the ability to build a six foot masonry fence. I don't think this Council's in the position to talk about property lines. So, the applicant has also expressed a willingness, if supported by the neighbors, to do some type of berming. That would be, really, the only portion of this that would be discretionary. Otherwise, I would expect a six foot masonry fence -- wall. Does that make sense? Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 58 of 77 Rountree: I understand what you're saying. Borton: Madam Mayor? Wardle: Does planning understand? Canning: Yes, sir. But some minimum height of berm -- well, I just need to clarify. Are you requiring a berm or -- no. If they do -- if they bring in a berm, that's fine. If they don't -- okay. Wardle: The minimum is a six foot masonry wall. De Weerd: Did the second understand that? Borton: The second did. De Weerd: Okay. I was just asking. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Just another clarification. Part of the reason the Planning and Zoning Commission will generally stick with the ordinance hours of operations is to not have to deal with deliveries, cleaners, those kinds of things. If that's -- if you want us to put in the development agreement those different hours of operations, do you want us to include that -- that it means operation of the business, but that would exclude deliveries, exclude the cleaners and those types of things. It's just an issue that comes up for code enforcement purposes. So, that's the reason they change it and stick with the ordinance. But if you want to do it different, that's fine, Ijust -- you could specify what your preference is for the DA. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, aren't hours of operation different than some of those service issues? Nary: It depends on which neighbor to whichever property is in question as to what they think the operation of the business is, so -- Rountree: How they interpret it. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If you're 7:00 to 7:00 and don't need further clarity, then --okay. That's the motion. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Canning: 7:00 to 7:00? Meridian City Council i July 25, 2006 Page 59 of 77 De Weerd: What's that? 7:00 to 7:00 was the motion. Canning: So, to clarify it so that the code enforcement is clear, will that be 7:00 to 7:00 -- people are not in the office anytime after 7:00 p.m. Bird: They are not open for business. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: To clarify the motion. Hours of operation. Posted hours of operation. Canning: Okay. Wardle: Second? Borton: Yes. De Weerd: Is that clear to you, Mr. Borton? Borton: It is. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development -northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development - northeast comer of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 13 and 14 are Public Hearing AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025. I will open these two public hearings with staff comment. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Paramount South 60. It's located north of McMillan Road and east of Linder Road. Here is the property. Cedarcreek is immediately to the east, which you heard last week. This is an application for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The annexation and zoning Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 60 of 77 is for 60.96 acres and they are requesting R-8 zoning. There is one house on the site and it will be removed. The applicant is also asking for preliminary plat approval of 200 single family residential lots on 59.81 acres. All of the homes within the development are proposed to be single family detached. The average lot size in the development is 8,896 square feet. The gross density of the project is 3.34 dwelling units per acre and approximately 7.4 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. The Commission did recommend approval at their July 6th hearing. Jay Walker spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. The key issue of discussion was the location of the eastern stub street and its alignment with Cedarcreek. The key Commission changes to staffs recommendation, they did modify site specific condition 1.1.5 to read that the fencing will not be provided or required on the perimeter adjacent to the future high school site. That's this section of the property in the northwest comer. And the school will provide their own fencing they have indicated. So, to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. Wardle: Would the applicant, please, come forward. State your name and address for the record. Tumbull: Good evening. David Tumbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I don't have a lot to add to the staff report. We have worked extensively with them through the applicant process. Most of the revisions to our application were made before the application got before Planning and Zoning Commission and so I think we have worked hard to work out any details with staff and other agencies before this point. So, I'll stand for any questions, if you have any for me. Wardle: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Would you do it again, please. Borton: The fencing next to the school district site, is that -- I don't know how that normally operates, but is there -- is that a chain link done by the school -- Tumbull: Yes. Borton: -- and the neighbors there would have chain link? Meridian City Council ~ • July 25, 2006 Page 61 of 77 Tumbull: The school installs a chain link fence. Even if we installed a wood fence, they would install a chain link fence and we really don't want to get into the double-sided fences where weeds will grow between. So, I think that's why we asked for the waiver on that requirement. Borton: Can the property owners put up a fence themselves or they just -- Tumbull: We have dealt with this on the elementary school site where we are actually -- on the elementary school site we have prohibited any kind of wood fencing and we have worked with the school district to upgrade their regular galvanized chain link fencing to a vinyl coated black chain link fencing, just for the esthetics of the overall project and, then, any privacy would have to be provided by landscaping. Now, I haven't crossed that issue on the high school site. You know, privacy is going to be a bigger issue on a high school site, but we do know that the school district is planning on putting up a chain link fence and so we didn't think it was necessary to require that we put up another perimeter fence in addition to that one. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Not that a high school student would ever think of walking to school, but is that a pathway into the school site? Tumbull: Yes, it is. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Bird: No. They have to have a car. Rountree: They have got to drive. Tumbull: We have provided another one up here to the north, too, so -- Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. If this is -- thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none. Council, any further information needed? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 62 of 77 Rountree: None. De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to close. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings for AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: If there is no discussion I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve AZ 06-026 with applicant and staff comments. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call role. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 14. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 06-025, preliminary plat approval for Paramount South 60 Subdivision. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion to approve Item 14. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 63 of 77 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. I will open the two public hearings on Items 15 and 16 on AZ 06-027 and PP 06-026 with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Tapestry project. It's located at 635 and 675 South Linder Road. And that's between I-84 and West Franklin Road. There is a school just to the west of the property and some large lot residential just to the north and Ada County acreages to the south. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. The annexation and zoning is for 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone. The preliminary plat is approval for 20 residential lots on that 3.92 acres. Currently there are two single family homes on site. One is located right about there and the other is located in this southeastern comer. The applicant is proposing to remove the one to the north, but is trying to retain the one to the south. And for that they are requesting -- to accommodate that request this also includes alternative compliance request to the 25-foot landscape buffer required along Linder Road. The applicant is providing additional landscape to the north at the entrance to the property in exchange for a reduced buffer along the southern portion of their entrance. All homes in the development are proposed to be single family detached. The average lot size is 5,960 square feet and about 2.9 -- or .92 -- 2.9 -- sorry. .29 acres or 7.4 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. So, the gross residential density is 5.1 dwelling units per acre. You may recall this site. There was a previous application called Banff. I wanted to point that out just because at that one staff was very much a proponent of having the two properties developed together. The applicant has joined the two properties that we were seeking to have joined in the first place, so wanted to point that out to you. The other topics of discussion during those hearings were the future overpass and the need for emergency services access to the area. That emergency -- I swear I can't talk after 10:00 o'clock. Those emergency service access points are now available through Waltman Lane. The Commission recommended approval at their July 6th hearing. Matt Schultz spoke in favor. John Arizabal spoke in opposition. The key issues of discussion were density and the Comprehensive Plan designation. There were no major changes to staffs initial recommendation. There are acouple -- not really outstanding issues, but items of clarification that that staff wanted to point out. I believe the applicant has been working Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 64 of 77 on a micropath to the Peregrine Elementary School at the west end of the property. He just needs to give you an update on those proceedings. It wasn't done before the staff report was made. And also ACHD has sent you a letter opposing the revised street layout with this snoopy and staff advocated for the snoopy and still would do that, but I do want to point out what the other discussion was. This was the applicant's initial application and staff was very concerned, because there is no connection going to the south just yet, they needed a turnaround. Police, fire, and planning staff were concerned that you kind of had this -- this mass of asphalt at the end of this property or what could be the middle of this -- as this area developed, that was really ill-defined as to where the traffic movements should be and because it was a temporary situation -- it also created the need for a number of flag lots up in this comer to accommodate that. We just felt that this snoopy design provides a much cleaner lot layout. Although this is not optimal for the highway, eventually, we do anticipate that this will extend to the property to the south and that we will have connections within this area. So, we felt that even though the highway district was somewhat opposed to the snoopy design, we do feel that this will, eventually, be extended and it's an appropriate design for this project. This also allowed for the -- a short very convenient access to the Peregrine Elementary at the end of that -- top of Snoopy's head. So, those were the two kind of outstanding concerns that I wanted to make you aware of and I will answer any questions you may have. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Council? Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, tell me how that -- that's a better layout for emergency services. I mean I realize they can back up and go around, but I think there is a lot of times you get trucks and stuff out there, if there is people around, you don't particularly like backing up. I don't know. Maybe the police and fire had no problems with that. Canning: No. We sent it to them for further comment and to my knowledge they did not have concerns with the layout. Bird: Well, if they didn't, I don't. De Weerd: How about SSC? Canning: We didn't re-send it to them, but SSC doesn't mind backing up. They do it more than the fire department does, so -- Bird: It makes more noise backing up. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council • July 25, 2006 Page 65 of 77 Canning: No. I did -- you know, one of the things that this struggled with the first time was keeping this existing house and the driveway, getting the driveway off of Linder and they have -- as you see, they have really gone to great extent to get that access off of Linder Road, as we have asked, so -- De Weerd: And wasn't one of the issues the access onto Linder, that it could be vacated after the connections to the south? Canning: There was one member -- there was one elected official, yes, that that was a concern. We did talk about it. We did ponder that. We are not sure that there is a mechanism to make that kind of access go away over time. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Schultz: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz at 2127 South Alaska Way in Meridian. RMR Consulting representing the applicant Raftis Tapestry, LLC. I just wanted to point out from the beginning and although we are aware of the pervious application, we were not involved, so we are not related. After it got denied I understand the property went back on the market and my client purchased it knowing that if he was going to get anything done he had to get the other piece to the north, which the previous piece lacked. It lacked -- I think it was about a 70 foot wide strip is what that ends up being. Avery long and narrow one acre lot, with the home in the front in this area. And, then, the other home on the other three acre piece. Access onto Linder was a concern. We feel that by -- where there used to be two, we now have one and it's a controlled ACHD right of way and we feel that that is at least an improvement to the existing condition. And we are just lucky that there was a detached garage that allowed for that or we probably would have had to demolish the house and we wanted to save it, because it's a nice brick house and thought it was worth trying to save if we could. What that does for us, too, it gives us a nice vision coming in, a nice traffic calming measure, if you will, as well. A little bit of curve. We do get pinched a little bit on the front there with the existing house. ACHD asked fora 41-foot right of way with the sidewalk outside of the easement -- or outside the right of way, excuse me, to allow for a future Linder overpass and more of an arterial road section. We are pinched a little bit, but we do widen out an additional 80 or 90 feet up here, and that was our -- that was our concession for alternative compliance was to give the extra width up here. We do -- I have an update on negotiations with Wendell on a pathway connection. There is an existing pathway right -- just right here, just on the other side of the fence, that sometimes Wendell is hesitant to provide rear access to his elementary school sites, just for control of small children and people picking up and dropping off. I did submit a letter. He did respond back saying it is okay, please, coordinate with us on when you do decide to cut the fence. There is an existing chain link fence, but what will happen is this lot will become Lot 14 and Lot 15. We will add a common lot in there, a 20-foot common lot, if you will. Very short with a sidewalk and some landscape on our other side -- on either side of it to connect into their pathway, which is just probably 20 feet beyond the fence. Their elementary school site already takes rear access over here to the north and so he was very workable with us on that, which is good. I know you get Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 66 of 77 spots out here in Linder where there is no sidewalk and this will allow the kids, instead of having to go down to Waltman and over, they can just go through. So, that's an improvement. And I'm glad Wendell was willing to work with us on that. We are not asking for 20 lots, we are asking for 19. The revision to go to this -- you know, I have heard snoopy or T-type turnaround, we did lose one lot to accommodate that. It does require a three point turn. The rules say anything less than -- anything greater than 150 feet you need an actual bulb. This is a hundred feet. It's a public driveway, if you will, for these four lots. Nice sidewalk access. We have dedicated right of way for a future stub street, but we have rounded this off, which is kind of what ACRD is wanting these days in case this project takes a few years to develop. It provides a finished look. When it gets extended that curb gets cut out and it gets extended. It provides a nice walk around there, instead of having an unfinished looking stub street. The benefit of having the extra width is obvious. We are able to do a hundred foot deep lots here and 114 foot deep lots here. Previously, if you take out 70 feet, I think you ended up with, I don't know, 75 each, or something, deep lots, really substandard depth. Now, we are to at least normal depth at the hundred and, then, we go beyond that. We put all the extra depth abutting. There is two R-4 city lots up here. They are -- I don't know if they are acre or half acre or what size they are, but they are City of Meridian lots. They take access here. We are going to put up a six foot vinyl fence here and all the way along here and buffering this house and out on the frontage here and here. We are able to get city sewer, city water, and we feel that it does meet the Comprehensive Plan for medium density. I'm glad to hear that Waltman Lane is now a secondary emergency access. I know that was a point of issue previously. Although there are 700 lots out here already -- you got to draw the line somewhere and we are asking for 19 more, but I'm glad to hear we have that secondary connection, because there was only one access to those 700 lots until, hopefully, Waltman gets pushed out to Ten Mile down here when the Ten Mile interchange goes. So, with that we are asking for the R-8. We have felt that we have worked with the existing house, the turnaround, the pathway, the stub street, given the extra width and really tried to appease, hopefully -- hopefully, knock on wood, everybody, that we can move forward with approval tonight. So, we'd ask for your approval and I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Matt, are you going to have a sign at the stub street that this -- that this is a through street? Schultz: Yeah. It will say this street to be extended in the future, is what they want. De Weerd: Okay. Schultz: On a little blue sign is what we put up. De Weerd: Good. Because when they finish it off like that -- Schultz: It looks like it might -- De Weerd: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 67 of 77 • Schultz: Because we have some that are finished off like that permanently that aren't going to go anywhere in Meridian and so we want to make sure we put that up there, so people understanding that is going through. Definitely. And ACHD's -- I think that's in their conditions already that we do that. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Questions, Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Matt, here is -- let me tell you my thoughts or concems and I'm curious how you respond. It's not the -- for what it's worth, the design I like to see and I have a concern with keeping this particular house and foregoing a landscape buffer, which as long as that would remain, precludes expansion of Linder and the future overpass or however that's expanded, is a concern. It also is a concern that were this not to go forward and this parcel develops later or maybe with the parcel to the south on Gander Drive, that has an entrance to the east right over here, would provide for some more consistent access -- Schultz: Down here? Borton: Yeah. Right here. That you have more consistent access to develop this parcel and you have got an adjacent access point to the east. Those are a couple of my concems, not the least of which is also how -- keeping this parcel and not developing it. When the southern portion is developed, provide this snoopy road design, which is kind of piecemeal, it's -- and I understand you're limited, constrained with the land you have got, but it doesn't -- doesn't create the greatest picture of how this whole area should end up, so that's my thoughts on -- Schultz: If I may try to -- Borton: I figured I'd bring it up while you're there. Schultz: -- try to cover three or four things here. Let me talk about Gander or whatever that's called there. I think right now for an arterial, which this is going to be called, that when this was done they probably weren't looking at that, because if they were they wouldn't have this offset only a hundred feet between here and Waltman and Waltman being a -- probably a more higher density than just a normal residential street in the future, I would hope. So, I really don't think that's a good spot to put a future connection, just because it doesn't meet the offset requirements for an arterial. Borton: And if I could -the reason I brought it up is the application that you got -- Schultz: Right. Meridian City Council . July 25, 2006 Page 68 of 77 Borton: -- doesn't show a correct map, because it shows Gander entering right there, the southern portion of your -- Schultz: Right here? Borton: -- project enters across the street from the entrance to Gander. Schultz: Well, maybe that point goes away, because I think what we have across the road -- and I don't see it on our plat, but there is a home and Ithink -- yeah, there is a home right there and, then, there is a parcel -- a bigger parcel with a home. So, there is no public road there. So, what if that issue -- there is still a couple others out there you talked about and I'll keep going. Borton: Okay. Schultz: But I think our access works for what's out there and the separation is good between Gander and us for an arterial. We have got good separation. If you could go back to our -- the layout, please, Anna. Thanks. As far as a future T intersection, with a -- like I said, I look at this as a public driveway, if you will, for four lots, that allows a good stub pedestrian access that's public back to the school, it allows standard square lots, instead private driveway lots, which I don't like as much, and I know maybe it doesn't look as elegant as some things, but it does meet code and it really cleans some things up for the layout and for access and for some other things. Ithink any additional access to Waltman as we go to this last five acre parcel, probably isn't -- is not appropriate. Ithink between here, Gander, Waltman, we have got enough access and Waltman provides them agreat -- for their five acres a great access through us and out to Linder, so there will be dual access. I really think where we have this it works well for him in the future and gets anymore accesses off of Linder, which I think is the main goal as it goes to arterial, and we do give enough right of way. We are -- we are giving enough right of way to provide for that arterial, we just have a little bit narrower landscaping for approximately 75 feet in that area, we did come down, and, then, we open up again and I think it's a very minor request that maybe isn't ideal but we are hoping you can approve that. It's not really a variance. What was it called, Anna? Canning: Altemative compliance. Schultz: Altemative compliance. So, we hope you could approve that and -- did I miss anything, Mr. Borton? Borton: No. Schultz: Okay. Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council ~ • July 25, 2006 Page 69 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. Council -- yes, Anna. Canning: To my knowledge the lot lines shown here are correct. We have an application on this property that's currently zoned RUT that kind of does an odd hook shape and, then, stubs to the property immediately to the west. If that one were to develop they could line up an access with the proposed property. You can see that the property just south of this one is about the same shape and configuration to this one. It could conceivably develop in a similar pattern with just a single road with lots on either side. So, I had not been concerned about the ability of the area to develop in a logical manner. I thought that because of the parcel's shape and configuration we were probably okay. Borton: Okay. What started the concern was there is a -- one of the exhibits in the application is inaccurate. It shows -- it shows this location at a spot where it's not, where Gander was -- Schultz: Well, I'll get after my engineer tomorrow, tell him not to do that to me again. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Schultz: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. If the applicant has no further comments - Rountree: Madam Mayor, I do have a question for the applicant related to your choice of words about right of way on Linder. You indicated that you had given sufficient right of way. Will that be deeded to ACHD or will it be available for them to purchase? Schultz: How that typically works, Mayor and Councilman Rountree, if -- you know, they change the rules on us all the time at ACRD, whether they are buying or not. I'm used to granting it to them as a condition of my development. It's such a minor piece. If they want it prior to you developing, say they have something in the five year work plan, they want to go acquire it right now, you're not approved yet, they'll come to you and buy it early. In this case I'm not so sure they are in that big of a hurry to where just to wait for us to grant it with our application. You know, we are not looking to make any money off of ACHD. It will be a few thousand dollars, maybe, and it's just not worth it. It's just worth just giving it to them. De Weerd: And granted means dedicated. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 70 of 77 i Schultz: Dedicated. Give it. It's yours. Keep it. Do what you will. Rountree: Just wanted to make sure I understood what it was you said. Schultz: That's what I meant to say. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is nothing further, Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't hear anybody talking, so I'll move that we close public hearings AZ 06-027 and PP 06-026. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Geez, Council. Rountree: I'll second. De Weerd: Okay. It's just a Public Hearing. Closing it. Rountree: Give somebody else a tum. De Weerd: I do have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 15 and 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, do I have motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to get out of here tonight, so I move that we approve AZ 06-027 and incorporate staff and applicant comments. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 15. If there is no discussion -- and I don't see any -- 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 July 25, 2006 Page 71 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. Item 16. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 06-026 and incorporate staff and applicant comments. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 17: Approve 2007 Fiscal Year Tentative Budget: De Weerd: Okay. Item 17. You might have remembered doing a motion last week. What we didn't -- what we didn't have included was -- Bird: The amount. De Weerd: No. It had to do with some carry forward and, Mr. Nary, can -- do you know specifics? Or Mr. Berg. Berg: Yes, Madam Mayor. The budget last year did not -- or last week did not include some carry forward and some revenues that balanced the expenditures and pretty much you had kind of expenditures listed. So, if you compare them you have increased a little bit more from the last week, but this will be what is going to need to be published in the paper for the Public Hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Clerk, is that the 89 million -- that they went up to 89 million some -- yeah. What was that final figure? 89 six -- Berg: It's 89 -- 878,533. Bird: 878. And that's 89 million. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council • July 25, 2006 Page 72 of 77 Bird: I would move that we approve the tentative 2007 fiscal budget in the amount of 89,878,533 dollars. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Berg: Thank you, Council, for re-approving that. Bird: We wanted to make sure we did it wrong, so that Joe would be here this time. Item 18: Ordinance No. 06-1244 RZ 06-002 Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L (Light Industrial) to O-T (Old Town) zones for Stan Lantz by Stan Lantz - 608 West 3~d Street: Item 19: Ordinance No. 06-1246 AZ 06-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.08 acres .from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) zone for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road: De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, can we have ordinance numbers on these next three items? Bird: 1244, 1245, and 1246. I forgot. Berg: We can vacate - Bid: And 46 is vacated. Nary: Madam Mayor, we can vacate Item 20, because we are not ready to bring that ordinance forward yet. De Weerd: Okay. So, Mr. Berg, will you, please, read Items 18 and 19, ordinances number 06-1244 and 06-1246 by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1244, an ordinance finding that Stan Lance, the owner of certain real property have made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property located in the southwest quarter of Block 5 Westview Addition to the City of Meridian, located in the north one half of section -- of the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 73 of 77 ordinance and rezoning certain lands and temtory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning classification of from I-L to OT in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. Berg: Ordinance No. 06-1245, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 3 north, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and temtories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-4 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have heard these two ordinances read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Either one of them. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to approve. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve Ordinance 06-1244 and Ordinance 06-1245 with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve ordinances for Items 18 and 19. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Ordinance IWo. Parking Lot Exchange Ordinance and Real Property Exchange Agreement: De Weerd: Mr. Nary, so on Item 20, we are -- Nary: We also had item C, along with the others that are already -- Meridian City Council li July 25, 2006 Page 74 of 77 Bird: No. No. She means vacating the ordinance. We just have to make a motion to vacate it, don't we? Nary: Yes. Just make a motion to vacate that and we will bring it back when it's ready. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we vacate the parking lot exchange ordinance and real property exchange agreement. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. You have a motion in front of you on Item 20. Is there any discussion? Mr. Bird, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) - (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) and (d) - (to consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 3, title 9, Idaho Code): De Weerd: Okay. We have an addition to the agenda. Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a), (1)(c), and (1)(d). Rountree: Second. De Weerd: We have a motion to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 75 of 77 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Bird: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we come out of Executive Session. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Bird: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we take the proposal that we give Petra for construction management of the new City Hall on July 17, 2006 presented to and given one week to return it signed August 1St. Do you want me to go on? Nary: Since you did it on the record -didn't you do it on the record last week? Bird: Yeah. Nary: You just want to refer that you did it on the record at your meeting on July 18, 2006. Bird: On July 18t" we had approved the original contract. Rountree: Second. Wardle: Clarification? De Weerd: Yeah, clarification on if that is not signed the action that the negotiating team needs to do - Bird: That is what I wanted to know if we need to put that on? Nary: Yeah. If it isn't signed by August 1St at noon - is that preferable and that way it gives us time to notify you then what direction would you have? Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 76 of 77 Bird: If the second agrees the motion adds if contact with Petra is not signed then by noon of August 1St, the Negotiating Committee of the City Clerk and Assistant City Attorney will start negotiation with second place firm, Kreizenbeck Constructors, Inc. Rountree: Second agrees. De Weerd: Can you repeat the motion? Bird: I had a hard enough time getting through that. If you don't know what it is you are in trouble. De Weerd: Okay, a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Berg: (Inaudible) by the attorney? De Weerd: I think staff knows what was just said, right? Nary: Yes. De Weerd: Okay, Mr. Berg will call roll. Roll Call Vote: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Borton, aye; Wardle, aye; ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. De Weerd: Okay, do I have a motion to adjourn? Wardle: So moved. Rountree: Madame Mayor, I have some old business and I had asked Tammy - we got this letter from William Bohan about impact fees to all of us and I don't think any of us had responded to him. Bird: I thought Tammy was going to respond to him. Rountree: No, she said she - De Weerd: I had met with him and he wanted to write that to you guys. This way it is to the Council members. Wardle: I can write him today. I can copy my response to his email. I notified him of the potential hearing this evening and some of the further meetings and that there is a committee and I will just forward my communication with him to you. De Weerd: That would be great. Meridian City Council July 25, 2006 Page 77 of 77 Rountree: (Inaudible--). Wardle: I invited him to the Salmon feed, too. De Weerd: Wow, what a guy. Bird: Are you buying? Borton: I move we adjourn. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:58 P.M. MA' \` ~\ 1 ~® A~~~E ~:~~~~~ ~' ~s~ ~ ,0 ///~~~~~~ i r r t t t t~~~H~~t~~,y` S / is / ~~ DATE APPROVED (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) July 21, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 25, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of July 5, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • • July 21, 200 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 2s, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of June 22, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Ma#erials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i JUIy 21,2006 Rz ob-oos MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 200b APPLICANT Monterey, LLC ITEM NO. Jr-C REQUEST Findings for Approval -- Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R-4 (Low-Density Residential) to L-0 (Limited Office) zone, including modifications to the exisfing Development Agreement for Lochsa Falls Subdivision for Hastings - 2~ West Everest Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached FlndMys CITY ATTORNEY C{TY 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: ~~77 Contacted: ~ Date: 7 v~`~ D(p Phone: ,,~,~(,-'/~"DO® Emailed: ~ ~i Staff Initials: ~ ~ ~' Materials presented at pu c meeHn~s shad become properly of the CHy of Meridian. • ~ R,ECEiVED 1UL 1 8 2006 City ®f Meridian C~ty~~,llerk Of~.ce CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER s. e~t~r' ~~~ LF , ~ y-~ ~, ,~.~ 4,~ ~~. °r,r.= .~--•~r In the Matter of Rezone of 3.13 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office District), AND Vacation of Public Utilities, Irrigation and Lot Drainage Easement on both sides of the lot line common to Lots 46 and 47, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12, by Monterey, LLC Case No(s).: RZ-06-003 and VAC-06-006 For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 5, 2006 (Findings on the July 25th, 2006 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted 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-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-003 /VAC-06-006 -PAGE 1 of 3 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected parry requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the applications. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: The applicant's request for rezone and vacation requests are hereby conditionally approved; 2. The conditions of approval are as shown in Exhibit A of the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe 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 maybe 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. E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-003 /VAC-06-006 -PAGE 2 of 3 • ~h By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the Z ~ ~ day of ~, 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED_~~~`'' COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED-,6~~!~~'` COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED__~~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED_ ~/~~'~ TIE BREAKER ----- MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED ,~ GC./~~1 a~ \,a\M~,Y" ~ ~~o®de WEERD ~~ r ATTEST: ~' ~' ~~~ ~~s"~~u - - WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ~ ;~ ry~~~ ~.~ ~~~~>° s~ej~///diIPPIPI VVI 1\".1~~`e~t Copy served upon: / Applicant -~~ Planning Department ~ Public Works Department City Attorney By: f LQ,~,1~.~ Dated: -[ - 2~1 'OlD City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-003 /VAC-06-006 -PAGE 3 of 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5. 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 7/5/2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager SUBJECT: Hastings Rezone • RZ-06-003 .¢<i ,' . J y, ~ .rv Cf'B"N nE ~a FBI ' r.. i- ~- +, Ir~:~a e„~, ~® ~.~~. Rezone of 3.13 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office District), by Monterey, LLC • VAC-06-006 Vacation of Public Utilities, Irrigation and Lot Drainage Easement on both sides of the lot line common to Lots 46 and 47, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12, by Monterey, LLC 1.5iJNIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Monterey, LLC, has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 3.13 acres from R-4 to L-O (Limited Office). The applicant is requesting the subject property be rezoned so that the zoning of this property will match the future land uses (this area was approved for office uses as part of the Lochsa Falls PUD in 2002). The applicant is also requesting that the existing public utilities, irrigation and lot drainage easements on both sides of the lot lines common to Lots 46 and 47, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 be vacated. The applicant intends to construct a building across said lot lines. The site is comprised of two recorded lots in Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12, which is located on the south side of Chinden Boulevard and on the east side of Long Lake Way in Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. This site is currently vacant. 2. SUNIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. According to the UDC, the Planning & Zoning Commission does not need to make a recommendation to the Council on the vacation application. However, because the subject applications are on the same property, staff has combined the analysis into one report. The City Council is the final decision making body on the Rezone and the Vacation applications. The Commission should make recommendation to the Council on the rezone request only, RZ-06-003. Staff recommends approval of RZ-06-003 and VAC-06-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearine date of Mav 18, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions in the attached Exhibit A. NOTE: Because this is only a rezone application, and no new development is being proposed, there are no conditions of approval. The Meridian Plannins and Zoning Commission heard the item on Mav 18a'. 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Nate Hosac ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Sidewalk requirement on the south side of this property, along the north side of Everest Lane (a private street). Hastings Rezone - RZ-06-003NAC-06-006 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Accepted the applicant's willingness to construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the property (see Exhibit A, Comment 1.3) d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval I move to approve File Numbers RZ-06-003 and VAC-06-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006, with the following changes to the staff report: (add any proposed modifications). Denial I move to deny File Numbers RZ-06-003 and VAC-06-006 as presented during the hearing on July 5, 2006, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial. They should address how the applicant might re-do the application to gain your recommendation for approval). Continue I move to continue the public hearing for File Numbers RZ-06-003 and/or VAC-06-006 to (date certain) for the following reason(s): (insert reason). 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 2300 W. Everest Lane; South side of Chinden Boulevard, east of Long Lake Way in Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. b. Owner/Applicant: Monterey, LLC 10221 W. Emerald Street, Ste. 100 Boise, ID 83704 c. Representative: Gene Smith, Engineering Northwest d. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Community £ Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting approval to rezone 3.13 acres of property currently zoned R-4 to L-O. The subject property was previously approved for office uses as part of the Lochsa Falls Planned Unit Development and the 20% land use exception. The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property so that zoning will match the future office uses on this site. Subsequent to the rezone being approved, the applicant intends to construct eight single-story office buildings on this site. One of those office buildings is planned to be located on the lot lines between Lots 46 and 47, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12. There is a platted utility, drainage and irrigation easement on both sides of the lot line common to Lots 46 and 47 that is also proposed to be vacated concurrent to the rezone request. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-3, a public hearing is required before the City Hastings Rezone - RZ-06-003NAC-06-006 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~IG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: May 1St and May 15th, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 12th and 26th, 2006 (for City Council hearing) c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: Apri121st, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 9th, 2006 (for City Council hearing) d. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 8th, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 25th, 2006 (for City Council hearing) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The area along this portion of Everest Lane (private lane) is developing with office uses. Residential uses to the south and east of the site are rapidly being constructed. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Vacant, zoned RUT in Ada County 2. East: Vacant, zoned R-4 (future office), Lochsa Falls Subdivision. 3. South: Residential, zoned R-4, Lochsa Falls Subdivision 4. West: Future School site in Silver Leaf Subdivision, zoned R-4 d. History of Previous Actions: In 2002 a 354 acre 870 lot subdivision and annexation request for Lochsa Falls Subdivision was approved by the City. A Planned Development Site Specific condition of approval requires all future uses within the office phases of this development to obtain CUP approval. Earlier this year, the Commission approved CUP-06- 008, adetailed CUP request for two office buildings on this site. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Lochsa Falls Subdivision. Everest Lane Location of water: Lochsa Falls Subdivision. Everest Lane Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: Existing landscaping along Long Lake Way and Chinden Boulevard 3. Flood plain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: None. 5. Hazards: None. 6. Proposed Zoning: L-O 8. Size of Property: 3.13 acres f. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Setbacks: per the L-O zone L-O Standard Front 20 feet Side 10 feet Hasrings Rezone - RZ-06-003NAC-06-006 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~IG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Rear ZO feet Max. Building Height 35 feet Min. Lot Size None Min. Street Frontage None g. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the site will be from existing curb cuts on Everest Lane, a private access street. No access to Long Lake Way or Chinden Boulevard should be allowed to this site. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On April 28, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. No significant comments were received from any agencies or departments. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions in the attached Exhibit A. Because this is only a rezone application, there are no conditions of approval. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as "Mixed Use -Community", and it is currently zoned R-4. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The MU-C has an upper limit on the square footage of non- residential uses and is intended to allow a focused range of uses in close proximity of residential uses. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that maybe provided at the public hearing when determining the most appropriate zone for this property. Staff finds the following Goals, Objectives, and Action items contained in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan to be applicable to this application (staff analysis is in italics below policy): • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action item 5) The applicant will be required to construct landscaping which complies with the Unifed Development Code, when the future off ce buildings are constructed. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of fmal approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action item 6) The subject site can be serviced by the City of Meridian's sanitaYy sewer and water systems. Stafffinds that the proposal is harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists office as a permitted uses in the L-O zone. The Planned Development allowed for office uses in the R-4 zone as of the 2002 approval under the Meridian City Code. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures Hastings Rezone - RZ-06-003NAC-06-006 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation REZONE ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a rezone of this property, primarily because City staff requested that they rezone to clean-up the property. The applicant is currently entitled to office uses on this site, subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. Staff recommends that this property be zoned to L-O to reflect the future land uses. Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed zoning with the UDC, staff believes that the rezoning of this site to L-O is in the best interest of the City. Please see Exhibit C for detailed analysis of facts and findings. The rezone legal description submitted with the application (prepared on March 15, 2006 by James R. Washburn, PLS) shows the property within the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. All future re-development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development, and the Development Agreement in effect for this site. All future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. VACATION ANALYSIS The applicant has provided notarized consent to vacate from all of the major utilities including: Idaho Power Company, Qwest, Intermountain Gas, Cable One and Settlers' Irrigation District. The Meridian Public Works Department also consents to the requested vacation of the public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along both sides of the lot line common to Lots 46 and 47, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12. NOTE: There are no required fmdings for a vacation application. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of RZ-06-003 and VAC-06-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions in the attached Exhibit A (because this is only a rezone application, there are no conditions of approval.) On Mav 18, 2006 the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the subiect rezone application with the Comments listed in Exhibit A. NOTE: Because vacations do not require Commission action, the Planning & Zoning Commission did not hear. and therefore did not make a recommendation to the Council on VAC-06-006. 11. EXITS A. Agency and Department Comments 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department B. Legal Description C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Hastings Rezone - RZ-06-003NAC-06-006 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 D. Easement to be Vacated Hastings Rezone - RZ-06-003NAC-06-006 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PL~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~IG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 A. Agency and Department Comments 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The legal description prepared by James R. Washburn, PLS, dated March 15, 2006 and submitted with the application is accurate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission. 1.2 All future uses on this site should comply with the provisions of the Unified Development Code in effect at the time of submittal. 1.3 The apulicant has agreed to construct a five foot wide sidewalk on the southern five feet of the subiect Arouerty, on the north side of Everest Lane, as none currently exists. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 This property currently has sewer and water mains installed along its frontage. Public Works has no concerns with the rezone or vacation applications. Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 B. Legal Description 423 N. Ana~cs6ar . Suite IBO Bmis~. 