Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-05• a CITY OF k - w IDAHO TAEAsutU� V^�v s,xce 1903 • CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, September 5, 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: X Shaun Wardle X Joe Borton O Charlie Rountree Y,_ Bird "'< Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Fir o le-�^- 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle:-e�,�„,�CeuC. 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 8, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: �wv B. Approve Minutes of August 15, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: a,y,,.Av.` C. Development Agreement: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) zones for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane and west of Black Cat Road: cl i vrc� Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — September 5, 2006 Page 1 of 6 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, • D. Development Agreeme and Zoning of 116.81 ac West Subdivision by TL Overland Road and west E. Development Agreemer and Zoning of 182.60 ac (168.23 acres) , TN -R (10.42 acres) and C -N zones for Tanana Valle Subdivision) by Farwest, and Victory Road: F. G. faI J. L. M. • AZ 05-064 Request for Anne ation from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear reek any Development, Inc. —south of ;West South Stoddard Road: t: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation es to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge .LC — southeast comer of Meridian Road Development Agreemen : RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to -O (Limited Office District) for Mer dian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: ro Resolution No. !� 6` SZ -7 A Rate Increas for Change in the Consume to Provide for the Solid the City of Meridian: o� Resolution No. Plan, Wildland-Urban II County Flood Response Plan, Ada County Terra Wildfire Response Plan: Schwenkfelder Schwenkfelder Investme Lea Electric: 4� V-<_ North Locust Grove for Additional Services Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda All materials presented at public meetings Anyone desiring accommodation for disa please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888- iervices due to the Net Percenta a of Price Index for the Pacific Northwest, Waste Disposal Rate Changes Within far-ov_e_ : Adoption of the Ada agement Plan, All Hazards Mitig tion terface Wildfire Mitigation Plan, iAda Plan, Ada County Hazmat Response ism Response Plan, and Ada County .ment No. 1 for Commercial Tillie by , LLC: ,. V%< - ,hent No. 2 for Commercial Tide by LLC: Aj,h,,,,,c„ by kareement for LDS Church at $555 • uy�rr-g mac. it Trunk Sewer Phase 3 Authorizaltion ). 1 with JUB Engineers, Inc.: September 5, 2006 Page 2 of 6 call become property of the City of Meridian. ities related to documents and/or hearing, 33 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 N. Project: ,rj7p."vc. la Inc.. x7r1^,vv c.. Q Consultants, Inc.: R. r� L 7 with Star Construction: >'iect with Civil Survey Cons aration Project with Civil V -C-1 * 2t,900', '9,!! %,897,77 0 rvey Palatine with Star Const uction: S. District l #231+ ins 1 w _ N �Cd tr+ icr,� A0 . -A a -f /& 6. Department Reports: Apv ~ 2'iYlere e X. G� p/2►tev�wt+P,.. �'ervr cc.. C�h�..� �+-,..c j�iw� A. IT Department C'x 6.`xc e,� po k. ti. lfp ^Czs-7-- -k 1. Update on the internship program and strategic growth: B. Public Works Departmen — Len Grady 1. Discussion of Requirement for a Common Lot Rather than an Easement for PI Pump Stations: A7pl,& ''�'`�! re c 7. Items Moved from Consent Ago nda: 8. Tabled from August 22, 200: FP 06-038 Request for Final ; Plat approval for 5 single-family residential building lots on 1.06 acres in an R- 8 zone for Windson Subdivision No. 2 by Landmark Engineering & Planning — north of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: 10�, 6411 -/d f l 17-06 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 5, 2006 Page 3 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings s iall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disab ilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4A33 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 9 9. FP 06-039 Request for Final Pla' building lots and 10 common I Solitude Subdivision No. 1 by comer of McMillan Road and Me 10. Public Hearing: Amendment" Ordinance increasing the park ii residential construction; and ad( capital improvements to be impo non-residential construction AP Amendment to amend the text Ten Year Capital Improvement! improvement projects. No 11. Resolution No. 06- yZ i Plan Amendment to amend the the Ten Year Capital Improveme improvement projects. 12. Ordinance No. 06-1255 Amendment to Impact Fee Or imposed on building permits for r impact fees for fire and police building permits for residential an t approval of 103 single-family residential As on 25.12 acres in an R-8 zone for Solitude Development, LLC - Southeast idian Road: Aviw- e - to the City of Meridian Impact Fee pact fee imposed on building permits for pting new impact fees for fire and police ,ed on building permits for residential and D CPA 06-001 Comprehensive! Plan )f the Comprehensive Plan to update the Plan for parks, police, and fire capital : CPA 06-001 Comprehesive wt of the Comprehensive Plan to update is Plan for parks, police, and fire capital V14 - Third and Final Reading of nance increasing the park impact fee ;idential construction; and adopting new ipital improvements to be imposed on non-residential construction: e7i?v-v v-4- 13. Continued Public Hearing from August 8, 2006: VAC 06008: Request for a Vacation of a Pressure Sewer Easement within The Reserve Subdivision by Conger Management Group - southwest comer of North Locust Grove and Chind n Boulevard: G�p�7, o -A_- 14. Continued Public Hearing fr m August 15, 2006: VAC 06-004 Request for Vacation of the exi ting utility easements on the interior lot lines for Lots 21, 22, 25 and 2 Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 3 Sundance Subdivision No. 5 y Dave Evans Construction - northeast comer of Ustick Road and MeddiPin Road: �o19-y--+ovv 15. Continued Public Hearing fr for a Miscellaneous applicc, Development Agreement (AZ CUP 03-071) by removing a p to be approved through the C Corner Subdivision by Brian and Meridian Road: G/P August 22, 2006: MI 06-005 Request to amend the previously approved 138 and concurrent files PFP 03-0107 & ,ion requiring all future uses on the site itional Use Permit process for Mussell gran - Northeast comer of Victory Road Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda September 5, 2006 Page 4 of 6 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.. 