83?Od (20$) 97~-St~9 • lax (2Q$) 37~555b Project Na. OS-058-0t E7atc: March 15, 2006 Lt)i~, ~Al<.L~ ~I1BIfI~'I3~I(~1~T 1Vtl~~ 12 L 45 47', ~L~IC 49 ~~~~IIP'T`iON +~ parcet of Iend tag II ~ arld 47',131ack 49 after Falls Subdivision No. tZ, same is shown. on the P~ (recorded ra Book 92 of Ptats at Page k0958 oi?'.AcEa Coemty Reaarda, toed in the iVW If4 of the NE k/4 mf3~tioa 26, T. 4 N., R k W.. B.M., Meridian, A.da County, Idatm, more Y ct a~ faktowa: ' at Use sccaoa coraa° comaglose W Sc~tions 23. Z4. x5 and Z6 of seict 1'. 4 N., R. t ~.; ~ North 89°38~13~ Wes, 2630.Ott feet on the section tans cornm~on to said SecEioais 23 acct Zb ts- the U4 sediatn corner won to S 23 and 2~; Thence revarsinS dirr.on, Sout4 tt9~3tt'ZO" x,199.?9 Feet; Th,~e teavin~ said ~ tine South 00~1'4fY' West, 105.00 feet to tt~ comer arf Lat 4?, lil,ock 49 of wick I.oclutm Falls Stat~livisioJt No. kZ~ said point beiicg the R~Ait, pOt11iT 8F BEGIl1Ik1tII~lG; 17ieuce SauJh 89°38'ZO" ~, 444.tM9 feet ~ the nor~rty tot tiara of said I 47 ~ 40 to the norehetky tot carver tQ L+ats 45 end ~6, B 44 of said Subdivision; Tltenco Sots OO~t'4~" West,. 310.13 feet are the lot t$exe commons to said Lots 4S ansl4b to the sauilterly lot corms wmnaa~s tQ st+id Lots 45 mu14fG; 1'la~tse North 89°3li'24t"" FNest, +S4CtA(t fret an flee sautherly la# tine of said Lots 4d aed 47 to the santhweart cow of mid 4?; Thence North 00°2k'40" 310.k3 fed ~a the w~terty tat tine of said Lot 4? to the r~l point ofbegi~,tg. Said p rontaitis ~.t3 safes tnotro ar less. PRlzt~AR~~ 13Ye ~ NortlrWest, LLtr ~ y ifA,t~s-'r Nastlnga sab. Re-2ma ik~.dm r,<,rrRl(,71aaN PLJ@LIC d8i~# Id. 'REBiLKhbliFDy Y'~KS CJEPt'~ r~i•te Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 N N vi ui ~ ~ vi tri *~ Q M"' ~~ Q4 ~ r.~ N ,~ e ~ ~ 4 N m ~. c v ~~ N m v, N N vi til ®"---~_ Qt~024 ~3CIIV~1 "4W ~ ~'~~ I ~ I ® ~~ $ 4~ a 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~. _ o ~,.. v n ~ u . i` @U _ ir- Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 18, 2006 C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to L-O. Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Council fmds that professional and personal services (offices) are permitted within the requested zoning district of L-O. Staff fmds that the site is large enough to contain the required parking and landscaping. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Commission and Council should rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Council fmds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~lG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 18, 2006 D. Easement to be Vacated ~4~~ ~' SDIYI~I~~YNQ.12 ~a~s~~ ~, ~~ol~x~~ PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT VACATiQN SCALE: 1" ~ 100' S 89 38°~~° E 220.OG1_ - - -- ~- d ~ ~~DG/~ ~~ w a~ ff 9' 810E PZ1~.16." UtiiR1E ~ I ~r~ A a~~ 47 2'I ~.~„~.~~ N 89`38'2" 4~ Z2~3 W. E'dEREST LJ~ 3• ~ ~ ~I~ I~ P B ~t~ ~~ ~" e ~~ 46 ~ cv ~~°o ~~en - - -_ -_- ~..1 M~8 x'20" W 22Q.00° ~PR1dA'4E ROAD, Exhibit D i July 21,2006 C~ RZ 06-004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT SLC Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 5-D REQUEST Endings for Approval -Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-0 (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision -1021 West Pine Avenue AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: us WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS See e~ftached Ffndinga OTHER: Contacted:. ~ Date:2 ~ ~ Phone: ~ ~c " ~ 3 Emailed: .CU S aff Initials: ' Materials presented of public meetlrt~ shalt become properly of the CNy of Meddim~. i CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ~~i ~uL 1 s coos City ®f Meridian City !C?grk Offiice ,.. ; e-n-w r,~ ~ ~~~~ , 4, ir~.~ y.k ~. ~''e JJ: In the Matter of Rezone of 5.49 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres), AND Preliminary Plat of 7 building lots (six 4- plex lots and 1 church lot) and 2 common lots on 5.33 acres, AND Conditional Use Permit to construct six multi-family (4-plex) dwelling units, by SLC Investments, LLC. Case No(s): RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 5, 2006 (Findings approved on July 25, 2006) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted 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-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 1 of 5 • • 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 Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, Landscape Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated January 24, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The applicant's Landscape Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Landscape Plan dated February 14, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 3. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing: a. The Development Agreement for this property shall only apply to the R-15 uortion of the property. b. The applicant shall install non-flammable fencing along the southern boundary of the site, adiacent to the rail road tracks. 4. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditions use permits that also require platting, the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 2 of 5 ~ i final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. Z. Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record a final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. 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 (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B- 7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis T'he Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe 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 maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 3 of 5 • this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 4 of 5 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD • 2 ~~ day of VOTED-~~~~~` VOTED__~~~~ VOTED__~~~ VOTED_ I~~W'~ TIE BREAKER MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, ATTEST: ~ ~ ~~ ' _ ~i~~~~ LLIAM G. B RG JR. C '` ~~\ WI ~ ~ ~r ~~-~ • ~ ~.. ~'~~~/rrrrrrs n~eeeee~ta Copy served upon: ~ Applicant Planning Department -~ Public Works Department City Attorney By: ~~A.9.~.~-~ Dated: -1-2°1-01 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 5 of 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 5, 2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Rushmore Subdivision J ~,~.- ' ~ ctF4° ~ra~ et ~ - - =~ 4 _ uae~ur~ w' ,~i, ~, °: ~~ ~~ R2-06-004 -Rezone of 5.49 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited O~ce)(3.32 acres) PP-06-021- Preliminary Plat of 7 building lots (six 4-plex lots and 1 church lot) and 2 common lots on 5.33 acres CUP-06-014 -Conditional Use Permit to construct six multi-family (4-plex) dwelling units 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, SLC Investments, LLC, has applied for Rezoning (RZ) of 5.49 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres); Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 6multi-family building lots, 1 church/office lot and 2 common lots; and, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct six multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes). Currently, there is a church (Meridian Friends Church) on the north part of this site; the south part of the site is vacant. The site is part of the West Lawn Subdivision, which was recorded in 1906. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and the corporate boundaries of the City of Meridian. 2. SUIVIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Generally, the Planning & Zoning Commission is the final decision making body on a Conditional Use Permit request. However, because the City Council is the final decision making body on the Rezone and Preliminary Plat applications, all three of the subject applications are being combined into one staff report. The Commission should make recommendations to the Council on all of the subject applications. Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Rushmore Subdivision (RZ-06-004, PP-06-0~ 1 and CUP-06-014) with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. The Meridian Plannine and Zonine Commission heard the item on Mav 18.2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Michael Vance, Ken Redford ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Appropriate width and construction timeline for the street buffer along Pine Avenue; ii. Fencing; and, iii. Neighborhood interconnectivity. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 i. Recommended allowing landscape buffer along Pine Avenue to be constructed when the Church expands; ii. Required fencing along the south property line, adjacent to the railroad tracks. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 as presented during the public hearing of July 5, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1021 W. Pine Avenue; South side of Pine Avenue, east of Linder Road, in Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. b. Owners: Meridian Friends Church 1021 W. Pine Street Meridian, ID 83642 Burr International, Inc. P.O. Box 6486 Boise, ID 83707 c. Applicant: SLC investments, LLC 3210 E. Chinden Boulevard, Ste 115-327 Eagle, ID 83616 d. Representative: Michael Vance e. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for Rezoning (RZ) of 5.49 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres); Preliminary Plat (PP) approval Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE Z CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAM~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~2ING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 of 6multi-family building lots, 1 church/office lot and 2 common lots; and, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct six multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes). The average multi-family lot size in the proposed development is 5,880 square feet. All of the proposed 4- plexes contain two two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units. The total square footage of each building is 4,160 square feet. The gross density of this development is 4.5 dwelling units per acre, while the density of the area proposed for R-15 zoning is 11.06 dwelling units per acre (excludes church site). Approximately 7.3% of the site is being set aside for open space (17% of the multi-family area). The applicant is proposing to construct a management office, a bike storage area, a maintenance building, a community directory map, and a children's play area within the common area, Lot 1, Block 2. 1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 1/24/06 2. Date of landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 2/14/06 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. d. Newspaper notifications published on: May 1st and May 15t~, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 12th and 26~`, 2006 (for City Council hearing) e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: Apri121 st, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 9t", 2006 (for City Council hearing) f. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 8t~, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 25~', 2006 (for City Council hearing) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There are existing church buildings and a parking lot on the north part of this site. The south part of this site is currently vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Across Pine Avenue and to the east are primarily single-family homes. To the south are the railroad tracks and to the west is the proposed Rock Creek development that includes multi-family dwellings and two office lots. This area can be classified as urban mixed use. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Single-family homes, zoned R-4, Canna Lilly Estates Subdivision 2. West: Future multi-family dwellings and offices, zoned R-15 and L-O, Rock Creek Subdivision 3. South: Railroad tracks and industrial uses, zoned I-L 4. East: Single-family homes, zoned R-8, Tremont Place Subdivision d. History of Previous Actions: None. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAM~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer stub in West Broadway Avenue and the north side of Nine Mile Creek on each side of the property. Location of water: Water stub in West Broadway Avenue and there is a main in W. Pine Street. Issues or concerns: Flood plain associated with Ninemile Creek. 2. Floodplain: Portions of this property are within the Ninemile Creek floodplain. 3. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Rutledge Lateral runs along the southern boundary of this property. The Ninemile Creek bisects this property; this waterway should be protected. All other open ditches or laterals, including the Rutledge, that cross the subject site should be tiled in accordance with the UDC. 4. Hazards: Staff is recommending that the Ninemile Creek be fenced with open-vision fencing to protect the safety of the residents in this area. Staff is not aware of any other hazards associated with this property. 5. Proposed and Existing Zoning: This property is currently zoned R-4. The applicant is proposing to zone 2.2 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) and 3.3 acres to L-O (Limited Office). 6. Size of Property: 5.49 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 2. Non-residential Lots: 3. Total Building Lots: 4. Common Lots: 5. Other Lots: 0 6. Total Lots: 9 7. Gross Density: g. Landscaping 6 multi-family (4-plex) 1 (church/office) 7 2 11 dwelling units per acre (net 18.8 d.u./acre)(Block 2) 1. Width of street buffer(s): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). The existing church parking lot encroaches into the required street buffer for Pine Avenue. Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report below for further analysis. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: The applicant states that 17.5% (0.38 acres) of the site is being set aside for open space (0.14 acres of common open space). Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report for more details. h. Amenities: For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities shall be provided, with 1 from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation)(UDC 11- 4-3.27D-2d). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: enclosed bike storage (Quality Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~iING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area, development map/directory, (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking path/sidewalks (Recreation), and open space (Open Space). i. OfF Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have atwo-car covered carport or garage for each unit. The submitted preliminary plat proposes covered parking spaces for most of the multi-family (4-plex) dwellings. Because all of the units in this development contain two or more bedrooms, all of the parking stalls in this development should be covered. Also, staff has concern about the remoteness of some of the parking stalls, in relation to the units. Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report below for more analysis. j. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 200 square feet bike & maintenance storage 2. Proposed building height: 22 feet; R-15 zone allows 40 feet 3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: approximately 25% 4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: approximately 20% 5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: approximately 55% 6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: 0% 7. Number of Residential units: 24 k. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): There are two public streets stubbed to the subject property from the east. West Broadway Avenue is stubbed to the southern portion of this site and Idaho Avenue is stubbed to the northern portion of this site. The applicant is proposing to extend Broadway Avenue into the site from the east with a cul-de-sac. A loop private driveway system is proposed around the Broadway Avenue cul-de-sac. The applicant is not proposing to extend the Idaho Avenue stub into the site. NOTE: ACRD is not requiring that Idaho Avenue be extended into the site at this time. When and if the church lot, Lot 1, Block 1, comes in for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for any additions or re-constructions in the future, staff intends to require a permanent public turnaround for Idaho Street. There are two existing driveways to Pine Avenue that serve the existing church. ACRD has not evaluated these driveways for compliance with policy. Please see Exhibit B for ACHD's comments and conditions regarding this development. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On April 28, 2006, staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated `Public/Quasi-Public' on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Public/Quasi Public is defined as "Areas are designated to preserve and protect existing private, municipal, state, and federal lands for area residents and visitors. This category includes churches and public lands (excluding parks and schools) within the Area of Impact. Upon redevelopment of such properties, a change in designation and use maybe appropriate. The redevelopment of these areas should be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the property. The appropriate land use Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 designation and accompanying zoning for these areas will be determined by City Council on a case by case basis." (Chapter VII, Section 1, Pg. 99, Meridian Comprehensive Plan). Within this report, staff has evaluated the subject proposal using the existing use, the underlying zoning, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation. The lands immediately to the west have previously been approved for multi-family uses. The property to the north and east are residential. Staff believes that the existing church, zoned R-4, and the proposed multi-family development can be compatible uses. This property is located between Pine Avenue, a collector roadway, and the railroad, a potential future transportation corridor. Staff believes that the location of this proposed medium-high density development is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map does not explicitly support the proposed zone change, staff fmds that there are several Comprehensive Plan policies that do support the proposed zone change. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fite Department. This service will not change. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). This service will not change. • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACLID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject rezone. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. Pine Avenue is classed as a collector roadway in this area. The existing access points to Pine Avenue should comply with ACFID's standards. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1: Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. This is an infill parcel with the properties adjacent to the subject site varying in density and housing type. North of the site are existing single family dwellings. East of the site is a single family subdivision. West of the site is a mixed-use development with multi family Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~tING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 dwellings. Staff believes that the proposed development should be compatible with the existing land uses. • Chapter V, Goal 1, Objective A, Action 11: Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas. The Rutledge Lateral and the Ninemile Creek course through or are adjacent to this site. Staff believes that the Ninemile Creek should be protected and enhanced by being left open and by the applicant constructing a pathway adjacent to the Ninemile Creek (see Exhibit B). • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.). The applicant is not proposing any landscaping adjacent to Pine Avenue. By ordinance, a 20- footwide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Pine Avenue. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3: Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land-use decisions. This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. Staff believes that the subject applications generally comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6: Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The project to the west, Rock Creek, has not provided opportunities for the subject site to provide vehicular connectivity (no stub streets or driveways). However, two stub streets were provided to this site from the east. The applicant is proposing to extend one of the two stub streets into this site. This proposal will provide interconnectivity with the subdivisions to the east. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5: Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system. The adjacent project to the west, Rock Creek, has provided a pedestrian connection to this site along the north side of the Ninemile Creek. The applicant is proposing to extend this pathway to and through the development. Because the property to the east has already been developed, the City should look into extending the pathway further to the east. This proposal should enhance the community pathway system. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6: Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. See analysis above. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 • Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9: Require new residential development to provide permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties. Prior to construction of any buildings, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter of this site. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-ZA-2 lists multi-family development uses as conditional uses in the R-15 zoning district; churches aze principally permitted in the L-O zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zones: MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15): The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts aze distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. Residential land uses are also allowed within the O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts as set forth in Chapter 3 Article D. LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT (L-O): The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts aze designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. c. Multifamily Development (UDC 11-4-3.27) The following standazds shall apply for the multifamily units, including standazds for Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. Site design (UDC 11-4-3.27B): A minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, andlor enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. For the purposes of this Section, vehiculaz circulation areas, parking azeas, and private useable open space shall not be considered common open space. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3 of this Title. Developments with 20 units or more shall provide the following: a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location, a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. Common open space design requirements (UDC 11-4-3.27C): Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~ING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height. Site development amenities (UDC 11-4-3.27D): All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to met the particular needs of the residents as follows: a) Quality of Life (clubhouse, fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and public are such as a statue); b) Open Space (open grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size, community garden, ponds or water features, and plazas); and c) Recreation (pool, walking trails, children's play structures, and sports courts). The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: For multifamily developments between 20 and 75 units, 3 amenities shall be provided, with at least 1 from each category. Architectural Character (UDC 11-4-3.27.E): All building elevations shall have a minimum portion of the elevation devoted to architectural features designed to provide articulation and variety. These features shall include, but are not limited to windows, bays and offsetting walls that extend at least two feet; recessed entrances; and changes in material types. Changes in material types shall have a minimum dimension of two feet and minimum area of 25 square feet. Main entrances, which are the primary point(s) of entry where the majority of building users will enter and leave, shall be designed as an obvious entrance and focal point of the building through architectural treatment, lighting, and address identification. Entrances shall be adequately covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided. Roof forms shall be distinctive and include variety and detail when viewed from the street. Sloped roofs shall have a significant pitch. Flat roofs should include distinctive cornice treatments. Exterior building materials and fmishes shall convey an impression of permanence and durability. Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and the are encouraged. Windows are required to allow views to exterior activity areas or vistas. Windows shall be provided on any building facing any common area used for children's recreation. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment should be screened from public view from the adjacent public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. Landscapin~(UDC 11-4-3.27.F): Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~tING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3 of this Title. All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: The landscaped area shall be at least three feet wide; for every three lineal feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches shall be planted; and groundcover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. UDC 11-4-3.27.G: All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. Outdoor storage/refuse areas (iJDC 11-3A-121: Outdoor utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. 10. ANALYSIS Analysis Leading to Staff Recommendation As submitted, the subject applications appear to substantially comply with the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. However, there are some modifications to the site plan, the preliminary plat, and the landscape plan that staff would like to see made. In each section below, staff has listed the items that staff would like to see amended. 1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan staff believes that this is a good location for a higher density development and the proposed R-15 and L-O zoning. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a Zoning Amendment. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on 3/8/2006 by Robert W. Fodrea, PLS) shows the property within the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. UDC 11-SB-3D2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion as to not negatively impact nearby properties. Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of rezone ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney. Bill Nark at 888-4433 to initiate this process. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal Department to draft a development agreement for the R-15 portion of Rushmore Subdivision only as follows: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~tING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1. That all future development shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 2. That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with the applicant's approved preliminary plat unless otherwise modified by other provisions of the DA, or in the future by the City Council. 3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. 4. That the future uses and lots on this site shall conform to the District Regulations contained in the Unified Development Code (UDC), in effect at the time of development. 5. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 6. That 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. 7. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided (a recorded final plat) in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 8. That when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (church lot), a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC (or a new CUP must be submitted and approved by the City)• 2. PP/CUP Applications: Landscaping:, The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, on 2-14- 06, labeled Sheet L1.0, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. • Widen to at least 5 feet (measured inside curbs) and provide at least one tree within the landscape planter in the parking stalls between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (UDC 11-3B-8C2) • All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE I1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~tING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 Submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application. Multi-family Standards: The UDC has several specific standards that apply to multi- family developments (See UDC Section 9 above for a complete list.) These standards apply to Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. Below are some of the standards that the applicant should be required to comply with. Private Useable Open Space: UDC 11-4-3.27B requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. It appears that there is some type of a patio area on the rear of the proposed 4-plexes. However this does not appear to be enough private area for each unit within each building. The applicant should clarify,. at the public hearins how the private useable open space requirement will be met for each unit. Parkins: UDC 11-3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have atwo-car covered carport or garage for each unit. A1124 of the proposed units contain 2 or more bedrooms. The submitted preliminary plat does depict that 44 of the 48 proposed parking spaces will be covered. The applicant should be required to comply with the off-street parking requirements of the UDC. NOTE: Staff has concerns with how far away the parking area on the northeast side of the multi-family portion of this development is from the units. See Site Layout below. Amenities: The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multifamily development. For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities shall be provided, with 1 from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation)(UDC 11-4-3.27D-2d). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: enclosed bike storage (Quality of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area, development map/directory, (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking path/sidewalks (Recreation), and open space (Open Space). Staff believes that the proposed amenities satisfy the UDC requirements. Staff is supportive of the proposed amenities. Elevations: With the application submittal the applicant provided one building elevation (front) for the proposed 4-plea structures. Since the original submittal the applicant has provided all four building elevations to staff. UDC 11-4-3 requires multifamily structures to comply with the design standards listed in this section. It appears that the elevations provided comply with UDC 11-4-3.27E. NOTE: Staff will ensure that when CZC applications are submitted for construction of the 4-plex buildings in the future, that the elevations also comply with the UDC requirements and are consistent with those attached in Exhibit A. Pedestrian Paths: With the approval of the Rock Creek development to the west, a 5- foot wide pedestrian walkway was required on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. The applicant is proposing to extend the pedestrian pathway in Rock Creek to this site's eastern boundary. Said pathway should be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8 (construction) and UDC 11-3B (landscaping). Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 In 1996, COMPASS adopted the pathway recommendations laid out in the Ridge-to- Rivers Pathway Plan (1996). The goals of the plan include developing a bikeway and pathway system that encourages non-motorized transportation and enhances recreational opportunities. The Union Pacific Railroad corridor abutting the south property line is shown as a proposed multi-use pathway in Figure VI-3 (Off-Street Multiple-Use Pathways) in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. There is also amulti-use pathway shown adjacent to the Ninemile Drain in the Comprehensive Plan. In the past, the City has not required the construction of a pathway within the Union Pacific Railroad corridor, but has required developers that abut the future pathway to provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping. Consistent with previous Council action, the Applicant should not be required to construct amulti-use pathway adjacent to the southern boundary, but should be required to provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping along the south property line. There is an existing 25-foot wide irrigation easement within the rear setback. At a minimum, the Applicant should be required to plant trees in accordance with MCC (1 tree per every 35-lineal feet) on the south side of the buildings. Ninemile Creek and Rutledge Lateral: The Ninemile Creek and the Rutledge Lateral course through or are adjacent to this site. UDC 11-3A-6 requires natural waterways to be left open as a natural amenity, and for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains that are not being used as an amenity to be piped or otherwise covered. The Ninemile Creek is a natural waterway that should be protected and enhanced by leaving it open and constructing a pathway adjacent to it. The Rutledge Lateral should be piped. Multi-family Setbacks: The UDC does not have a specific setback between internal multi-family units. However, there may be a problem with not providing a full 10-foot front setback to the 4-plex units; utilities may need a wider easement. The front setback shown on the proposed 4-plex units, approximately 12 to 14 feet, should be sufficient. At least a 10-foot wide front setback should be provided between all 4- plexes and the back of the adjacent sidewalk. Pine Avenue Street Buffer: A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). There is existing parking for the church near Pine Avenue that encroaches into the required buffer area. Staff realizes that the church lot is not developing at this time, but it is part of the subject subdivision and subject to compliance with the UDC. Therefore, staff recommends that prior to occupancy of the first 4-plex, the applicant agrees to submit and gain approval for alternative landscaping compliance adjacent to Pine Avenue. Further, when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (church lot) in the future, a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC. NOTE: Staff has made this a provision of the Development Agreement and not a condition of the plat or CUP. Oven Space: Open space is defined as an area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The areas may include, along with the natural environment features, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. The term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures of habitation (UDC 11-1A). UDC 11-4- 3.27C requires a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 13 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~tING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height. The applicant states that 0.14 acres (6,098 square feet) of the site is being set aside for common open space. Based on the square footage of the proposed 4-plexes, each unit contains 4,160 square feet, 8,400 square feet of common open space should be provided. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Rushmore Subdivision Home Owners' Association(s). The applicant should explain where and how the common open space requirements mentioned above will be met. Fencing: The applicant has not proposed any fencing for this the development. Staff recommends that the applicant testify at the~ublic hearing if perimeter fencing, will be installed and what type. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A-7. Per UDC 11-3A-6B3 requires open vision fencing along waterways where it is in the best interest of public safety. Staff recommends that the Council require open-vision fencing on both sides of the Ninemile Creek. Pressure Irri ag tion: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A- 15 and MCC 9-1-28. Site Layout: As mentioned above, the submitted plat does propose 48 parking stall on this site. However, staff believes that there is one problem with the way the development is currently laid out. Lot 5, Block 2, which is located in the southwest corner of the development has no parking in front of the building. Staff is concerned about the remoteness of the parking area in the northeast corner in relation to the units. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council determine if there are too many units on this site. Staff Recommendation: Based on the facts provided in this report, staff recommends approval of File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. On May 18 2006 the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend anyroval of the subiect applications to the City Council, with the Development Agreement provisions listed in Section 10 and the Conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. 11. EI~~ITS A. Drawings Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~iING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1-24-06) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: 2-14-06) 3. Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department 9. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District C. Legal Descriptions D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1-24-06) ~,~ `~ tea., .,-o..~..,~...~.--..~_..~ - 6a d 6~~ ` f~ ~,~ ., ~ a i t9~ a ~ ~ g~ Ba~ ~1 ~ a~a~~~~~isdr~~~E6l~~~~~ii6~@~ #il1~~E~~f1~~~~~A~~~~~E11~l9B~1 ~ '~ii~~ ~ .~~~ ~raS rrr~>~~- ~ _ f '~ r~af ,_ m _ aArinr aeew~oi ,pGp 2 f ~ ~~ v E ~o~ ~` ~f R._3 -l .~ 1, ~ Exhibit A -Page I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated 2-14-06) g-- - ~_ °~ ~~~ Ord v nr~ws. - ~.. `suj ~1~0~ IIO~~~ ;_ sett !~ wwauar _ ~ ~ ; ~ 6 e t a 1~' ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~~~ ~ I~~ ~ 11~lEYte Ill8sEl/ola 0lttase Z ~~ t Exhibit A -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 3. Elevations Exhibit A -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~tING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 I~ Exhibit A -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 J Exhibit A -Page 5 ~Z\~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN1~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-021) 1.1.1 The preliminary plat/site plan labeled Sheet No. 1 o f 1, prepared by Rennison Fodrea, Inc., dated January 24, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Rezone (RZ-06-004) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-014) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-06-021). 1.1.2 The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, on 2-14-06, labeled Sheet L1.0, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. • Widen to at least 5 feet (measured inside curbs) and provide at least one tree within the landscape planter in the parking stalls between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (iTDC 11-3B-8C2) • All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application. 1.1.3 Provide a cross parking/cross access easement for all of the lots in Block 2 to use common Lot 1 as access to Broadway Avenue. A copy of a recorded cross-access/ingress-egress and parking maintenance agreement shall be provided to the City. 1.1.4 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Rushmore Subdivision Homeowners' Association. 1.1.5 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways (Ninemile Creek), intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13, unless otherwise approved by the Irrigation District(s). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. Per UDC 11-3A-6B3, open vision fencing is required along waterways where it is in the best interest of public safety. Staff recommends that the Council require open-vision fencing on both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 1.1.6 Other than the public street access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the fmal plat restricting access to W. Pine Avenue. Exhibit B -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1.1.7 Underground near-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant shall be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.1.8 Provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the development. Said landscape buffer may be included within the existing irrigation easement for the Rutledge Lateral if a license agreement for landscaping is obtained from the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID). If the Applicant is unable to obtain a license agreement from NMID, provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer outside of the NMID easement. 1.1.9 All internal sidewalks shall be constructed as submitted and in accordance with MCC 12-5-2.K. 1.1.10 No building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building structure or land be established or change in use on this site without first obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department (MCC 11-19-1). 1.1.11 Prior to obtaining certificate(s) of occupancy, all development improvements, including perimeter fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed. Prior to signature of the final plat(s) by the City Engineer, a letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sewer, water, etc. 1.1.12 The construction of the required landscape street buffer adjacent to Pine Avenue can be delayed and made a part of the Church's expansion project. 1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-021) 1.2.1 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application(s). 1.2.2 The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. Non-flammable fencing shall be constructed alone the south side of the proiect, adiacent to the railroad property. 1.2.3 Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. 1.2.4 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.5 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- Exhibit B -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of fmal construction. 1.2.6 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 1.2.7 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation and conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.2.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.3 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-06-014) 1.3.1 Comply with all of the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.27 regarding multi-family developments, including Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. 1.3.2 The front elevation, including colors and construction materials of all of the 4-plex buildings in this development shall conform to Sheet OF, prepared by Ram-Tech Design, dated 2-21-06. All elevations of the 4-plex buildings shall conform to the elevations in Exhibit A of the Staff Report. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment shall be screened from public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. 1.3.3 Provide at least 0.38 acres of open space, 0.19 acres of common open space, at least 80 square feet of private useable open space for each unit (such as a patio or deck), bike storage, a maintenance building, a management office, atot-lot area, a community directory, and a pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. 1.3.4 Provide at least 48 covered parking stalls for this development. 1.3.5 Provide front setbacks as shown on the proposed plat (at least 10 feet to the sidewalk); and side setbacks (10-feet between buildings). 1.3.6 Provide open-vision (chain link) fence along both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 1.3.7 All comments and conditions of the accompanying Rezone (RZ-06-004) application and Preliminary Plat (PP-06-021) application, shall also be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-014). Z. Public Works Department 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in West Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall install mains to and through this development; applicant Exhibit B -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 The applicant shall be required, as depicted on the preliminary plat, to install mains between the two manholes located adjacent to this site and just north of Ninemile Creek. This will allow for the sewer lift station in Tremont Place to be decommissioned. 2.3 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in West Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). 2.5 A portion of this property lies within a FEMA recognized flood plain with a zone designation of A. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer the applicant shall provide a Base Flood Elevation report from a professional surveyor or other licensed professional qualified to prepare said document. 2.6 Upon submittal of the final plat to the City Engineer for signature the applicant shall submit an entirely separate, second plat for use by the Building Department that contains the floodplain overlay. 2.7 All lots encumbered by the floodplain shall submit flood plain elevation certification prior to occupancy. 2.8 The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.9 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.10 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements. 2.11 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from 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. 2.12 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. Exhibit B -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~'r DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.13 The applicant has not indicated how the storm drainage from the proposed parking lots. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall 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. 2.14 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.15 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.16 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive fmal approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro-paths, and landscaping maybe bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.17 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 fmal plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.18 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.21 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.22 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.23 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.24 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Height for 100 watt factures is 25-feet, height for 250 watt fixtures is 30-feet. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. Fire Department Exhibit B -Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 3.1 One and two family dwellings will require afire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C 3.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on 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 when spacing permits. £ Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. i. Fire sprinklers required for four-plexes. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.7 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. 3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.9 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 3.10 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.12 The Fire Department requires that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 3.13 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Exhibit B -Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.14 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fire sprinklered. 3.15 Side yard fences shall not be allowed. 4. Police Department 4.1 Prior to release of building_nermits the applicant shall submit a parking plan for all off-street parking in the multi-family development to the Planning Department. All parkins spaces shall be assigned to a specific dwelling unit or for guest use. The parking space identification shall use a different numbering system than the dwelling units. 4.2 The proposed multi-family development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. 4.3 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 4.4 To increase emergency access to the site, the Police Department recommends that the applicant provide a stub street to the property to the north or west. 5. Parks Department 5.1 Pathway and Trail standards: The proposed pathway and/or trail shall be constructed in accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. Ada County Highway District Site Specific Conditions ofApproval 7.1 a Locate the cul-de-sac of West Broadway Avenue abutting the eastern property line, as proposed, with the 48-foot turn radii. Construct curb, gutter and a 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk along the entire cul-de-sac. 7.1b Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 7.1b Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2b Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACI.1D roadway or right-of--way. Exhibit B -Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN1~r DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 7.3b All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.4b Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.Sb Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 7.6b Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.7b All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.Sb 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. 7.9b Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. l Ob Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.1 lb It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.12b 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. 7.13b 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. 8. Central District Health Department 8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. Exhibit B -Page 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water. 8.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 8.4 It is recommended that storm water bepre-treated prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. 9. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District 9.1 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change Application be filed, for review, prior to final platting. Please contact Donna. Moore at 466-7861 for further information. 9.2 All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Nine Mile Drain courses through the middle of this proposed project and the District's Rutledge Lateral courses along the south boundary. These easements must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. 9.3 All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. 9.4 The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 9.5 It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Exhibit B -Page 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 C. Legal Descriptions Fkuc i~ 1f~ 3V Adam met C. [duEtifl X5611 '.~2- Pa~c -3~'3-~3tU ~-+~1~],1I8011 ~~~~'Ea ~$~ i Plr~ t~~r~~ 5uf6~ b Itl~ka~~i(aYffs Pa1c UA'[~ 3/$/tI6 ~re~3ct ~Fo,: l4 ~ ~ ar~d'NTesB ~e S#~ a f p ~x ~ Iant ~ Wit iawa Snbditri 3 Q.IGS ~ o€ tN~k P~ 5tr~ in ~ pin t~f I11B s/i agt6e ~V' $!a of ~ T. 3 i~i.~ R. i ~+'•, B.~L, ~ M~id~t, Ate Caumtly, Idabo by ~. ~~a~l~ sa eyc Exhibit C -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 ~~ ias ra rte, t~ho 8.'bt1 C 208-38~T-2 Faa:1t~-3~2 316 ~rtru.son '' ~dx'ea Fac,~ire~ • s:~ • 1'luurt~ i2~s, ~$ F~agt~, [de~a~fr16 24~s? ~~c X41 DATJE 3/8/Q6 ~ F !`rte Mfl~ 1~4 Exhibit C -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~tING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 FC3 ~x~88 t~ c~t~ta5t ~C+t1 Q~~ md- Pex; ~-3~ Iii °:av T~ area Frt • 5u~~ • ~i~rrt~s Sw[he I~ ldalsn 82dt~ Chu 2#40:- Fes: '33~-2~1 t)A,TE 3/$/~ I~Eiet No.: 15~ Oie S1~1d~V~0II ~h~ 2,Zoreed R ~ 273 y the wit ~ trf Lot ~ W ia~vxx ~ ott ~ ~ pin of t!~ NE'~i c~the aiW ~!+ t~f 12 T. 31~., R.1 W:, B.1~, cif Me~aid3a~y Ada City, Idaho ~ F , tai. ~~1 ~xeados 4 Exhibit C -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 IT ~R RL~-`: 1'~tG ~PJ~ ORS 8~J)~. BLOCK 1 ~ PO~7CYAliT ®F FAhfB 9~'BEET cx~~r Fr+~~. asBp, ~ ~ '3~'16"W x'.89'° _ 6 t J4 C~aEFt 8901im4S 1D 1758.29' 8 ~~ ~~'` ~ CP`&F' 81ST. W4. lP: ~ -~ 654.39 ~ 9383tg4 ~~ ~:Oti''+4d`iY ~ ~~ WPc~II 61 Pft~~~~ ~ o ~.IBi S ~ ~ ' S tj4 ~~''SECfi9{y 12 ~ i>a t~. 6' ~... VPEB'1` tJlrWl~i SL18~iV11p8C~lV S~'B 66.l1~ asp x~ Y®4 0~ ~ ~~ u~ og da ~~ O$ ° ~ Hngiat~r® ~ `3tuv~yyonJc s Org r ~ ox ®~ 3 r~. ~. i w: ~, ~w$o ~ a.- ~, Exhibit C -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 PTZ' F4)~ N,~eTC 1~.~J~ t~ D~VISIOAT I~~.ACIC 2 w ~/~ ccat~ra~ _ ~ ~ s~cr~, at ~ ~~ aas~~ 1y~ B~~~r~va CPa~.r atast. HO, tm8~d°3t1't6 W2652.~9 C t/4 ~Ctttvfa~ ~9~e~a5 ~ ra,28' _ ,,,~ iY. SINE ST. 3A.~' 65~F,39' ~ J383944 ~~ sa.car~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ t Feu sua. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `" s ~~~. coy sECm~u ~2 caa~ m}sr. ~aa. ~.~, '~ttnls rrr.~rr a3F ~~suxr„~.•~ _ ~ ~~. ,- _ ,~ C41~SiA $E6iia~ < a~--a tam ®fl-2~ l'1' 1rO& El $~~ ~ Renni~on Fodrea, ., w R.16-Si7BDt~'tBtOPi ~ ~ a,~x 2 a?a~ginccrn . sg,w.. rtenn~ra 'I.AWiy 4~JSD~Si ~t~ ~ ,t0, i"AST1ON o8 '-°FI6 Affi I/+4 ~~ 1 9~ IJ+4 d~P T. ~ Ai., ~, '11N: •: •~ `~ sue. • s+~ OF I14EiEt.~1l~! s ffiA~O .~, Exhibit C -Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 `~~. ~~ ~~8~ ~~ BEST PI11~)~ :ivT ~..®_ . eneiaa. s~~m a wem rra~r~ruae~os: ~Rla P,l4Qgg# 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 r ~ ® ~ ~ V4 R`KS DEPT: Exhibit C -Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~NG DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Council fmds that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). B. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Council fmds that there are several uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed within the requested zoning districts of R-15 and L-O. Specifically, multi-family uses are conditionally allowed in the R-15 zone and churches are principally permitted in the L-O zone. Council finds that the development of this property should be required to comply with the established regulations and purpose statements of the requested zone. See Section 10, Analysis above for information on the regulations that need to be complied with. C. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Council finds that the proposed rezone, and subsequent development of this property shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety andlor welfare. The Commission and Council should rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this fmding. D. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. E. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E). This fmding is not applicable to the rezone request. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Council fmds that the proposed plat is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). Exhibit D -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~NG DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council fords that services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, Council fords that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission and Council should rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail.) E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and City Council is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision. ACFID considers road safety issues in their analysis. The Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Council fords that the Ninemile Creek should be preserved. Council is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance, if the Ninemile Creek is preserved and protected. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. 3. CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Council fords that the site is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC. B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Exhibit D -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE N1~NG DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 Council finds that the proposed uses are is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan and the UDC (please see Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific items that apply to this development). C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Council finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi-family uses will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity as to not adversely change the character of the area. Council finds that a higher density residential use on this site should be compatible with the neighborhood (provided the applicant complies with all UDC provisions.) The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the other properties in the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Council finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all Preliminary Plat, Development Agreement and CUP conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Please refer to the comments and conditions prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Company and ACRD in Exhibit B. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Council fords that the applicant should be required to pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay highway impact fees. Council fords that the proposed uses should not create excessive additional costs for facilities or services and should not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Council finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Council does not believe that the amount of traffic or noise generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission and Council should reference any Exhibit D -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H>~NG DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. H. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance, if the Ninemile Creek is protected. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that maybe presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D -Page 4 July 21, 200b PP 06-021 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT SLC Investments, LLC ITEM NO. S-E REQUEST Findings for Approval -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L-0 zones for Rushmore Subdivision -1021 West Pine Avenue 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: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached flndings IC~1 St ~'(3 ~ CQo% C~j Staff Initials:.- Materials presented aF pubUc meetings shaft become property of the Glty of Meridian. ~ ~,~~ED JUL 1 82006 City Of Meridian Cif ~'1~'k Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ,- _: .~ $,ys ~ ,~.:~~ ,~ '~~ ~`rF~r F W" { lY In the Matter of Rezone of 5.49 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres), AND Preliminary Plat of 7 building lots (six 4- plex lots and 1 church lot) and 2 common lots on 5.33 acres, AND Conditional Use Permit to construct six multi-family (4-plea) dwelling units, by SLC Investments, LLC. Case No(s): RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 5, 2006 (Findings approved on July 25, 2006) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted 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-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 1 of 5 ~~ J • 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 Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, Landscape Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated January 24, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The applicant's Landscape Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Landscape Plan dated February 14, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 3. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing: a. The Development Agreement for this property shall only apply to the R-15 portion of the property. b. The applicant shall install non-flammable fencing alone the southern boundary of the site. adiacent to the rail road tracks. 4. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditions use permits that also require platting, the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 2 of 5 final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. 2. Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record a final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. 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 (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B- 7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe 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 maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 3 of 5 C~ this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 4 of 5 • By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the Z~"' day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED__~~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED__ IJ~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED__G~~ COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED__~~~ TIE BREAKER _ MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED ~ a~-. Gv~ ~ e WEERD ATTEST: ;~ > ,, ~~ _ ~;~`~~a WILLIAM G. B RG, JR., C ~ ~° ~o Copy served upon: / Apphcan~'P+++++~ +~ ~"`~~ / Planning Department -~ ublic Works Department / City Attorney By: Dated: ~• 2Z -4l0 Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 5 of 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 5, 2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Rushmore Subdivision -~: z ~~~ . t ~ , :~ RZ-06-004 -Rezone of 5.49 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17acresy and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres) PP-06-021-Preliminary Plat of 7 building lots (six 4-plex lots and 1 church lot) and 2 common lots on 5.33 acres CUP-06-014 -Conditional Use Permit to construct six multi-family (4-plex) dwelling units 1. SiJ1VIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, SLC Investments, LLC, has applied for Rezoning (RZ) of 5.49 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres); Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 6multi-family building lots, 1 church/office lot and 2 common lots; and, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct six multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes). Currently, there is a church (Meridian Friends Church) on the north part of this site; the south part of the site is vacant. The site is part of the West Lawn Subdivision, which was recorded in 1906. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and the corporate boundaries of the City of Meridian. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Generally, the Planning & Zoning Commission is the final decision making body on a Conditional Use Permit request. However, because the City Council is the final decision making body on the Rezone and Preliminary Plat applications, all three of the subject applications are being combined into one staff report. The Commission should make recommendations to the Council on all of the subject applications. Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Rushmore Subdivision (RZ-06-004. PP-06-021 and CUP-06-0141 with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on Mav 18, 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Michael Vance, Ken Redford ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Appropriate width and construction timeline for the street buffer along Pine Avenue; ii. Fencing; and, iii. Neighborhood interconnectivity. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 i. Recommended allowing landscape buffer along Pine Avenue to be constructed when the Church expands; ii. Required fencing along the south property line, adjacent to the railroad tracks. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 as presented during the public hearing of July 5, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1021 W. Pine Avenue; South side of Pine Avenue, east of Linder Road, in Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. b. Owners: Meridian Friends Church 1021 W. Pine Street Meridian, ID 83642 Burr International, Inc. P.O. Box 6486 Boise, ID 83707 c. Applicant: SLC investments, LLC 3210 E. Chinden Boulevard, Ste 115-327 Eagle, ID 83616 d. Representative: Michael Vance e. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for Rezoning (RZ) of 5.49 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17acresy and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres); Preliminary Plat (PP) approval Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~NG DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 of 6multi-family building lots, 1 church/office lot and 2 common lots; and, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct six multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes). The average multi-family lot size in the proposed development is 5,880 square feet. All of the proposed 4- plexes contain two two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units. The total square footage of each building is 4,160 square feet. The gross density of this development is 4.5 dwelling units per acre, while the density of the area proposed for R-15 zoning is 11.06 dwelling units per acre (excludes church site). Approximately 7.3% of the site is being set aside for open space (17% of the multi-family area). The applicant is proposing to construct a management office, a bike storage area, a maintenance building, a community directory map, and a children's play area within the common area, Lot 1, Block Z. 1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 1/24/06 2. Date of landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 2/14/06 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. d. Newspaper notifications published on: May 1 S` and May 15~', 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 12~' and 26~', 2006 (for City Council hearing) e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: Apri121 g`, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 9`", 2006 (for City Council hearing) f. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 8`", 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 25~`, 2006 (for City Council hearing) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There are existing church buildings and a parking lot on the north part of this site. The south part of this site is currently vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Across Pine Avenue and to the east are primarily single-family homes. To the south are the raikoad tracks and to the west is the proposed Rock Creek development that includes multi-family dwellings and two office lots. This area can be classified as urban mixed use. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Single-family homes, zoned R-4, Canna Lilly Estates Subdivision 2. West: Future multi-family dwellings and offices, zoned R-15 and L-O, Rock Creek Subdivision 3. South: Railroad tracks and industrial uses, zoned I-L 4. East: Single-family homes, zoned R-8, Tremont Place Subdivision d. History of Previous Actions: None. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~ING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer stub in West Broadway Avenue and the north side of Nine Mile Creek on each side of the property. Location of water: Water stub in West Broadway Avenue and there is a main in W. Pine Street. Issues or concerns: Flood plain associated with Ninemile Creek. 2. Floodplain: Portions of this property are within the Ninemile Creek floodplain. 3. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Rutledge Lateral runs along the southern boundary of this property. The Ninemile Creek bisects this property; this waterway should be protected. All other open ditches or laterals, including the Rutledge, that cross the subject site should be tiled in accordance with the UDC. 4. Hazards: Staff is recommending that the Ninemile Creek be fenced with open-vision fencing to protect the safety of the residents in this area. Staff is not aware of any other hazards associated with this property. 5. Proposed and Existing Zoning: This property is currently zoned R-4. The applicant is proposing to zone 2.2 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) and 3.3 acres to L-O (Limited Office). 6. Size of Property: 5.49 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 2. Non-residential Lots: 3. Total Building Lots: 4. Common Lots: 5. Other Lots: 0 6. Total Lots: 9 7. Gross Density: g. Landscaping 6multi-family (4-plex) 1 (church/off~ce) 7 2 11 dwelling units per acre (net 18.8 d.u./acre)(Block 2) 1. Width of street buffer(s): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). The existing church parking lot encroaches into the required street buffer for Pine Avenue. Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report below for further analysis. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: The applicant states that 17.5% (0.38 acres) of the site is being set aside for open space (0.14 acres of common open space). Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report for more details. h. Amenities: For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities shall be provided, with 1 from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation)(UDC 11- 4-3.27D-2d). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: enclosed bike storage (Quality Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~NG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area, development map/directory, (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking path/sidewalks (Recreation), and open space (Open Space). Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have atwo-car covered carport or garage for each unit. The submitted preliminary plat proposes covered parking spaces for most of the multi-family (4-plex) dwellings. Because all of the units in this development contain two or more bedrooms, all of the parking stalls in this development should be covered. Also, staff has concern about the remoteness of some of the parking stalls, in relation to the units. Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report below for more analysis. j. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 200 square feet bike & maintenance storage 2. Proposed building height: 22 feet; R-15 zone allows 40 feet 3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: approximately 25% 4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: approximately 20% 5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: approximately 55% 6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: 0% 7. Number of Residential units: 24 k. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): There are two public streets stubbed to the subject property from the east. West Broadway Avenue is stubbed to the southern portion of this site and Idaho Avenue is stubbed to the northern portion of this site. The applicant is proposing to extend Broadway Avenue into the site from the east with a cul-de-sac. A loop private driveway system is proposed around the Broadway Avenue cul-de-sac. The applicant is not proposing to extend the Idaho Avenue stub into the site. NOTE: ACRD is not requiring that Idaho Avenue be extended into the site at this time. When and if the church lot, Lot 1, Block 1, comes in for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for any additions or re-constructions in the future, staff intends to require a permanent public turnaround for Idaho Street. There are two existing driveways to Pine Avenue that serve the existing church. ACRD has not evaluated these driveways for compliance with policy. Please see Exhibit B for ACHD's comments and conditions regarding this development. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On Apri128, 2006, staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated `Public/Quasi-Public' on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Public/Quasi Public is defined as "Areas are designated to preserve and protect existing private, municipal, state, and federal lands for area residents and visitors. This category includes churches and public lands (excluding parks and schools) within the Area of Impact. Upon redevelopment of such properties, a change in designation and use maybe appropriate. The redevelopment of these areas should be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the property. The appropriate land use Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 designation and accompanying zoning for these areas will be determined by City Council on a case by case basis." (Chapter VII, Section 1, Pg. 99, Meridian Comprehensive Plan). Within this report, staff has evaluated the subject proposal using the existing use, the underlying zoning, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation. The lands immediately to the west have previously been approved for multi-family uses. The property to the north and east are residential. Staff believes that the existing church, zoned R-4, and the proposed multi-family development can be compatible uses. This property is located between Pine Avenue, a collector roadway, and the railroad, a potential future transportation corridor. Staff believes that the location of this proposed medium-high density development is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map does not explicitly support the proposed zone change, staff fords that there are several Comprehensive Plan policies that do support the proposed zone change. Staff fords the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department. This service will not change. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). This service will not change. • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACfID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject rezone. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. Pine Avenue is classified as a collector roadway in this area. The existing access points to Pine Avenue should comply with ACFID's standards. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1: Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. This is an infill parcel with the properties adjacent to the subject site varying in density and housing type. North of the site are existing single family dwellings. East of the site is a single family subdivision. West of the site is a mixed-use development with multi family Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 dwellings. Staff believes that the proposed development should be compatible with the existing land uses. • Chapter V, Goal 1, Objective A, Action 11: Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas. The Rutledge Lateral and the Ninemile Creek course through or are adjacent to this site. Staff believes that the Ninemile Creek should be protected and enhanced by being left open and by the applicant constructing a pathway adjacent to the Ninemile Creek (see Exhibit B). • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.). The applicant is notproposin~any landscaping adjacent to Pine Avenue. By ordinance, a 20- footwide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Pine Avenue. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3: Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land-use decisions. This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. Staff believes that the subject applications generally comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6: Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The project to the west, Rock Creek, has not provided opportunities for the subject site to provide vehicular connectivity (no stub streets or driveways). However, two stub streets were provided to this site from the east. The applicant is proposing to extend one of the two stub streets into this site. This proposal will provide interconnectivity with the subdivisions to the east. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5: Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system. The adjacent project to the west, Rock Creek, has provided a pedestrian connection to this site along the north side of the Ninemile Creek. The applicant is proposing to extend this pathway to and through the development. Because the property to the east has already been developed, the City should look into extending the pathway further to the east. This proposal should enhance the community pathway system. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6: Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. See analysis above. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~NG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 • Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9: Require new residential development to provide permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties. Prior to construction of any buildings, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter of this site. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A-21ists multi-family development uses as conditional uses in the R-15 zoning district; churches are principally permitted in the L-O zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zones: MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15): The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. Residential land uses are also allowed within the O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts as set forth in Chapter 3 Article D. LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT (L-O): The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. c. Multifamily Development (iIDC 11-4-3.27) The following standards shall apply for the multifamily units, including standards for Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. Site design (UDC 11-4-3.27BZ A minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. For the purposes of this Section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private useable open space shall not be considered common open space. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3 of this Title. Developments with 20 units or more shall provide the following: a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location, a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. Common open space design reauirements (UDC 11-4-3 27CZ Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 squaze feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 squaze feet and up to 1,200 squaze feet of living azea; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 squaze feet of living azea. Common open space azeas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height. Site development amenities (iIDC 11-4-3.27DZ All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to met the particulaz needs of the residents as follows: a) Quality of Life (clubhouse, fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and public aze such as a statue); b) Open Space (open grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size, community garden, ponds or water features, and plazas); and c) Recreation (pool, walking trails, children's play structures, and sports courts). The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: For multifamily developments between 20 and 75 units, 3 amenities shall be provided, with at least 1 from each category. Architectural Character (UDC 11-4-3.27.EZ All building elevations shall have a minimum portion of the elevation devoted to azchitectural features designed to provide articulation and variety. These features shall include, but aze not limited to windows, bays and offsetting walls that extend at least two feet; recessed entrances; and changes in material types. Changes in material types shall have a minimum dimension of two feet and minimum azea of 25 squaze feet. Main entrances, which aze the primary point(s) of entry where the majority of building users will enter and leave, shall be designed as an obvious entrance and focal point of the building through azchitectural treatment, lighting, and address identification. Entrances shall be adequately covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent azchitectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided. Roof forms shall be distinctive and include variety and detail when viewed from the street. Sloped roofs shall have a significant pitch. Flat roofs should include distinctive cornice treatments. Exterior building materials and finishes shall convey an impression of permanence and durability. Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and the are encouraged. Windows are required to allow views to exterior activity azeas or vistas. Windows shall be provided on any building facing any common azea used for children's recreation. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment should be screened from public view from the adjacent public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. Landscaping_(UDC 11-4-3.27.FZ Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANi~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~2ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3 of this Title. All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: The landscaped area shall be at least three feet wide; for every three lineal feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches shall be planted; and groundcover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. UDC 11-4-3.27.G: All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. Outdoor storage/refuse areas (UDC 11-3A-12): Outdoor utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. 10. ANALYSIS Analysis Leading to Staff Recommendation As submitted, the subject applications appear to substantially comply with the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. However, there are some modifications to the site plan, the preliminary plat, and the landscape plan that staff would like to see made. In each section below, staff has listed the items that staff would like to see amended. 1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan staff believes that this is a good location for a higher density development and the proposed R-15 and L-O zoning. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and fmdings for a Zoning Amendment. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on 3/8/2006 by Robert W. Fodrea, PLS) shows the property within the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. UDC 11-SB-3D2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion as to not negatively impact nearby properties. Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of rezone ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill Nary, at 888-4433 to initiate this process. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal Department to draft a development agreement for the R-15 portion of Rushmore Subdivision onl~as follows: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE t~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1. 'That all future development shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 2. That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with the applicant's approved preliminary plat unless otherwise modified by other provisions of the DA, or in the future by the City Council. 3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. 4. That the future uses and lots on this site shall conform to the District Regulations contained in the Unified Development Code (UDC), in effect at the time of development. 5. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 6. That 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 maybe used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 7. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided (a recorded final plat) in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 8. That when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (church lot), a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC (or a new CUP must be submitted and approved by the City1• 2. PP/CUP Applications: Landscaping The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, on 2-14- 06, labeled Sheet L1.0, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. • Widen to at least 5 feet (measured inside curbs) and provide at least one tree within the landscape planter in the parking stalls between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (UDC 11-3B-8C2) • All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application. Multi-family Standards: The UDC has several specific standards that apply to multi- family developments (See UDC Section 9 above for a complete list.) These standards apply to Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. Below are some of the standards that the applicant should be required to comply with. Private Useable Open Space: UDC 11-4-3.27B requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. It appears that there is some type of a patio area on the rear of the proposed 4-plexes. However this does not appear to be enough private area for each unit within each building. The applicant should clarify, at the public hearing, how the private useable open space requirement will be met for each unit. Parkin: UDC 11-3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have atwo-car covered carport or garage for each unit. A1124 of the proposed units contain 2 or more bedrooms. The submitted preliminary plat does depict that 44 of the 48 proposed parking spaces will be covered. The applicant should be required to comply with the off-street parking requirements of the UDC. NOTE: Staff has concerns with how far away the parking area on the northeast side of the multi-family portion of this development is from the units. See Site Layout below. Amenities: The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multifamily development. For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities shall be provided, with 1 from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation)(iJDC 11-4-3.27D-2d). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: enclosed bike storage (Quality of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area, development map/directory, (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking path/sidewalks (Recreation), and open space (Open Space). Staff believes that the proposed amenities satisfy the UDC requirements. Staff is supportive of the proposed amenities. Elevations: With the application submittal the applicant provided one building elevation (front) for the proposed 4-plex structures. Since the original submittal the applicant has provided all four building elevations to staff. UDC 11-4-3 requires multifamily structures to comply with the design standards listed in this section. It appears that the elevations provided comply with UDC 11-4-3.27E. NOTE: Staff will ensure that when CZC applications are submitted for construction of the 4-plex buildings in the future, that the elevations also comply with the UDC requirements and are consistent with those attached in Exhibit A. Pedestrian Paths: With the approval of the Rock Creek development to the west, a 5- foot wide pedestrian walkway was required on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. The applicant is proposing to extend the pedestrian pathway in Rock Creek to this site's eastern boundary. Said pathway should be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8 (construction) and UDC 11-3B (landscaping). Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE NG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 In 1996, COMPASS adopted the pathway recommendations laid out in the Ridge-to- Rivers Pathway Plan (1996). The goals of the plan include developing a bikeway and pathway system that encourages non-motorized transportation and enhances recreational opportunities. The Union Pacific Raikoad corridor abutting the south property line is shown as a proposed multi-use pathway in Figure VI-3 (Off-Street Multiple-Use Pathways) in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. There is also amulti-use pathway shown adjacent to the Ninemile Drain in the Comprehensive Plan. In the past, the City has not required the construction of a pathway within the Union Pacific Railroad corridor, but has required developers that abut the future pathway to provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping. Consistent with previous Council action, the Applicant should not be required to construct amulti-use pathway adjacent to the southern boundary, but should be required to provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping along the south property line. There is an existing 25-foot wide irrigation easement within the rear setback. At a minimum, the Applicant should be required to plant trees in accordance with MCC (1 tree per every 35-lineal feet) on the south side of the buildings. Ninemile Creek and Rutledge Lateral: The Ninemile Creek and the Rutledge Lateral course through or are adjacent to this site. UDC 11-3A-6 requires natural waterways to be left open as a natural amenity, and for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains that are not being used as an amenity to be piped or otherwise covered. The Ninemile Creek is a natural waterway that should be protected and enhanced by leaving it open and constructing a pathway adjacent to it. The Rutledge Lateral should be piped. Multi-family Setbacks: The UDC does not have a specific setback between internal multi-family units. However, there may be a problem with not providing a full 10-foot front setback to the 4-plex units; utilities may need a wider easement. The front setback shown on the proposed 4-plex units, approximately 12 to 14 feet, should be sufficient. At least a 10-foot wide front setback should be provided between all 4- plexes and the back of the adjacent sidewalk. Pine Avenue Street Buffer: A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). There is existing parking for the church near Pine Avenue that encroaches into the required buffer area. Staff realizes that the church lot is not developing at this time, but it is part of the subject subdivision and subject to compliance with the UDC. Therefore, staff recommends that prior to occupancy of the first 4-plex, the applicant agrees to submit and gain approval for alternative landscaping compliance adjacent to Pine Avenue. Further, when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (church lot) in the future, a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC. NOTE: Staff has made this a provision of the Development Agreement and not a condition of the plat or CUP. Open Space: Open space is defined as an area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The areas may include, along with the natural environment features, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. The term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures of habitation (UDC 11-1A). UDC 11-4- 3.27C requires a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 13 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl`~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~NG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height. The applicant states that 0.14 acres (6,098 square feet) of the site is being set aside for common open space. Based on the square footage of the proposed 4-plexes, each unit contains 4,160 square feet, 8,400 square feet of common open space should be provided. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Rushmore Subdivision Home Owners' Association(s). The applicant should explain where and how the common open space requirements mentioned above will be met. Fencing: The applicant has not proposed any fencing for this the development. Staff recommends that the applicant testify at the public hearing if perimeter fencing will be installed and what type. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A-7. Per UDC 11-3A-6B3 requires open vision fencing along waterways where it is in the best interest of public safety. Staff recommends that the Council require open-vision fencing on both sides of the Ninemile Creek. Pressure Irri atg ion: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A- 15 and MCC 9-1-28. Site Layout: As mentioned above, the submitted plat does propose 48 parking stall on this site. However, staff believes that there is one problem with the way the development is currently laid out. Lot 5, Block 2, which is located in the southwest corner of the development has no parking in front of the building. Staff is concerned about the remoteness of the parking area in the northeast corner in relation to the units. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council determine if there are too many units on this site. Staff Recommendation: Based on the facts provided in this report, staff recommends approval of File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. On May 18, 2006 the Meridian Planning_& Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject applications to the City Council, with the Development Agreement provisions listed in Section 10 and the Conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. 11. EI~TTS A. Drawings Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1-24-06) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: 2-14-06) 3. Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department 9. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District C. Legal Descriptions D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1-24-06) ~iY°a~e a~~m.~aa~.toti~ ~vdv '°' ~I Hai,roaneur~ta0aratrmtrv.ma~crnus ~4 aj ~~e~em • ..o,~ ms..~.arrrm.~ _ _ ---_: i _ ~~ -, r ~~ ~ ~ ~,. ~ ~,.~,, a ~~ ~ ~~~~~~f~~a~~E~NS~~'s~err~rr~g ~~ ~J ~ .: ,;~~ IMP: ; lll~ll ®..,~~ i~l!''.~a~$ 1 O ~~ i `~~6 ! °- ~~' ~! ~ -T -~- ~~-F., ,1 ~-?- .... .~„ , _ a - .,~, 3~_+~ 1 - _ ~ , 1 Y Exhibit A -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE .RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated 2-14-06) °'T~p.~ gatms/axxraaa.~i~ti+ ~vn •~a s.umamna. ~ 'auI `EazPo3 u - - . ~ - s~ ait _ ~ ~ t~t~~ls~! tt~$~rt~st~l ~~~ia~g ~ } t ~ ~ ~!~ l ~~~~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~ t .~ ~ 6 ~~aetkte ®~~8s~~ea e: ~~~ieaa tL. waisreaa kr113 ~~g ~ 1 @ ae 9 Exhibit A -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Elevations Exhibit A -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN1~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Exhibit A -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 ---_ ~.__ .t~ J Exhibit A -Page 5 ?'Z\~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I;~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-021) 1.1.1 The preliminary plat/site plan labeled Sheet No. 1 o f 1, prepared by Rennison Fodrea, Inc., dated January 24, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Rezone (RZ-06-004) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-014) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-06-021). 1.1.2 The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, on 2-14-06, labeled Sheet L1.0, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. • Widen to at least 5 feet (measured inside curbs) and provide at least one tree within the landscape planter in the parking stalls between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (UDC 11-3B-8C2) • All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application. 1.1.3 Provide a cross parking/cross access easement for all of the lots in Block 2 to use common Lot 1 as access to Broadway Avenue. A copy of a recorded cross-access/ingress-egress and parking maintenance agreement shall be provided to the City. 1.1.4 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Rushmore Subdivision Homeowners' Association. 1.1.5 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways (Ninemile Creek), intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13, unless otherwise approved by the Irrigation District(s). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. Per UDC 11-3A-6B3, open vision fencing is required along waterways where it is in the best interest of public safety. Staff recommends that the Council require open-vision fencing on both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 1.1.6 Other than the public street access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to W. Pine Avenue. Exhibit B -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1.1.7 Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant shall be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized imgation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.1.8 Provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the development. Said landscape buffer may be included within the existing irrigation easement for the Rutledge Lateral if a license agreement for landscaping is obtained from the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID). If the Applicant is unable to obtain a license agreement from NMID, provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer outside of the NMID easement. 1.1.9 All internal sidewalks shall be constructed as submitted and in accordance with MCC 12-5-2.K. 1.1.10 No building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building structure or land be established or change in use on this site without first obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department (MCC 11-19-1). 1.1.11 Prior to obtaining certificate(s) of occupancy, all development improvements, including perimeter fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed. Prior to signature of the final plat(s) by the City Engineer, a letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sewer, water, etc. 1.1.12 The construction of the required landscape street buffer adjacent to Pine Avenue can be delayed and made a part of the Church's expansion proj ect. 1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-021) 1.2.1 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the fmal plat application(s). 1.2.2 The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed azound the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. Non-flammable fencing shall be constructed along the south side of the nroiect, adiacent to the railroad nronerty. 1.2.3 Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. 1.2.4 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.5 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space aze subject to UDC 11- Exhibit B -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.2.6 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 1.2.7 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation and conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.2.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.3 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-06-014) 1.3.1 Comply with all of the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.27 regarding multi-family developments, including Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. 1.3.2 The front elevation, including colors and construction materials of all of the 4-plex buildings in this development shall conform to Sheet OF, prepared by Ram-Tech Design, dated 2-21-06. All elevations of the 4-plex buildings shall conform to the elevations in Exhibit A of the Staff Report. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment shall be screened from public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. 1.3.3 Provide at least 0.38 acres of open space, 0.19 acres of common open space, at least 80 square feet of private useable open space for each unit (such as a patio or deck), bike storage, a maintenance building, a management office, atot-lot area, a community directory, and a pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. 1.3.4 Provide at least 48 covered parking stalls for this development. 1.3.5 Provide front setbacks as shown on the proposed plat (at least 10 feet to the sidewalk); and side setbacks (10-feet between buildings). 1.3.6 Provide open-vision (chain link) fence along both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 1.3.7 All comments and conditions of the accompanying Rezone (RZ-06-004) application and Preliminary Plat (PP-06-021) application, shall also be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-014). 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in West Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall install mains to and through this development; applicant Exhibit B -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 The applicant shall be required, as depicted on the preliminary plat, to install mains between the two manholes located adjacent to this site and just north of Ninemile Creek. This will allow for the sewer lift station in Tremont Place to be decommissioned. 2.3 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in West Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). 2.5 A portion of this property lies within a FEMA recognized flood plain with a zone designation of A. Prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer the applicant shall provide a Base Flood Elevation report from a professional surveyor or other licensed professional qualified to prepare said document. 2.6 Upon submittal of the final plat to the City Engineer for signature the applicant shall submit an entirely separate, second plat for use by the Building Department that contains the floodplain overlay. 2.7 All lots encumbered by the floodplain shall submit flood plain elevation certification prior to occupancy. 2.8 The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.9 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.10 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements. 2.11 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from 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. 2.12 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. Exhibit B -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.13 The applicant has not indicated how the storm drainage from the proposed parking lots. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall 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. 2.14 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.15 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.16 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro-paths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.17 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. 2.18 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.21 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.22 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.23 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.24 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Height for 100 watt fixtures is ZS-feet, height for 250 watt fixtures is 30-feet. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. Fire Department Exhibit B -Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAM~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 3.1 One and two family dwellings will require afire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C 3.