0 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 R acres from RUT to R-15 zone 1 America West Homes, LLC — Mile Road: % guest for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 Canterbury Commons Subdivisi n by ith side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten /2-06 17. Public Hearing: 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: H,v 71D I2_O6 18. Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 construct a multi -family devel dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 21.77 acres in a proposed I Subdivision by America West I• and east of Ten Mile Road: e", 19. Public Hearing: AP 06-001 Director's determination that tl Waverly Place Subdivision LLC — 2510 Magic View Drive: 20. Ordinance No. Annexation and ®6 — �Z�6 Zoning of 60 Paramount South 60 Subdi northeast comer of North Linder 21. Ordinance No. Annexation and Zoning of 20.0 Density Residential) zones for Village, LLC — north side of Cher 22. Ordinance No. A --I2 aW Annexation and Zoning of 116.8 Creek West Subdivision by Tu; Overland Road and west of Soutl 23. Ordinance No. p6 —l2,-' Annexation and Zoning of 18 Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -I (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighbo Tanana Valley Subdivision (f. Farwest, LLC — southeast comer Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda All materials presented at public meetings Anyone desiring accommodation for disc please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888- aquest for a Conditional Use Permit to )ment consisting of 200 multi-f6mily is and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 15 zone for Canterbury CornMons mes, LLC — south side of Pine Avenue vhh.Z. 7�0 equest for an Appeal of the Planning submitted development applications for incomplete by Vacation Village Villas, 9rc1114 41-1rcIe AZ 06-026 Request for acres from RUT to R-8 zone for in by Paramount Development — i and West McMillan Road: '41✓0 AZ 06-018 Request for acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low (cline Village Subdivision by Incline Lane west of Black Cat Road: 4579-r0 wc/ AZ 05-064 Request for acres from RUT to R-8 zone for PAar ;any Development, Inc. — south of West Stoddard Road: AZ 06-015 Request for 60 acres to R-8 (Medium Dehsity (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) ood Business) (3.94 acres) zones for a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Meridian Road and Victory Road: 171111 .. September 5, 2006 Page 5 of 6 all become property of the City of Meridian. ities related to documents and/or hearing, 33 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 24. 25. 26. v Ordinance No. eb —/' ?- Annexation and Zoning of 3.9 Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LC Ordinance No. /Z Rezone of 1.004 acres from -4 Meridian Professional Office by Meridian Road: 0 Ordinance No. Budget: AZ 06-027 Request for acres to an R-8 zone for Tap§stry — 635 and 675 South Linder Robd::j-� RZ 06-005 Request for a to L -O (Limited Office District) for John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North 2006 1 2007 Fiscal iYear Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — September 5, 2006 Page 6 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings sliall 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. P [�yl, '? 0 (� f CITY OF IDAHO Y� FR Tftensu[ V'Y luau Im Tuesday, Septem "Although the City of Meridian no all presentations before the May to be truthful and honest to bes 1. Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Charlie Rountree 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Gospel Tabernacle: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of Aug B. Approve Minutes of Aug; Meeting: C. Development Agreement: and Zoning of 20.01 acres Residential) zones for Inc Village, LLC — north side c Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — ; All materials presented at public meetings shI Anyone desiring accommodation for disabili please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-443 .P LU)- A c, %V c..P"L Glwptv�! CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. onger requires sworn testimony, r and City Council are expected of the ability of the presenter. " Joe Borton Keith Bird ayor Tammy de Weerd Bud Henthorn, with Meridian 8, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: 15, 2006 City Council Regular AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation m RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density ie Village Subdivision by Incline Cherry Lane and west of Black Qat eptember 5, 2006 Page 1 of 6 II become property of the City of Meridian. es related to documents and/or hearing, { at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. D. Development Agreeme and Zoning of 116.81 ac West Subdivision by Tt Overland Road and west E. Development Agreemer and Zoning of 182.60 ac (168.23 acres) , TN -R (10.42 acres) and C -N zones for Tanana Valle Subdivision) by Farwest, I and Victory Road: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek :any Development, Inc. — south of West South Stoddard Road: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexotion to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) raditional Neighborhood-Residerhtial) ;ighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge — southeast comer of Meridian Road F. Development Agreement RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L O (Limited Office District) for Merl ian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 Nbrth Meridian Road:y G. Resolution No. Solid Waste Collection S Change in the Consumer to Provide for the Solid the City of Meridian: H. Resolution No. County Emeruencv Man: Plan, Wildland-Urban Int County Flood Response Plan, Ada County Terror! Wildfire Response Plan: I. Water Main Easement An Schwenkfelder Investmer J. Water Main Easement An Schwenkfelder Investmer K. Water Main Easement Ag, Lea Electric: L. Water Main Easement A North Locust Grove Road M. Contract for the Black Ca for Additional Services N4 A Rate Increase for vices due to the Net Percentage of rice Index for the Pacific Northwest, ante Disposal Rate Changes Within : Adoption of the Ada nent Plan, All Hazards Mitigation ice Wildfire Mitigation Plan, Ada n, Ada County Hazmat Response Response Plan, and Ada Coujnty rent No. 1 for Commercial Tire! by LLC: :ment No. 2 for Commercial Tires by , LLC: No. 3 for Commercial Tire! by at 5655 Trunk Sewer Phase 3 Authorization 1 with JUB