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on 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 comers when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. i. Fire sprinklers required for four-plexes. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.7 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. 3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.9 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 3.10 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.12 The Fire Department requires that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 3.13 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Exhibit B -Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.14 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fire sprinklered. 3.15 Side yard fences shall not be allowed. 4. Police Department 4.1 Prior to release of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Harkins elan for all off-street parking in the multi-family development to the Planning Department. All parking spaces shall be assigned to a specific dwelling unit or for guest use. The parking space identification shall use a different numbering system than the dwelling units. 4.2 The proposed multi-family development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. 4.3 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 4.4 To increase emergency access to the site, the Police Department recommends that the applicant provide a stub street to the property to the north or west. 5. Parks Department 5.1 Pathway and Trail standards: The proposed pathway and/or trail shall be constructed in accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. Ada County Highway District Site Specific Conditions o~pproval 7.1 a Locate the cul-de-sac of West Broadway Avenue abutting the eastern property line, as proposed, with the 48-foot turn radii. Construct curb, gutter and a 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk along the entire cul-de-sac. 7.1b Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions ofApproval 7.1b Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2b Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACPID roadway or right-of--way. Exhibit B -Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THERING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 7.3b All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.4b Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.Sb Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 7.6b Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.7b All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.8b 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. 7.9b Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.1 Ob Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.1 lb It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACRD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACRD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.12b 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. 7.13b 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. 8. Central District Health Department 8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. Exhibit B -Page 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~R1NG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water. 8.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 8.4 It is recommended that storm water bepre-treated prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. 9. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District 9.1 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change Application be filed, for review, prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. 9.2 All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Nine Mile Drain courses through the middle of this proposed project and the District's Rutledge Lateral courses along the south boundary. These easements must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. 9.3 All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. 9.4 The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 9.5 It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Exhibit B -Page 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~C DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~RiNG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 C. Legal Descriptions tai dot met ta3ulm 8'3611 Q8~ 2r~-3S2-~J[~3 ~~ ~ Ql~t ~`'~~~ £ra$~t~s • S a P'lrus~t~s ~s~~~ Fegh~,1t1~ i~16 C~R~e: 2~+1Q Pew ~ Dam 3/s/o~ I'ro~ct AI®r 153 Sib ~_ 5 3?~ ac~ves far.~rly fke w ®ff Yao~ ~, ~ l 51~bdivislan also indw~ung Q26~ s~'[A~'eat Pie located l~ a P!a~nc~ t~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~f ~n 12 T. 3 N., R.1 W., B.flWI., ' of Co~tgr, Idaho ~ pact o~>~ ~ ~aw~ ~~ ~~~I~ z~ wee LacvnSutxlivi~on, p~p~~r- ggZ ly~~y~}9~np`3~at rip of ~1da ~a~nn~ty.([~ ~-'~~pieti ~ ... ~.~y~tl~ tH cad 541i ~Ja of~€ction x2. T. 3 iVy 61r i T7y sf.}V,k/ (~i •. .. #~ __^"Y f ~~vs`vd lF~n6* ~~ asf~~~: ~ ICI yla C C~$S£Ct~E ~, 8 ~®Ittt~ IPSBSs~C.~ ~'l~lxlii~i~, Gt! F. I1~. 93144, recaa~ oFsa~CEAd~t^in~}+; a g~fN S9' 3®' 16" W, a dfs~ce poi heat tip rt®ssit~ banes a#iheSt~' ~/a~aid n lZ l~ a pi~-rtt~tg tUe 7R1T~ DINT OP ~'GtY~3+D1]1~; ~Y [~otEreai I~ ~.~~1~~~ ~~~ Exhibit C -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAl`!fG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Ett~t • 5t • Plrnat~s t.~ & fad Read C:+ccc~de 1Ja4w 811 5urite B t:#tt~ 2QtC382-+i9IY1 ~F~• o ~6~ Faa: ~-]833~11tt O 2~9~R-2~l1 fax: 2349. ~w11~~s~,m~ Exhibit C -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAP~fG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 ~e ~ ei~r~a PO 8cx1~ Err~&se ®$t • F 1?Ji S F:og~e i 1t~ N ts~atta5'~r~t. ~ Idahn &"~'t1 iP, Iclaho~tb C7ffLi~ Z~ 3324 Uff~~ : i Fix: X18-3~? 3410 Ftur: X43 by Fes, (r~. ~tc~m~~arr~ Exhibit C -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 IT ]~~ ~ B'[T~ Q~ ~ . . ® Y ~i,Mp ~ F0~"dl~ ~~ id~EST PA1t8 3~II~' ~r t a ~E~ ~° ~ I SEG N 11 do 12 t.7eis^FS ~ {~ CPS INKY. ND. ~ '30'A8`W ~85~~9' ~ i /4 C6RM~R ~so~~s i~ t~e.ae'`I~' ,,~° seta.,'. ~-> ~ ° ~c~ass~ ~a ~~ s,~Rw ~~~ ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ o ~~ apt I ~ ~ ,~ ~, a ~~ ~. ~ a~-~nnetoly of r~ wc~r va o~ raaT ~ ~ avs~arv~siota ~r ~ FaR~a~rt o~ ~ gas iia oiP ~ ew u~ v~ ~ r, a r~. ~, = v~ ~.~., amt o~ , ~A cavutr, o ~: • s~~Ea . ,RCm i_ .9 A~ 9e1 i Exhibit C -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA1~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~RING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 I°P F!)~ G R:Y.TIR ~ DI~;~I~N HL 2 w t f 4 C®AN£fa __ i 5E~ t 1 t1 a 2 'liC'!sJ 8~1 Sl.^ dl` ,$t~`A~' TIVC CPdS lEi~si. RAJ. _ A9B9'dA1'9P W ~6~5~.89 C 1/4 Ct'1~1N7Ef~ $308445 ~' ~. R75$<7$'~ ~a`~8'~&"5v~~ SECTaQty' 12 ~ ST. 30.00' 864.33' ~ G€d~f INST. N0. ~ 93+83144 ~~ ~ ~' ebffi~ f ~ f 8t1'~. ~ + °~' a Y 17~$g 1P~E 1.0'1° 8 ~ ~ WP_S9lg~'~171~5 8 ~ ' ~ ~ o "~' ~ SEC'itON IOR2(V£R ~ "~t~&F 1pt5T. NQ. ,~,~,~ 9811T246 ~4~t ldj'i~`.~4f.i1' ~~ OIATT Ol+" BtE."[SJWJVfdV I i a ~ ,~. ~~ s ~~ ~_~-,~ ~ ~-ezr~aanrasiox~r or ~ ar 94'1' z x.~-w151 Bv9B19r~I6not~1 a~ >~ A Z~6fR7'lit}AI oP '1`H~ 1519$ !J4 ~~ 1"11$ 8~+ I/4 OP >~ ~~ T. 3Il5i, H, 111/: 3~. ~' O~ IA35T. AAA Ctii13511Y~ 983AH6 Rer~il~o~ Podrea, ~., ~ngiaccre . sarv~yun . I~tannog 4 ®m. ~ Exhibit C -Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TNE~RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 FAl~.1~EZOl"iT~Iti C./8E. SU~DII/IBit9N 1~lND A ~t3~Tftli4l AP WEST P~ ~'Y`REST ~q~ . r,~ a: . p ~ Fodre~, Yap, o ~ iN;819N of ~ its a~ ~~ ~ ~ sue.. ~~~ ~resr cswa~ snnsio~r ~rv~zw err ~ ~~~~ ct~ ., c o~ , e~w c9ntmrt~sr, au~~a ~e~asassteca PuBU~ W®RKS 6~PT. Exhibit C -Page f) CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~ING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Council fords that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). B. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Council fords that there aze several uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed within the requested zoning districts of R-15 and L-O. Specifically, multi-family uses aze conditionally allowed in the R-15 zone and churches are principally permitted in the L-O zone. Council fords that the development of this property should be required to comply with the established regulations and purpose statements of the requested zone. See Section 10, Analysis above for information on the regulations that need to be complied with. C. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Council finds that the proposed rezone, and subsequent development of this property shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfare. The Commission and Council should rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. D. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Council fords that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. E. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E). This fording is not applicable to the rezone request. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Council finds that the proposed plat is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). Exhibit D -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~ING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council fords that services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, Council fords that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement fiinds. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission and Council should rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this fording. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail.) E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and City Council is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision. ACFID considers road safety issues in their analysis. The Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Council fords that the Ninemile Creek should be preserved. Council is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, Council fords that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance, if the Ninemile Creek is preserved and protected. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. 3. CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Council finds that the site is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC. B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Exhibit D -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ICING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 Council fords that the proposed uses are is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan and the UDC (please see Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific items that apply to this development). C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Council finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi-family uses will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity as to not adversely change the character of the area. Council fords that a higher density residential use on this site should be compatible with the neighborhood (provided the applicant complies with all UDC provisions.) The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the other properties in the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Council fords that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all Preluninary Plat, Development Agreement and CUP conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Please refer to the comments and conditions prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Company and ACRD in Exhibit B. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Council fords that the applicant should be required to pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay highway impact fees. Council fords that the proposed uses should not create excessive additional costs for facilities or services and should not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Council finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Council does not believe that the amount of traffic or noise generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission and Council should reference any Exhibit D -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI`~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~~ING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. H. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Council fmds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance, if the Ninemile Creek is protected. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that maybe presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D -Page 4 • • July 21, 2406 CUP 06-014 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT SLC Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 5-F REQUEST Findings for Approval -Request far a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Sub~dlvision - 1021 West Pine Avenue 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 Findings ~'I I ~ :0~- Date: ~a~ Phone: ~~ l - ~'' y~~ hrr'st"b'l3 Cc.al. C4n~_ Staff Initials: ~,~ Materials presented at ptrbpc msetMps shop become properly of the City of Meridian. ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ~ R,~CEIVEI) JUL 1 6 2006 Oity Of Meridian ~ity~~~erk Office .4t-0 r '°~;~; 3 ~, In the Matter of Rezone of 5.49 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres), AND Preliminary Plat of 7 building lots (six 4- plex lots and 1 church lot) and 2 common lots on 5.33 acres, AND Conditional Use Permit to construct six multi-family (4-plex) dwelling units, by SLC Investments, LLC. Case No(s): RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 5, 2006 (Findings approved on July 25, 2006) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted 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-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 1 of 5 i • 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 Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, Landscape Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated January 24, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The applicant's Landscape Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Landscape Plan dated February 14, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 3. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing: a. The Development Agreement for this property shall only apply to the R-15 portion of the property. b. The applicant shall install non-flammable fencing along the southern boundary of the site. adiacent to the rail road tracks. 4. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditions use permits that also require platting, the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 2 of 5 • final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. 2. Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record a final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. 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 (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B- 7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe 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 maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 3 of 5 ~~ J this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021 /CUP-06-014 -PAGE 4 of 5 • By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ZL"~~ day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED_ I~~~~-- COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED_~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED__~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED__~~~~ TIE BREAKER ~~ MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED `~~\Y d~`de WEERD ATTEST: ~\ ~ ~~~ ~~% - ~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ~ .,~ ~'~~ ' w ~i~r~i~s/,f'1 ''yY~~'\~ ~~ 1//Hi11111111t Copy served upon: / Applicant / Planning Department / Public Works Department / City Attorney By: Dated: 7-2,?'Dl~ ity Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021J CUP-06-014 -PAGE 5 of 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANP~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 5, 2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Rushmore Subdivision -- ~ b '„ ~~ ~ '~ rrse°~r,r ja¢fXl,-,~~ ~~~ '" °~. •~.,,f • . >F_7~1.P~ 5~ ,.' RZ-06-004 -Rezone of 5.49 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres) PP-06-021- Preliminary Plat of 7 building lots (six 4-plex lots and 1 church lot) and 2 common lots on 5.33 acres CUP-06-014 -Conditional Use Permit to construct six multi-family (4-plex) dwelling units 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, 5LC Investments, LLC, has applied for Rezoning (RZ) of 5.49 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres); Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 6multi-family building lots, 1 church/office lot and 2 common lots; and, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct six multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes). Currently, there is a church (Meridian Friends Church) on the north part of this site; the south part of the site is vacant. The site is part of the West Lawn Subdivision, which was recorded in 1906. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and the corporate boundaries of the City of Meridian. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Generally, the Planning & Zoning Commission is the final decision making body on a Conditional Use Permit request. However, because the City Council is the final decision making body on the Rezone and Preliminary Plat applications, all three of the subject applications are being combined into one staff report. The Commission should make recommendations to the Council on all of the subject applications. Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications. Staff is recommending_approval of the proposed Rushmore Subdivision (RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-0141 with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on Mav 18, 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Michael Vance, Ken Redford ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Appropriate width and construction timeline for the street buffer along Pine Avenue; ii. Fencing; and, iii. Neighborhood interconnectivity. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 i. Recommended allowing landscape buffer along Pine Avenue to be constructed when the Church expands; ii. Required fencing along the south property line, adjacent to the railroad tracks. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 as presented during the public hearing of July 5, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1021 W. Pine Avenue; South side of Pine Avenue, east of Linder Road, in Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. b. Owners: Meridian Friends Church 1021 W. Pine Street Meridian, ID 83642 Burr International, Inc. P.O. Box 6486 Boise, ID 83707 c. Applicant: SLC investments, LLC 3210 E. Chinden Boulevard, Ste 115-327 Eagle, ID 83616 d. Representative: Michael Vance e. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for Rezoning (RZ) of 5.49 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17acresy and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres); Preliminary Plat (PP) approval Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~tING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 of 6multi-family building lots, 1 church/office lot and 2 common lots; and, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct six multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes). The average multi-family lot size in the proposed development is 5,880 square feet. All of the proposed 4- plexes contain two two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units. The total square footage of each building is 4,160 square feet. The gross density of this development is 4.5 dwelling units per acre, while the density of the area proposed for R-15 zoning is 11.06 dwelling units per acre (excludes church site). Approximately 7.3% of the site is being set aside for open space (17% of the multi-family area). The applicant is proposing to construct a management office, a bike storage area, a maintenance building, a community directory map, and a children's play area within the common area, Lot 1, Block 2. 1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 1/24/06 2. Date of landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 2/14/06 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. d. Newspaper notifications published on: May 1St and May 15t", 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 12~` and 26~', 2006 (for City Council hearing) e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: Apri121st, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 9~`, 2006 (for City Council hearing) f. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 8~`, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 25`x, 2006 (for City Council hearing) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There are existing church buildings and a parking lot on the north part of this site. The south part of this site is currently vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Across Pine Avenue and to the east are primarily single-family homes. To the south are the railroad tracks and to the west is the proposed Rock Creek development that includes multi-family dwellings and two office lots. This area can be classified as urban mixed use. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Single-family homes, zoned R-4, Canna. Lilly Estates Subdivision 2. West: Future multi-family dwellings and offices, zoned R-15 and L-O, Rock Creek Subdivision 3. South: Railroad tracks and industrial uses, zoned I-L 4. East: Single-family homes, zoned R-8, Tremont Place Subdivision d. History of Previous Actions: None. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANi~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer stub in West Broadway Avenue and the north side of Nine Mile Creek on each side of the property. Location of water: Water stub in West Broadway Avenue and there is a main in W. Pine Street. Issues or concerns: Flood plain associated with Ninemile Creek. 2. Floodplain: Portions of this property are within the Ninemile Creek floodplain. 3. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Rutledge Lateral runs along the southern boundary of this property. The Ninemile Creek bisects this property; this waterway should be protected. All other open ditches or laterals, including the Rutledge, that cross the subject site should be tiled in accordance with the UDC. 4. Hazards: Staff is recommending that the Ninemile Creek be fenced with open-vision fencing to protect the safety of the residents in this area. Staff is not aware of any other hazards associated with this property. 5. Proposed and Existing Zoning: This property is currently zoned R-4. The applicant is proposing to zone 2.2 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) and 3.3 acres to L-O (Limited Office). 6. Size of Property: 5.49 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 2. Non-residential Lots: 3. Total Building Lots: 4. Common Lots: 5. Other Lots: 0 6. Total Lots: 9 7. Gross Density: g. Landscaping 6multi-family (4-plex) 1 (churcb/office) 7 2 11 dwelling units per acre (net 18.8 d.u./acre)(Block 2) 1. Width of street buffer(s): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine Avenue, a collector street (LJDC 11-2A-6). The existing church parking lot encroaches into the required street buffer for Pine Avenue. Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report below for further analysis. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: The applicant states that 17.5% (0.38 acres) of the site is being set aside for open space (0.14 acres of common open space). Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report for more details. h. Amenities: For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities shall be provided, with 1 from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation)(UDC 11- 4-3.27D-2d). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: enclosed bike storage (Quality Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area, development map/directory, (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking path/sidewalks (Recreation), and open space (Open Space). i. Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have atwo-car covered carport or garage for each unit. The submitted preliminary plat proposes covered parking spaces for most of the multi-family (4-plex) dwellings. Because all of the units in this development contain two or more bedrooms, all of the parking stalls in this development should be covered. Also, staff has concern about the remoteness of some of the parking stalls, in relation to the units. Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report below for more analysis. j. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 200 square feet bike & maintenance storage 2. Proposed building height: 22 feet; R-15 zone allows 40 feet 3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: approximately 25% 4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: approximately 20% 5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: approximately 55% 6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: 0% 7. Number of Residential units: 24 k. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): There are two public streets stubbed to the subject property from the east. West Broadway Avenue is stubbed to the southern portion of this site and Idaho Avenue is stubbed to the northern portion of this site. 'The applicant is proposing to extend Broadway Avenue into the site from the east with a cul-de-sac. A loop private driveway system is proposed around the Broadway Avenue cul-de-sac. The applicant is not proposing to extend the Idaho Avenue stub into the site. NOTE: ACRD is not requiring that Idaho Avenue be extended into the site at this time. When and if the church lot, Lot 1, Block 1, comes in for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for any additions or re-constructions in the future, staff intends to require a permanent public turnaround for Idaho Street. There are two existing driveways to Pine Avenue that serve the existing church. ACRD has not evaluated these driveways for compliance with policy. Please see Exhibit B for ACHD's comments and conditions regarding this development. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On Apri128, 2006, staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated `Public/Quasi-Public' on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Public/Quasi Public is defined as "Areas are designated to preserve and protect existing private, municipal, state, and federal lands for area residents and visitors. This category includes churches and public lands (excluding parks and schools) within the Area of Impact. Upon redevelopment of such properties, a change in designation and use maybe appropriate. The redevelopment of these areas should be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the property. The appropriate land use Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 designation and accompanying zoning for these areas will be determined by City Council on a case by case basis." (Chapter VII, Section 1, Pg. 99, Meridian Comprehensive Plan). Within this report, staff has evaluated the subject proposal using the existing use, the underlying zoning, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation. The lands immediately to the west have previously been approved for multi-family uses. The property to the north and east are residential. Staff believes that the existing church, zoned R-4, and the proposed multi-family development can be compatible uses. This property is located between Pine Avenue, a collector roadway, and the railroad, a potential future transportation corridor. Staff believes that the location of this proposed medium-high density development is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map does not explicitly support the proposed zone change, staff finds that there are several Comprehensive Plan policies that do support the proposed zone change. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal sei-vices to the lands in the following manner: • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department. This service will not change. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). This service will not change. • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACfID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject rezone. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. Pine Avenue is classified as a collector roadway in this area. The existing access points to Pine Avenue should comply with ACfID's standards. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1: Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. This is an infill parcel with the properties adjacent to the subject site varying in density and housing type. North of the site are existing single family dwellings. East of the site is a single family subdivision. West of the site is a mixed-use development with multi family Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 dwellings. Staff believes that the proposed development should be compatible with the existing land uses. • Chapter V, Goal 1, Objective A, Action 11: Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas. The Rutledge Lateral and the Ninemile Creek course through or are adjacent to this site. Staff believes that the Ninemile Creek should be protected and enhanced by being left open and by the applicant constructing a pathway adjacent to the Ninemile Creek (see Exhibit B). • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.). The applicant is not proposing any landscaping adjacent to Pine Avenue. By ordinance, a 20- footwide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Pine Avenue. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3: Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land-use decisions. This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. Staff believes that the subject applications generally comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6: Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The project to the west, Rock Creek, has not provided opportunities for the subject site to provide vehicular connectivity (no stub streets or driveways). However, two stub streets were provided to this site from the east. The applicant is proposing to extend one of the two stub streets into this site. This proposal will provide interconnectivity with the subdivisions to the east. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5: Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system. The adjacent project to the west, Rock Creek, has provided a pedestrian connection to this site along the north side of the Ninemile Creek. The applicant is proposing to extend this pathway to and through the development. Because the property to the east has already been developed, the City should look into extending the pathway further to the east. This proposal should enhance the community pathway system. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6: Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. See analysis above. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 • Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9: Require new residential development to provide permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties. PYlOY to construction of any buildings, fencing should be constructed around the perimeteY of this site. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A-21ists multi-family development uses as conditional uses in the R-15 zoning district; churches are principally permitted in the L-O zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zones: MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15): The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. Residential land uses are also allowed within the O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts as set forth in Chapter 3 Article D. LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT (L-O): The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. c. Multifamily Development (iJDC 11-4-3.27) The following standards shall apply for the multifamily units, including standards for Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. Site design (UDC 11-4-3.27B1: A minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. For the purposes of this Section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private useable open space shall not be considered common open space. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3 of this Title. Developments with 20 units or more shall provide the following: a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location, a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. Common open space desi ngn requirements (iJDC 11-4-3.27CZ Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height. Site development amenities (UDC 11-4-3.27DZ All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to met the particular needs of the residents as follows: a) Quality of Life (clubhouse, fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and public are such as a statue); b) Open Space (open grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size, community garden, ponds or water features, and plazas); and c) Recreation (pool, walking trails, children's play structures, and sports courts). The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: For multifamily developments between 20 and 75 units, 3 amenities shall be provided, with at least 1 from each category. Architectural Character (UDC 11-4-3.27.E1: All building elevations shall have a minimum portion of the elevation devoted to architectural features designed to provide articulation and variety. These features shall include, but are not limited to windows, bays and offsetting walls that extend at least two feet; recessed entrances; and changes in material types. Changes in material types shall have a minimum dimension of two feet and minimum area of 25 square feet. Main entrances, which are the primary point(s) of entry where the majority of building users will enter and leave, shall be designed as an obvious entrance and focal point of the building through architectural treatment, lighting, and address identification. Entrances shall be adequately covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided. Roof forms shall be distinctive and include variety and detail when viewed from the street. Sloped roofs shall have a significant pitch. Flat roofs should include distinctive cornice treatments. Exterior building materials and fmishes shall convey an impression of permanence and durability. Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and the are encouraged. Windows are required to allow views to exterior activity areas or vistas. Windows shall be provided on any building facing any common area used for children's recreation. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment should be screened from public view from the adjacent public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. Landscaping; (iTDC 11-4-3.27.FZ Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I-~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3 of this Title. All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: The landscaped area shall be at least three feet wide; for every three lineal feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches shall be planted; and groundcover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. UDC 11-4-3.27.G: All multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. Outdoor storage/refuse areas (UDC 11-3A-121: Outdoor utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. 10. ANALYSIS Analysis Leading to Staff Recommendation As submitted, the subject applications appear to substantially comply with the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. However, there are some modifications to the site plan, the preliminary plat, and the landscape plan that staff would like to see made. In each section below, staff has listed the items that staff would like to see amended. 1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan staff believes that this is a good location for a higher density development and the proposed R-15 and L-O zoning. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a Zoning Amendment. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on 3/8/2006 by Robert W. Fodrea, PLS) shows the property within the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. UDC 11-SB-3D2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion as to not negatively impact nearby properties. Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of rezone ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney Bill Narv, at 888-4433 to initiate this process. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal Department to draft a development agreement for the R-15 portion of Rushmore Subdivision only as follows: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1. That all future development shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 2. That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with the applicant's approved preliminary plat unless otherwise modified by other provisions of the DA, or in the future by the City Council. 3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. 4. That the future uses and lots on this site shall conform to the District Regulations contained in the Unified Development Code (iJDC), in effect at the time of development. 5. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 6. That 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. 7. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided (a recorded final plat) in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 8. That when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (church lot), a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC (or a new CUP must be submitted and anuroved by the City)• 2. PP/CUP Applications: Landscaping The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, on 2-14- 06, labeled Sheet L1.0, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. • Widen to at least 5 feet (measured inside curbs) and provide at least one tree within the landscape planter in the parking stalls between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (UDC 11-3B-8C2) • All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. If the stonmwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application. Multi-family Standazds: The UDC has several specific standards that apply to multi- family developments (See UDC Section 9 above for a complete list.) These standazds apply to Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. Below are some of the standards that the applicant should be required to comply with. Private Useable Open Space: UDC 11-4-3.27B requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yazds. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count towazd this requirement. It appears that there is some type of a patio area on the reaz of the proposed 4-plexes. However this does not appear to be enough private area for each unit within each building. The applicant should clari , at the public hearing how the private useable open space requirement will be met for each unit. Pazkin~: UDC 11-3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have atwo-car covered carport or gazage for each unit. A1124 of the proposed units contain 2 or more bedrooms. The submitted preliminary plat does depict that 44 of the 48 proposed pazking spaces will be covered. The applicant should be required to comply with the off-street parking requirements of the UDC. NOTE: Staff has concerns with how faz away the parking area on the northeast side of the multi-family portion of this development is from the units. See Site Layout below. Amenities: The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multifamily development. For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities shall be provided, with 1 from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation)(UDC 11-4-3.27D-2d). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: enclosed bike storage (Quality of Life), property management office, maintenance storage azea, development map/directory, (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking path/sidewalks (Recreation), and open space (Open Space). Staff believes that the proposed amenities satisfy the UDC requirements. Staff is supportive of the proposed amenities. Elevations: With the application submittal the applicant provided one building elevation (front) for the proposed 4-plex structures. Since the original submittal the applicant has provided all four building elevations to staff. UDC 11-4-3 requires multifamily structures to comply with the design standards listed in this section. It appeazs that the elevations provided comply with UDC 11-4-3.27E. NOTE: Staff will ensure that when CZC applications are submitted for construction of the 4-plex buildings in the future, that the elevations also comply with the UDC requirements and are consistent with those attached in Exhibit A. Pedestrian Paths: With the approval of the Rock Creek development to the west, a 5- foot wide pedestrian walkway was required on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. The applicant is proposing to extend the pedestrian pathway in Rock Creek to this site's eastern boundary. Said pathway should be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8 (construction) and UDC 11-3B (landscaping). Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI~r DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 In 1996, COMPASS adopted the pathway recommendations laid out in the Ridge-to- Rivers Pathway Plan (1996). The goals of the plan include developing a bikeway and pathway system that encourages non-motorized transportation and enhances recreational opportunities. The Union Pacific Railroad corridor abutting the south property line is shown as a proposed multi-use pathway in Figure VI-3 (Off-Street Multiple-Use Pathways) in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. There is also amulti-use pathway shown adjacent to the Ninemile Drain in the Comprehensive Plan. In the past, the City has not required the construction of a pathway within the Union Pacific Railroad corridor, but has required developers that abut the future pathway to provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping. Consistent with previous Council action, the Applicant should not be required to construct amulti-use pathway adjacent to the southern boundary, but should be required to provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping along the south property line. There is an existing 25-foot wide irrigation easement within the rear setback. At a minimum, the Applicant should be required to plant trees in accordance with MCC (1 tree per every 35-lineal feet) on the south side of the buildings. Ninemile Creek and Rutledge Lateral: The Ninemile Creek and the Rutledge Lateral course through or are adjacent to this site. UDC 11-3A-6 requires natural waterways to be left open as a natural amenity, and for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains that are not being used as an amenity to be piped or otherwise covered. The Ninemile Creek is a natural waterway that should be protected and enhanced by leaving it open and constructing a pathway adjacent to it. The Rutledge Lateral should be piped. Multi-family Setbacks: The UDC does not have a specific setback between internal multi-family units. However, there may be a problem with not providing a full 10-foot front setback to the 4-plex units; utilities may need a wider easement. The front setback shown on the proposed 4-plex units, approximately 12 to 14 feet, should be sufficient. At least a 10-foot wide front setback should be provided between all 4- plexes and the back of the adjacent sidewalk. Pine Avenue Street Buffer: A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). There is existing parking for the church near Pine Avenue that encroaches into the required buffer area. Staff realizes that the church lot is not developing at this time, but it is part of the subject subdivision and subject to compliance with the UDC. Therefore, staff recommends that prior to occupancy of the first 4-plex, the applicant agrees to submit and gain approval for alternative landscaping compliance adjacent to Pine Avenue. Further, when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (church lot) in the future, a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC. NOTE: Staff has made this a provision of the Development Agreement and not a condition of the plat or CUP. Open Space: Open space is defined as an area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The areas may include, along with the natural environment features, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. The term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures of habitation (iTDC 11-1A). UDC 11-4- 3.27C requires a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 13 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~TG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height. The applicant states that 0.14 acres (6,098 square feet) of the site is being set aside for common open space. Based on the square footage of the proposed 4-plexes, each unit contains 4,160 square feet, 8,400 square feet of common open space should be provided. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Rushmore Subdivision Home Owners' Association(s). The applicant should explain where and how the common oven space requirements mentioned above will be met. Fencing: The applicant has not proposed any fencing for this the development. Staff recommends that the applicant testify at the public hearing if perimeter fencin wg ill be installed and what type. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A-7. Per UDC 11-3A-6B3 requires open vision fencing along waterways where it is in the best interest of public safety. Staff recommends that the Council require open-vision fencing on both sides of the Ninemile Creek. Pressure Irri atga ion: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A- 15 and MCC 9-1-28. Site Layout: As mentioned above, the submitted plat does propose 48 parking stall on this site. However, staff believes that there is one problem with the way the development is currently laid out. Lot 5, Block 2, which is located in the southwest corner of the development has no parking in front of the building. Staff is concerned about the remoteness of the parking area in the northeast corner in relation to the units. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council determine if there are too many units on this site. Staff Recommendation: Based on the facts provided in this report, staff recommends approval of File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. On Mav 18, 2006 the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject applications to the City Council with the Development Agreement provisions listed in Section 10 and the Conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. 11. E~~ITS A. Drawings Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE i-1~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1-24-06) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: 2-14-06) 3. Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department 9. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District C. Legal Descriptions D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~RING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1-24-06) ~~~ ~o+ear® 11 _ --. _ - ~ ' t I ~-~~ sir `e8g$i~i~r~~0~E0 ~~~~i iB~@~ ~,~.,. ~~ ~~1 ~~ ~~~! ;! I I I I I i a J , ' ~ __ tXF ~ _ E ~~i~~:..,~J ~ -~ ___ - ! - -~.~ - ~~ , - t ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ._ _~ . ~. - 1~ ~, ~-_ _ -. ~~~~<~~~ . ~ ~~~~: ~ Q -- _ - ~ ~ o ~ i-:y 1 ' L-.• ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ _ ~ g~ - ~ ~~~~-~-t~45 - ram+c-~. ~-- owlmnr orosw Bourn a Exhibit A -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~NG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 2 Landscape Plan (dated 2-14-06) ..~,;~° - +-s., - -- a (~ LU CL f~ 1 t E ~{ Exhibit A -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I-~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Elevations Exhibit A -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Exhibit A -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~iING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 -- _v n _ -.,14. I J Exhibit A -Page 5 rZ~~J CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-021) 1.1.1 The preliminary plat/site plan labeled Sheet No. 1 o f 1, prepared by Rennison Fodrea, Inc., dated January 24, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Rezone (RZ-06-004) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-014) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-06-021). 1.1.2 The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, on 2-14-06, labeled Sheet L1.0, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. • Widen to at least 5 feet (measured inside curbs) and provide at least one tree within the landscape planter in the parking stalls between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (UDC 11-3B-8C2) • All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application. 1.1.3 Provide a cross parking/cross access easement for all of the lots in Block 2 to use common Lot 1 as access to Broadway Avenue. A copy of a recorded cross-access/ingress-egress and parking maintenance agreement shall be provided to the City. 1.1.4 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Rushmore Subdivision Homeowners' Association. 1.1.5 All imgation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways (Ninemile Creek), intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13, unless otherwise approved by the Irrigation District(s). Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. Per UDC 11-3A-6B3, open vision fencing is required along waterways where it is in the best interest of public safety. Staff recommends that the Council require open-vision fencing on both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 1.1.6 Other than the public street access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to W. Pine Avenue. Exhibit B -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~tING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1.1.7 Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant shall be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.1.8 Provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the development. Said landscape buffer may be included within the existing irrigation easement for the Rutledge Lateral if a license agreement for landscaping is obtained from the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID). If the Applicant is unable to obtain a license agreement from NMID, provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer outside of the NMID easement. 1.1.9 All internal sidewalks shall be constructed as submitted and in accordance with MCC 12-5-2.K. 1.1.10 No building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building structure or land be established or change in use on this site without first obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department (MCC 11-19-1). 