Engineers, Inc.: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda— eptember 5, 2006 Page 2 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings sh II become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabili 'es related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-44 3 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. N. O. P. Q. R. S. 6. Depart A. B. 7. Items 1 8. Tabled approv 8 zone Plannir Merii All mates Anyon( please coni • • Approve Re'ection of All Bids for Water Division Buildin Project: Public Works Chan a Or ler No. 1 to Up -grade Storm Sewer to Water Class Pipe for Lind r PRV with Star Construction: A reement for Professlor al Services for Construction Stakin for Water and Sewer Improvements Associated with Overland Topaz to Cloverdale Pr 'ect with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc.. Agreement for Professior al Services for Construction Stakin for Water and Sewer Im rovements Associated with the Locust Grove Grade S garation Pro'ect with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc.:. , Award Bid and Cont act for the 350LF Water Main Construction on McMill n Road between Wild Goose and Palatine with Star Constr ction: Joint Powers A-greement Amendment with the Rural Fire District Local #2311: tment Reports: IT Department 1. Update on the inter ship program and strategic growth: Public Works Department Len Grady 1. Discussion of Requirement for a Common Lot Rather than an Easement for PI Pump Stations: Moved from Consent Agenda: from August 22, 2006: FP 06-038 Request for Final Plat al for 5 single-family resider tial building lots on 1.06 acres in an R- for Windson Subdivision No. 2 by Landmark Engineering & Ig — north of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: Jian City Council Meeting Agenda — September 5, 2006 Page 3 of 6 rials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, :act the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. FP 06-039 Request for Final Plat building lots and 10 common to Solitude Subdivision No. 1 by corner of McMillan Road and Meru Public Hearing: Amendments Ordinance increasing the park im residential construction; and adop capital improvements to be impose non-residential construction ANC Amendment to amend the text of Ten Year Capital Improvements improvement projects. Resolution No. Plan Amendment to amend the the Ten Year Capital ImprovemE improvement projects. Ordinance No. 06-1255 Amendment to Impact Fee Ord imposed on building permits for re: impact fees for fire and police c-, building permits for residential and Continued Public Hearing fr( Request for a Vacation of a I Reserve Subdivision by Conger of North Locust Grove and ChindE Continued Public Hearing froil Request for Vacation of the existi lines for Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26, Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by comer of Ustick Road and Meridiar Continued Public Hearing from, for a Miscellaneous application Development Agreement (AZ 03-0 CUP 03-071) by removing a provis to be approved through the Condi Corner Subdivision by Brian HollE and Meridian Road: • approval of 103 single-family residential s on 25.12 acres in an R-8 zone for olitude Development, LLC — Southeast ian Road: to the City of Meridian Impact Fee )act fee imposed on building permits for :ing new impact fees for fire and police d on building permits for residential and CPA 06-001 Comprehensive Plan the Comprehensive Plan to update the plan for parks, police, and fire capital : CPA 06-001 Comprehensive of the Comprehensive Plan to update Plan for parks, police, and fire capital Third and Final Reading of nance increasing the park impact fee idential construction; and adopting new pital improvements to be imposed on non-residential construction: I August 8, 2006: VAC 06-008: assure Sewer Easement within The anagement Group — southwest comer Boulevard: i August 15, 2006: VAC 06-004 ig utility easements on the interior lot Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 3 Dave Evans Construction — northeast Road: ugust 22, 2006: MI 06-005 Request to amend the previously approved 8 and concurrent files PFP 03-007 & m requiring all future uses on the site anal Use Permit process for Mussell an — Northeast corner of Victory Road Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — S 3ptember 5, 2006 Page 4 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings sha I 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 888-443 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 0 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 Req acres from RUT to R-15 zone for America West Homes, LLC — sot, Mile Road: 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-011 Req residential lots (50 4-plex lots and on 21.77 acres in a proposed Subdivision by America West Hi and east of Ten Mile Road: 18. Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 construct a multi -family deve dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 21.77 acres in a proposed Subdivision by America West and east of Ten Mile Road: 19. Public Hearing: AP 06-001 R Director's determination that the Waverly Place Subdivision are LLC — 2510 Magic View Drive: 20. Ordinance No. Annexation and Zoning of 60.9 Paramount South 60 Subdivi: northeast corner of North Linder R( 21. Ordinance No. Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 Density Residential) zones for Ir Village, LLC — north side of Cherry 22. Ordinance No. Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 Creek West Subdivision by Tusc Overland Road and west of South.' 23. Ordinance No. Annexation and Zoning of 182 Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN -R (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighbork Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of 40 ;t for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 nterbury Commons Subdivision by side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten ast for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 2 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots -15 zone for Canterbury Commons nes, LLC — south side of Pine Avenue quest for a Conditional Use Permit to hent consisting of 200 multi -family and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 5 zone for Canterbury Commons nes, LLC — south side of Pine Avenue :quest for an Appeal of the Planning ubmitted development applications for incomplete by Vacation Village Villas, AZ 06-026 Request for acres from RUT to R-8 zone for in by Paramount Development — i and West McMillan Road: AZ 06-018 Request for cres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low :line Village Subdivision by Incline ne west of Black Cat Road: AZ 05-064 Request for Icres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear ny Development, Inc. — south of West toddard Road: AZ 06-015 Request for 30 acres to R-8 (Medium Density ;Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) god Business) (3.94 acres) zones for a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Meridian Road and Victory Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — S aptember 5, 2006 Page 5 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings sha I 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 888-44313 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 24. 