1.1.11 Prior to obtaining certificate(s) of occupancy, all development improvements, including perimeter fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed. Prior to signature of the final plat(s) by the City Engineer, a letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sewer, water, etc. 1.1.12 The construction of the required landscape street buffer adjacent to Pine Avenue can be delayed and made a part of the Church's expansion project. 1.2 GENERAL REQUIltEMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-021) 1.2.1 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application(s). 1.2.2 The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. Non-flammable fencing shall be constructed along the south side of the nroiect, adiacent to the railroad urouerty. 1.2.3 Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. 1.2.4 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.5 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- Exhibit B -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.2.6 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 1.2.7 Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation and conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.2.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.3 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-06-014) 1.3.1 Comply with all of the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.27 regarding multi-family developments, including Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. 1.3.2 The front elevation, including colors and construction materials of all of the 4-plex buildings in this development shall conform to Sheet OF, prepared by Ram-Tech Design, dated 2-21-06. All elevations of the 4-plex buildings shall conform to the elevations in Exhibit A of the Staff Report. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment shall be screened from public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. 1.3.3 Provide at least 0.38 acres of open space, 0.19 acres of common open space, at least 80 square feet of private useable open space for each unit (such as a patio or deck), bike storage, a maintenance building, a management office, atot-lot area, a community directory, and a pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. 1.3.4 Provide at least 48 covered parking stalls for this development. 1.3.5 Provide front setbacks as shown on the proposed plat (at least 10 feet to the sidewalk); and side setbacks (10-feet between buildings). 1.3.6 Provide open-vision (chain link) fence along both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 1.3.7 All comments and conditions of the accompanying Rezone (RZ-06-004) application and Preliminary Plat (PP-06-021) application, shall also be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-014). 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in West Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall install mains to and through this development; applicant Exhibit B -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 The applicant shall be required, as depicted on the preliminary plat, to install mains between the two manholes located adjacent to this site and just north of Ninemile Creek. This will allow for the sewer lift station in Tremont Place to be decommissioned. 2.3 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in West Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). 2.5 A portion of this property lies within a FEMA recognized flood plain with a zone designation of A. Prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer the applicant shall provide a Base Flood Elevation report from a professional surveyor or other licensed professional qualified to prepare said document. 2.6 Upon submittal of the final plat to the City Engineer for signature the applicant shall submit an entirely separate, second plat for use by the Building Department that contains the floodplain overlay. 2.7 All lots encumbered by the floodplain shall submit flood plain elevation certification prior to occupancy. 2.8 The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "fmal draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.9 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.10 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements. 2.11 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from 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. 2.12 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. Exhibit B -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.13 The applicant has not indicated how the storm drainage from the proposed parking lots. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall 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. 2.14 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.15 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.16 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro-paths, and landscaping maybe bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.17 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. 2.18 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.21 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.22 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.23 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.24 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Height for 100 watt fixtures is 25-feet, height for 250 watt fixtures is 30-feet. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. Fire Department Exhibit B -Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 3.1 One and two family dwellings will require afire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C 3.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %Z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. 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 when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. i. Fire sprinklers required for four-plexes. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.7 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. 3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.9 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 3.10 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.12 The Fire Department requires that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 3.13 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Exhibit B -Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAM~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.14 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fire sprinklered. 3.15 Side yard fences shall not be allowed. 4. Police Department 4.1 Prior to release of building permits, the applicant shall submit a parking_plan for all off-street parking in the multi-family development to the Planning Department. All parking spaces shall be assigned to a specific dwelling unit or for guest use. The parking`nace identification shall use a different numbering system than the dwelling units. 4.2 The proposed multi-family development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. 4.3 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 4.4 To increase emergency access to the site, the Police Department recommends that the applicant provide a stub street to the property to the north or west. 5. Parks Department 5.1 Pathway and Trail standards: The proposed pathway and/or trail shall be constructed in accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. Ada County Highway District Site Specific Conditions ofApproval 7.1 a Locate the cul-de-sac of West Broadway Avenue abutting the eastern property line, as proposed, with the 48-foot turn radii. Construct curb, gutter and a 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk along the entire cul-de-sac. 7.1b Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions ofApproval 7.1b Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2b Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACPID roadway or right-of--way. Exhibit B -Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 7.3b All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.4b Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.Sb Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 7.6b Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.7b All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.8b 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. 7.9b Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.1 Ob Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 7. l lb It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.12b 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. 7.13b 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. 8. Central District Health Department 8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. Exhibit B -Page 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAIV~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water. 8.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 8.4 It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. 9. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District 9.1 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change Application be filed, for review, prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. 9.2 All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Nine Mile Drain courses through the middle of this proposed project and the District's Rutledge Lateral courses along the south boundary. These easements must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. 9.3 All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. 9.4 The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 9.5 It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Exhibit B -Page 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~NG DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 C. Legal Descriptions G~nade [Tt6m A~ac i$5 LIk3 N iVletei met ldu6u 83611 Offer X3$2-~12 Faac ~-3~-~1U ~~ri • a~t~ ~ Ple~mmuar~ i~ s~~ Sulbc! Eagle, ldal~'t6 t~fRce~ ~l4 UA'LB 3f$f 06 I~m~ct ~Io~ 1534 Rte ~ I Strom 5 3~8 aot~ forn~rlY ~~ ~ of IFs~~, 6~eat Ifatwwae S-ubdivisio~ ah~ ~ ~ Pie ~tr la~ca~ed ~ a posH~n o~ 1~ 1/i ~ ~i 3la of 12 T 31'x„ A 1 W., of ~~ ;Ada Coul~ty, Idaho ~' b3- Ft~ea htc. ~t ~ ®(~~~ ~~c pmt Exhibit C -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl'~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Y~~ Cnruxide, f~laho t ] f_ 2uP-3S2-I~ Paa ~ 3ffi 310 Ett~irte • Sr , • Flrs ~~~ 5a#e B Raply, Ideho~f-16 Z2t4l1 Fa~c -93~-241 DATE 3/8/t}6 i"e~et N®.; i4 ~'7 l'RN: ~~P~$ctstil531~ dluz Exhibit C -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 ~t ~ir~a Z~x ~~tN ~ aenr„ 1t~ filMaiinS ~~~ ° +s + P[mrn~5 72R S ogle Road Idahn ~k1 ~ Offh~~., a lclaltt-~36tb P3ae: ~S-3~'i-310 ~: ~~8.93& Pea: aJ43 by ItE>~San Fodlea, hse. ~1['mjedotl~~aTl3o~~ac Exhibit C -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAIV~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~NG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 IT ~. iJ~IQr BTJS ~ ~. ®L~GK 1 ~ 11 PO~~'li11~T OF 'WPffiT PIPoTB ~TI~ET ®.~~~~ ~ I ~ I i ~. ~... c t/4 co~la~ = s~ea~t~ro to 1.38' ~ t~ltF ~15T. P1A. B363iM o ~ ~ ~+r4 ~ t~a~ r ~. ~„~~ ~i ~' ~-susarviezox of ~ vs a~ xts~' ~` ~ xtnnison Fodres, Inc. HES 2/~# OP's 8IW 3/~ ®F ! ~'B'a 3 ~ IZ.1 {~. ~- ~o. ar yw, ~., QTY OP ~ ADA t7QUlw'l"Y, tDA~O Exhibit C -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~ING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 ~~ N~T~ ~LTB ~L>~DIVESIQ9N ®L[1G~ 2 S~C19Ddd4 I t ~~i 22 _ "` ~ ~y p t ~F9dcf' iNSi, rt0, _~ t~ ~ 6"W $6s~~9'LQ'.413.tJV~G _ C a/~ C~E~,' SSd38445 9t>t ~ ~9n.8,28'~ 5ECT9AA9 92 m~o~'a~"w,.~~ c~~ Iwsr. ra~3. ~ _ST. 3d.~' 854.39' ® 9383944 (v ~~ BB.Q~ 1 ~ ~ 89ST8. *C ' o 4~ ~ h ^~ 4 I WH81' I.dl®fIN 3!^« 91A?!°N ' ~ ~ 4q ,a >E 2. »l~BlTi ~ S 9 4 SEC'190Nti ~ q'&F 9N5T. N~. ~e s3a9 t72499 HB4~YQYM~`g4~1 t~j~ i'-~'1 Ol'J4lT tlF B.~`13JAJNINGf ~ , ~ . ,~ ` .~ E4L4fi~4tY ZfbUNp s @-{ E ®A-19 w ~e sua~rg~s><ox o>P ar>~ >tn a~ ~vr ~ R~n~ti~ou Fodrea, ~C. ` ~.AWiV BIO1+I BIB GiA~'S~ >f?4 ~ 'i'ds ~ g'F~~B1~ • snrvoyar. . '~pp15yt8~I/u4..~81d~TISWyI~/~4~+OaP~B~/~q,~~~7p,T~.~N.p,,~>~~.~1V~ ~ b~ t~~~, ravel vt14^ V~ YL~y ,q~A W/W~i Ej+Wta+iV fMa. om ~ ~1.4M~4Vb Exhibit C -Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 1~NG DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 FOl! ~~AN1~1YG ~~JSHIYttyBE SUBxlIVIBIt~AT ~ll1Tfl ~! @OE=i'Yt?1V ~F WEST PIl1~ ~.. _e _ ~~ ram .rw cuaru ~ e'.~ is inn e W RK$ Exhibit C -Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H)~NG DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Council fords that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). B. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Council fords that there are several uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed within the requested zoning districts of R-15 and L-O. Specifically, multi-family uses are conditionally allowed in the R-15 zone and churches are principally permitted in the L-O zone. Council fords that the development of this property should be required to comply with the established regulations and purpose statements of the requested zone. See Section 10, Analysis above for information on the regulations that need to be complied with. C. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Council finds that the proposed rezone, and subsequent development of this property shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfare. The Commission and Council should rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. D. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Council fords that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. E. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (iJDC 11-SB-3.E). This fording is not applicable to the rezone request. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Council finds that the proposed plat is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). Exhibit D -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HUNG DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council fords that services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, Council fords that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission and Council should rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail.) E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and City Council is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision. ACFID considers road safety issues in their analysis. The Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Council fords that the Ninemile Creek should be preserved. Council is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance, if the Ninemile Creek is preserved and protected. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of maj or importance of which staff is unaware. 3. CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Council fords that the site is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC. B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Exhibit D -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H)~NG DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 Council finds that the proposed uses are is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan and the UDC (please see Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific items that apply to this development). C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Council fmds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi-family uses will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity as to not adversely change the character of the area. Council fmds that a higher density residential use on this site should be compatible with the neighborhood (provided the applicant complies with all UDC provisions.) The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the other properties in the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Council finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all Preliminary Plat, Development Agreement and CUP conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standards. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Please refer to the comments and conditions prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Company and ACRD in Exhibit B. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Council finds that the applicant should be required to pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay highway impact fees. Council fmds that the proposed uses should not create excessive additional costs for facilities or services and should not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Council finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Council does not believe that the amount of traffic or noise generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission and Council should reference any Exhibit D -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H1~iNG DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. H. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance, if the Ninemile Creek is protected. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that maybe presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D -Page 4 CJ ~~ly 21, 2006 Az 06-023 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT Ada County Highway District ITEM NO. 5-G REQUEST Findings for A~prova) -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for Martin Annexation - 1120 South Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Findings 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: a-`C oh Phone: C I~ ~ Initials' Materials presented of public meetings still become properly of fhe Cfly of Meddtan. ~~ ~,~c~~~ JUL 9 8 2006 ity,;f Meridian ,i~ ,,, .lark Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ?= ~ ~~ -~:~ ~ 1,,.~ ~t ~~_~ `C-~-'~cS, ~a+t;.iai',z~; ~ti't4_~~°.-. c..E 1~ In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning of 1+/- acre from RUT (Ada County) to R-2 (Low- Density Residential), by the Ada County Highway District (Martin Annexation). Case No(s). AZ-06-023 For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 5, 2006 (fmdings approved on July 25, 2006) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted 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-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-023- PAGE I of 3 • 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 Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description and the Comments in Exhibit B of the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. The Staff Report is concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet all applicable requirements of the application approval. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: The applicants request for Annexation is approved subject to the provisions listed in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-023- PAGE 2 of 3 • By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD TIE BREAKER MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD Z~~ day of VOTED VOTED_ `%~~ VOTED_ C~~~Gf~., VOTED_ l J~~ VOTED ~~ ATTEST: .fy M~~O~R"P ~ ~` e WEERD .~`~~ 'so ~~ ~, _ ~ _ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ITY C~,E ~ ~ q' Copy served upon: ~/ Applicant ~~~eiao+$a49 fo~ti~vy~°` / Planning Department / Public Works Department / City Attorney By: Dated: 1 ~ 21 'OlD City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CA5E NO(S). AZ-06-023- PAGE 3 of 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 7/5/2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Wafters/Caleb Hood Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 ,~: _" ~ ~®te~-fens ~~ ,, ~ ~ ~: -.. .~ SUBJECT: Martin Annexation AZ-06-023 Annexation and Zoning of 1+/- acre from RUT (Ada County) to R-2 (Low-Density Residential). 1. SiJNIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Ada County Highway District (ACRD), has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to R-2 (Low-Density Residential) for 1+/- acre of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site is located at 1120 S. Locust Grove Road on the east side of S. Locust Grove Road, approximately 250-feet north of I-84. Currently, there is asingle-family home and small shed on this site. Due to the Locust Grove overpass project, ACRD has acquired the front .513 acre portion of this property and the residence thereon. The Martins have retained the remainder .486 acre portion in the rear and are planning on constructing a replacement single-family dwelling and relocating the existing shed on this property. The site is composed of two tax parcels and has not been previously platted. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. 2. SUNIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION The subject application (AZ) was submitted to the Planning Department for review. Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis, comments, and recommended actions for the requested Annexation and Zoning application. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Martin Annexation (AZ-06-023) with the comments listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Resort. The Meridian Plannine and Zonine Commission heard the item on June 1.2006. At the public hearine they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Kathy Smith (ACRD) ii. In opposition: None. iii. Commenting: None. iv. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood v. Other staff commenting on application: None. b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Access for parcels in this area, once the overpass gets constructed. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number AZ- 06-023 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Marrin Annexarion AZ-06-023 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAIV~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TIC I~2ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number AZ-06-023 as presented during the hearing of July 5, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Number AZ-06-023 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1120 S. Locust Grove Road; east side of S. Locust Grove Road, approximately 250 feet north of I-84 / 3N1E17 b. Owners: ACIID, 3775 Adams Street, Garden City, ID 83714 Jackie and Gayle Martin, 1120 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, ID 83642 c. Applicant: ACRD, 3775 Adams Street, Garden City, ID 83714 d. Representative: Kathy Smith, ACRD e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting approval for Annexation and Zoning of the subject 1+/- acre to R-2. ACRD has acquired the front 0.513 acre portion, including the existing residence, for the future Locust Grove Road overpass project. The Martins have retained the back 0.486 acre portion on which they will construct a replacement single-family detached home and relocate the existing shed. Access to the new Martin home will be provided from a new cul-de-sac that ACRD will be constructing• access will not be allowed to Locust Grove Road. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: May 15~' and 29~', 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 12~' and 26`", 2006 (for City Council hearing) c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 5~', 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 9~', 2006 (for City Council hearing) d. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 19~', 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 25~`, 2006 (for City Council hearing) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There is one single-family home on this site. The existing home will be removed prior to construction of the Locust Grove overpass and a new replacement single- family dwelling will be constructed on the back portion of the property. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area consists of one-acre +/- residential properties in Ada County and industrial property in the City. Martin Annexation AZ-06-023 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~i DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~1NG DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Single-family homes on 1-acre parcels, zoned R-1 (Ada County) 2. East: Single-family homes on 1-acre lots in Locust View Heights Subdivision, zoned R-1 (Ada County) 3. South: Single-family homes on large pazcels, zoned R-1 (Ada County) 4. West: Single-family home on lrege parcel, zoned RUT (Ada County) and property zoned I-L (City) d. History of Previous Actions: None. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: This property will be sewered from service stubs installed during the ACHD Locust Grove Overpass Project. Location of water: This property will receive water service from service stubs installed during the ACHD Locust Grove Overpass Project. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: Staff is unaware of any canals or ditches on this property. 3. Hazazds: No hazards have been identified on this site. 4. Proposed Zoning: R-2 (Low-Density Residential) 5. Size of Property: 1+/- acre f. Off-Street Pazking: UDC 11-3C-6 requires single-family detached dwellings to have 2 enclosed pazking spaces (a gazage) and a 20' x 20' pazking pad in front of each gazage. g. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Anew roadway and cut-de-sac will be constructed off of Bentley Avenue for access to the Martin's property and will be designed to allow for Mr. Martin to pazk his semi tractor and trailer on his property and not in the public right of way of the cut-de-sac. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On May 12, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this azea. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Pazks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included these comments in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Low Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Low density residential areas are anticipated to contain up to three dwellings per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The Martins' only intend to construct one single-family residence on their parcel and no homes will be constructed on the pazcel owned by ACHD. The proposed density is within the anticipated density for this area. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): Martin Annexation AZ-06-023 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAi~fG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACfID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 -Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. 7'he applicant is proposing a low density residential zone adjacent to existing low density residential properties. Staff ftnds that the impact to the existing residential properties to the north, south and east will be minimal. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13 -Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments. As part of the agreement between ACLID and the Martins, ACFID will be constructing a new roadway and cul-de-sac for access to the Martin parcel from Bentley Avenue. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 -Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The existing access to Locust Grove Road, an arterial street, will be removed. See analysis above. City Staff is also supportive of the location of the new roadway and removal of the existing access to Locust Grove Road. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Martin Annexation AZ-06-023 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~CG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 a. Schedule of Uses: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2A-21ists single-family detached homes as permitted uses in the R-2 zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: R-2 Low-Density Residential: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. c. General Standards: The applicant must meet all dimensional standards of the R-2 zone as contained in UDC 11-2A-4. No dimensional modifications are being requested. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the requested R-2 zone is appropriate for this property. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and fmdings for annexation. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on April 12, 2006 by Stephen Padoris, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. Development Agreement: UDC 11-SB-3.D.2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA is not necessarv to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and does not ne atively impact nearby properties. The applicant shall be subject to all standards of the UDC b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of AZ-06-023 for 1120 S Locust Grove Road as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D Staff has included all comments and recommended actions in the attached Exhibit B (because this is only an annexation application, there are no conditions of approval.) On June 1, 2006 the Meridian Plannin & Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of AZ-06-023 to the City Council as presented in the Staff Report 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawing 1. Locust Grove Grade Separation Plan (dated: 12-OS) B. Agency and Department Comments 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 8. Central District Health Department C. Legal Description & Annexation Boundary Map D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Martin Annexation AZ-06-023 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAM~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE F1~ING DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 A. Drawing 1. Locust Grove Grade Separation Plan (dated: 12-05~ Exhibit A -Page 1 CTI'Y OF MERIDIAN PLA~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEt~G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 B. Agency and Department Comments 1. Planning Department 1.1 The legal description prepazed by Stephen Padoris, PLS, dated Apri121, 2006 and submitted with the application is accurate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission. 1.2 All future uses on this site should comply with the provisions of the Unified Development Code in effect at the time of submittal. 1.3 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. 2. Public Works Department 2.1 The Martins' shall be required to connect to City water and sewer service within 60 days of the time services become available. City sewer and water mains will be constructed with the extension of the new access road from Bentley Avenue to the Martin property and will be available upon its completion. 3. Fire Department 3.1 One and two family dwellings will require afire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500 feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix C. 3.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. T'he Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.4 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. 3.5 Provide a 20-foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. Exhibit B -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PL~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H)~iG DATE OF JUNE I, 2006 3.7 The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact Vicki Heugly at 898-5500 to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 3.8 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). (a) For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). (b) For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4. Police Department 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. Sanitary Service Company 5.1 Trash collection for the existing residence needs to be from a local street, not from a collector or arterial. 6. Central District Health Department 6.1 Central District Health Department has no objection to this proposal. Exhibit B -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PL~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TIC I-IE~G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 C. Legal Description Bound Description Car: Ada Cnunay lligltway f3istrica r4da County Assessor Parcel Numbers S I I I ?32S60d1.~; $1 t 732565() A parcel of land situated in the Soufhw~t quarter crf Saxtion 17, Township 3 Itiorih, Range t East, Boise Meridian, Ada C'crutrty, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: t3cgining at a point on the saxtion line ar;hich nears South 1)°I S's0" W'cst„ 14?5.45 feet from the quarter erection comer eonunon la Sections I ?and 1 S° Tuwnsltip 3 '.•Vorth. Range 1 East. Boise Meridian, said point t+cting the t~iNT QF f3E(i;TNNINti: Thence continuing South 0°tR'~!3" (Vest, 1A0.(Ip Ceet along the +ectioe line to a point; `[hence North 89°~0'StI"Cast, 43S.t?i? feet to a point; Thanes North tl° 18'5U'° Lzts4 1(IIl.thl Ceet to a point an said section tine; Thence Souuth SN°5Q'SO°' (Vest, 4:i5.tlt1 fit ntong said section line to the Point oC 13e~nniug. Said descritxai parcel eentaims 43,50(1 Square Ceet or l.lNl Acres. Said paeccl is subject to eas~rtcnts of record or in use. This description (vas prepared by the AC.IiD s~rrvey section Cram that Quitclaim Deed, fled as it>smutt4=nt numher'I'8tN321d$, records of Ada Couttay, Idaho. ~ n ~rjdi~n I'ublie pr~~ t?~pt. Exhibit C -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PL~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JUNE I, 2006 A. Legal Description -Annexation Boundary Map ~~ co $ PREP~RE® ~Y: AG~Id SURVI~Y ~/~~/os a ~~s~°~~~ ~34.OI~° R7~9~°39'S0'E ~35,Q0' S~ w~ '~ '~~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~~, Exhibit C -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PL~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE,~G DATE OF JUNE 1, 2006 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to R-2. Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Council finds that future development of this property will comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the R-2 zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Commission and Council should rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (LTDC 11-SB-3.E). The R-2 zoning amendment on the subject property corresponds well with existing rural properties in the near vicinity. Council finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the fmdings listed above, Council fmds that Annexation and Zoning of this nroneriy to R-2 would be in the best interest of the Citv Exhibit D -Page 1 • July 21,2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT American West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. 5-H REQUEST Findings for Approval -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zones for Canterbury Commons Subdivision -south of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road 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 Findings Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. AZ 06-013 July 25, 2006 July 21,2006 • PP 06-011 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT American West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. S-~ REQUEST Findings for Approval -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots] and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision -south of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile 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 findings Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • i July 21,2006 CUP 06-6 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 25, 2006 APPLICANT American West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. Jr-~ REQUEST Findings for Approval -Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct amulti-family development consisting of 2~ multi-family dwelling units on 50 lots and 72 townhouses dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision AGENCY COMMENTS ~_ ~- CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See attached Findings Contacted: Date: Emailed: Phone: JTQTi InITIQIS: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. J U ly 21,2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-K REQUEST Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement for Bellingham Place AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See aitoched CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: _ D~ CITY SEWER DEPT: i/"~ 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• Motedals presented of public meetin~a still become properly of the City of Medd~n. r: SANITARY SEV~'ER EAS,.~MEN.., • Page 1 of 3 ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .QO I BOISE IDAHO OlI31/06 044 pM I ` I I I RECORDEDREQUEST OF ~I~ I~~~I~~~~~~~~~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III Median City Pu60o Works 1 ~~ i ~~~5~ THIS INDENTURE, made this ~~_day of~.~,, 20~between ,~ the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of eridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer right-of--way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from tune to time by the Grantee; NO'VV, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of--way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of a sewer line over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary sewer line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of ,the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of--way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY iTNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described far this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. P http://mail.google.com/maiU?view=att&disp=vah&attid~0.1&th=10c6382dad28a7ff 7/12/2006 • Page 2 of 3 T'I~ GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of--way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public stteet, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: .~,t~~~..,+ STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada On this day of --~~~,,.~- , 20O1a, before mg, the undersigned, a Notary Publ~~for said Statd, persiSnally appeazed w -- and ~ ' ~ ~, known or idea fled to me to be the President and Secretary, respech ely, of the corporation that executed the within mstrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. i~~ NOTARY PIJ}3LIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: Q / -D ~ ~o / htta:/Jmail.~oo~le.com/maiU?view =att&disp=vah&attid=0.1&th=10c6382dad28a7ff P 7/12/2006 • ~ Page 3 of 3 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN ~ ~ Tammy de We ayor ~~ ~~ ~: ~'~~~''~o '= ~~ ~ Attest by William G. Berg, City Clerk ~, .~ ,~¢~' Approved By City Council On: 1~~,~,1~;~,,, ~~ ~~~~rU+~ i r ~ i i i~ ~' STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada On this~~ day of ~ ~~~ , 200 ,before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and WII,LIAM 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. ~~ G~~ ~~ ~u~.~ {SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at• ~ ~.~ Q ~..~o~ Commission Expires:_ j D -' ~ ~ ~ i 1 httv:!/mail.aoo~le.com/maiU?view=att&disp=vah&attid=0.1&th=10c6382dad28a7ff ~ - , - ~ - i. IDAHO SURVEY GROUP D. Terry Peugh, PLS Project No. 04063-03 Meridian Sanitary Sewer Easement Bellingham Park Subdivision Na. l 1450 East Watertower St. Suite 150 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone (208) 846-8570 Fax (208} 884-5399 July 18, 2006 A 20.00 foot wide Sanitary Sewer Easement located in-the SW 1/4 of Section 29, T.3N., R 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 29; Thence along the section line North 00°30'01" West, 1675.06 feet; Thence North 86°25'08" East, 40.06 feet to a point on the Eastright-of--way of S. Locust Grove Road and the REAL P®INT ®F BEGINNING. Thence continuing North 86°25'08" East, 286.97 feet; Thence North 56°34'54" East, 95.52 feet; Thence 20.56 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 58.00 feet, a central angle of 20°18'54", and a long chord bearing North 45°33'07" West, 20.46 feet; - - ~ - Thence South 56°34'54" West, 85.90 feet; Thence South 86°25'08" West, 280.57 feet to a point an said East right-of--way of S. Locust Grove Road; Thence along said right-of--way South 00°30'01" East, 20.03 feet to the Point of Beginning. ~ - - Prepared By: Idaho Survey Group,P.C. ~~. -~ ~a~~ ~ t~j'7r~ Q ~'RY P~~~ PrvfessivnaA Land Surveyors ~~ n....~ 1/4 s.3a_~~ s.29 .~ I :~ _ I II i a' l ~~~ n Z,~ ~~ N CC•~ r ~ I m ~ ~ ©i- GP~p,~, ~~P~G~+ ~ ~.. . i 20' SANITARY SEWER EAr~S~EMEN~ 280 57; „_ _ -~ __.. ~ N 86"25'08 E 286.97' S 77i ~ O ~ ~~ ~~O Q'~ / ~ E. WRIGHTWOOD DR. ~ ° ~' ~ 1 z BLOC K 7 ' N 9/16 ~ ~ BL K 8 i : - ~ : ~,~ :: ~ ~~ : i ~ ~ 6 8 . 2 •. 5 ~ . ~ PLS 7323 ~ N89'44'03"W 659 95' '. , M . '• ~ TERRIER SUBDIVISION . ••. '- Bk $3, pg 9099 5.30 S.29 E. AMITY R Q AD ~ S.29~ /4 S 39 5 32 _ _ _ _ _ M S89'43'51 "E 2645 4 . . .0 S.32 CURVE TABLE Curve Rodtus Length Chord Dtet. Chord B Delto Ct 58.00 20.56 20.48 N 45'33'07° W 20'18' " " ~~~ IDAHO 1950 E WATEHTOWER 87. ~r, ,-0•. SURVEY M~ ~.~nAt,oS~z ~~. ' GROUP, P.C. `~e'~~7e SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT EXHIBIT FOR BELLINGHAM PARK SUB N0. 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN LOCATED iN THE SW 1 4 OF SECTION 29, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., MERIDIA , ADA COUNTY, IDAHO ~ ~~7-`~~ LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING u 4o.os '2 ' e° E L2 95.52 34'S4" E L3 85.90 5634'54" W L4 20.03 S 0030'p1" E JOB N0. 04- 063 SHE NTE 0. 1 OF 1 '-1 _: • • City of Meridian Public Works Dept. RECEIVED Memo To: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Karie Glenn CC: File JUL 2 0 200 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Date: 7/19/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for 7/25/06 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the 7/25/06 City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: 1) Sanitary Sewer Easement for Bellingham Place. Typical Sanitary Sewer Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Sanitary Sewer Easement for Bellingham Place and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT • Page 1 of 3 THIS INDENTURE, made this .day of, 20~between ~ ~ the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of eridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer right-of--way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from time to time by the Grantee; NOW; THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of--way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of a sewer line over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary, sewer line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of--way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. http://mail.google.com/maiU?view=att&disp=vah&attid=0.1&th=10c6382dad28a7ff 7/12/2006 • Page 2 of 3 THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of--way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of--way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada On this day of , 20 ~C~ , before me,, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, persSnally appeared ~ and __~v . P~T ~,~ cam, ,known or iden fie to me to be the President and Secretary, respective y, of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. SEA' ..... ~~ ~; ' A, ~. f.~,?p~ ~-' NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO ~OT'4~`~, ,` - ~~ Residing at: Commission ~ ~'~i~-;~ Expires: Q / -l~~/- ~C f A _ ~~ http://mail.google.com/maiU?view=att&disp=vah&attid=0.1&th=10c6382dad28a7ff 7/12/2006 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Attest by William G. Berg, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) • Page 3 of 3 On this day of , 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TANIMY 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. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: http://mail.google.com/maiU?view=att&disp=vah&attid=0.1&th=10c6382dad28a7ff 7/12/2006 IDAHO SURVEY GROUP 1450 East Watertower St Suite 150 Meridian, Idaho 63642 Phone (208) 846-8570 Fax (208) 884-5399 Project No. 04-063-03 Meridian Sanitary Sewer Easement Bellingham Park Subdivision No. l July 18, 2006 A 20.00 foot wide Sanitary Sewer Easement located in•the SW 1/4 of Section 29, T.3N., R..lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 29; Thence along the section line North 00°30'01" West, 1675.06 feet; Thence North 86°25'08" East, 40.06 feet to a point on the East right-of--way of S. Locust Grove Road and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence continuing North 86°25'08" East, 286.97 feet; Thence North S6°34'54" East, 95.52 feet; Thence 20.56 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 58.00 feet, a central angle of 20°18'54", and a long chord bearing North 45°33'07" West, 20.46 feet; Thence South 56°34'54" West, 85.90 feet; Thence South 86°25'08" West, 280.57 feet to a point on said Bastright-of--way of S. Locust Grove Road; Thence along saidright-of--way South 00°30'01" East, 20.03 feet to the Point of Beginning. Prepared By: Idaho Survey Group, P.C. r ~Tl~ Off' ~ ~_ oft _.. D. Terry Peugh, PLS Pr®fess~®nn/ L~aaaf S'aerv~,y®s-s 0 o~~ ~z~ O ~ N Q ~ LIJ ~, m ~ O ~ (n C7 U~;`~ ~QQ mz cn . /4 ~ S.30.•• S.29 \O~~~PV '' ~' :• ~ ,/ ~ 20' SANITARY ' SEWER EASEMENT], 280+57,_ ,d. ~~' ___~.~ ~1 J "- - N 86'25'08° E ~ 286.97' I I REAL POINT ~ OF BEGINNING 2 I 1 . I o ~ BLOCK 1 ~I m r I I ~ I~ -_ I(O O ~° O d" ;~ E. I~ o°~-~- z I BLOCK 7 N 1 /16 I I S.30 S.29 _ _ _E. AMITY_ R_O_AD y S.29 ~, 1 /4 S. 31 S. 32 S89'43'S1 "E 2645.04' S.32 6 8 659.95' ~~?~~~ ~ ~Tf d F ~~~ `~"~I~v ~~~% TERRIER SUBDIVISION '• '- Bk 83, Pg 9099 ~ 6 ~~~G~ 1 2 4 • 5 '•. " PLS 7323- - _ N$9'44'03"W ~, -. ~ UNE TABLE UNE LENGTH BEARING Lt 40.D6 N 625'08" E L2 95.52 N 5634'54" E L3 85.9D S 5634'54° W L4 20.03 5 0030'01° E CURVE TABLE Curve Radlus Length Chord Dist. Chord Brg. Dalto C7 58.00 20.56 20.46 N 45'33`07" W 20'18'54" ®_:=_. ~' IDAHO 1450EWATERTDWFRST. - ~°=SURVEY MERIDIAN, IDAHD 83642 - -- 1~~~4s~o _, GROUP, P.C. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT EXHIBIT FOR BELLINGHAM PARK SUB N0. 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN LOCATED IN THE SW 1 /4 OF SECTION 29, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO JOB N0. 04-063 SHEET N0. 1 OF 1 DWG. DATE 07-18-06 8 o. ~ o~ ~'% ~ ~ J~ 1-~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~9 6 ` 5 4 3 WRIGHTWOOD DR. _ / ~ ~ J 3 BL K 8 • • July 21, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT July 25, 2006 ITEM NO. 5-L REQUEST Professional Service Contract for Scope of Services for Cooperative Tasks with Sanitary Services, 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: V CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAWO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubUc meetin~a shall bacons properly of fhe City of Meridian. • • AGREEMENT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES TFIIS AGREEMENT, made this Z5~ day of 2006, by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organiz d under the laws of the State of Idaho, hereinafter refen'ed to as "CITY", 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and Sanitary Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR", whose business address is 2130 W. Franklin, Meridian, ID. 83642. 1. Scope of Services: CONTRACTOR shall pertorm all services, and comply in all respects, as specified in the document tiled "Scope of Services a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, together with any amendments that may be agreed to in writing by the parties. 2. Time of Pertormance: This agreement shall become effective upon execution by both parties, and shall expire on December 31, 2006 unless earlier terminated or extended. 3. Indemnification and Insurance: CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or properly and losses and expenses caused or incurred by CONTRACTOR, its servants, agents, employees, guests, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of CITY or its employees. CONTRACTOR shall maintain, and specifically agrees that it will maintain, throughout the term of this Agreement, liability insurance, in which the CITY shall be named an additional insured in the minimum amount as specified in the Idaho Tort Claims Act set forth in T'~tle 6, Chapter 9 of the Idaho Code. The limits of insurance shall not be deemed a limitation of the covenants to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY; and if CITY becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance limits, herein provided, CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for all such losses, claims, actions, or judgments for damages or liability to persons or property. Additionally, CONTRACTOR shall maintain Workers Compensation Insurance, in the statutory limits as required by law. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with a Certificate of Insurance, or other proof of insurance evidencing CONTRACTOR'S compliance with the requirements of this paragraph and file such proof of insurance with the CITY. In the event the insurance minimums are changed, CONTRACTOR shall immediately submit proof of compliance with the changed limits. Evidence of all insurance shall be submitted to the City Clerk with a copy to Meridian City Accounting, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 1 of 6 • • 4. Independent Contractor: In all matters pertaining to this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be acting as an independent contractor, and neither CONTRACTOR nor any ofFcer, employee or agent of CONTRACTOR will be deemed an employee of CITY. The selection and designation of the personnel of the CITY in the performance of this agreement shall be made by the CITY. 5. Compensation: CONTRACTOR shall be compensated for personal services pursuant to and specified in attached Exhibit "A." 6. AA®thod of Payment: CONTRACTOR will invoice the City of Meridian Accounting Department at 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 directly for all current amounts earned under this Agreement at the end of each month or upon completion of the scope of services. The CITY will pay all invoices within thirty (30) days after receipt. 7. Notic®s: Any and all notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when mailed in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Sanitary Services P.O. Box 626 Meridian, Idaho 83680 Either party may change their address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. 8. Attorney Fees: Should any litigation be commenced befinreen the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfekure of this Agreement. 9. 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 PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 2 of 6 • of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. 10. Assignment: It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto, that CONTRACTOR shall not have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate or sell any of its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior express written consent of CITY. 11. Discrimination Prohibited: In performing the Services n:quired herein, CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age or disability. 12. Reports and Information: At such times and in such forms as the CITY may require, there shall be furnished to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data and information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. 13. Audits and Insp®c~ions: At any time during normal business hours and as often as the CITY may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the CITY for examination all of CONTRACTOR'S records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall permit the CITY to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. 14. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material: No material produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country. The CITY shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this Agreement. 15. Compliance with Laws: In performing the scope of services required hereunder, CONTRACTOR sha11 comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and odes of Federal, State, and local governments. 16. Chang®s: The CITY may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Services to be performed hereunder. Such changes, includ'mg any increase or decrease in the amount of CONTRAGTOR's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the CITY and CONTRACTOR, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. 17. T®rmination: 1f, through any cause, CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, or agents fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 3 of 6 obligations under this Agreement, violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, falsifies any record or document required to be prepared under this agreement, engages in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this contract, or if the City Council determines that termination of this Agreement is in the best interest of CITY, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to CONTRACTOR of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least fifteen (15) days before the effective date of such termination. CONTRACTOR may terminate this agreement at any time by giving at least sixty (60) days notice to CITY. In the event of any termination of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data, and reports prepared by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall, at the option of the CITY, become its property, and CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily complete hereunder. Notwithstanding the above, CONTRACTOR shall not be relieved of liability to the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR, and the CITY may withhold any payments to CONTRACTOR for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the CITY from CONTRACTOR is determined. This provision shall survive the termination of this agreement and shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of its liability to the CITY for damages. 18. Construction anti Sev®rability: If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is reasonably capable of completion. 19. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral of written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. 20. Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in acxordance with the laws of the State of Idaho, and the ordinances of the City of Meridian. 21. Approval Required: This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until approved by the City of Meridian. PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 4 of 6 CONTRACTOR BY: Steve Sedlacek CITY OF MERIDIAN BY: TAMMY de D, MAYOR Approved By Council; 2S 4F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,,, Attest: ~ of ~ ': (,~ A ~ ~ ~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., O1TY , RK ~, ~~ ,.. '~( ~4 B • \,~, ,. " atltt~~`t`~ PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT ~A° I. SCOPE OF WORK The CONTRACTOR will provide services and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the pertormance of work, as set forth below: Assist Public Works Department Staff with development of pub#ic relations/education material. Specific work areas include but are not limited to assistance in the following areas: • Development of brochures, informational handouts or flyers for distribution to customers • Website content review (Engineering, Building, Water & Wastewater Divisions) • Development of newsletters • Other public relationsleducation projects that may arise and as directed by the Public Works Department. The CITY shall be responsible for any and ail bulk printing, publication or mailing costs that may arise from distribution of products development under this agreement. II. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT. CITY shall pay an amount not to exceed Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00} for the pertormance of all things necessary for, or incidental to, the performance of work as set forth in the Scope of Work. CONTRACTOR'S compensation for services rendered shall be based on the following rates or in accordance with the following terms: Thirty-five Dollars ($35.00) per hour. CITY shall make no payments in advance or in anticipation of services to be provided under this Work Contract. Payment shall not occur until identified work components or tasks meet with the approva{ of the City. The CONTRACTOR shall provide to the CITY monthly billings detailing number of hours spent on individual projects or tasks as listed in Part I above. PERSONAL SERVICES AGREE -page 1 of 1 C~ r~ LJ ~z~cE~~ ~U~ ~ 0 209 • To: Mayor De Weerd 8~ City Council From: Brad Watson, P.E. CC: File, City Cleric, Finance, City Attorney Date: 7/19/06 Re: July 25 City Counal Meeting Agenda Items City ®f iVleridiala (pity Clerk ®flice The Public Works impartment respectfully requests that the fo8owing item be plac~l on the July 25 City Counal agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Counal's consideration. Professional Services Contract, Sanitary Services, ,Inc I have been working with Sanitary Services to investigate the use of their public r~elationsJoutreach staff for cooperative tasks. After several meetings, I believe this working relationship will benef~ the Public Works Department and help us meet the objectives in our Department Positioning Plan. SSC's staff would potentially help with; • Development of broc~ur~es, informational handouts or flyers for distribution to customers • Website content review {Engineering, Building, Water & Wastewater Dnrisions) • Development of newsletters • Other public relations/education projects that may arise and as directed by the Public Warks Departmerrt. I have already worked with them on a pry-bono basis to incorporate one wastewater related article in their August newsletter. The contract is on an hourly basis not to- exceed amount of $7,500 through 12/31/06. Recommended Council Action: Approve award of contract to Sanitary Services, Inc. for snot-to-exceed amount of $7,5Q0.00, and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Cleric to atm. Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 rp,^ ~ • ~ ~ I To: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Brad Watson, P.E. CC: File, City Clerk, Finance, City Attorney Date: 7!19106 Re: July 25 City Councl Meeting Agenda Items The Public Works Department respectfully request that the followinci item be placed on the July 25 Cit)r Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for CourtaPs consideration. Professional Services Contrail, Sanitary Services, Inc. I have been working with Sanitary Services ,to investigate the use of their public relations/autreach staff for cooperative tasks. After several meetings, I believe this workirfig relationship will benefrt the Public Works Department and help us meet the objectives in our Department Positioning Plan. SSC's staff would potentially help with: • Development ofi brochures, informational handouts or flyers for distribution to customers • Website content review (Engineering, Building, Water 8~ Wast~.water Divisions} • Development of newsletters • Other public relations/educat#on projects that may arise and as directed by the Public Works Department l have already worked with them on a pro-bono basis to incorporate one wastewater related article in their August newsletter. The contract is on an h~~urly basis not to- exceed amount of $7,500 through 12J31106. Recommended Council Action: Approve award of contract to ;5an'rtary Services, Inc. for a not~o-exceed amount of $7,500.OQ, and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 ! ~ AGREEMENT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2006, by and betwreen the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and Sanitary Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR", whose business address is 2130 W. Franklin, Meridian, ID. 836't2. 1. Scope of Services: CONTRACTOR shall performs all services, and comply in all respects, as specked in the document titled "Scope of Services" a copy of-which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, together withi any amendments that may be agreed to in writing by the parties. 2. Time of Performance: This agreement shalt become effective upon execution by both parties, and shall expire on December 31, 2006 unless earlier terminated or ex#ended. 3. Indemnification and Insurance: CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for any anti all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons. or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by CONTRACTOR, its servants, agents, employees, guests, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of CITY or its employees. CONTRACTOR shall maintain, and specifically agi ees that it will maintain, throughout the term of this Agreement, liability insurance, in which the CITY shall be named an additional insured in the minimum amount as specified in the Idaho Tort Claims Act set forth in Title 6, Chapter 9 of the Idaho Code. The limits of insurance shall not be cleemed a limitation of the covenants to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY; and if CITY becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance limits, herein provided, CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for all such toss~ss, claims, actions, or judgments for damages or liability to persons or property. AdditionaNly, CONTRACTOR shall maintain Workers Compensation insurance, in the statutory limits as required by law. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with a Certificate of Insurance, or other proof of in:~urance evidencing CONTRACTOR'S compliance with the requirements of this paragraph and . file such proof of insurance with the CITY. in the event the insurance minimums are changed, CONTRACTOR shall immediately submit proof of compliance with the changed limits. Evidence of all insurance shall be submitted to the City Clerk with a copy to Meridian City Accounting, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 1 of 6 i ~ 4. Independent Contractor: In all matters pertaining to this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be acting as an independent contractor, and neither CONTRACTOR nor any officer, employee or agent of CONTRACTOR will be deemed an employee of CITY. The selection ar~d designation of the personnel of the CITY in the performance of this agreement shall be made by the CITY. 5. Compensation: CONTRACTOR shall be compensated for personal services pursuant to and specified in attached Exhibit "A.° 6. AAe~od of Payment: CONTRACTOR will invoice the City of Meridian Accounting ®epartment at 33 East Idaho Avenue, I~leridian, Idaho 83642 directly for all current amounts earned under this Agreement at the end of each month or upon completion of the scope of services. The CITY will pay all invoices within thirty (30) days after receipt. 7. Notices: Any and all notices required to be given Iby either of the parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when mailed in the Un~:ed .States mail, certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Sanitary Services P.O. Box 626 Meridian, Idaho 83680 Either party may change their address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. 8. Attorney Fees: Should any Ifigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by a Co~Jrt of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the panties and shall survive any default, termination or forfe'~ture of this Agreement. 9. Time is of tl~e Essenc®: 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 PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 2 of 6 • of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. 10. Assignment: It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto, that CONTRACTOR shall not have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate oc sell any of its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior express written consent of CITY. 11. Discrimination Prohiti~fied: In performing the Services required herein, CONTRACTOR shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age or disability. 12. R®ports and !nf®rn~atton: At such times and in such forms as the CITY may require, there shall be famished to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data and information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. 13. Audits and inspections: At any time during nomnal business hours and as often as the CITY may deem necessary, there :>hall be made available to the CITY for examination all of CONTRACTOR';5 records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall permit the CITY to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. 14. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material: No material produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country. The CITY shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this Agreement. 15. Compliance with Laws: In performing the scope of services required hereunder, CONTRACTOR sha11 comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State, and local governments. 16. Changes: The CITY may, from time to time, requf;st changes in the Scope of Services to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of CONTFtACTOR's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the CITY and CONTRACTOR, shall be incorporated in writt~sn amendments to this Agreement. 17. Termination: If, through any cause, CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, or agents fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 3 of 6 • obligations under this Agreement, violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, falsil5es any record or document required to be prepared under this agreement, engages in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this contract, or if the City Council determines that termination of this Agreement is in the best interest of CITY, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to CONTRACTOR of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least fifteen (15) days before the effectivE: date of such termination. CONTRACTOR may terminate this agireement at any time by giving at least sixty (60) days notice to CITY. In the event of any termination of this Agreement, cell finished or unfinished documents, data, and reports prepared Iby CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall, at the option of the C11Y, become its property, and CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily ~;omplete hereunder. Notwithstanding the above, CONTRACTOR shall not be relieved of liability to the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR, and ithe CITY may withhold any payments to CONTRACTOR for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the CIT`f from CONTRACTOR is determined. This provision shall survive the tem~ination of this agreement and shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of its liability to the CITY for damages. 18. Construction and S®v®rability: If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not a~FFect the validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is reasonably capable of comple1tion. 19. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral of written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. 20. Applicabl® Law: This Agreement shall be goveme;d by and construed and enforced in acxordance with the laws of the Si:ate of Idaho, and the ordinances of the City of Meridian. 21. Approval Required:. This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until approved by the City of Meridian. PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 4 of 6 ~ ~ Approved By Council: Attest: CONTRACTOR , / ,~ C ~-~ BY: Steve Sedlacek CITY OF MERIDIAN BY: TAMMY de WEERC-, MAYOR WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 5 of 6 ~ ~ EXHIBIT "A" I. SCOPE OF WORK. The CONTRACTOR will provide servi~res and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work, as set forth below: Assist Public Works Department Staff with development of public: relations/education material. Specific work areas include but are not limited to assisi;ance in the following areas: • Development of brochures, informational handouts or flyers for distribution to customers • Website content review (Engineering, Building, Water & V1lastewater Divisions) • Development of newsletters • Other public relations/education projects that may arise and as directed by the Public Works Department. The CITY shall be responsible for any and all bulk printing, publii:ation or mailing costs that may arise from distribution of products development under this agreement. II. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT. CITY shall pay an amount not to exceed Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) for the performance of all things necessary for, or incidental to, the performance of work as set forth in the Scope of Work. CONTRACTOR'S compensation for services rendered shall be based on the following rates or in accordance with the following terms: Thirty-five Dollars ($35.00) per hour. CITY shall make no payments in advance or in anticipation of :services. to be provided under this Work Contract. The CONTRACTOR shall provide to tt~e CITY monthly billings detailing number of hours spent on individual projects or tasks as. listed in Part I above. PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 6 of 6 Tara Green From: Brad Watson Sent; Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:17 PM To: Tara Green; Will Berg Cc: Len Grady; Bill Nary Subject: Council Agenda Item #5.L -Sanitary Services Attachments: F~chibit A.doc Attached is revised Exhibit A to the agreement on tonight's agenda for approval. Thank you, BRW If any questions tonight, Mr. Nary knows about the change. Exhibit A.doc (32 KB) • • EXHIBIT "Ap 1. SCOPE OF WORK The CONTRACTOR will provide services and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work, a.. set forth below: Assist Public Works Department Staff with development of public relations/education material. Specific work areas include but are not limited to assistance in the following areas: • Development of brochures, informational handouts or flyers for distribution to customers • Website content review (Engineering, Building, Water & ~-Vastewater Divisions) • Development of newsletters • Other public relations/education projects that may arise aind as directed by the Public Works Department. The CITY shall be responsible for any and all bulk printing, publication or mailing costs that may arise from distribution of products development under this agreement. II. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT. CITY shall pay an amcwnt not to exceed Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) for the performance of all things necessary for, or incidental to, the performance of work as set forth iii the Scope of Work. CONTRACTOR'S compensation for services rendered shall be based on the following rates or in accordance with the following terms: Thirty-free Dollars ($35.00) per hour. CITY shall make no payments in advance or in anticipation of ;>ervices to be provided under this Work Contract. Payment shall not occur until identifi~'d work components or tasks meet with the approval of the City. The CONTRACTOR shall provide to the CITY monthly billings detailing number of hours spent on individual projects or tasks as listed in Part I above. PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -page 1 of 1 • • July 21,2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-M REQUEST Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the 2006 'gunk Sewer Project with Dyver Development, LLC 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: V" CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY WIGHWAY 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 meeting shad become properly of the Gty of MerlcUan. i ~~cEa~~ aUL ~ ~ 20~~ City ®f I~e~.dia~ Caty Clerk ®ffice Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Clint Dolsby, Staff Engineer CC: Len Grady, City Engineer Date: 07/20/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for July 25, 2006 City Council Meetings The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following stern be placed on the July 25 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration. 1. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Dwer Development LLC. A permanent and temporary easement has been signed by Dyver Development LLC for the construction of the sanitary sewer on their property for the 2006 Trunk Sewer project. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the permanent and temporary easement contract for the construction of the sanitary sewer on this propeirly for the 2006 Trunk Sewer Project and authorize the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have piny questions regarding any of these items. • Page 1 • SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, effective this IS'[F~ day of mkt , 2006, b~~ the undersigned Dyver Development L.L.C., who maintains a mailing address of 1977 E, Overland Rd.. Meridian. ID 83642, hereafter referred to as "GRANTOR" for the benefit ~~f the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho that maintains a m~iiling address of 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereafter referred to as "CITY". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to provide a sanitary sewer right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for tl~rough an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from time to time by the CITY; NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the benefits to be received bythe Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby give, grant and convey unto the CITY the right-of-way for the permanent and temporary construction easements for the construction, operation and maintenance of a sanitary sewer line over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A-1, A-2 and B-1, B-;?.1, B-2.2) The permanent easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary sewer line and allied facilities, together with maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the CITY, wii:h-the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. The temporary construction easement is for the purpo;~e of construction of a sanitary sewer line and related incidental work. The temporary construction easement shall expire when the construction contract terrninates. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said permanent easement and right-of-way unto the said CITY, its successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that the CITY, in constructing and in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such construction, repairs and replacement. HowE~ver, the CITY will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or rep>toring any permanent structures, large trees or brush placed within the. area described in this permanent easement. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, Page 1 of 3 2. HOLD HARMLESS, In consideration of allowing Grantee to perform work on and/or operate within the said described parcel, Grantee expressly agrees to indemnify; save and hold harmless Grantor, it's successors and assigns, against any and all claims, suits, demands, actions, debts, injuries to persons, and damages to property, damages, costs, charges, and expenses, including all court cost and attorneys fee, and against any and all liabilit~~, losses and damages of any nature whatsoever, the "Damages" that Grantor shall or may at any time sustain or be put to by reason or as a result of Grantee performing, working on and/or operating vvithin the here in above described parcel; provided that the damagE:s are not caused by the negligence or other breach of legal duty by Grantor. THE GRANTOR(S) do hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, large trees oir brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTOR(S) does hereby covenant with the CITY that he is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that he has a good and lawful right.to convey said easement, and that hE~ will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto. rs~c~ibed their signatures the day and year first hereinabove written. 1 cantor: Dy~i~r Development L.L.C. By: Corey Barton, Mana~,ging Member STATE OF IDAHO) ss County of Ada ) On this day of , 2006, before me ~g,~-^ ~ol,~~ s , personally appeared y-.etl ~a,,r~n _, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to bet a persons whose narnes is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed tfie same. ~,,~ ~` `cPi a NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO m 1 ~ Q ~_ o '~;, ~~ My Commission Expires on b -~5 Ulu SANITARY SEWER E° ~' ~e 2 of 3 ~~~eer~mpme Beneficiary: CITY OF MERIDIAN By Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: William Berg, Jr., City Clerk Date approved by Council: • SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, Page 3 of 3 . .. ... . •... ...... ... ............._._...w.,... Project: 11873 Qate: March 22, 2006 • _ EXHIBIT A-1 - PARCEL QESCRlPTION - • PERMANENT SEWER EASEMENT That portion of the Northeast ~/ of the Northwest Y.; and. a portion of Northwest ~/ of the Northeast'/ of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Bofse Meridian, Ada County, td;rho, as shown on the attached exhibit, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Section 15; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Northwest %, South 89°15'2T' East, 1,320.34 feet to a point being the Northwest comer of said Northeast ~/ of the Northwest Ya; thence along the Westerly boundary of said Northeast ~/, of the Northwest %, South 00°3144" West, 25.00 feet to a paint being on the Southerly right of-way Line of West Franklin Raad the POINT OF BEG[NNING; thence along said Southerly right-of-way line of West Franklin Road, South 89° 15.7" East, 30A0 feet; thence parallel with and 30.00 feet East of said Westerly boundary of the Northeast Y, of the Northwest !, South 00'31'44" West, 131.05 feet; - - •. thence South .89'28'09" East, 101.13 feet; thence South 09'13`13" East, i2b.76 feet; thence South 89'15'34 East, 391.65 feet; thence South 57'38'34" East, 70.78 feet; thence South 29' OZ'07" East, 944.19 feet; thence South 24'39'05" East, 179.14 feet; thence paralte! with and 3000 feet North of the Southerly boundary of 1:he Northeast % of the Northwest t/+ South 89°15'07" East, 180.59 feet; thence South 27'02'04" East, 33.91 feet; thence North 89 ° 15'07" West, 215.36 feet; thence North 24°39'05" West, 196.92 feet; thence North 29°02'07° West, 935.39 feet; thence North 57' 38'34" West, 54.63 feet; thence North 84' 15'34" West, 408.35 feet; thence North 09° 13'i3" West, 126.67 feet; thence North 89°28'09" West, 105.85 feet to on paint on the Westerly boundary of the Northeast y of the Northwest ~1; thence along said Westerly boundary North 00'31'44' East, 761.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Cantafning 1.491 acres, more or Eels. ENa OF I]ESGRIPTlON Prepared by: J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Ronald M. Hodge; P.L..S. $J7J 3-Z2 of . ,, A ~ - rr RMH/geh:[hc P:\PHK17t673-Black Cat~Easernents~Ftnai EasementslBlack CahVAh1 Al3KER-PERII~NE4 NWT-SEC 15.doc • . Project: 11873 t)ate:, March 22, 2006 EXHIBIT &1 TEMPORARY CONSTRltCT1ON EASEMENT Exhibit8-9.1 That portion of the Northeast +/ of the Northwest't of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 1 West,' Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as shown an the attached exhibit, and mare particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 15; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Northwest +~, South 89.1527' East, 1,320.34 feet to a point toeing the Northwet comer of said Northeast'/ of the Northwest +f,; thence along the Westerly boundary of said Northeast % of the Northwest /, South 00' 31'44" West, 25.00 feet to a paint being an the Southerly right-of--way of West Franklin Road; thence along said Southerly right•of-way South 89° 15`27° East, 30,00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINN!(NG; thence continuing along safd Southerly right-of-way tine, South 84' 15'2i'" East, 124.43 feet; thence South 09°13'13" East, 208.67 feet; thence South 89' 15'34" East, 363.82 feet; thence South 57°38'34" East, 97.68 feeC; thence South 24'02'07° East, 958.$5 feet; thence South 24' 39'05" East, 149.41 feet; thence parallel with and 80.00 feet North of the Southerly boundary of the Northwest +/ of Section 15, South 89° 15'07° East, 146,25-feet to a paint an the Easterly boundary of said Northwest +/ ; thence along the said Easterly boundary South 00°20'36° West, 50,00 feet; thence North 89' 15'07" West, 178.21 feet; thence North 24'3905" West, 179.10 feet; thence North 29°0207" West, 944.19 feet; thence North 57'38'34" West, 70,78 feet; thence North 89' 15'34" West, 391.65 feet; thence North 09'13'13" West, 126.76 feet; thence North 89'28'49" West, 101.13 feet; thence parallel with and 30.00 feet East of the Westerly boundary of the said Northeast % of the Northwest +!+ North 00` 31'44" East, 131.05 feet to the POlM` OF BEGENNiNG. Containing 2.536 acres, more or less. JV ~L ~a -7 0 NW. COR., SEC. 15 a N 589'15'27°E ~' 3o'Oa' WEST FRANKLIN ROAD S89'15'27"E 589'f 5'27"E 1320.34' t 29.43' P.O.B. 4, 1 a o I~ 4ll O MIpjJ lm~ O~ ~~ ~..},W„ ~~~ ~' ~ '~ 2 sca~E: ~ "=200' N89'28'09°W ~ S89'15'34"E 363.82' S57'38'34'E 107.13' ~r L------_.--_~ 97.68' z1 L- ____ ~ L - N89'i5'34°W 391.65' ~ w - _._. _. _.. - - _. - _~ \ ~'~'`° N57'38'34"W ~ 70.78' tJ! \~\ \ o - ~ao~ \ a \o\ ~~" \~\ ~ t \ \`~~, \~\ \`~s: ~'~\ \ \ ~ \ '~ ~ \ ~ '~ \ ~ \ \ ~ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ ~ \~ \ ~~ '~ o~ ~~~ ~~ ~\ ~' ~~ l f ;~~o\ ~ SBS'l5'07"E o ~ ~°~~'` ~, 146.25' 8575 ~ ~ ~ _ _ `~ ~'~'S-~-vG T~~ ~N~s~17~°w 'pp TF OF ~~ v~ oQ y~~ D t-i. ~~~ Mo ~~; Q ~/~ t~oociamNr.um~~De'iRCORPDru~tm~aR c~DPU~DmR~~awt 's C/u'I~Ci~'T 8-2.1 SHEET A9AN D67181A~M OFPImFTieetWlAI.~RN~,igtf@PROPFRIYOF PAOJ.R 17tR! ~~ suae~oa~ms.u".ummrmrroaeu~.mvx~aeoRPUa. ~acu~~~oo " ~ FORAM'OINERPPoD1ECfYM'XO<II'91~676~Afi9S WFU17B7 AUIHORPAi70NOFJ~YB flMtNFFA6.im. OMWHRi NO.: Dfurm 9~Y eArc -~~ DYVER DE'VELOPMEN7 of ms's" fl81 •°"^"o°^• TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 2 R iPTI N CHECK6D8Y: RNN _r ~ _ __ TOGETHER WITH: IXHI81T 8.1 Temporary Constntctton Easemerrt March 22, 2~6 Page 2 Exhibit B-1.2 That portion of the Northeast'/+ of the Northwest t/s of Section 15, Tovrnship 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as shown on the attached exhibit, and more particularly described as follows: , Commencing at the Northwest earner of said Section 15; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Northwest'!, South 89' 15'27" East, 1,3TA.34 feet to a point being the Northwest corner of said Northeast % of ' the Northwest'!; thence along the Westerly boundary of said Northeast % of the Northwest'!s, South 00'3144" West, 18fi.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 89' 28~?9" East, 105.85 feet; thence South 09.13'13" East, 50,73 feet; thence North 89°28'09" West, 114.44 feet to a point on said Westerly boundary; thence along said Westerly boundary North 00' 31'44" East, 50.00 feet to the PO[NT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.12b acres, more or less. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Ronald M. Hodge, P.L.S. RMHlgeh:[hc P:1PHK111873-Black CatlEasementslFina[ EasevnentslBlacic Cat~YAN AUiCER tEhM-NE4 NN14 aEC 15.doc ~ _ .. ~' N. ~L W COR SEC 15 . ., . WEST FRANKLIN ROAD S89'IS'Z7`E 1320.34' ~ t SCALE: 7 "= 50' ~I ~I ~~ 3l ~~ M I O {) f 1 I l P.O.B. ~ S89'28'09`E 105.85' W ~~~~~. ~~~~ ( ~ O N m ~ O~ I Z N~ 1 ~s y ~ L------ ------ J N89'ZS'09`W 114.44' ~•(~-~ D 2 ~~'"~ DYVER DEVELOPMENT °F '""~01' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 2 i July 21,2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT ITEPA NO. S-N REQUEST Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Agreements for Pn~perty at 28~ South Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: Sse 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: tNTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubic meetlnps shall become property of fhe City of Meridian. _, :~ ADA COUNTY RECORDER,DAVIO NAVARRO AMOU BOISE IDAHO 08/03/06 01;~~ pIN ~ .00 8 DEPUTY Paitl 7hompsoo III II~I~~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII III RECORDED-REQUEST OF I I I City of liiertdian i X51 ~4~~Ej This sheet has been added to the document to accommodate recording information. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement at 2820 South Eagle Road (north property) Approved by the Meridian City Council o~~ July 25, 200fi. • !1 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this day of ~ , 20 between Dei~uus P. and Debra J. McKibbin ,the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian., Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; VVITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of--way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provide~~ for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from tune to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to he received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of--way for an easement for the operation .and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of saritary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience o£thc Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-w,~y unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and. between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenarnce, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to u:ndertalcing such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replaciz~ ur restoriug anything placed within the area described in this easement that ~~vas placed there in violation of this easement. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W.doc ~- tl THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will nat place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the u.se of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of--way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of--way a:id easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely y~eliuquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that tL~ey are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warran~~ and forever defend the title ai.1d quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. G NTOR: . `~ ~~~~~ Dennis P. McKibbin .~ ~> ~e~ . Debra J. McKi STATE OF IDAHO) ss. County of Ada ) Oii this 1T ~ day of ~"c/a~ , ZO~, before me,, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ,Dr.~n,-s P, /d1~ ~f~-bd:~ and Qe.d•s~ ~- /7a k. ~,'.er , proved to me on the basis o:Fsatisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my ha~~d and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. G'tr' ~"~ f~,-~c.MO~t. e - NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: ,Grny~is Cv+r.~ shy Commission Expires:;ti i Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W.doc • /1 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN ~6 Tammy de Weerd, o ~ ~~ ~~o ~' `--,! - g~~~L - - ~ ~ 1 Attest by William G. Berg City Clerk ~";~ „~ T f~ ~ ,~y,~,~ Approved By City Council On: ' S.~LiN'~ • ~~= ~!~rN-i~a n~ti~~~~N STATE OF IDAHO, ) . ss. County of Ada / r On tlus~( day of 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in anti fur Said Stala, pGrsoually appeared TA1VIlvIY DE wEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, J'R., 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 NOTARY PUBLIC FO]~. IDAHO Residing at: ~YYt,t,.(h~.. ~;~c~ Commission Expires: _~~"'/S'-( I Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement .EASMT.S&W.dow year first above written. /' EASEMENT DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER AND WATER EASEMEN';(' A parcel located in the SW '/a of the SW '/a of Section 21, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an brass cap monument marking the southwesterly ~:orner of said SW 1/a of the SW 1/4 from which an brass cap monument marking the northwesterly corner of said SW 1/a of Section 21 bears N 0°00' 09" W a distance of 2700.12 feet; Thence N 0°00'09" W along the westerly boundary of said SW %4 a distance of 1259.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said westerly boundary N 89°59'51" E a distance of ~~8.00 feet to the POINT OF ]E3EGINNING; Thence N 89°59' S 1" E a distance of 8.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0°00'09" W a distance of 26.00 feet to a point; Thence S $9°59'51" W a distance of 8.00 feet to a point; Thence S 0°00'09" E a distance of 26.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 2~R_00 square feet (O.OOS acres) and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Prepared by: Glenn K. Bennett, PLS Civil Survey Consltitants, Incorporated July 19, 2006 ~- s082 ~. ~• ~~~ ~,,7/6gldo~~ ~~ ~:~ ~. '+~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~© ~ ~q ~~ _ ~ --~ i : .,.. o ' -t~ OCa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 a ~ 4 ~t W ~ c4.a ' ~ ' N al o ~ . . 'moo A& - N v~ I~ I ~ LJ ` w ~ 1 ~o r ~; o ~aJ Op o ~ °N N ~ O 4 i N ~ 1 ~ _ ~_ _ .. ,,,,_.,._-- I ~ ~~~ ~ ~ !n d ~ o ~°'n o~ pq ~ a~ Q ~ 1 t N_ ~ ~ CO A ,~ h ~ Nt ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ A w`~ A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .' a@ W ~~ `~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 1 i ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _~ ~~ ~ pdW ' "a ~ ~i~t21p 1~dy1 0 a i ~~ cQa i o ~ ~ o o ~ r~{dr,_ ~' o~ j ~ w ' t ~ ~ ~ i ~... ~ 3 ng5,~~'~8 S . H N adp~ }.2~plpin ~ N ...r,___~--. .r , _~e_ ADA COUNTY RECORDER ~ID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 6 BOISE IDAHO 08/03/06 01:39 PM !!II 11 11 11 II II DEPUTY Pattl Thompson ,II I~+I~IIII~~~~l~~~l~~~~~~~~lt~~~ ~i~ RECORDED-REQUEST OF C(ry of Meridian 1 ~6 i ~~~ 1 ~ This sheet has been added to the document to accommodate recording information. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement at 2820 South Eagle Road (south property) Approved by the Meridian City Council on July 25, 2n06. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDBNTLTRE, made flue day of , 20 between Dennis P. and Debra J. McKibbin .the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WTTNRSSF.TH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of--way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREp'ORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the C~-antors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of--way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of--way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns~forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. flowever, Grantee sl~all not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation U.C 11115 eaSellltnt. Sanitary Sewer and Water Mein Easement EASMT.S&W.doc ® • THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of way and easement hereby granted shall become part ot; or lie w~,thin the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereat or which is a part thereof, shall cease and bewzne null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said pazties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. TOR: Dennis P/ cKibbin j/ ~f ~ ~~~~_ Debra J. Mc 'bin STATE OF IDAHO) ss. County of Ada ) On this 17 *-~` day of 7a./r~ , 20~ before me, the uxadcrsigncd, a Notary Public in and for said State, personall py as peazed _ ~; f. ~~~E.f.+b~i, and pebra ~S_ M~k: b .:~ , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at• C~~, Gods Commission Expires: ~ Otl Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement 1~ASMT.S&W.doc • GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, M~ 4,,. ~~'~~~w~ .,~f~y ~*'- ~TFO $~d~~ Attest by William G. Berg, ity lerk _ -~ ,~p a3' Arproved By City Council On: %.~l 'k` *,.~ '''',,~~~fflf1f19if11~~,~````,+ STATE OF IDAHO, ) - ss. County of Ada ) On this~day of___~~(.(,~i , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY Di; WI;1;RD 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 1lereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ~V lL~i (1"Lc~VLL~~T~-------' (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO F Residing at: ~~-~ 6~ ~.... hJ ' Commission Expires: 1 p ~ s`-~ ~ Sauilary Sewer and Water Maio Ba~etuenl EASMT.S&W.doc; • EASEMENT DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT A parcel located in the SW '/a of the SW '/a of Section 21, 'Township 3 North, lZange 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada. County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an brass cap monument marking the southwesterly corner of said SW 1/4 of the SW '/4 from which an brafis cap monument marking the northwesterly corner of said SW 1/4 of Section 21 beazs N 0°00'09" W a distance of 2700.12 feet; Thence N 0°00'09" W along the westerly boundary of said SW'/4 a distance of 1111.00 feet to a paint; Thence leaving said westerly boundary N 89°59'51" E a distance of 48A0 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 89°59'51" F, a distance of 5.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0°00'09" W a distance of 22.00 feet to a point; Thence S $9°59' S 1" W a distance of 5.00 feet to a point; Thence S 0°00'49" E a distance of 22.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 110.00 square feet (0.003 acres) and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Prepared by: Glenn K. Bennett, PLS Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated July 19, 2006 cis ~~}r W~ 4 w ~O ~~ N~ ~O ~~ p ~ ~ ~~ ~q ~~ W ww ~~ O ~~ Q ~~ v N O~ ~~m 4~e ~~~ ~~ b~ ~~ w 0 t-. 0 4- N- O I .a/d -rte i t I I ~ j rte. ~/ ~~ 3niaa ~lb~i~dW ; ~~__ --~... i iJ ~. ~ I ~ I I W .~ ~~ ~" ,v°j~ oo I - - ----a~~d~ ~~ ~o~ 1 ~ , oo~~~ o0 oN ~ dN I o~ ~ o~ ~~ I ~ I f I O ~ ~ ~ ~u !~, ~~ ~ ~ ~O ~I ~I 0 of I I ~I w J C9 h o ~ ~ - ~~~d~--- - - - - ~ O 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 ~.. I ~ I '~• , ~- ~~~ -- - I I I I 1 I a. I ~, n, 3 ,~ 9S, SF.68 5 N ~ ab'0~1 A?~O1~IA Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer /Cf2 CC: File Date: July 20, 2006 • ~. y °~ ~°" m 2 0 X006 ''~f I'`~ ~I FRS ~?;~;=ll'~ Re: Proposed Agenda Item for July 25, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the January 24 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easements for properties at 2820 South Eagle Road The agreements provide permanent easements for installation and maintenance of water and sewer mains providing service to the parcels. These are two separate agreements at two county parcels that currently share the same address. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approve the Agreements for sanitary sewer and water main easements at two properties that share the address of 2820 south Eagle road. • Page 1 ~ I W ~ `~ o ~ o ~ :,. ; o° ~~ Qo o rn o i ~ nt I N\ ~ N ~ ~ ~ O O ., ~ ~ Z ~ ~ o o ~ I ~ ~ ~ II 4 i Q I I w ~- ~' LJ I w a , I I C~ v , y ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ w ~ ~ N I i ~ ' ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ w Q ~ a ~ I ~+ I W p4 q~0~ `~ E. ~ ~o p I ~' ~~ QC~~ I NI ~Q 4~~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I O~ d 1 ~ ~~ o~ O ~q ~~ ~ ~ W ~w ~ A I i O i W ~~ ~Q ~ i I ~ ~ ~~ ~ i I I O ~'' ~ ~ W I ~~ ~° 1 1 ~ N ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ I - ,~d -- --- ~ _ w ~ I a o ~ of ~ ~ I °w ~ ~ , 3ni~a ~.e~~dw w I I ~ _ i \ 1 4I N N 3 „ 9S, Sf :68 S N ~ ad0~ J.?~Ol~in O t(7 O O .- -~ ----~~T~--- i ~ W ~ ~ ~ Q nl ' ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ I ~U ~ O ~j ~ ti \ ~O I ~ ~ 0~~~~ O~ N h~ I oN ~ oN Cam, ~ ~ ° 1 Z ~ ~ ~ Z o w ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ w ~, ~ ~ 4 ~ I ~ ~C ~ o ~ \ I w ~~ w ~ I ' ~ W F'Q q0~ ~ O i ~ ~ a w ~ ~'~ ~ I I ^ ~ `~ Eti N~ e~q ~ N ~ I h p ~0 4~~ ~ I I ~ ~ O ~G tiW~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~Q ~°~ I I ~I ~ ~ `~ ~q q~w ~ ~ I ~C ry Q ~ ' / l O O ~ w ~q ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~~ vQ / Z ~ Q i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ o I ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ o w ~ ~n12~0 Jld1i~b'W ; ~ i ti I • I ~ i ~ ~ ~ o ~. ¢ I \.._ ~~ p i W ' ~ ~ C7 o I w --~/-d- ~ ' ~ - -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I N N ~ „ 9S, Sf :68 S N ~ ab'0~1 J.2~01~1~ Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer /~/2 CC: File Date: July 20, 2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for July 25, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the January 24 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easements for properties at 2820 South Eagle Road The agreements provide permanent easements for installation and maintenance of water and sewer mains providing service to the parcels. These are two separate agreements at two county parcels that currently share the same address. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approve the A reements for sanitary sewer and water main easements at two properties t at share the address of 2820 south Eagle road. 6 rl~'`e~~ ~"r'~ ~s f ~` 4" < J " ~~ ~Y V (J ~ "I~ rnIr'~'~ i,.1~ ~~ ~ X~ a~~~~~Vt~ u SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this day of , 20 between Dennis P. and Debra J. McKibbin ,the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and. hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of--way across the premises and properly hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good- and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of--way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of--way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. FIowever, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W.doc THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of--way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of--way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfially seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. STATE OF IDAHO) ss. County of Ada ) On this l7 ~~' day of ~a/ti , 20 b~, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared /~~DiS f. ~a~•bbii~ and ~e.b~^a S- Ma k. ~, .:.~ , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. f der S', p~~. c~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: ~ a~io„ Go~rr?sy Commission Expires: ~ S/~ Oil Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W.doc GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Attest by William G. Berg, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally 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. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W.doc EASEMENT DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT A parcel located in the SW 1/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 21, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an brass cap monument marking the southwesterly corner of said SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 from which an brass cap monument marking the northwesterly corner of said SW 1/4 of Section 21 bears N 0°00'09" W a distance of 2700.12 feet; Thence N 0°00'09" W along the westerly boundary of said SW 1/4 a distance of 1111.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said westerly boundary N 89°59'51" E a distance of 48.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 89°59'51" E a distance of 5.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0°00'09" W a distance of 22.00 feet to a point; Thence S 89°59'51" W a distance of 5.00 feet to a point; Thence S 0°00'09" E a distance of 22.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 110.00 square feet (0.003 acres) and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Prepared by: Glenn K. Bennett, PLS Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated July 19, 2006 o ~n ,~ 0 0 ,- -~ ~ ~ w ~ i ~ ~ CJ Q t0 ~ ~ I W ~ O W ~ ~~ I ~ ~ p0~~~ ~~ V N h~ ~ ~N ~ SON ~ i Ems, ~ ~ ° I Z ~ ~ ~ _ o ' ~ `~ w~ ~ ~ I ~ w 4 ~ ~o ~ \ I w ~ ~ `~ h ' oq qo~ I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~m ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I I N ~ ~O ~ ~~ ti~~ ' ~ I ~ ~ O ~C~i ~W~ I ~ i V ~ ~ N q ~~ ~°~ I d ~I ~ ~ `~ ~q q~w , ~ ~~ ' O O ~ W \q ~ ~ ~ o w ~~ ~Q ~-~ Z i ~ ~ w~ w ~ ~ ~o ~ o o ~ w ~ ~ni~a ~e~~dw ~~ I ~~ ~ ~ w ~-- QI ~ ~. ~ o ~.. ~ ~ ~ \ ' W ' ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - a I w ~ -~-~-d- - - ~ i ~ I i I , I ~ I N N .S ,~ 9S, 5:68 S N ~ ab'0~1 J.~JOl~ln • SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this day of , 20 between Dennis P. and Debra J. McKibbin ,the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada. County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of--way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of--way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described properly: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of--way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W.doc • THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of--way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of--way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. G TOR: ~ ~~~!+~ ti Dennis P. McKibbin P ~/ Debra J. McKi STATE OF IDAHO) ss. County of Ada ) On this ~7 ~ day of ~'c~ /y , 20 O~, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared 1>G~n,-s P. /f1~ ~66:~ and Qe.,B~~c 5- /7~ [:'Lab: ~ , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. ~'~ ~-P~..~, 0 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Gam y ~„ Go •~•.~ ~y Commission Expires: ~/8/poi/ Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W.doc GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Attest by William G. Berg, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally 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. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W.doc EASEMENT DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT A parcel located in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an brass cap monument marking the southwesterly corner of said SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 from which an brass cap monument marking the northwesterly corner of said SW 1/4 of Section 21 bears N 0°00'09" W a distance of 2700.12 feet; Thence N 0°00'09" W along the westerly boundary of said SW '/4 a distance of 1259.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said westerly boundary N 89°59'51" E a distance of 48.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 89°59' S 1" E a distance of 8.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0°00'09" W a distance of 26.00 feet to a point; Thence S 89°59'51" W a distance of 8.00 feet to a point; Thence S 0°00'09" E a distance of 26.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 208.00 square feet (0.005 acres) and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Prepared by: Glenn K. Bennett, PLS Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated July 19, 2006 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,7~1q~~ ~~, ~~ ~ ~~ o ~ W I ;' I `no ~S ' ~ no oo "'~ o0 o o rn o ~ ~~ N I ~N~ ~ ON i ~ ~ i ° ~ ~ ~ ~ Z o ~ d- o Er; ~ ~ Q p 4 ' W ~ I ~ t;.i I Q ~ I U ~ ~ N I ~~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~-/d-~"- - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ o i I ~ ao O I ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ w ~~ ~ ~ i ~ Z pA qq~ ~ ~ c~~ er~q i ~ i 4. ~O gv~ I ' Eti coq i I . I d ' ~ o~ ~~ Q \~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~q ~ ~~ vQ I ~ i I W ~W ~ Z ~ i ~O ~ i I I O ~ ~ i I ~ O W ~ h i ~ 1 ti ~ ~ l ~ I ~ / I - ~~d -- --- ti ~ of ~ QI ~ o li, ~ -~ ' I I ~ I ~ ~ ~__ ~.. ~ I ~.. \ . \ 1 I I ~ I N N ~ „9S,S£e68 S ~ ~ ~ ad0~l J.