0 Ordinance No. AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, L C — 635 and 675 South Linder Road:: 25. Ordinance No. Rezone of 1.004 acres from Meridian Professional Office Meridian Road: 26. Ordinance No. Budget: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — AII materials presented at public meetings st Anyone desiring accommodation for disabi please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-44 RZ 06-005 Request for a I to L -O (Limited Office District) for John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North 2006 / 2007 Fiscal Year ptember 5, 2006 Page 6 of 6 become property of the City of Meridian. is related to documents and/or hearing, at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ** TX CONFIRMATrON REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 31 09/01 17.06 PUBLIC WORKS 32 09/01 17:09 8848723 P ms'b ` Oss- t t (ATV OF CWe,Idlan er IDAHO C r uanwV� �i� 33 AS OF SEP 01 '0 17:10 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 01'48" 006 139 OK 01'48" 006 139 OK r CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, September 0, 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 Df the ability of the presenter. " 1. Roll -call Attendance: 2. 3. 4. S. Shaun Wardle Charlie Rountree Pledge of Allegiance: Community Invocation by Gospel Tabernacle: Adoption of the Agenda: Joe Borton Keith Bird Tammy de Weerd Bud Henthorn, with Meridian Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August , 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of Auglist 15, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Development Agreement: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres f vm RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) zones for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC — north side of Cherry Lane and west of Black Cat Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — S ptember 5, 2006 Page 1 of 6 All materials presented at public meetings shwa 1 become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabili es related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 88 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. P U&�b ?off CVe;aian IDAHO v 33 p wv�ui /V*ce, — l halyt".1 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, September , 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Although the City of Meridian no i nger requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayo and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. 1. Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Charlie Rountree 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Gospel Tabernacle: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: Joe Borton Keith Bird Tammy de Weerd Bud Henthom, with Meridian A Approve Minutes of August 8, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of August 15, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Development Agreement: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres f om RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) zones for Inc Ing Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC — north side o I Cherry Lane and west of Black Cat Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — S 5, 2006 Page 1 of 6 Ali materials presented at public meetings she become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for di. 1i as related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 88 at least r+8 tears prior to the public meeting. TX TION REPORT you AS OF SEP 01 '06 1* PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM DE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtt STATUS 01 09/01 17:12 WATER DEPT C --S 01'47" 006 139 OK 02 09/01 17:15 2088840744 C --S 01'51" 006 139 OK 03 09/01 17:18 POLICE DEPT C --S 01'48" 006 139 OK 05 09/01 17:20 8985501 C --S 01'46" 006 139 OK 06 09/01 17:23 LIBRARY C --S 01'47" 006 139 OK 07 09/01 17:25 2083776449 C --S 01'47" 006 139 OK 08 09/01 17:27 3886924 C --S 01'47" 006 139 OK 09 09/01 17:29 P—AND—Z C --S 01'48" 006 139 OK 10 09/01 17:32 FIRE DEPT C --S 01'47" 006 139 OK 11 09/01 17:34 208 888 2682 C --S 01'49" 006 139 OK 12 09/01 17:37 208 387 6393 C --S 01'46" 006 139 OK 13 09/01 17:39 ADA CTY DEVELMT --S 01'48" 006 139 OK 14 09/01 17:41 20888eSM2 E --S 01'49" 006 139 OK 15 09/01 17:44 POST OFFICE E --S 03'09" 006 139 OK 16 09/01 17:48 IDAHO ATHLETIC C --S 01'48" 006 139 OK 17 09/01 17:50 ID PRESS TRIBUNE C --S 01'47" 006 139 OK 18 09/01 17:53 2088886701 --S 01'46" 006 139 OK 19 09/01 17:58 3810160 EC --S 03'08" 006 —139 OK P U&�b ?off CVe;aian IDAHO v 33 p wv�ui /V*ce, — l halyt".1 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, September , 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Although the City of Meridian no i nger requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayo and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. 1. Roll -call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Charlie Rountree 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Gospel Tabernacle: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: Joe Borton Keith Bird Tammy de Weerd Bud Henthom, with Meridian A Approve Minutes of August 8, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of August 15, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Development Agreement: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres f om RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) zones for Inc Ing Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC — north side o I Cherry Lane and west of Black Cat Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — S 5, 2006 Page 1 of 6 Ali materials presented at public meetings she become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for di. 1i as related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 88 at least r+8 tears prior to the public meeting. an A meeting of the Meridian City Council September 5, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Borton. Member Absent: Charlie Rountree. Others Present: Bill Nary, Ted Baird, Will E Anderson, Len Grady, Doug Strong, Stacy Graybill, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle 0 Charlie Rountree X De Weerd: I'd like to welcome you all her minutes fast, so we have been kind of just over so we could start. So, welcome here Tuesday, September 5th. It is 7:00 o'clocN attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, and Joe rg, Anna Canning, Bill Musser, Ron Ichenmann, Terry Paternoster, McKay X Joe Borton X Keith Bird ayor Tammy de Weerd this evening. I understand our clock is five Uing here waiting until that five minutes was might. We appreciate you all coming. It is We will start tonight's meeting with roll call De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our pledge of allglance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge by Frank Thomason with the Valley Times. If you will all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation Gospel Tabernacle: De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our Community I Bud Henthorn with the Meridian Gospel invocation or take this as an opportunity for Henthorn: Heavenly Father, as -- as fall r session our thoughts turn again to the your pray that prayer that Paul prayed, but we pi God, that, God, you would cause them to you have called them. We pray, Lord God, Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian location. Tonight we will be led by Pastor abernacle. If you will all join us in the moment of silence. IIs around and as school gets back under g people of our community and tonight we iy it on behalf of our kids. We asked, Lord now and to understand the hope to which iat you would reveal to them the incredible Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 2 of 74 treasure that you have placed within ther our children the incredible power that is and, Father, tonight as a -- as a governii want that power to work within us. As So that we might govern this great people of decisions we make impact the children tha God, that your grace, your mercy, your lov this place. We ask in Jesus' name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you, Bud. Item No. 4, Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We need to -- on the Consent Ager Item H needs to be pulled to September 1 Powers agreement is with the rural fire di agenda Item 8 has been asked to be conti 11 is resolution number 06-528. And Item to continue these to September 12th, 20 reconsideration is not in attendance tonigh ordinance numbers starting with 06-1256 e accept the revised agenda. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of B. Approve Minutes of Meeting: C. Development Agreem and Zoning of 20.01 ac Residential) zones for Village, LLC — north si Road: • and we ask, God, that you would reveal to t work within the world today on their behalf g body we come before you to say that we )mon prayed, we pray, God, give us wisdom )urs. Help us, Lord God, to keep in mind the we love, the children that you love. We ask, your kindness, your peace would prevail in of the agenda. a, Item G will be resolution number 06-527. h, 2006, let it be noted that Item S, the Joint ;rict, not Local 3211 -- 2311. In the regular jed to September 19th, 2006. And Item No. los. 16, 17 and 18 we would ask the Council 3, because the Councilman that requested And items 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 are all d ending with 06-1262. With that I move we id to approve the agenda as amended. es. 8, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: 15, 2006 City Council Regular knt: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation es from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Incline Village Subdivision by Incline le of Cherry Lane and west of Black Cat Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 3 of 74 D. Development Agreer and Zoning of 116.81 West Subdivision by Overland Road and we 11 nt: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation res from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek scany Development, Inc. — south of West of South Stoddard Road: E. Development Agreement: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres), TN -R ( raditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C -N (Neig iborhood Business) (3.94 acres) zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: F. Development Agree ent: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 o L -O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: G. Resolution No. *527 06 A Rate Increase for Solid Waste Collection S rvices due to the Net Percentage of Change in the Consul er Price Index for the Pacific Northwest, to Provide for the Solid Waste Disposal Rate Changes Within the City of Meridian: H. Resolution No. : Adoption of the Ada County Emergencylana—gement Plan, All Hazards Mitigation Plan, Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan, Ada County Flood Response Plan, Ada County Hazmat Response Plan, Ada County Terrorism Response Plan, and Ada County Wildfire Response Plan: I. Water Main Easemen Agreement No. 1 by Schwenkfelder Inv stments, LLC: J. K. by Schwenkfelder Investments, LLC: by Lea Electric: L. Water Main Easement Agreement for LDS Church at 5555 North Locust Grove R ad: Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 4 of 74 M. Contract for the Bla k Cat Trunk Sewer Phase 3 Authorization for Additional Servic s No. 1 with JUB Engineers, Inc.: N. Approve Reiecth Proiect: O. Public Works Chi Water Class Pipe P. Agreement for Pr for Water and Sel Topaz to Cloven Inc.. Q. Agreement for Pr for Water and Locust Grove G Consultants, Inc.: R. Award Bid anc Construction on Palatine with Star S. Joint Powers At Order No. 1 to Upqrade Storm Sewer to inder PRV with Star Construction: fional Services for Construction Staking nprovements Associated with Overland. Project with Civil Survey Consultants, on: with Civil Survey r District Local #2311: De Weerd: Item 5, Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda Item G is r solution number 06-527. Item H has been asked to be table to September 12th, 2006. And Item S removed local 2611 from the amendment agreement. And with that I move that we pass the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 5 of 74 Item 6: Department Reports: A. IT Department Update on the De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6, Departm with our IT Department. Paternoster: Madam Mayor, Members pleased to be here tonight, given the opp( have been working on in the IT Departmer few minutes and just go over those with y has worked on over the past six months is project that connects all of the different d dragging on for quite some time, but we ai we were able to bring this to completion, and the wireless network is up and func money every day through its use. One of 1 on, especially over the summer as we have we have been working on our inventory n have tools to help you manage our inve around taking a physical inventory of the d and reconciling that to the financial reports we know which assets we have and where to make sure that the city's getting the mo that we have worked on over the past six implement their Lenel Security system. connects multiple cameras at the police d and connects over the network to several monitoring. One of the other projects that the data system, which we have been, you months and maybe even years and I think some data ports to allow the Public Work date system to be able to make a report h< we have received very positive feedbacl' relationship with Public Works is very good De Weerd: We are very pleased about Paternoster: Something else we have v summer we have implemented a city int designed towards public access, we have is designed to help employees just gain in� for the IT Department we have put out help to fill out forms where if they need support c 0 ip program and strategic growth: Reports. We will start tonight's meeting f the Council, the IT Department is quite tunity to talk about some of the projects we over the past six months and to just take a u. Some of the projects the IT Department ve finally finalized the wireless area network partments together. This project has been quite pleased to announce that last month ork out some differences with our vendors, oning and operational and saving the city le other projects that we have been working had quite a few extra part-time help, is that anagement and our tool management. We tory and in addition we have been going ferent hardware that we have within the city )f the finance department to make sure that they are at and how they are being utilized t out of its dollars. One of the other things nonths is we helped the police department chis is an IT based security system that apartment to enhance security. It operates :omputers so that they can do realtime live re worked on is remote database access to (now, kind of been talking about for several iat this latest implementation of opening up Department to access information off this been quite beneficial to Public Works and and we are quite proud to say that our rked on is we have -- recently over the anet. Unlike the internet, which is really city intranet which was put into place which rmation within different departments. Like ocuments, we have put out places for them r if they want remote help, there is a tool on Meridian City Council r September 5, 2006 Page 6 of 74 • here that they can download that allows us remote access to their computer. In addition, you know, the HR department and the finance department has put out multiple forms that are used by the departments on a daily basis with whether or not it's someone changing their W-4 requirements or want their latest budget numbers. That information can be found out on the intra et. One of the other projects that we have worked on -- let me click up here -- is we have done an online employment application. This application was put into place and programmed by McKay Graybill to help the city allow people who are interested in working for the city fill out applications online, submit those, versus going through the antiquated process of filling out a paper form and maybe having to have the HR department try to discern what the employee's -- or the potential employee's writing on that form and trying to read their handwriting, which know in my case would be quite challenging and I think that this is a good tool for the city and it's really helped us to move into t e 21 st century. One of the other things that we worked on this summer is a nonemer ency online police report. This report is so that people who have -- don't know of a s ecific suspect, can submit their police report online and, then, it goes directly to the pol ce department where they can file it and go through and assign it to an officer to investigate it. And the other thing that we have worked on is we are in the process of com ileting an employee time card entry system. This is a system that will allow employees o enter their time online, which will save the finance department multiple hours per mo been entered by employees and, then, p database and running time off it to do pa those? No? Good. The next thing I want t to talk about McKay Graybill. He's standi McKay is one of the interns that we have -- charter high school two years ago. McKa his programming skills and development. us soon and so I wanted to take this oppo because he has put forth many hours an some of the ones you have seen so far involved in working on the IT support requ have users submit requests for us to assign when their request has been completed. De Weerd: And staff really likes that form. Paternoster: They do. They like the infi procedure; it helps us to be able to be acci make sure that the request is taken care c employment application. He also develop, some of the other projects that he didn't plz worked on planning staff report, the pla designed the online police report, which I McKay has plans to leave us where McKa this month to prepare for a two year ct Guatemala. For those who don't where Gi th of manually taking time cards that have tting them into the MIT accounting system roll each month. Any questions regarding take a few minutes and talk about is I want g right beside me. I'd like him to stand up. we first received from the Meridian technical has been a great asset to the city through nfortunately, McKay is going to be leaving rtunity to just honor him before the Council, time working on projects for the city, like . You know, McKay specifically has been est form, which allows the IT Department to those, track those, and allow users to know of please fill out the form. We do like a untable to Council and to the department to in a timely manner. McKay worked on the id a time sheet application. And he also -- yed quite as large of a role, but he definitely ming application tracking system, and he iisplayed before. Unfortunately, like I said, will be leaving his employment for the city arch mission where he will be serving in atemala is at, it's south of Mexico. We are Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 7 of 74 very sad to see McKay leave, because h would love for him to forego his mission