~JOl~ln ~ ~ July 21, 2006 Department Report MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 25, 2006 APPLICANT Legal Departments ITEM NO. 6-A-1 REQUEST Update of Impact Fee committee 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 HIGWWAY 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: Emaited: Staff Initials: Materials presented at publk rttse~gs sha11 becoms property of the Lily of Meridian. ~ ~ July 21,2008 Department Report MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT Legal Departments ITEM NO. 6-A-Z REQUEST Contract /Agreement with Petra, Inc for Construction Manager 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 CQUNTY 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 pubic meetings shall become properly of fhe Ctiy of AAerldiam. July 21, 2006 Department Report MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. 6-8-~ REQUEST Purchase of Permanent Flowmeters for the Sewer System with the 2005 Sewer Master Plan Project with JUB Engineers 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: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials• Materials presented at pubpc meefinps shop bacons properly of the City of Meridian. Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Clint Dolsby, Staff Engineer CC: Len Grady, City Engineer Date: 07/20/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for July 25, 2006 City Council Meeting 'City ®f Meri.dia~i cCity Clerl~ ®ffice The Public Works Departrnent respectfully requests the following item be placed on the July 25 City Council agenda, under Department Reports, for Council's consideration. Purchase of Permanent Flowmeters for the Sewer System with the 2005 Sewer Master Plan Update Project. JUB Engineers, Inc plans to purchase up to 8 flowmeters to be installed permanently in the sewer system and turned over to the City without exceeding the budget for this contract. These flowmeters will provide additional data to calibrate the sewer system model and more accurately predict the remaining capacity in the sewer system pipelines. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. • Page 1 • Series Flow & Water Quality Meter For applications requiring more than flow, the 950 optionally monitors rainfall, pH, temperature, ORP, dissolved oxygen and/or conductivity. In addition, the 950 has analog inputs for datalogging from other instru- ments, for example, total suspended solids monitors. You can also control samplers, pumps, or other equipment based on flow or selected parameter(s) exceeding high/low set points with relay outputs. Meters in the 950 Series are versatile to meet your needs -customize your meter to specific site conditions easily. The large LCD graphics display lets you quickly see the information you need quickly, on-site, in your choice of 10 languages, and without the inconvenience of outdated paper charts; you'll no longer need to replace pens, paper, or service mechanical recorders. Industry standard SCADA MODBUS ASCII protocol is included in Hach's Sigma 950 Flow Meter Series. 4-20 mA outputs are also available: this allows flexible integration with a SCADA system. You can have real-time, read-only access to all available data chan- nels in the 950 Flow Meter. > Keypad and large graphics display makes using laptops in the field optional. A sin- gle keystroke provides an instantaneous flow summary and review of all program settings. > Three level measurement technologies available: ultrasonic, submerged, or bubbler. > Battery or AC powered. > Water quality data helps identify upsets that may affect your plant. > An OptiFlow model provides maximum flexibility with three different level technology choices plus velocity. > Doppler area velocity flow measurement. > Sampler pacing ability to document the extent of overflow problems. > Optional rainfall logging to record and characterize rain events. > Remote communications capability via modem or RS-232. > Enough memory to log more than 18,000 data points-expandable to 116,000 data points or over one year of flow data at a 5-minute logging interval. > Flash memory allows software enhance- ments without replacing a-proms or returning meter to factory. > Optional four user-assignable alarm relays. > Optional two user-assignable 4-20 mA outputs, allowing the meter to be part of a current loop able to drive recorders, samplers, metering pumps, chlorinators, and other devices or SCADA integration. -e + .~' The 950 and 950 AV provide portable and/or permanent single-channel monitoring plus water quality testing, process control intertace, and a digital display. The 950 and 950 AV OptHlow models offer maximum flexibility for multiple applications. Up to three different level sensor technologies and velocity are available in one meter. > Data can be downloaded in any of three ways: (1) palm-sized Data Transfer Unit (DTU); (2) built-in modem to transmit data over telephone lines; and (3) direct RS-232 link to a PC utilizing data analysis software. > CSO Studies and Monitoring > NPDES Stormwater Compliance > Industrial Compliance Monitoring > Applications involving frequent moving of meter to different site conditions (Optiflow models) 950 Design Specifications General: > Dlmenslons: 13.5' H x 10.0° W x 9.5' D, (34.3 an x 25.4 an x 24.1 an) > Weight: 151bs. (6.8 kg) including power source > Enclosure Material: Ass, UV resistant, stabie from -40° to 176°F (-40°C ro 80°C) > Enclosure Ratlnq: NEMA 4X,6 with front cover open or closed > Operating Temperature Range: +14° to 150°F, (-10°C to 65.5°C) > Storage Temperature Range: -40° to 176°F, (-40°C to 80°C) > Power. 12 VDC > Power Aptlons: 6 amp-hr. gel electrolyte rechargeable battery, 4 amp-hr. Ni-Cad rechatge- ablebattery, lantern battery case with (2) 6-Volt lantern batteries, 115 VAC, 230 VAC or 100 VAC power converter w/battery charger > Graphics DIsp18y: Back lit LCD, autooffwhen not in use 81ine x 40 charnder in ASCII mode 60 dot x 240 dot in graphics mode Dimensions 1.5' H x 5' W (3.8 art x 12.7 an); displays level vs. time, flow vs. time optionally, may display rain- fall, pH, ORP, temperature, DO, conductivity vs. time, sampler events and alarm events > Keypad: 21 position sealed membrane switch with blinking green LED to indicate power on; 4 °sofr keys°, functions defined by display > Totalizers: 8-digit resettable and 8-digit non- resettable LCD software totalizer, 6digit non- resettable mechanical totalizer optional > Tlme Based Accuracy: tl second per day > Battery LIf@: 150 days typical with a 15 minute recording interval, 1 level and 1 velodty, data download once per week, at 50 °F (10 ° C) (also affected by site conditions) > Units of Measurement: Flaw: GPS, GPM, GPH, LPS, LPM, LPH, MGD, AFD, CFS, CFM, CFH, CFD, CMS, CMM, CMH, CMD 7btalized Flow: gal., ft', sae-ft., lit., m'. > PMmary DeWces: Flumes: ParshaU, Palmer Bowlus, Leopold-Lagco, H, HL, HS, Trapezoidal Weirs: V-notch (15 - 120°) Contracted/Non-con- tracted rectangular, Thelma wmpound Cipolletti Mazming Filuation: Round, U and Rectangular Trapewidal Channels Flow Nozzles: Kerrnison, Parabolic California Pipe Head vs. Flow: Custom programmable curve of up to 99 points > Datalogglnq: Capacity: Up ro 512k bytes: 402 days of level, velodty and rainfall readings at 15 minute inter- vals plus 300 events Monitoring Intervals: 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 30 or 60-minute intervals > Program Memory: Non-volaffie programma- ble flash; can be updated via RS232 port > Sampler Output: 12-17 VDC pulse, loo mA max at 500 ms dwation > Communications: RS-232: up to 19,200 baud SCADA Modbus communication protocol via RS232 or optional modem Ma~dem (optiorwl):14,400 baud Cellular Communications (optional): 14,400 bps, MNP 10-EC Cellular Protocol Pager Alarn~s > Rugged, environmentally sealed: the 950 Ideal for: is NEMA 4X-6 rated and can survive sub- > Long Term or Permanent Flow Studies mersion and corrosive gases-even with > Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Studies the door open. ~,, • Series Flow & Water Quality Meter 950 Design Specifications Continued) 950 Bubbler: > Level Measurement Accuracy: (linearity and hysteresis at 72 °F, 22 °C) from .Ol to 11.75' -10.011' (10.003m) Range:.01 to 11.75', (.003 - 3.6 m) Ambient Operating Temperature Range: 0° to 145°F, (-18° to 63°C) Compensated Temperature Range: 32° to 138°F,(0° to s9°C) Temperature Error. 1.0003'/°F (maximum error within compensated temperature range - per degree of change) Air Intakes: Bubble source and reference port des- iccant protected. Fittings provided for remote intakes Filters: 10 micron on bubble source intake Line Purge: Bubble line is high Pressure Purged at programmed intervals, or in manual mode on demand Line Size: 1/8", (.32 an) ID standard 950 Ultrasonic: 50 kHz Ultrasonic Transducer. Level Measurement Accuracy: (at 72 °F, 22 °C, still air, 40 - 70% relative humidity) from 1 to 10' 1.01'.)(1.003 m) Range: Minimum distance from sensor to liquid 15' (38.1 an). Maximum distance from sensor to liquid 30' (9.1 m) Span: SOkHz, 0 - 29' Ambient Operating Temperature Range: 0° to 140°F, (-18° to 60°C) Temperatwe Error: 1.000047'/F° (maximum error within compensated temperature range -per degree of change) Resoludon:.0011' Material: PVC housing with Buna-N acoustic window Cable: 4 mndudor with integral stainless steel support Able Cable Length: 25' (7.6 m) standard crystal specification: 50 kHz, 11.5° included beam angle Dimensions: 3.75' H x 2.75° D, (9.5 an x 7 tm) Weight: 1.5 lbs. 75kHz Ultrasonic Transducer. Level Measurement Accuracy: (at 72°F, 22°C, still air, 40 - 70e~o relative humidity) from 1 to 10'. t .Ol' ) (1.003 m) Range: Minimum distance from sensor ro Bquid 14'. (23 an). Maximum distance from sensor to liquid 1' (3.3 m) span: 0 - 15' Ambient Operating Temperature Range: 0° to 140°F, (-18° to 60°C) Temperature Error: 1.000047'/F° (maximum error within compensated temperature range -Per degree of change) Resolution:.0011' Material: PVC housing with Buna-N acoustic window Cable: 4 wnductor with integral stainless steel support cable Cable Length: 25' (7.6 m) standard Crystal Spaiftcadon: 5° beam angle with hom Dimensions: 75 kHz, 5.0° H x 2.25° D, (12.7 an x 5.7 an) Weight: 1.5 ]bs. In-Pipe Ultrasonic: > 75 kHz Ultrasonic Level Sensor (In-Plpe): Accuracy: At 72°F (22°C), still aid 40-70% relative humidity from .125 to 15' -1.01' (.038 to 4.57 m 1.003 m) Range: 0" (0 an) - 11' (3.35 m) Sgan:.125 - 15', (.038 - 4.57 m) Ambient OperatingTempemture: 0 to 140°F, (-18 to 60°C) Temperature Error. 1.0001'/°F (1.00005 m/°C) (maximum error within wmpensated temperature range -per degree of change) Resolution:.007s° (.019 an) Material: Stainless steel housing with Buna-N acoustic window Cable: 4 wnductor Cable Length: 25' (7.6 m) standard, 1000' (305 m) using RS-485 two wire remote sensor option Crystal Specifuadan: 75 kHz, 7° included beam angle Dimensions: 2.0' diameterx 12° L (3.81x30 an) 950 Submerged Pressure: Level Measurement Accuracy: (non-linearity and hysteresis)10.1%foll scale Transducer Type: Differential piezo resistive with balanced bridge Transducer Orientation: Inverted Maximum Range: P/N 1379: 2.5 psi .04 - 5.75', (.01 m - 1.75 m) P/N 2343: 5.0 psi .04 - 11.75', (.Ol m - 3.58 m) P/N 2333: 10.0 psi .04 - 23', (.Ol m - 7.0 m) Maximum AAowable Leuel: 6x over pressure OperatingTemperadae Range: 32° to 160°F, (0 to 71°C) Compensated Temperature Range: 32° ro 96°F, (0 to 36°C) Temperatwe Error. P/N 1379:.04 to s.75' 1.006'/F° P/N 2343:.04 to 11.75' 1.0012'/F° P/N 2333:.04 to 23' 1.0024'/F° (Maximum error within wmpensated temperature range -Per degree of change) Air Intake: Atmospheric pressure reference is desiccant protected Material: 316 stainless steel body with titanium diaphragm Cable: 4 conductor polyurethane sensor cable with air vent Cable Length: 25' (7.6 m) standard. 250' (76 m) maximum Dimensions: I' D x 6.75' L, (2.54 an x 17.2 an) Probe Frontal Amer: 0.87s in'. Weight i.51bs. 950 Area x Velocity: Submerged Depth/Area Velocity Sensor. Method: Doppler Prlnclple/Presstue Ttansdttcer > Level Measurement (non-linearity and hysteresis): Standard .018 to 11.5'. 1.023' COOS m - 3.5 m 1.007 m) Exlended:.018 to 34.6' 1.07' (.005 - 10.5 m t .021 m) Maximum Apowable Leuel: 3x over pressure Operating Temperatrre Range: 32 to 160°F, (0 to 71°C) Cmrtgensated Terrgteradire Range: 32 to 86°E (0 to 30 ° C) Temperature Error:.018 -11.5'.1.004'/°F (.005 m - 3.5 m 1.0022 m/°C)..018 - 34.6' 1.012'/°F (.018 - 10.5 m 1.006 m/°C) (maximum error within compensated temperature range -Per degree of change) Verity Induced Error on Depth (patent pending: 0 to 10'/sec (0 to 3.OS m/s) _ .OSS% of reading. Air Intake: Atmospheric pressure reference is desiccant protected > Velocity Measurement: Method Doppler Ultrasonic Transducer T)pe:ltvin 1 MHz piezoelectric Crystals Typical minimum depth far velocity: 0.8' (2 an) Range: -5 to +20 fps (-1.52 to 6.10 m/s) Zero stability: <.O5 ~ (.015 m/s) Accuracy. 12% of reading OperatingTemperatwe: 0 to 140°F, (-18 to 60°C) > General: Material: Polymer body with stainless steel diaphragm Cable: Urethane sensor cable with air vent Cable Length: 25' (7.6 m) standard. 250' (76 m) maximum Dimensions (combination sensor):.8° H x 1.5" W x s°L, (2cmx3.8anx12.7an) Bubbler Level/Area Velocity Sensor. Method: Doppler Prlrrclple/P'ressttre Transducer > Level Measurement (linewity and hysteresis at 72 °F, 22 °C): from .Ol to 11.75' - (0.011' (.033 m) Range:.01 to 11.75' (.003 - 3.6 m) Ambient Operating Temperature Range: 0 - 145°F, (-18 - 63 ° C) Compensated for changes in ambient Temperature Rang: 32 - 138°F (0 - 59°C) Tbrrrperature Error. 1.0003'/°F (maximum error within compensated temperature range -per degree of change Air Intakes: Bubb a source and reference port desic- cant protected. Fittings provided for remote intakes Filters: 10 miaon on bubble source intake Line Purge: Bubble line is high pressure purged at programmed intervals, or in manual mode on demand > Velocity Measurement: Method Doppler Llltrnsonic Transducer Type: Twin 1 MHz piezoelectric Crystals Typua! minimum depth for vekxity. 0.8' (2 an) Range: -5 to +20 fps (-1.52 to 6.10 m/s) Zero stabAity. <.OS fps (.015 m/s) Auuracy. 12% of reading Operating T¢mp¢rattae: 0 to 140°F, (-18 to 60°C) > General: Cable Length: 25' (7.6m) standard, 250' maximum Cable Diameter. 0.4' (tan) Dimensions (combination senwr): 0.8" H x 1.5' W x 3.T L, (2 an x 3.8 an x 27 an) Velocity Sensor Method Doppler Prlrtclple Accuracy: 12% of reading Zero Stability: 10.05 fps (11.52 an) Dimenstons:.44' H x 1.5° W x 2.7' L, (1.12 an x 3.81 an x 6.86 an) Nose Angle: 20 deg from horizontal Cable Length: Standard range probe - 2s' (7.6 m); atstom cable lengths to 250' (76 m); cable diameter - .225' (.57 an) Materials: Sensor -polymer, cable -urethane; sensor mounting hardware -stainless steel Dimensions: OS'H x 1.5' W x 3.7'L (1.5 an x 3.8 cm x 9.7 an) 4~r 950 Design Specifications (Continued Sigma 950 Factory Installed Options: > pH Temperature/ORP Meter: Control/Logging. Field selectable to log pH Temperature or ORP independent of flow or in conjunction with flow; also controls sample collection in response to value exceeding low/high set points Recording Intervals: 1, Z, 3, 5, G, 10, 12, 15, 30, and 60 minutes Probe Pre-Amplifier/Junction Box: NEMA 4X with labeled terminal strip pH/remperature Sensor. Temperature compensated; impact resistant ABS plastic body; combination electrode with porous Teflon° junction Measurement Range: 2 to 12 pH within spedficadons, 0 to 14 pH maximum range Operating Temperad4re Range: 0 to 176°F, (-18°C to 80°C) Dimensions: 0.75' diameter x 6° long with .75' mpt cable end (1.9 an x 15.2 drr long withl.9 ~ mpt cable end) > Integral Dissolved Oxygen/ Temperature Meter: Control/Logging: Field selectable to log dissolved oxy- gettindependent offlow or in conjunction with flaw; also controls sample collection in response to value exceeding low/high set points Recordmg Intervals: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, Is, 20, 30, and 60 minutes Measurement Method: Polargraphic Sensor: Temperature compensated; impact resistant polypropylene body Range: 0-20 mg/L Resolutiom .01 mg/L Accuracy: t0.2 mg/L Operating Temperature Range: 32 to 122°F, (0 to 50°C) Dimensions: 0.65 ° diameter x 5• long with .75' mpt cable end (1.65 om diameter x 12.7 an long with 1.9 an mpt cable end) > Integral Conductivity/ Temperature Meter. Control/Logging: Field selectable ro log conductivity independent of flow or in conjunction with flow, also controls sample collection in response to value exceeding low/high set points Recording Intervals: 1, 2, 3, s, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60 minutes Sensor: Temperature wmpensated; impact resistant polypropylene body Range: 0-20 mS/crn Resolu[ion: 0.01 mS/an or 0.01 pS/an (user selected) Accuracy. tl% of reading +0.05 mS/crn Operating Temperature Range: 32 to 122 ° F, (o to so°c) Dimensions: 0.67' diameter x s ° long with .75° mpt cable end, (1.70 an diameter x 12.7 ~ long with 1.9 crn mpt cable end) > Ratn Gauge Input: For use with Hach Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge. Flow Meter rewrds rainfall data in 0.01° increments. Flow measurement can be initiated based upon field selectable rate of rain. > Analog Input Data-logginq Channels: Up to seven additional data-logging channels record data from external sources; field assignable channel name(s) and unfts; - 4 to +4 VDC 0 - 20 mA, t0.5% fiill scale voltage acauacy, t0.2% fiill scale 4-20 mA accuracy with 200 ohm impedance > 4 - 20 mA Outputs: up to 2 integral field assignable outputs, optically isolated, up to 600 ohm load, per output 0.1 % FS error. > Mechanical Totalizer: 6-digit non-resettable mechanical totalizer; selectable units: gal., lit., fl.', m', acre-R > Alarm Relays: Up to 4 integral alarm relays, 10 amp, Form C, user assignable to any internal or external data channel. > Modem: 14,400 baud rats CRC auto to check sum, FCC approved, cellular compatible > Expanded Memory: Increase memory from 18,432 data points to 116,736 data points. ~ AC Power Backup: Provides power in the event of an AC power failure; internal trickle charger maintains 6 amp-hour battery. PVM Portable Flow Velocity Meter lkflon is a registered trademark of E.I. Ihgiant de Nemours Int. This lightweight (316.), rugged field unit uses a Doppler velocity sensor to measure bi-directional velocity to t10 feet/second. Hach's Sigma PVM also features true-time averaging for higher accuracy in turbulent flows. This rugged, easy-to-operate unit is ideal for checking and calibrating primary devices and flow meters, and for spot measurements in sewers, streams and irrigation channels. The PVM Meter quickly determines fluid point velocity or time averaging using a Doppler ultrasonic sensor. Velocity information is then processed for computing flow and controlling analog and display outputs. > Doppler Technology for fluid point velocity or time average velocity. > Digital circuitry samples velocity 15 times per second. > Computes forward and reverse flow. > 12-hour battery life. > Included: Portable velodty meter, velodty probe with 25' (7.6m) cable nylon shoulder soap, bat- tery charger; rechargeable nickel cadmium battery, swivel head probe holder, two extension rods, and carrying case. > Velocity Sensor. Ultrasonic Doppler > Velocity Ranges: o.os' to t lo'/sec (o.ols ro t3 m/s); bi-directional measurement > V@IoCity Accuracy: tl% of full scale > Resolutlon:.or/sec, (.003 m/s) > Minimum Depth:l.o•, (2smm) > Minimum Particulate Level: loo micron (d 100 PPM > DlSplay: 41ine x 20 character LCD with contrast adjustment > Recorder Output: -2 ro +2 VDC wrresponding to -10' to +10'/sec. (-3 to +3 m/s) (optional) > Power Source: Internal rechargeable 6te11 1500 mA-H Ni-Cad pack (internal to PVM) PVM Design Specifications > Charger Power Requirements: lls unc for AC to 12 VDC converter, 10-15 VDC from auto- mobile lighter socket > Operating Time: Normal use: 4 weeks Continuous use: 12 hours > Operating Temperature: 32°to 122°F, (0 to s0°C) > Sensor Cable Length: 2s' (7.6 m) standard > DlmenslOnS: 4.5° H x 7° W x 6° diameter, (11.4 amx17.8crnx15.2crn) > W@ight: 3 lbs. (1.4 kg) without cazrying case > Probe Dimensions: l.o• H x ls• w x ls• diame[ey (25 mm x 38 mm x 38 mm) > Probe Materiels: Urethane and epoxy poly- mers; stainless steel > ExtenSlon ROd: Telescopic from 1.5' to 6', (0.5 to 1.8 m) > Recharge Tlme: to hours • C~ July 21, 2406 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2406 APPLICANT Parks Department ITEM NO. 6-G-1 REQUEST Request to Reject Bid for Adventure Island Splash Pad 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 u f~`'`~ Date: Phone: Staff Initials• Materials presented at public meetings ahau become properly of fhe CHy of Merialfan. • ItECEYV~:D Memo To: Mayor & City Council From: Doug Strong, Director Elroy Huff, Park Superintendent Date: July 20, 2006 Re: Adventure Island Splash Pad Project ~uL z ~ ~ city ®~ ~e~.a~~ City Clerk Office The low bid price for Adventure Island Splash Pad project was $241,000.00 submitted by Hillside Landscape Construction, Inc. We feel this bid was too high for the project and will put it out for bid a second time. We are, therefore, recommending that the City Council reject the bid for Adventure Island Splash Pad construction project. Page 1 n U u JUIy 21, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT Parks Department ITEM NO. b-C~ REQUEST Request for Additional Funding for Recreation Programs and Back Up Documentation 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: See atltached 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 CHy of Meddicm. • ~n Memo To: Mayor /City Council Cc: Will Berg ~~ From: LeAnna Thomas ~~ Doug Strong Date: July 20, 2006 Re: Additional Funding for Recreation Programs & Classes The Parks Staff is requesting approval of a budget amendment for additional funding for recreation programs and Basses in the amount of $31,786.00 due to the following circumstances. - Additional funds requested is based upon additional summer staff needs to meet the increase in participafion of summer youth camps as well as additional operating expenses as a result of increased youth camps and adult sports programs. - Revenues from both the adult sports and recreation programs and Basses will exceed the budgeted revenue requirement, each at $30,000.00 for the fiscal year. Antidpated revenues for adult sports are $59,000.00 and the recreation programs and classes is $46,600.00. The total additional revenues of $45,600.00 will offset the requested $31,786.00 budget amendment. Attached is the budget amendment as requested by fiscal prior to approval from City Council with signature from Parks Director, Finance, and Mayor deWeerd. Staff is requesting that this item go before the City Coundl under a department report for discussion at your July 25, 2006 meeting. tai ~ ~ ~ $ ~ U ®~ C ~~°s~ ~~ ~~'~ ~~~°~~ ~~c nv m °~~ nva ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r' ~ n ~~=m ^~~ ~~ c n.-mo~° m °'~ a a ~ ~Y~y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~$~~~~m m.~ m $~ E~ v cffi~°° o.~ ~~ m~ o~~ a W ~ W W y m ~ ~ ~ Umo~ i ~ E ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ .' w °' 3 W ~ c v W m ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ U W m coEW~m$ ~o ~ cm`s` m ~~~~~~ m ~ Q m ~ `~ $ ~ r E ~'E~„m~° m,~E~ .° . ® ~ ~~~ E-omo_ ~'i34nN~ m~T~s~~ =E~,~~ o~~m.~~ c ~ ~ .~'.~~c~m~. ~~, om~-r W o s"'1 Wn _Wp Q ~ L w-~¢ W W Z N O~O~ OmxO ozF~ p G Q. ~ .~.. a O l'9 M ~ P ~ • ~ CO C7 ~ m v ~ ~ x tY s C O m m ~ ~ ° ~ LL ® ~ a E ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ LL 0. ~ ~ Z o N N cgf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~ = a ° , ~~, " v ~ F a ~ `o v O m a O' ~~ o ~' ~ c ~~ o~ ~o mQ -~ m c ~~ w m ~ m mr~, ~v~ c®m~°m~ ~W~m~Q ~~Ws~~ rn~~ ~~ c c3 ~vQ c ~~~E w _~-°~~ ~ ~~ ~E ~ ~~~ am m~ ~~ ~~ Q.t~ O . g ~~~~~~ 0 Ua mL °w ~s m ~(~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ m ~~~ ~~ a E ~ m w E 3 r ~ m ~a $O1 ~~ ~ o ~ Y- ~ o. v~ ~ a c n ~ ~-~° ~~ ~ ~ _ '~.~ ~0~, _ v r ~ ~ L S D g 8 a w w x z W d z Q W 4 Q~ ~> ~~ zw QO Z ~ M lL W O~ ~~ zz ~w ~a ~~ f0 F ~ J ~_ UO W Y zV C7 _ WU • C~ v ro a d' N Ol Ifl O O O M In O ~ O ~ ~ ~7 (6 N ri r m O 07 O~ ~ O~ M O In ~ m m '~ ~ N rl tD N N N N~ O ~ ~ ~ m N M r \O r l0 .~{ H a w ~ o I ~ f• a o O O ~ _~ a a i v ~m ~ ~ E '~ °q a .a 3 a i . ~ ~ o ~ N N ~ o ~ ~ b ~ a ~ U O N ~ N a' N H ~ ~ ro a o r ~ U7 W 1J ,a a ~ m ~ ~ O ro o ~ N U S a O ~ W ~ q a H ~ ,-1 0 ~ a, CTj 1 ~o a ~ X w 1 o a~ 1„7 N 'i N v d o u i ~ ~+ rd ~ m N ~ ~ q N W b o ~ w o a o `H 3 N O ~ q N ~ b7 N ~ }1 ro N w ro v ~ w a q 0 .,~ ~ yy Sa v m a ~ a ~ > a w ~ a v w a a M N lO O rl ri m m to O N N 07 Ol r N Ol 07 m 01 eM m ~-1 r-I d' In r-I M M rn m rn m rl ~ M M M N ~O O r-I rl m m 1I) O N N 01 O~ r N ~ ~ m O~ ~ m r-I ~-I cM U7 rl M M Ol 07 Ol 01 d' V' 01 01 N d~ O O lD C5 m O~ --0 b0 m m l0 r-I N r r 07 r-I l0 m In U7 r M 7n r r ui ~ r r N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O M M ~O l0 a a a a a N ~ N ~ a > aai ~ ~ W a w O ~ O ~ ~ -~+ a v a H U ~~-I E P$ ~ a ro ~ .-i au7~cv7 ro~ o '~ H ~' 0 E O O ri ll) O M d~ d' d' tf7 r r r r r ~ ~ ~ V~ V~ M M M M M ~ lfi ~0 O '~ l0 O ~ O 07 07 g r o o m a~ ~ 7n o m m r u7 r O N r1 ~O M O tD ~O ri N m M ri ~ N ~ ~ r m Ifl N ~ ~ M to In m r in M N r ~o ~o N ri l0 ~O m r~ N~ m M r m m m r r m M O m N m 07 O O d~ ~O rl ri tll T r Ol '-I N N N U7 r ri 07 O ~O r-I r r N 70 r V~ O7 Ol Ol m 07 O7 v1 Ol m ... V' M .-1 O~ M rf M ri m m N M u7 N 0~ N r M m r-I r-1 N N ri M 0~ r-I r ri Ol 07 07 M m r rl N 01 m 0 rl N N m m 10 rl 'dl r-I 'VI m V~ '~ m M m ~ Ol ~O O N V' d' V~ N 111 M M ri O~ rl rl M rl r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0l of o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o m m O O O O O O O r O r r r r r ~ ~ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m In m o m m ~o 0 o In In O m M M N ei O r-I rl ri O 1D 01 to O rl ~ ~ O N E W r M O~ 117 In r N N ri L/1 N r-I r-I a w ,q ro can q -°+ ro ° vHi w 1.1 N ~ O E'' rom m -~ vo o`~ 7~tla~ o q aav w a~' a ~ ~ v rl ~ ~ a ~o ~ . ~r w ~,~a~ o v a a~i ~~ ai x~ E a a va rnmrnwc~a s~ aw w a a ~ a ~ ~ b' w a a° ~i ~ ro ~ +' `° o ~' H o a w H w °' a O to ~O O rl N M 117 m O O O rl N N N N N N N N N O O O O O ri r-1 ri ~i N N N N N V~ V~ d~ d~ V~ d~ V~ <N V~ m O N d~ ri O O O Ifl O M tJl M 0 0 0 N O 01 m N 0 0 0 m 01 N l0 in O M 07 O~ N ~ ~ N r rl l0 aP O O O N N O M ~O O O O In N N M r 0 0 0 r N ~ M 117 O rl M M V~ d' 07 V~ 7n r-i r-i m M O~ ~O ~ O O O r r m M ~0 0 0 0 ~r r r M r o 0 0 N r O m u7 'i rl N rl 01 ri N l0 ri r o o ms In o 0 0 r o o m ~0 0 0 0 m 0 0 ~ l0 O O O r ~o ~ rl m o ri ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O lfl UI O O O In a ~ r o w u7 r-I r-1 to ri r-I m m v q .~ q ~aai a~ a UI X U' ~ O Op, 1~0 .U U w uHi w 1 q ~i~7 v] V v o~ z w ~ o a~i ~ ~ ~ ,~ ro zEOw~val~~iw~'wo H w ~a w a a o 0 O 1I1 ~ to O m lD tM l17 O r 1f1 N .--I O O l11 V~ r N If1 ~ m m T O V' V' rl ~ O m N M l0 O r M N N O M l0 m M In M r m m .-1 l0 O ~0 ~O 07 u7 0 ~ a to M O N ~O r r r M rl ~o m r m N O m O 07 ~ o m o ~o O1 O M O r m ~ rl ~ ~ r-i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O ri O O O lfl N In O m rl ri ~-I r-I ri m w W q .u •.a ~ w ~ ~ a ~ ~ u cn H a ~ O r-I O O r-I lf1 O O VI O ri N 1-I O O O O O O O N O m O O O M N M r r r 0 r-I ri r-I ri r-I ri rl N N N N N~~ N l!1 l9 ~O r lf7 lf7 lf7 1I1 lf1 t11 lfi N 1I1 !n Lf1 Lf7 lfl N N m 0 0 N N r 11 b E as r~ U • N d ro a w L~ W I O a v b 4-I A W .~ N ~ O .U O U a' N b ~ r H N ~ .41 ,C, pa u ro ~ o .j m m .~ ,~ ~ ~ a E O p~ i ~o X o W ~ 0 0 H ~d ri ~-I \ U fRtl o ~n E q 1~i > w N x w 0 N 1~ 1~ N -rI ro 1~ Ul A o r~ w o o ~o to in 0 0~ ~o 0 0 0 o m S-i o ~ o r r ~r o ~n <r a ~ Ol fd a d' r-1 l0 N 01 O~ d~ ~ ~ ,~ io w ~ ~n ~n E U M O O l~ O ~ a, M M 01 ~i a 0 0 o ui o o m m r O o O M O O O~ 01 O q 0 0 0 0 0 ~n ri cn m .u -,~ o ~n o m o r r r <r N C~ O N Ifl r-1 N rl m m m - i i ~ ro r-i ~o ~ ,- u N N ~ ~ ~ W O O O t!1 O O N N M S-I O O O l0 O O O O O~ b o 0 o m o .n a ~o m ~~ H N m m N ~ m ~O l0 rl q U M 'cN V' ~O N ~ rt M ~ N o 0 0 0 0 o u~ ~n ~n 0 0 0 0 0 o a ~ N .,~ O O O O O ~~ ~ N N O p, ~ ~o u~ in r m m m ~ ~ H .~ ~ 3 v q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~n o ~n o 0 0 0 ~o ~o r O N v1 O N N Ifl lIi ~ ,-i o m ~ ~ r-I ~ ~ N O1 O1 Ol q ~ > 8 H O ~ r-I U E •~ q U •~ m O ~ 6 ~ E m _ E m O U N N O bl U U ~~ E7! H o ~ ~ ~ ~~suu a w o w ~a ~ a a H ~ ~ ,.~ ~ o '~ w F ~ H N O E 0 0 0 0~ H O O H O O O N d~ V~ In 01 ri t~ t~ n n r o ui u~ ui ui u~ ~o e N m 0 0 N .i r d qa • July 21, 2~b • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 25, 2r~b APPLICANT RMR Consulting, inc.. REM NO. 8 REQUEST Request for Reconsideration of Denial for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Baraya 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: COMMENTS See all`ached Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CNy of fderWian. July 21,2006 FP 06-030 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT Pacific Landmark Development ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Tabled from July 11, 2006 -Request for Final Plat approval for 88 single-family residentic building lots and 9 common lots on 29.7 acres in an R-4 zone for Madelynn Estates {f.k.a. Basin Cree) - 5603 North Locust Grove Road 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: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C July 25, 2006 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PACIFIC LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 88 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 9 COMMON LOTS ON 29.7 ACRES IN AN R-4 ZONE LOCATED AT 5603 N. LOCUST GROVE ROAD IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, T.4N., R. lE. CASE NO. FP-06-030 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 July 25, 2006, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: July 25, 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 MADELYNN ESTATES SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE NE'/ OF SECTION 30, T. 4N., R. lE., BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 07/18/06, ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR MADELYNN ESTATES SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-030) Page 1 of 4 • SHEET 1 OF 5, WRG DESIGN, INC.", PACIFIC LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments asset forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: July 25, 2006, listing 24 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 14 GENERAL REQUIlZEMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 5 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from WRG Design, Inc., a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit ``B" and consisting of 7 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their July 25, 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: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR MADELYNN ESTATES SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-030) Page 2 of 4 State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS 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 maybe 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 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR MADELYNN ESTATES SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-030) Page 3 of 4 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 ~5~'' of ~~~,,,, , 2006. ATTEST: ~~/d WILLIAM G. BERG, Copy served upon: day ~~ ~ , ~~ ; i J ., C ~I,E ~ / Applic~# , ,~y~,~~ ~/ Planningafigr7Q~~°epartment ~/' Public Works Department ~/ City Attorney By: Clerk's Office Dated: ~-'~-6~ ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR MADELYNN ESTATES SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-030) Page 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~TNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPA~MENTS STAFF REPORT r STAFF REPORT: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: We have reviewed this These conditions shall Meridian City Council: Hearing Date: July 25, 2006 Transmittal Date: July 25, 2006 Mayor & City Council p ,, ~. "'" ~ " ~, ~~ ~ ~~ ~, ~~ 6 ~~~ra ~~ ,~,r ~:.: ,~ ~F.q.' Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator ~ C Madelynn Estates Subdivision (flea Basin Creek Subdivision) -REVISED Request for Final Plat Approval of Madelynn Estates Subdivision Consisting of 88 Single-family Residential Building Lots and 9 Common/other Lots on 29.7 Acres in an R-4 Zone by Pacific Landmark Development (File# FP-06-030). 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, Pacific Landmark Development, has applied for final plat approval of 88 single-family residential building lots and 9 common/other lots on 29.7 acres in an R-4 zone for Madelynn Estates Subdivision, which received preliminary plat approval under the name of Basin Creek Subdivision. The proposed gross density of this phase of the development is 2.96 dwelling units per acre. The proposed net density is 4.13 dwelling units per acre. Madelynn Estates Subdivision is located west of Locust Grove Road, approximately %2 mile south of Chinden Boulevard in the NE 1/a of Section 30, T.4N., R.IE. This property has not been previously platted. The applicant is providing 3.4 acres of open space including a neighborhood park with a picnic shelter and basketball courts, and a pedestrian pathway as amenities for the subdivision. There were several changes made to the final plat from the approved preliminary plat concerning open space. Three common lots in the form of landscaped roundabouts (Lot 1, Block 13; Lot 1, Block 6; and Lot 1, Block 10) were added to the final plat at the south end of N. Morpheus Way, and the east ends of E. Yucca Canyon Ct. and E. San Pedro Ct.; the two landscape islands on N. Sun Shimmer Ave. shown on the preliminary plat were reduced in size; Lot 1, Block 8 was slightly decreased in size; and Lot 1, Block 4 was increased in size. The overall open space increased from 146,447 square feet on the preliminary plat to 147,430.66 square feet on the final plat. Since the overall open space increased from what was originally approved, Staff has no concerns with the proposed changes and the submitted final plat still substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of Madelynn Estates Subdivision with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-06-011) and preliminary plat (PP- 06-009) for this subdivision. Exhibit "A" FP-06-030 Madelynn Estates Revised.FP.doc PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~.INING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPA~MENTS STAFF REPORT 2. All fencing installed on the site must be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Perimeter fencing to contain debris shall be installed at the subdivision boundary prior to release of building permits for this subdivision. 3. Remove any structures spanning lot lines or not meeting the dimensional standards of the UDC prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 4. No on-street parking shall be allowed along E. Halpin Street from N. Locust Grove Road west to the intersection with N. Starry Night Avenue. The street shall be signed as "No Parking" per the Meridian Fire Department's comments. All existing houses that will be retained on site shall be required to connect to City services. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual physical connection to City services for these houses. 6. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit documentation showing that the Idaho Power Easement shown on the preliminary plat has been vacated. 7. The "Real Point of Beginning" shown on the face of the plat does not match the location called out in the "Certificate of Owners". The applicant shall make any changes necessary to ensure that the face of the plat and the "Certificate of Owners" are both accurate and consistent. Revise the Domestic Water Service Origin Statement on the signature page to reference the City of Meridian instead of United Water. 9. No manholes or water valves shall be allowed to be placed in the landscape islands. If sewer or water mains are to be routed underneath them, then no trees will be allowed in the islands. The applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Department to meet this condition while still complying with all City Ordinance regarding landscaping. 10. A permanent public pedestrian easement shall be recorded, in favor of the City of Meridian, for the pedestrian pathway within this subdivision. The easement shall be sufficient width to cover the 10-foot wide pathway shown. The hard surfaced pathway shall be constructed and fully improved prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within this subdivision. Applicant shall work with the City Parks Department and conform to the Parks Department standards for construction of the pathway. The Homeowner's Association is responsible for maintenance of all landscaping adjacent to the pathway. 11. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer the applicant shall submit documentation (i.e. License Agreement) from Settler's Irrigation District, that the portion of lots encumbered by Settler's easement remains "usable" by the lot owners. Meaning that the property owners can fence back to their property line and not just the easement line. If this is not the case, then the plat shall be revised to include the "unusable" portion of the lots into a common lot. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that all revised lots meet the minimum dimensional standards in the UDC for the R-4 zone. 12. Any potential reimbursement agreements must comply with all requirements of City Code 9-1-13 and 9-4-19, which includes the preliminary agreement (which includes footage, size, and depth of reimbursable pipe) being finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature. Exhibit "A" FP-06-030 Madelynn Estates Revised.FP.doc PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PINING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPA~ENTS STAFF REPORT 13. Revise or add the following note(s) on the face of the plat dated 7/18/06 (notes & signature sheet dated 5/17/06), prepared by WRG Design, Inc. and signed by, Michael S. Byres, prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer: (4) "... is prohibited t~x~lEacc~.xr~ifia,~Il.r ~Ilc.,: •+• ~. +i. ~ a n ,~ LT• ,, r ~ b J (11.) Delete note. (*.) Add a note, "Fencine on Lots 12, 14, 15, & 16, Block 5 adjacent to the micro pathway Lot 13, Block 5; Lots 14 & 16, Block 1 adjacent to the micro pathway on Lot 15 Block 1; Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, & 7, Block 8 adiacent to the open space and micro pathway on Lot 1 Block 8; and Lots 2-7 and 8-13 Block 4 adiacent to the open space on Lot 1 Block 4 shall be in compliance with the most recently approved fencing standards of the Cit~f Meridian." (*.) Add a note, "Individual lot owners are responsible for maintenance of any irrigation/drainage pipe or ditch crossing their lot unless such responsibility is assumed by an irrigation district or association " (*.) Add a note, "Bottom elevation of structural footings shall be set a minimum of 12 inches above the hig~iest established normal gxound water elevation " 14. The Landscape Plan, prepared by WRG Design, Inc., and dated 5/15/06, shall be revised as follows: a. Woody shrubs are required to be two gallon pot size minimum per UDC 11-3B-5; revise plant schedule accordingly. b. Include fencing details of all proposed fencing (picture, height, construction materials, etc.). Submit three copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 15. The applicant has indicated that the Settlers Irrigation District will own and maintain the pressure irrigation system within this development. If the system is to be owned and maintained by Settlers Irrigation District, evidence of a license agreement with Settlers shall be provided to Public Works prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 16. 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, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the irrigable common areas prior to signature on the fmal plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 17. Graphically depict an 8-foot wide Public Utilities, Drainage and Irrigation easement in the following locations. The extra width is necessary to protect a pressurized irrigation mains being installed. a.) East boundary of Lot 20, Block 1. b.) West boundary of Lot 5, Block 4. c.) North boundary of Lots 8-13, Block 4. d.) North boundary of Lots 13-17, Block 3. e.) South boundary of Lots 2-6, Block 1. 18. Sanitary sewer service to this development is proposed via extensions of mains Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this development. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Meridian Public Works Department, main size and Exhibit "A" FP-06-030 Madelynn Estates Revised.FP.doc PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PINING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPA~ENTS STAFF REPORT routing, to be in conformance with the City's Master Sewer Plan. The applicant shall execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 19. Water service to this proposed development is being proposed via extensions of mains in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, Arcadia Subdivision, Locust Grove, and future mains planned in Cardigan Bay Subdivision. The applicant shall install water mains to and through this proposed development, and coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department. The applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Z0. Submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's "Final" letter for the street names and lot & block numbering. Make all corrections necessary to comply. 21. No subdivision identification signs are approved with this application. All proposed signs will require approval of a separate sign permit. 22. Revise the Key Map on Sheet 4 of the final plat to reflect the revisions made to the plat dated 7/18/06. 23. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B- 11. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction 24. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions, or terms of the approved annexation or preliminary plat does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 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 prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer 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. Exhibit "A" FP-06-030 Madelynn Estates Revised.FP.doc PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~iNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPA~MENTS STAFF REPORT 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. 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. 6. 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. 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. 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. One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs aze completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 14. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record the final plat within two yeazs 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 Madelynn Estates Subdivision (FP-06-030) with the above stated comments and conditions. Exhibit "A" FP-06-030 Madelynn Estates Revised.FP.doc PAGE 5 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES u © _. ,© D E S I G N I N C. Juiy 8, 2006 Ms. Sonya Wafters Assistant Planner City of Meridian Planning Department 660 East Watertower Lane Suite 202 Meridian, Idaho 83642 i~+ ~: RE: rDdadelynn Estates 1~Ynal Plat Sto~f Report (FP-06-030j Dear Ms. Wafters: On behalf of my Client, Pacific Landmark Development, LLC, please accept the following comments in regards to the staff report regarding Madelynn Estates LAbD Final Plat: PLANNING SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (A~06-O1 I) and preliminary plat (PP--06-009) for this subdivision. CIVIL ENGINEERING Response: We will comply. LANDSCAPE ARCHIT EGTURE 2. All fencing installed on the site must be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-6 and I 1-3A-7. Perimeter fentzng to contain debris shall be installed at the subdivision boundary prior to release of building permits for this subdivision Response: We will comply. 3. Remove any structures spanning lot lines or not meeting the dimensional standards of the UDC prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. LANG SURVEY Response: We will comply. 4. No on-street parking shall be allowed along E. Halpin Street from N. Locust Grove Road west to the intersection urith N. Starry Night Avenue. The street shalt be signed as `No Parking° per the Meridian Fire Department's comments. Response: We will comply. 453 S Fitness Place 5. All existing houses that will be retained on site shall be required to connect Eagle, ID to City services. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of 83s~s assessments and the actual physical connection to City services for these houses. PN 208(246.8340 FX 208/248.8320 Response: We will comply. www.wrgtl. Com G~Itibit "N" 6. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit documentation showing that the Idaho Power Easement shown on the preliminary plat has been vacated. Response: We will comply. 7. The "Real Point of Beginning" shown on the face of the plat does not match the location called out in the "Certificate of Owners". The applicant shall make any changes necessary to ensure that the face of the plat and the "Certificate of Owners" are both accurate and consistent. Response: We will comply. 8. Revise the Domestic Water Service Origin Statement on the signature page to reference the City of Meridian instead of United Water. Response: We will comply. 9. No manholes or water valves shall be allowed to be placed in the landscape islands. If sewer or water mains are to be routed underneath them, then no trees will be allowed in the islands. The applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Department to meet this condition while stilt complying with all City Ordinance regarding landscaping. Response: We will remove the landscape islands at the intersections in response to this condition. Trees will be removed from cul-de-sacs and replaced with bushes. I (). A permanent public pedestrian easement shall be recorded, in favor of the City of Meridian, for the pedestrian pathway within this subdivision. The easement shall be sufficient width to cover the YO foot wide pathway shown. The hard surfaced pathway shall be constructed and fully improved prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within this subdivision. Applicant shall work with the City Parks Department and conform to the Parks Department standards for construction of the pathway. The Homeowner's Association is responsible for maintenance of al! landscaping adjacent to the pathway. Response: We will comply. I I. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer the applicant shall submit documentation (i. e. License Agreement) from Settler's Irrigation District, that the portion of lots encumbered by Settler's easement remains "usable" by the lot owners. Meaning that the property owners can fence back to their property line and not just the easement line. If this is not the case, then the plat shall be revised to include the "unusable" portion of the lots into a common lot. The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that all revised lots meet the minimum dimensional standards in the UDC for the R-4 zone. Exhibit "ki" ©~ 2 D E S I G N I N C • • Response: Settlers Irrigation has agreed to provide the appropriate documentation. 12. Any potential reimbursement agreements must comply with all requirements of City Code 9-1-13 and 9-4-19, which includes the preliminary agreement (which includes footage, size, and depth of reimbursable pipe) being finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature. Response: We urill comply, 13. Revise or add the following note(s) on the face of the plat dated 5/17/06, prepared by WRG Design, Inc. and signed by, Michael S Byrns, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer: (4. j °... is prohibited (I 1.) Delete note. (*.) Add a note, ~Fencina on Lots 12. 14 I S 8, 16 Block 5 adjacent to the micro nathwau on Lot 13. Block 5' Lots 14 & 16 Block 1 adjacent to the micro nathwau on Lot I5. Block I • Lots 2 4 5 6 & 7 Block 8 adjacent to the oven space and micro pathway on Lot I Block 8• and Lots 2-7 and $- 13 Block 4 adjacent to the oven space on Lot 1 Block 4 shall be in compliance with the most recentlt~approved fencing standards o tf he Cirg of Meridian. A (*.) Add a note, "Individual lot owners are responsible for maintenance of anu irrigation/drainage Pine or ditch crossing their lot unless such re. sporw^ibilitu is assumed by an irrigation district or association " (*.) Add a note, °Bottom elevation of structural footings shall be set a minimum o}' 12 inches above the hi,~hest established normal ground water elevation.'° Response: We will comply to all. 14. The Landscape Plan, prepared by WRG Design, Ina, and dated 5/ I S/ 06, shall be revised as follows: a. Woody shrubs are required to be two gallon pot size minimum per UDC 11- 3E-5; revise plant schedule accordingly. ~® Locate the 10 foot uride pedestrian pathway along N. Locust Grove Road entirely within the 35 foot wide landscape buffer (Lot l8, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block I). c. Include fencing details of all proposed fencing (picture, height, construction materials, etc.). Submit three copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Response: We will comply with Condition 14(a) and (c). It is our understanding through Ms. Wafters that Condition 24(b) is more of a concern with ACHD requirements and their ultimate build out, therefore we are providing ACHD review comments for Locust Grove to eliminate this concern and to allow the sidewalk to remain as is proposed. The following I~:.n~nrt ^H° 3 ©0© D E S I G N I N C. • • are comments received from ACRD plan review comments dated June 9, 2006: • Revise the pedestrian ramps (type SD-712 C3J locations to be at the radius of the curb and gutter and revise sidewalk to match pedestrian ramps on E Halpin Street .. . • Revise the right-of--way chamfer so that the revised pedestrian ramps are within the right-of-way. • Revise Locust Grove widening section to be 1/2 of 46' section (23' wide) instead of 25' shown to maintain consistent section for adjoining properties when developed. • 23' 1/2 street section is the ultimate build out for Locust Grove Road. I5. The applicant has indicated that the Settlers Irrigation District wilt own and maintain the pressure irrigation system within this development. If the system is to be owned and maintained by Settlers Irrigation District, evidence of a license agreement with Settlers shall be provided to Public Works prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. Response: We will comply. 16. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single point connection to the culinary water system shall be required If a single point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the irrigable common areas prior to signature on the fcnal plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 17. Graphically depict an 8 foot wide Public Utilities, Drainage and Irrigation easement in the following locations. The extra width is necessary to protect a pressurized irrigation mains being installed. a.J East boundary of Lot 20, Block 1. b.J West boundary of Lot S, Block 4. c.) North boundary of Lots 8-13, Block 4. d.) North boundary of Lots 13- I 7, Block 3. e.J South boundary of Lots 2-6, Block 1. Response: We will comply. 18. Sanitary sewer service to this development is proposed via extensions of mains Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this development. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Meridian Public Works Department, main size and routing, to be in conformance with the City's Master Sewer Plan. The applicant shall execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Response: We will comply. 19. Water service to this proposed development is being proposed via extensions of mains in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, Arcadia Subdivision, Locust Grove, and future mains planned in Cardigan Bay Subdivision. 1{~I~bit ..H.. ©~ D E S I G N I N C. • • The applicant shall install water mains to and through this proposed development, and coordinate main size and routing urith the Public Works Department. The applicant shalt execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Response: We will comply. 20. Submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's QFinal" letter for the street names and lot 8a block numbering. Make all corrections necessary ro comply. Response: We wilt comply. 21. No subdivision identification signs are approved with this application. AlI proposed signs will require approval of a separate sign permit. Response: We will comply. 22. AU areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC l 1-38-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan urith modifications as proposed by staff.lf the stornzwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction Response: We will comply. 23. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions, or terms of the approved annexation or preliminary plat does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. Response: We understand. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 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 prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer Response: We will comply. F.~hihit "H" 5 ®0© D E S I G N I N C. • • 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. Response: We will comply. 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. Response: We will comply. 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. Response: We will comply. 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. Response: We will comply. 6. 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. Response: We will comply. 7. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems urithin this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may 6e used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. Response: We will comply. 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. Response: We will comply. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Response: We will comply. r..n~n~c °>3~ s i D E S I G N I N C. • • 10. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance urith and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Response: We urill comply. 11. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Response: We will comply. 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 calyver inches of trees thaf were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed Response: We will comply. 13. One hundred watt, high pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. Response: We uri11 comply. 14. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record the final plat within two years of the approval of the preliminary plat per UDC 1 I -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 1 I -6B-7B. Response: We understand. Ms. Wafters, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the staff report for Madelynn Estates. Ryan Morgan, PE, will be represer>!.ting Pacific Laruimark Development, LLC at the City Council hearing on ?t~esday, July 11, 2006. However, if you should have any questions or concerns prior to the hearing, please do not hesitate to contact me at 208.246.8300 or at asytley. ord(uwrGdesiarc cant. Stncerely, WRG Design, Inc. `~ Ashley B. Ford Planning Project Manager F.s}tibit "}3" ©~© 7 D E S I G N I N C. i r Jvly 21,2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING Juiy 25, 2006 CPA 05-001 APPLICANT South Eagle Road & Victory Road Property Owners ITEM NO. ~ ~ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006 -Request to Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for approx. 50 acres from medium 8~ low density residential to mixed use regional - nec and sec of South Eagle Road and Victory 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Mirwtes MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See attached Letter from Marty Thomason Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubflc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • July 21,2006 AZ 06-008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 25, 2(}06 APPLICANT South Eagle Road 8r Yctory Road Property Qwners ITEM NO. ~ ~ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2~6 -Request far Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C-C and L-0 zones for South Eagle & Victory Road Property Owner Alliance -east of S. Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory 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: C{TY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS {RRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet /Minutes MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See attached Letter from Marty Thomason Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: • Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ctiy of Meridian. JUIy 21,2006 RZ 06-005 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 2006 APPLICANT John Homan ITEM NO. , Z REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Meridian Professional Ofl•ice - 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road 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: fee attached PAZ It®mP®cket /Minutes See attached Recommendations Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®sented at public meetings shall became property of the City of Meridian. • July 21, 2t~6 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 216 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ~I 7 REQUEST Approve 2007 Fiscal Year Tentative Budget AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: -~ ~~~ ~': ~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ,~~ ~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at puhUc meetln~s shag become property of the Cily of Meridiarr. • OC w g ~. 0 U a 0 } 0 a ti • GENERAL FUND Council FY20O7 Budget Summary RY2088 Geaaral Fund Revenues: ~ 16,447,009 ~~* 1,204,180 FY2OO7 Proposed Revenues ^--~+~ ~ z,oa6,ao9 s MparNwnt pER8ONNP~L OPl3iATlNti fTE'0 TOTAL Adm1n 058,518 420,008 22.0 1,3,388 Po0a 8,045,381 1,/BI,Z82 83.0 7,b~,843 Fka 4,550,343 303,013 48.3 8054,238 Parke 782,010 492,040 12.6 t,~BT~ mart kteraase 5 'i ::!'AL i•,~.aL-Gc11~AnL t: •1:.,:'!:3 "'+'.i. ~ 1~. :: > '- :•.a':. i fe.iilt. ~~ tiENERALFUNDAva0sb1e6ekuta 4 2.674 m •`~'C Re cements: 6 95 18.09 2.530,814 Fbnm 1 Aceewrbnt HR f AeptreOn Retalrar R 7 Olssger Rssovery R 2 Network 8pealaFbt rr 3 HNp Cqk Teeimletan R 4 Oetalwee AppWca6on Develp R 3 EBmrtat FaII.O~r Cork i ~partralii~$p~afi8~$ 1 INayor Herldhns Promisa 2 MayaraasbWt 3 8ia7orYarlhCoura:8 4 Nayrx SUb of Cihr Address Hlstorkal Prsservatlon 0 CRy Hs8 RBONNEL OPERATINti 1 tlme Ops CAPRAL TOTAL addl7 nvewe x,872 - 4,550 ~ 000 72 1,700 87,742 72 000 - 4,000 . - - 120,000 , 124,000 89,866 5,026 1,900 2,600 77,010 WITHDRAWN - `6i,9!!t 3,OZ6 7,~0 $800 77,870 +4Ta,?e9 WtTI1lIRAYMN _ - (700,101) (7,780) (36,380} - . c.~~ _, ~.87~ 1.880 $~bd .:_~'/~'~ - 4880 8,000 3,0~ 80,836 2,800 1,~0 - 84,056 6,000 8006 • 10,800 78,800 10,000 - 4009 - 4aoe - 6udgetad M Cap(tal lmprovemOM Furl C~9d Fund 9oaao p0! 7 Patrdf~8crt8-ll>Eaplf~Ed1 49SGr58 21.929 91360 7 `8i7.5s- 0o a oawwsa,~-..., . v+w.a+rauw ~- •. . • .~....~.,.-.... ,..,.,,A,.,..,. PO' an4tTSlaeNtg 7449 T7,3m [2,644 PD M Crkrtetearareates 41,229 13,10 2.799 790 5l;5;?6 711dd20(It1Ac2.riA04 :__ _ _. ._ _ - - ncetm aiueov.....:..d RSpi CBs7k ttS p~° 3T7.878I A 4 4 1 cna~nnu VrCrrJ~1TlPI(i 7 Wrle CAPITAL TOTAL adaCl reVerWa Parks 1 RecreaBon Program Expand 38,120 4,700 - - 42,820 25,ODD . Parks 2 Park Laml Purchase Parka 3 Actlve Net Software - 800 - 800 ~~ _ Parks 4 Messina kleadowa Park - 1&006 - - 18,000 170,500 Parka 5 Heroa Park - _ _ 127,800 Parks 6 Maxicom Irrigation System - 700 - 12,300 93,000 _ Parks 7 Set1lera Perk Maint Bulfding 500 - 500 Ii8,006 Parka 8 Lerga Mower - 1,3D0 - 44,000 48,300 _ Parks a Adventure IslarM 7,000 - - 7,000 100,000 Park8 1D 18 ft Tandem AxleTraOer - _ 4,200 4,200 Parks 11 Recreailon 8roetkire Software - - 1,006 - 1,000 Parks 12 Picnic Shelter Soasorls Park 300 - 300 128,800 Parke 13 Bab Fkld Groomer Parks 14 Settlers VBlage Square _ - 1,000 Parka 15 Perk Melnt UBtity Vehicles - 2b0 - 8,000 8,250 Parks 10 9eltlere Park Piade Shelter - 800 - 800 123,000 Parka 17 Downtown Tree Replacemera - 25,000 - 25,000 Parka 18 McdermottiClrerry LrJ Park - - Parka 18 Soecer Goals - 3,600 - 3A00 10,000 Parka 20 8th 8lreat Bridge R Pathway - - 72,800 72,8D0 Parks 21 Pagrway Broom ~ _ Park9 22 Ughted Boftba8 F'leida - - 200,604 200,000 - 200,000 Parka 0 Camerae ~ Chateau & 3et5era - 5,000 5,000 . Farke 200,600 / leas TOTAL EXP8N0[TURES 13,517,283 8,882,038 18$OD3 1,283,645 18,205;11M - TOTAL UNRHSERYI~ REVENUES 18,324,888 RESERVED REYENUE$ ~~~ Park bllpad Fund 500.000 Fire Truck Fund $0.000 Capimi Impra~emem FIaId a325,na {4,500,000) (640,6667 recycra tunas tram hula eamnce Ganwel Pond Bemnce 1a,9ae 523 TOTAL REY@fUFS 3 FUND BALANCER APPROPRVITED 17,N5,189 18,324,888 (4,640,000) 1 1 1 20 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 n~ssvenswweu~ s.~ cvwe 8 Pro' HD 1,283,818 ~. 1w • ,818 art kind rdfase 38,0 100.000 38.000 100000 Dtu Beisurs furkls pea! lark! rdlasa a 0th S/0157 8,852 480.000 Adventure ISand 242,444 240 OOD ~~ 208.848 51483 Settlers baseba0 1,448,215 1 ,828 KhmanLS Fieroe rk 350 783 874789 343,827 380848 atetrl 185.058 188.870 ~~~ 370897 034 at ' s m _ 4.,vrs1 c.+,9m~ ^ ms~.t4-g ^ -WONT to ^ asnaV ~ lv g+s Etta A '70TA1 tttlt:9~ ~stsss xorn. mitRS :s sum fain' .-uee,,.- ... -~,.~..-. ..+..~. oa.aav . aw,vw crrsroaoe ~ geatrxaaa7 ima 65t®cii _eaumes:l s ~7~•I t 719d401s i.4~:17d: 1,425,471 3,08B,1~ 7~~~~~BC25 Afa) rerun, a a u nv......u..~, D®veiopment Service Fund andlar Special Service Fund Cauncii i=Y20o7 Budget Summary Fr2669 Bp.al.l f3wvlp FJmd Its 4,398,793 FY2007 Proposed Revenues Oapartrmnt IsERBONIIEL ~+l3RATINO tx t70sD48Ef CAPRAL !of PTEY faf Yahlahs TOTAL 1814 PBZ 688,384 266,788 148 II 9&1,138 78~ Coda en7ora\maln 149,813 13,878 3A 9 18'1,399 1840 BuIWlryB [tpt 314,744 1,838,635 BD 1 2,244,778 1830 1?eonamta DawNOpmsJk 100,1 - 100,361 1980 8trest li811lb1g 203,600 209,008 marlt Inoroaa 47,812 1910 CWitfratmfsrfrom liF 9684 1810 teaal tfamstar trap GF 132.810 40.1% _.._ ~9CIP1L SYC FUND AvsASbM ee1MOS - __. ~ 2.11t8~47 1282 _ _ - 1a9s p r 2l077D9 _ . - __a' 1 Prhicipalt~Ptmnar 89.897 3,t~ 2 elak.l oaela e4on~nt 3 1011HM BuWaen, tteal~ GutdsOvss 4 10 791b Pilaf BNakd Amlysb 8 S6dtTratrdn8 8,880 1RaNbn R ~ 17!517 ~i~ 900 2.S+Sd: @1 C,4 PW PYIITnnsMtarO18Pr4pran 39~ e aF<.~.. perk ~ t3Mt to P8Z 12,826 Wtlay4118t61w}erprWperBy 28,000 30,266 26,3 t0,10D 20,166 1 toM1wals tarparadta 160,000 2 Dept Opal Onanm hmAttl~ this pmitlon In (tM Wn 1 !mss ~ ~_. ,... _. .. _. -. sya4v -- a- .. B;i-=. YA18 --.~Y~1Tt~0i7. GRAND 70TAL 1,381,274 Z.819,4ys B8,4W t r0a-. ~ 1910 1930 1880 1120 1 1 I 1 9/~A19r{MOAA A\ACI wANaraV C1MM9 p~1 Tsar Baw t~ c i6Mmwreatds - ` '~po~ ~' rsm -. tlnn ~' m~a:t t • 1 tlms ~»nws 4 Bup6ET bat ~W7F.t7r Proposed Budget FY2007 189 495 82,711 199729 86 400 153,300 4 Cfureut Budget FY2008 1 1 194 19 278 500 51806 3 5 824 % of Inrxease 24•,6 31% 29% Pto7ea~elservlmsformrou0anla 210000 ~0.000 dmmflala kom FV2008 for edvar9 31,OOD 28600 art 38000 18.000 C HaptbfbtbUC6M 4500000 2.tO800D Toro AmtWflgO PC80E 79,382 73,682 3o~ao 26,306 - 10,100 - 9A00 6,000 20,16D - t7~ 8D0 39,660 36,860 12;~ 72.928 t_ _! 83,049 e 30,0 28,000 29.000 150,OW - u u 249.178 ~~ L ENTERPRISE FUND Connell FY2O87 Budget Summary opera9na Aweasmerda F1f2OQ7 :'.'~r~:..._ .._. •• ^•,• ••a s 14,073,586 a 25,880,000 liopertmerK PERSOIiNEL OPFJIAnNt3 PTE'a n)TAL Pubdk Wwb 1,304,401 318,876 Z0.0 1,624,071 sues 284,988 z62,2+a 6.o xi7,178 Water 1,107,513 9,283,77b 20A 4,371,288 25,000 WNRP 1,878,373 2,824,1 28.0 4,898,533 4a,0lM LATECOMERS 80.0,000 800,a~ 800,000 t~rltlr~ere ag g ..~ 208.898 _ ~ d Ge11M+tl F"'aitr°rasNwiAf1-N 18.821 509,260 , _ ,... jCtg ..~i Jl ~til:'t.i' :I1:~t a c,esa ... i' l .. .. .... ~ u~,z i[.vm ENIERFRtSE itew_ . .. Jean CepHtl Replae+r._-.' etthaacema~: PER$OHNEL oPERAn1~i i sme ops CAPITAL ~ TOrAL ;0+:9:8 ®86.?~ -- -- --- :+Q"re-~&:v~"~3~3t3 .-t!'~!a _._Y:IEt~t.!/1 ua 3 :~ixxxe tit!'atatdi lt~'.b _-_ - - '--~-8,--- - - ------ PW 14F~YVrramfuTprt'_i18 "---_ {98,80 ___ ._. _ _- __ ~_ __ ___-.. _ 1 -'i( .; %,1;+i0tLJES' It n 7nues itZ OF PHI F'NI t'~s t'tN tMN *~R PV/ 8~v r~ Credit Card Payment Procaasinfl - 51,100 3~ - 51,750 51,790 1YtFMence,HR,ITtn Enterprise 100.291 7,'LMI 98,350. - ; 1011 ~ - _.__ ~ 94,280 80,787 000 SD0 _ 90,090 , 1 YR~4s9 a tY71MDF15Wti , 280,000 X G~ Oala tA~0 7S~ 7~D 250,0 2~,0~ 'S ;6r";, aa~,aa. .. `ri 'ft16 9!4£ •tlt1A 7[Atl Sts s3av ri z&r ~~ ...>y..>......, s a. F••s .~.w.r ~,vw ntasaa wq,.ta 375,999 100,000 n+ua'~o. ~ O,q~ saoa SGPS&u11w~e•Mairu 4 1.1~ - ~ Leaa 1.0~ 980.000 s "'sa=.=-~~-'~.:sc.r .... . ~e ~ , ... uae„ a.eeo ss o w s at 'J!fi88O ~...__ _ .F w , a 11RdtJ8 190.000 r cto~v .. M Satoh 12,069 , • 12.940 '!2.000 - ~I@ata Y`.nar,. Trim t .Les ~ a..._.-.-._._..~_~.~ i4~ene 3..~ a ~. ~a.w as sea - ,erg ~s see. as,aav _ w SMCatt ?,.504 YwA00 2. it Qfa~CaiJ$HVtto ~ 0„0Aa - 6.006 0.000 AanuaBzetl PCdOE 0 196.8818 RdhF7 ~a50 1.090 .:. r,emv ae+oew~ •a,vw 0.000 u Enhancements: MANTP 4 ~I4NTp O1~aa~t~P uaaerb Attpi' w u,u.4e pi.i-se. 6 FM-pP 9164fDif4V sws~TP a a Anply~l t~+ 4 f~taleFawi®et U(iwa0 e W Virg pe~..na m.~ e W~fi1'P 9 @latla fis1$#IRVtSY YY416TR 7 Nartie BI~k Ce1 israk pititr wrrT~ o rtm mDm vmae'.Pa~DS*? a s~resy tYVitTP 10 uaura ~a uniarna• - Rift!' D. i-R K50.3$!ltlGlii 4WV'ffP 12 R?, S6£Il117~1~'~'FA~ri4 ~~~ t3 CaflhltY$~PPt+SC4~aD ~ - IYtlilYb n~[P ~Y q Rile` lle,....<. Mai VIN 1 Np9®!¢aB ~~ 10 ry(orarard Ran FY2008 .3110.1^ _. _• pt,D~,pi.... _ _ b...~. ••• at waoa rwsar nvy.aw acvog 3490 PERSONNEL OPERATING t tgne Opa CAPITA! TOTAL 57,569 82,408 285,0 1,200,000 55.c.ep T~ - ~--- ..: r . 385 ,,., etYRAO . 250,000 . .,...p... -. sseDp~ptsgrrn 10,000 61,105 700 s~ _ 0,apg 10,000 sNltw~IrA~tm _.. ,..m .~. ens ela err aim p~.PJV ° dR7YrCW i49#R~ ~~ a . . am :.. -.. 2,000,000 $Y{OD i 2,500 101459 ,91DA5 - ...__. ....®~ ... 0 II p • a jy~QpV i9~ c~1 is a ~Idt uatll~yr 1-,---,g•G UIIe encase tiriil ile finMed by EnterprLe refallxd QalId110a $ (89Z, $ 8,819.585 this b retetnaf uminpa at PY2QOBYE ~t FY08 W Wget of fold M4~ICe 11D800r008 BludpetFY08 Carry to FY07 - $ 292,400 I S 210,d~ 1 2?a00D - 20,0 3 ,99000 194,ao0 1e~0 $ es~ $ 100,000 S t00,0~ "'°" $ 1,582,400 I $ 1,600,0 I , $ 78,853 I $ 75,853 I $ aase3o 3 5o,12z - - $ 817,126 $ 819,824 $ 6.837 $ 8,414 - 19 t~,105 t6.~9 e wav ~avute pn4uxpn(.~-...--_-*~' 13 A12.199 $ 3 86 .488 - - 4 • M br.uh L..- 1l~ri. W p s4 Cods ~ n ! ~,~ I $ 600.W0 I w sW can ®u,. -.... •'" ~• ""~ Ap°'"• s!B"'"• °!°11°`p 3 164,'00 13 42,'(271 ~ Saw dk'PV.i/~+A . n Ire~t farJol~ to PCirk4pA s ~,~0001 t I S;Ot}0 22 5ltlewar ~mh7psauA SarcaNlnaD 3 100.ao0 I $ 10~~ 1 sneb d.aa _ -. _ - . -- - _ _ - -- i zoo.00013 197 tOD l . p ~+ ~..~ ~..~~v ~ s 1,zooa~ I s t.2o9,aara I -.--_ ..~. ...r. _ ~.. .3~P,^ .~ ®. ~, s tooaoo I s e9 ~ I x aa - - - , s slz,oez I s 11'1,872 .~ ~ ae ~~,et Palo s 400,0 I $ 264,641 1 - - 3590 $ 1.649.284 I S 1,841,2941 35~ S 6za.637 I S 63,7391 3600 36eo se1a3 L18 $ 1 3680 98185 -arvw l,t w,voe. bvuu! ta[.wl~ o.ntarovaa w.~t;.. 3690 96170 wV11'P _ $ 20.329,8 3.18 -- - ~_- - _ Camr1 S N- S- 3:! ua~la6 eaer~ii. lsi3 i!! sm si! araate t,asau' O~iaR11^•ii~aa4astrmc~neou>n•~r~0a t87Z,P9~ taAte,L03 July 21, 2006 • RZ 06-002 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 25, 216 APPLICANT Stan Lantz ITEM NO. ~ 8 REQUEST Ordinance -Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L to O-T zones for Stan Lantz 608 West 3rd Street 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 a p y,i~~~" Contacted: ~~,,.,.~ _ Date: °7 ~~ Phone: ~ 7-a- Emailed: Staff Irntfals: Materials ~ASented at pubic meeflngs stall become properly of the Cffy of Meriden. ADA COUNTY RECORDER_J. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 BOISE IDAHO 08103/06 ~ ~ PM RECO QEQa REQUEST OF II I I ~ II II I II I I II I II I III I I I II I II III III City of Meridian i ~~ i ~4~~' CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ~~ ~ ~~~~ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT STAN LANTZ, THE OWNER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HAS MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION (RZ-06-002 -STAN LANTZ) FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST '/ OF BLOCK 5, WEST VIEW ADDITION TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, LOCATED IN THE NORTH 1/z OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/ OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" OF THIS ORDINANCE AND RE-ZONING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIlVIITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND RE- ZONINGTHE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM I-L (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO O-T (OLD TOWN) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 by 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 sad property, to-wit: Stan Lantz. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from L-I (Light Industrial) to O-T (Old Town) 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 re- zone-said property. ~~ RE-ZONE OF STAN LANTZ - 608 W. 3`d STREET - RZ-06-002 Page 1 of 3 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) On this ~ day of 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said gate, personally appeared TANIlVIY 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. ®® M~ G,~. e .~. ® ~,,~o~• a ~ • • ~ ~ ~ . , . , ® ,\ 0 • e , e °r: ..•° ~ 1t rYl -~Ll 0 l., NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: ~ ('1 ~,~},, lp MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: -0°I I-ll RE-ZONE OF STAN LANTZ - 608 W. 3`d STREET - RZ-06-002 Page 3 of 3 _ _ N 88'81'12° 288.9b' ---~ o~ ~I ~ I I I O I I i ----~ y eases ~ e~aar~uc 3 88'&Y3S° E -833.8!' ~ - - ~~' - - - T - 3t'.st- - - - ~~. ~- ~ ~ I {` - - S 88'5° E - 2$B.Qe' {~ 128.03' -~--- ~,---~ I r--S~`~'~°E-- tz~ao' T - " ~ ~. ~ IW I I l ,$ ~ -~ ~ I i I I~ ~ I~ j. ~ ,~ I -1 I I '~ I ~' Ig ( ~ BLOCK 5 ~ i y I s a~ s - I, w~sr vr~W i ' ~ ~ ADDITION TO I }~~il~ ; W I ~ I N~RIDIAN - H ~ .v a9~srrs' ~- rar.~v' .J I ~~- - - __I__ - x'7873' W ~ _ ~ p~ PARCEL 1 ~~~ ~ ~ I 1°I~ its ~e ~ I~ ~ I I ~ I ~ I~ ~ z) BLOCK 2 J.M. ANDERSON'S I H ~ I SECOND ADDITION I PAR(~L2 ~_ bl , I~ I ~ TQe~ ~~ ~I ~ I ~.. pee~rir=>~~"~~ 1 i I ~ I~ I~ I ' I ~I ~I~ I ------ - _ _,~.,r t_ ,2a.,r ~ ,pp - - - - N B9'6Y41° it N 8&57'13' W - "'- - - ~p\~~ S BY07 ' E d UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD APP~O~ .~ C)~' REZQNE FOR PARCEL 2"~~R~s of TIC A PORTION OF THE WEST 1/2 OF BLOCK 5 W WEST VIEW A[?DITION TO 1rERI01AN, A PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2, OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, 8.~1., CIIY OF kfERIDWJ, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO -2005- o 1" = SO' FriRC1~ Z B1Ai~ i W~l' V1~1' ~ ~? fl~Y OF I~RID1dN MERIDIAN. IDAHO oK!t~sm~topnt; STAN LANTZ 1892 N. MONACO MERII}IAN, IDAHO PHONE !2081794 9797 L,AN"TZ P~®I'~'I'X ~~~~~ tVB_L'~_IC ""~..` SPAN LANTZ ~`' 051?A.001 cm an8 LAN9Z E3CHB3T DWG. TIMBERLINE SURVEYING July 21, 200b MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT M2 Land LLC AZ 06-016 July 25, 2~6 ITEM NO. 1 q REQUEST Ordinance -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.08 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Quarterhorse Subdivision - 710 Black Cat 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: ~fol --7«g a (ocln~ ~(~.nha _ COM Staff Initials: ~~ presented at pubic meefinas shall become properly of the C8y of AAerldian. COMMENTS See attached Ordinance Ob, ~v~~' ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .DO {,. DEPUTYAPattl Thompso~ PM III I'll' RECORDED-REOUE~r OF IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I II Ill City of Meridian 10~1~4E~z1 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ®~ ®~~' BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE (AZ-06-016 QUARTERHORSE SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST 1/ OF THE 50UTHWEST % OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM RUT (ADA COUNTY) TO R-4 (MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 by 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 annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: M2 Land LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re- zoned from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential 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 annex and 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 re-zone said property. ANNEXATION OF AZ-06-016 QUARTERHORSE SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 3 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. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, 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 2Jr~ day of t~~~f , 2006. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this ~iJ~ day of ci~~f 2006. MAYOR de WEERD ANNEXATION OF AZ-06-016 QUARTERHORSE SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3 ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, J7 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada ) `,`~,,`\,tyyy111111Ufftf~f/~//f,/edf ` )'~ ~~ s .= ~ ~' CITY C ~ ~~~ ~ ~ '~''~ .* .~® m ~',''f,~~~f9a~t941i ~~1yAj,~~t`~,A, On this o~~' day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said 5 e, personally 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. ,,....,• • ¢+' _. G~,!. (SEAL) •••~'~'.~U T,9 '~. • , • t~ ;~. ! t . ° , o i ` • • ` ~ `~ NOTARY PUBLIC FO IDAHO RESIDING AT: ('~ ~,~ t~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:.. IB1 l"t ANNEXATION OF A~06-016 QUARTERHORSE SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 SCALE: 1'= 300' P.o.e.--t + S 59°24'30" E W~ >, off "t ~~ o `' o~ a ~ O~ N ~ ~ U.P.R.R. (Boise t l l i t ~ ~ N ~+ O O (~ Z 9 70 ~6 15-_ Quarterhorse Subdlvlslon n1E ~4V~`iVUE 8~~~ ~, :~3~ ~;~ . ~ yyJO~tFtS DFCP"flG A tract of land situated wlthtn the Northwest ~ of the Southwest ~ of Section J0, Township 3 North, Rouge 1 West, Boise McNdian, Ada County, Idaho, descr/bed as faflows: Commendng at a found a/um)num cap monumentfig the Southwest comer of sold Section t0, thence northerly along fhe westen'y line of sold Southwest ~ and the center line of North Black Cat Road North 00=25=10° East a distance of 2652.87 feat to a found brass cap rrlonumentfng the West ~ comer of sold Section 10 and the center Jive fitersection of said North Blade Cat Rood and West Pine Avenue. the POINT OF BEGJNNJN~ Thence easterly along the center line of sold West Pfie Avenue and the northerly !fie of said Southwest J4 of Sectton 10, South 89 ~24 =30° East a distance of 525.10 feet to a found steel pin; Thence leaving said tine South 00=25~-10° West a distance of 420.45 feet to a found steel pln; Thence North 89 =34 =50° West a d/stance of 525.10 feet to a found steel pfi on the center line of said South Blade Cat Raad and the westerly line of said Southwest ~; Thence northerly along sold center 11ne and said westerly line North QO =25 =10° East a distance of 42203 feet fo the POINT OF 8EGINNJNC~ The above-descrGbed Tract of land contains 5.08 acres more or less, subject to all axis#ing easements and rights-of--way. L S ENGERRIlSON LAND SURVEYS, INS 2251 S SUMAC STREET BOISE, 1DAH0 83706 PHONE (208) 859-6032 FAX (208) 383-0892 525.1 Q' Legal Description ~L~ ENGEBEtI7SONl1.9ND SURVEYS, I11~G 2251 3. Sumac Street, Boise, Idaho 83706 Telephone (Z08) 859-6032 Fax (208} 383-0892 February 15, 2006 t2uarterttotrrse Subdivision Project No. Z:t1~7 5.08 aaea or 221,193 s,f., rtton3 or less t?uattefiorse Subdh~on A tract Of I~id sihtatad vrlthht the Norlhw~t y of rite Soulh++~t'/, of Seotlan 10, Tow~tdp 3 North, fi8nge 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County,ldaho, described as follows: O~ at a found awenunum cap monurttanlbtg [fir Souetwest comer of said tiectlort 10, thence rtortlterty along tt--e wes6erly rte of sa(d Souff-weat'/,and the t~rrter one of Norlit Bladt Cat tioad Nom DO° 25'-10' ~aiat a di~snos of 2ti52.S7 feet b a totutd brass cap mortuntergh-g the West'/. comer of sa6d l~tlort 10 and [ire oe-tter ~ intarsectiat ot:r~ North Bl~tc Cat Road and West t~bts Averwe, the POINT OF HEa1NNtfIG. Thrice easterly along tta3 aertt~r tine of said West Pine Avenue and the rtortlt~ly Me of said Souttitxest'/. of Section 10, South 89°-24'-30 East a d of 5.15.10 feet la a tburd steel per; Thence leaving said 8ne Sauth 00° 25-10 bleat a dislanoe of 4.45 feel !o a fanid sleet {gin; i Thence North 88°.34'-50' West a ~tanoe of 525.10 fieert to a faurd steel ~n an the oent~ Cate ~ said l~outFr t3~dc Cat Road and tlw vrt line of said Satitrwest ~~ ' Tt-ertce nortlterly along said Denier Cma and said fate Norltt 00°5'•10 t~ a distartoe cfi 422031eet to the POINT raF BEGINNING. The aboveed tracts ~ cotttabts 5.08 areas m~e Mess, ~rt>>)ea>n a9 etdatlrtg easarrterrts aM right-of~-. /f' i 8~~ ~~,. .. , :. M ~a2Kg pgPY C CAEt.S1PftQIE~CTb1251a871Aph1~LECiAl.S4251t167BDRY.gOC NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE N0.06- /~~$" PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land located in the Northwest I/ of the Southwest'/ of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Attachment «A~~ This parcel contains 5.08 acres more or less. Also, this parcel is SUBJECT TO all easements and rights-of--way of record or implied. As surveyed in attached exhibit "B" and is not based on an actual field survey. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ~~,ash~!"'~ns,prdinance shall become effective on the ~ ~~ day of ,~~`~ C~2 ~`~>,,, ~~~ ~''~ y, ~; Mayor and City Council of e City o~M 'di ~_ By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk ~~° First Reading: 7° ~ ~~ ®6 ~~ Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code ~ Second Reading: ~''~ by suspension of the NO STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- ~~.~ 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- ~Z~ of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code--~~§//50-901A (3). DATED this !~ day of , 2006. J. William. L.M. ary, City Attorney ORDINANCE SUNIlVIARY - A~06-016 QUARTERHORSE SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 1 July 21, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 25, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 2O REQUEST Ordinance -- Parking lot Exchanage Ordinance and Real Property Exhchange Agreement AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY see attached CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: '~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: n ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: rY/ SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: a OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Mah3ria~ presented at pubUc meelinps shall become property of the Cfiy of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 EA5T BROADWAY AVENUE IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED A5 LOT 20 OF BLOCK 1 OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSITE; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN THE DEED AND OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION; PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code 50-1401, the City Council has statutory authority to sell, exchange, or convey any real property owned by the city which is underutilized or which is not used for city public purposes; and, WHEREAS, when it is determined by the City Council to be in the City's best interest that the property be offered for exchange, the City Council may, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Idaho Code Section 50-1403, exchange any city-owned real property for real property of equal value pursuant to terms which shall be a matter of public record; and, WHEREAS, the proposed transaction would exchange the city-owned Lot 20 for the privately owned lot 22, and would result in the city-owned parking facility being shifted to lots 21 and 22; and, WHEREAS, on the 13~ day of December, 2005 the Meridian City Council approved Resolution No. OS-495 declaring the intent to exchange the real property and further instructed the City Clerk to establish and notice a public hearing to consider the exchange; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the Meridian City Council on January 10, 2006 and at the conclusion of such hearing, the City Council moved to approve the exchange in concept, subject to certain terms and conditions, and directed staff to prepare an exchange agreement setting forth those terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That a public hearing on the proposed exchange was held at the January 10, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian City Council. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXCHANGE OF PARKIl~TG LOT Page 1 of 2 Section 2. That the City Council determined after the public hearing that the proposed exchange is in the City's best interest and that Lot 20 of Block 1 of the Meridian Townsite is currently underutilized and should be exchanged for property of equal value, to wit: Lot 22 of Block 1 of the Meridian Townsite. Section 3. That the City Council has reviewed and approved the Agreement for Exchange of Real Property, attached hereto and incorporated herein, and the real property exchange is expressly conditioned on the terms contained in the attached Agreement. Section 4. That the Mayor and City Clerk shall be authorized to execute and attest the exchange agreement, deed, and any other documents necessary to complete the exchange authorized by this Ordinance. Section 5. 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 , 2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 2006. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXCHANGE OF PARKING LOT Page 2 of 2 ~~-- ~ d ~ COMMERCIAL/INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE PURCHASE-SALE-EXCHANGE AGREEMENT THIS Agreement is entered into for the purposes stated herein, this day of , 2006, by M & H Land Acquisitions, LLC ("M & H"), and the City of Meridian City ("CITY"), collectively referred to herein as "the parties." WHEREAS, M & H, owns or controls certain real property located in Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as Lot 22 of the Amended Plat of Block No. 1 of the townsite of Meridian located in the SW '/ of Section 7, T3N, R1 E, Ada County, Idaho (the "M & H parcel" or "Lot 22"); and, WHEREAS, CITY owns certain real property located in Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as Lot 20 of the Amended Plat of Block No. 1 of the townsite of Meridian located in the SW 1/ of Section 7, T3N, R1E, Ada County, Idaho (the "City Parcel" or "Lot 20" ;and, WHEREAS, M & H owns real property adjacent to Lot 20, and City owns or controls real property adjacent to Lot 22; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into a real property exchange agreement whereby M & H will convey Lot 22 to CITY in exchange for CITY conveying Lot 20 to M & H. WHEREAS, the laws of the State of Idaho require hat the City of Meridian exchange city-owned real property for property of equal value;.. and,. WHEREAS, Lot 20 and Lot 22 are of equal size, but are not of equal value at this time because the City parcel (Lot 20) is currently developed and operating as a portion of a public parking lot, and Lot 22 would require grading, paving, and removal of a concrete loading ramp before becoming usable as a parking lot. Notwithstanding the current functional inequities between Lot 20 and Lot 22, the ultimate development plans for the adjacent parcels could resolve the inequities; and, WHEREAS, City also owns lot 21, which is encumbered by a perpetual public access easement in favor of the Ada County Highway District (Ada County Instrument Number 106083740). Lot 20 is also subject to the blanket access easement, but the easement is capable of being limited and relocated to the future location of the parking lot drive aisle, likely on Lot 21; and, WHEREAS, both parties desire to proceed with the proposed exchange of real property on terms and conditions that will assure the continued availability of the public parking lot currently on lots 20 and 21 until such time as either of the adjacent parcels develop. REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 1 - NOW, THEREFORE, in return for good and valuable consideration, including the agreement set forth herein and the parties' proceeding to their respective approvals and to the closing of the property exchange contemplated hereby (the "Closing"), the receipt and sufficiency of such consideration being hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby enter into this Agreement and the terms and conditions set forth below. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF EXCHANGE PARCELS. The parcel that M & H intends to exchange to City under the terms of this agreement is legally described as Lot 22 of the Amended Plat of Block No. 1 of the townsite of Meridian located in the SW '/ of Section 7, T3N, R1 E, Ada County, Idaho. The parcel that CITY intends to exchange to M & H under the terms of this Agreement is legally described as Lot 20 of the Amended Plat of Block No. 1 of the townsite of Meridian located in the SW '/ of Section 7, T3N, R1E, Ada County, Idaho. 2. "AS-IS" SALE. The parcels are sold "as-is" except for any construction obligations expressly assumed hereunder and are sold without any water rights. 3. ADDITIONAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND/OR CONTINGENCIES. The closing of this transaction is contingent upon written satisfaction or waiver of the following conditions: A) M & H shall obtain good and marketable title to the M & H parcel. B) M & H shall execute and place into escrow an easement, substantially similar inform and content to the easement document attached hereto as exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. The easement shall provide for the continued operation of the existing public parking lot on lots 20 and 21 until such time as City's adjacent property or M & H's adjacent property develops. The closing agent shall be provided with written instructions to record the REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 2 - • • easement document at closing, but subsequent to ownership in Lot 20 being vested in M & H. C) M & H acknowledges that this agreement will be executed by M & H before CITY executes the agreement and that the execution of the agreement by the CITY is contingent upon ratification of the terms and conditions of this agreement by the Meridian City Council and the Council's authorization for the Meridian City Mayor to execute this agreement on behalf of the CITY. 4. JOINT SITE PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OBLIGATIONS. The parties agree to cooperate regarding site planning for their adjacent developments and the continued operation of the City Parking Lot. At such time as either City or M & H's parcel develops, M & H shall be responsible for construction costs necessary to relocate and realign the public parking lot from its existing location on lots 20 and 21 to its new location on lots 21 and 22. Construction costs include but are not limited to site grading, drainage, asphalt, lane striping, irrigation, and landscaping, all to City standards. This construction obligation is imposed on M & H expressly to compensate City for the inequity in the value between City's improved parcel and M & H's unimproved parcel. City shall assume maintenance obligations of the public parking lot and drive aisle on Lots 21 and 22 after acceptance of the improvements. City makes no warranty regarding the continued location of a public parking lot on Lots 21 and 22. Because City is still in the design phase for its City Hall site on the former Meridian Creamery property adjacent to Lot 22, there is a possibility that the public parking maybe relocated from lots 21 and 22 to somewhere else on the REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 3 - • City Hall Site. In the event that the City Hall site plan results in the relocation of the parking lot away from lots 21 and 22, M & H shall not be required to perform the parking lot construction obligation set forth in this paragraph, unless such work has already been performed. City also agrees to work with the Ada County Highway District to remove the blanket access easement from lot 20 and limit the location of the access to the location of the parking lot drive aisle, likely on Lot 21. 5. TITLE COMPANY/CLOSING AGENCY. A) The parties agree that First American Title Company of Ada County shall provide any required title policy and preliminary report of commitment. B) The closing agency for this transaction shall be First American Title Company of Ada County. C) Each party agrees to pay one-half (1/2) of the closing agency's fee. 6. TITLE INSURANCE. A) Each Party shall pay for standard coverage owner's title insurance policy on the respective properties which it conveys to the other party under the terms of this Agreement. The face value of the policy for each parcel shall be Ninety Five Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00). The cost of additional title insurance and endorsements, if desired by a party on property received under this Agreement, shall be paid by the receiving party. The Title Company is to provide all parties to this Agreement with a preliminary Title Report as soon as possible after execution of this agreement. The parties shall have five (5) days to object in writing to the condition of the title as set forth in the report, unless said time period is extended pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that a party REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 4 - makes written objection to the title, the other party shall have a reasonable time to cure any defects of title or provide affirmative title insurance coverage, and in the event the other party cannot cure said defects or is unwilling to cure said defects or provide affirmative title insurance coverage, the objecting party may elect, as its sole remedy, to either (i) terminate this Agreement, (ii) cure the defects at the objecting party's expense, or (iii) proceed to closing, taking title subject to such defects. If the parties do not so object, the parties shall be deemed to have accepted the condition of the title. B) The final Title Insurance policies shall be delivered to the parties by the Title Company as soon as possible after closing. 7. CLOSING DATE AND TITLE CONVEYANCE A) On or before Closing, '..the parties shall deposit with Escrow Holder all instruments necessary to complete-the exchange contemplated under this Agreement. B) Closing shall occur no later than August 3'~, 2006. Closing shall occur on the date on which the deeds to all properties are recorded in satisfaction of the requirements of this Agreement. C) The deeds for all properties shall be recorded concurrently, and neither party shall be obligated to authorize the Escrow holder to convey a parcel if the Escrow Holder is not irrevocably committed to record the deeds for all properties identified in this Agreement. D) Title to the properties identified under this agreement shall be conveyed by Warranty Deed and shall be marketable and insurable with the exception of any other liens, encumbrances or defects allowed herein or otherwise approved by the receiving party. REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 5 - • 8. POS5ESSION/PRORATION. The parties shall be entitled to possession of their respective properties on the day of closing. Taxes and water assessments (using the last available assessment as a basis), rents, insurance premiums, interest and reserve on liens, encumbrances or obligations assumed and utilities shall be prorated as of the day of closing. 9. DEFAULT. In the event that a party does not perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement then the other party shall have any recourse under the law to enforce this contract. 10. ATTORNEY FEES. In the event of default by either of the parties in their performance of the terms or conditions of this agreement, the defaulting party agrees to pay all attorney fees and costs incurred by the non-defaulting party and in the event of suit the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs:, 11. CONDITION OF PROPERTY AT CLO5ING/MAINTENANCE AFTER CLOSING. The parties shall maintain their respective properties until the closing in their present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted. After Closing, each party shall be responsible for maintenance of the parcels that they receive under this Agreement. 12. REPRESENTATIONSAND WARRANTIES. Each party represents and warrants to the other regarding theirrespective properties: A. The party has received no notice from any governmental agency that the properties are in violation of any statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or deed restriction affecting the Properties. B. CITY has good, marketable title to the City parcel. M & H has the right to REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 6 - • contract for the sale of the M & H parcel, and M & H shall have good and marketable title to the M & H parcel prior to placing a warranty deed thereto into escrow. At the time the deeds are placed into escrow, no other party shall have any right, title, or interest in the subject property. C. There is no pending or threatened litigation or condemnation proceedings affecting the Properties and there are no governmental assessments or local improvement district assessments on the Properties nor are there any agreements to convey any portion of the Properties to any other party. D. Each party has disclosed to the tither party the presence of all hazardous substances or storage tanks that the disclosing parry is aware. of on their respective properties. "Hazardous Substances" means any hazardous, dangerous or toxic substance (including petroleum products) as defined under federal, state and/or local ,law, including all regulations promulgated under such laws. 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including any addendum or exhibits, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and no warranties, including any warranty of habitability, agreements' or representations have been made or shall be binding upon either party unless herein set forth. 14. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS AGREEMENT. THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT. THE PARTIES EACH REPRESENT THAT THEY HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT AND THE INSTRUMENTS REFERRED TO HEREIN. REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 7 - 15. SURVIVAL OF TERMS: All the terms and conditions hereof and all instruments referred to herein and contemplated hereby shall survive closing and the transfer of title and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. 16. CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS: All times provided for in this Agreement or any instrument referred to herein will be strictly construed, it being agreed that. time is of the essence of this Agreement. Whenever the context requires, the singular includes the plural and vice versa, and each gender includes each other gender, or the neuter, as the case maybe. 17. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 18. IDAHO LAW: This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. 19. HEADINGS: Headings preceding the text of the several Articles and Sections hereof, and the table of contents, are solely for convenience or reference and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement or affect its meaning, construction or effect. 20. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement maybe executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and attested this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 8 - [end of text] REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 9 - M & H LAND ACQUISITIONS, LLC By THE CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) • On this day of in the year ,before me, ,personally appeared , known to me to be the of the that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO (SEAL) Residing at: Idaho My Commission expires: REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 10 - STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2003, before me'a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Will Berg known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of Meridian City, Idaho, who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that Meridian City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto setmy hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho (SEAL) Residing at Meridian, Idaho My commission expires: REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 11 - REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 12 - ! • EXHIBIT "A" PUBLIC PARKING LOT EASEMENT THIS PUBLIC PARKING LOT EASEMENT (the "Easement"), is made and entered into this day of , 2006, by and between M & H LAND ACQUISITIONS, LLC an Idaho Limited Liability Company, hereinafter referred to as "M & H" or "Grantor" and THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" or "Grantee." WITNESSETH: FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION,.. IT IS AGREED: SECTION 1. Recitals. 1.1 Grantor owns or will own at the time this easement is recorded, the real property located in Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as Lot 20 of the Amended Plat of Block No. 1 of the townsite of Meridian located in the SW '/ of Section 7, T3N, R1E, Ada County, Idaho (referred to herein as "Lot 20"). Lot 20 is currently developed and used as the easterly portion of a public pazking lot located at 55 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian. 1.2 City operates a public pazking lot on Lots 20 and 21, open for the use of the general public. Pursuant to the terms of a Public Right of Way easement (Ada County Instrument Number 106083740) the public pazking lot also acts as a traffic circulation link between the;terminus of an adjacent alley to the south of the parking lot and Broadway Avenue to the north. 1.3 As a condition of approving a real property exchange agreement between City and M & H, City desires to obtain an easement from M & H over and across Lot 20 so that Lot 20 will remain open to the public for parking lot and circulation purposes. SECTION 2. Grant and Authorized Use; Non-exclusive Easement; Relocation. 2.1 Grantor hereby grants to CITY a perpetual easement in gross upon, over across and through Lot 20 for pedestrian and vehiculaz ingress, egress, and vehicle parking for the benefit of the general public. 2.2 The easement on Lot 20 is intended to be used in conjunction with the balance of the parking lot on Lot 21, owned by City. Parking Lot Easement, page 1 • • 2.3 Walls, buildings, curbs or other temporary or permanent structures will not be constructed on Lot 20 that would in any material way restrict or limit the easement granted herein for the purposes set forth herein. SECTION 3. Improvements; Repair and Maintenance. 3.1 CITY acknowledges that the improvements on the Servient are sufficient for the purposes of this easement and that no additional' construction shall be required by Grantor as a condition of this Easement. 3.2 City agrees to maintain and repair the improvements at its sole cost and expense. SECTION 4. Indemnification. Subject to the provisions of, and limits of liability set forth in, the Idaho Tort Claims Act, CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless Grantor from and against all claims, actions or judgments and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Grantor in defense thereof] for damages, injury or death caused by or arising out of the public's use of the Lot 20 for the purposes set forth in this: Easement. Grantor shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY from and against all claims, actions or judgments and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Grantor in defense thereof) for damages, injury or death caused by or arising out of the public or private use of Grantor's adjacent real property. SECTION 5. Attorneys Fees and Costs. In any suit, action or appeal therefrom to enforce or interpret this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs incurred therein, including reasonable attorneys' fees. SECTION 6. Term; Extinguishment. The term of this Easement is perpetual, unless amended or terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. However, this Easement shall automatically terminate in the event that the portion of the public parking lot situated on Lot 20 is ever vacated or abandoned, because the essential purpose of this Easement shall no longer exist. SECTION 7. Covenants Run with the Land . Throughout the term of this Easement, it shall be a burden upon Lot 20 and shall for the benefit of the general public, and shall run with the land. SECTION 8. Notices. All notices given pursuant to this Easement shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, by United States Mail Certified, Return Receipt Requested, or Right-of--Way Easement, page 2 ~ ~ other established express delivery service (such as Federal Express), postage or delivery charge prepaid, addressed to the appropriate party at the address set forth below. Grantor: M & H Land Acquisition, LLC CITY: City of Meridian, Attention City Clerk 22 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 SECTION 9. Recordation. This Easement shall be recorded in the Official Real Property Records of Ada County, Idaho. Grantor covenants to CITY that the general public shall enjoy the quiet and peaceful possession of the Lot 20 for the purposes granted herein; and, (b) Grantor warrants to the CITY that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of the Lot 20 and has the right and authority to grant this Easement to CITY, or that such right and authority shall. exist at the time this Easement is recorded in the Official Real Property Records of Ada County, Idaho. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Easement to be executed the day, month and year first set forth above. [END OF TEXT] Right-of--Way Easement, page 3 ~ ~ Grantor M & H LAND ACQUISITION, LLC By Grantee CITY OF MERIDIAN by Tammyde Weerd, Mayor Attest, City Clerk Right-of-Way Easement, page 4 ~ • State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada) On this day of in the year 20~ before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared ,know or identified to me to be the of ,the person who executed this instrument on behalf of said limited liability company, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for the State of Idaho Residing at ,Idaho My Commission expires State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada) On this day of in the year 2006, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William Berg, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho, the persons who respectively executed and attested this instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation, and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for the State of Idaho Residing at My Commission expires Idaho Right-of-Way Easement, page 5 July 21, 2~6 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUIy 25, 200b APPLICANT ITEM NO. Z~ REQUEST Executive Session pet Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) (a) &(d) Agreement 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: ~~~ ~ s~ ~ o ~"~ ~?.tip' ~ ~ c, ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Maf®r~ls presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CHy of Meridian.