he has plans and goals that he wants to a De Weerd: And we did try and convince that. Paternoster: Lots of opportunities. The or the Council on is that the IT Departmer procedures audit. This is where we are g come in and review our practices and objectives at levels throughout the city and more effective and pro -active at meeting tt implementing the changes found through t city time and money in our future growth before the Council was to get your buy -in if the City Council has anything -- or a evaluated during this process, that they thi the city. I know that for us one thing that t with the rapid growth of Meridian. It's bee technology in a way that helps the city o money. We believe that we have -- th structure for helping the city grow and meE to grow we need to find ways to continue between those different applications, so the you know, multiple times in each departure single repository, you know, and have it util De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. One of the thing and that I like to see is just -- I know we f• your department's priority. Just to give us, that the information is safe. I think certainly process and I'd like to stress that. In addit Terry, you have -- if you're working with u; know, how long do you keep that data and all those things are certainly, I think, you kr and in the future. Paternoster: I think those are excellent ares is on the forefront of everybody's mind, just risk are inherent to business. I also have k the city is implementing which has come i would be an excellent thing for us to look at has been an excellent asset to the city. We d stay with the city, however, we realize that -omplish. that this is a mission, but he didn't go for s other thing that I just want to briefly update t is going to be engaging in a technology ling to be engaging an outside consultant to just help us clarify our expectations and help us identify areas where we can become overall city needs. And, hopefully, through ie strategic audit we will be able to save the plans. My goal, you know, presenting this id find out, you know, that through this audit iy issues that they would like us to have ik might be beneficial to the future growth of 3s been continually challenging for us is just i a challenge for us to really be able to use )timize all of its processes and really save IT Department has implemented a solid t its current needs, but as the city continues optimize our processes and bring synergy t instead of implementing and inputting data, it, we are able to put that information into a Eed in multiple fashion. that always concerns me with technology ave to have a secured system. Security is the Council, and the community the benefit that is probably already considered with the m, one of the other areas -- I'm not sure if, right now, but data management and, you rhat happens to that data when we purge it, )w, that you have been taking an active roll s for us to look at. I definitely think security liven the size of the world we live in and the een considering data retention policies that p in a couple of seminars and I think that is well. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 8 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Paternoster: Great. At the conclusion I coming back and having consultants pre,, what they discovered during the audit. and, hopefully, have that completed with questions, that is the end. De Weerd: Terry, I would just like to thank we know you have extended your employn and you have reduced the amount of time that we are your family these days, but we of the employee that you are and just a sm City of Meridian coveted pins and so thank report, Terry. We appreciate it. And we loc B. Public Works De 1. Discussion of than an Easem De Weerd: Okay. The next item on our Grady. Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Col sort of a situation that's come up with rec stations within those PI systems. Our UD( common lot and dedicated to a homeowner for Center Pointe Subdivision, which is a doesn't lend itself that well to that particula that it requires it, but in this particular cas The idea is if you have this PI pump statior to be on a common lot and you do want to that there is no homeowners association t Again, the code is fairly clear and I think and see if there is any direction you want to be here to comment on it, but I don't see hir De Weerd: No, I don't see him either. Do Grady: I would recommend in this particul Again, it seems to lend itself fairly good on it doesn't seem like it's that critical. 0 this technology strategic audit we plan on nt to the Mayor and Council the findings of ), we definitely look forward to that and try the next month. So, if there is no further JlcKay for his service to the city. Certainly -- ent with us to finish up on some loose ends ;pent with your family, although we do think appreciate that and it just shows the quality ;Ill token. I would like to give you one of our fou, McKay. Good luck. Thank you for your ( forward to the results of the audit. — Len Grady juirement for a Common Lot Rather for PI Pump Stations: epartment reports, I'll turn this over to Len ncil, I wanted to talk to you briefly about a -- ird to PI systems and, in particular, pump requires that those pump stations be on a association. Jonathan Seal is an applicant commercial -- a commercial deal and this part of the code, so the code is fairly clear it does look like maybe it's unnecessary. and you have a subdivision, you do want it )e able to have access to it. He's claiming r nobody to dedicate this pump station to. ave offered to just bring it to your attention aive me on that. And he also said he would have a recommendation? it case that we go ahead and rescind that. subdivisions. On commercials it's not that -- Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 9 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions Or comments? Ted? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in this particular situation it looks like the goal of that UDC provision is achieved, but it's just not applicable, because it's -- would call it a legal impossibility, since therg is no homeowners association to give it to, and since it is privately operated it can't begiven to the irrigation district. So, if you want to follow the recommendation, just make a motion on the record that UDC Section 11.3.B -6-E is not applicable to this particular application. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Baird. Bird: Madam Mayor, I would move that Works regarding the PI at Centre Pointe, Anything else from Council? Mr. Bird. follow the recommendation of the Public rding to UDC 11.3.13-6-E. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, would you like to call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; WarOle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Auenda: De Weerd: Thank you. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Tabled from August 22, 2006: FP 06-038 Request for Final Plat approval for 5 single-family residential building lots on 1.06 acres in an R- 8 zone for Windsonu Subdivision No. 2 by Landmark Engineering & Planning — north of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: De Weerd: Item No. 8 has been asked to Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we table -- I guess we September 19th, 2006. Borton: Second. ntinue to September 19th. continue it. We table FP 06-038 until De Weerd: Okay. A motion and a seconol to table Item 8 until the 19th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE /ABSENT. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 10 of 74 Item 9: FP 06-039 Request for Final Plat approval of 103 single-family residential building lots and 10 common lots on 25.12 acres in an R-8 zone for Solitude Subdivision No. 1 by Solitude Development, LLC — Southeast corner of McMillan Road and Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 is FP 06-039. We have received a letter from the applicant agreeing to staffs conditions. Anna, any additional comments? Canning: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 9, FP 06-029. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion and a second to approve Item 9. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: Amendments to the City of Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance increasing the park impact fee imposed on building permits for residential construction; and adopting new impact fees for fire and police capital improvements to be imposed on building permits for residential and non-residential construction AND CPA 06-001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 10 is a Public Hearing on amendments to the City of Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance, as well as CPA 06-001, a Comprehensive Plan amendment. I will go ahead and have Mr. Baird introduce this. Baird: Thank you, Madam Mayor. As you pointed out, this is a combined Public Hearing. State law requires that when we do amend our impact fee ordinance that we also update the capital improvements plans that are associated with those impact fees, so that's -- they are intertwined issues and so we have got a combined Public Hearing tonight. I'm shortly going to be handing this over to the lead of our consultant team, Mr. Tom Pippen, from PBC Consulting. He has a short Powerpoint presentation that he will be presenting and I'd recommend that the chair open it up for public testimony. Meridian City Council • • September 5, 2006 Page 11 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Baird: So, at this point I will introduce Tom Pippen. Pippen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Tom Pippen. I have addressed you before on the subject of impact fees. And as Ted promised, I'm going to give a brief presentation and, then, of course, after public comment, if you'd like us to come back up to do any questions and answers, we would be happy to. Anna Canning is going to help with our Powerpoint tonight. Anna, let's go to the first page, if we can. What I'd like to do briefly is introduce our team who are present this evening and, then, talk a little bit about the definition of impact fees, review the statutory requirements and, then, excerpt for you two fee schedules from the reports and, then, finally conclude with Q and A. The next page I won't dwell on, simply an introduction of me and my colleague Laura Doze. As Ted mentioned, we were part of the team. We are an economic consulting firm, so we ran a lot of the spreadsheets and did a lot of the demographic analysis for the report. But, certainly, there were other key members of our team. The next page -- we have here tonight JoAnne Butler and Sherry Gallivan from Spink Butler. That was the law firm associated with our team. They participated in all of the advisory committee meetings, made sure that our mathematical calculations were consistent with the state law and they also worked with your city attorney's office to draft the ordinance that's before you tonight. And, then, finally, also in attendance this evening is Anne Westcott from Galena Consulting. Anne was a critical member of our team and her particular expertise is capital improvement planning. Anne worked very closely with all of your department heads involved in the fees to understand which capital projects were coming over the next ten years and what portion of those were growth related and, therefore, possible for impact fee inclusion. Let's move on to the next page. This is a slide I have shown you before, but just as a little bit of background, impact fees are one time charges, typically assessed at the time of building permit. They have three key components, which I have underlined. First of all, they are only charged on new development, meaning that if someone remodels their home or business, that's not fee eligible. We are only talking about an increase in the number of dwelling units or if it's a commercial building, an increase in square footage. Secondly, they can only be used -- impact fees can only be used to support infrastructure. They cannot be used to pay for salaries or operating expenses. And, then, finally, as we have underlined, they have to be proportionate to new growth's impact. In other words, we can't charge new growth to correct any existing deficiencies. Let's advance to the next slide. I mentioned Anne Westcott's key roll in terms of looking at the capital improvement plans and, really, the core of this work focused on these three items. In other words, when the City of Meridian spends money on a capital project over the next ten years, some of it's going to be in category number one, repairing and replacing what you have already got. Those aren't in the calculations, because you have to do that regardless of growth. Item number two is betterment and you will see there what we have underlined are generally not entirely eligible, meaning that you have some projects where growth was the trigger, the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will, but it wouldn't be fair to charge growth a hundred percent of that project, because existing Meridian City Council • • September 5, 2006 Page 12 of 74 residents also benefit. So, in our calculations we pro -rated projects like that. And, then, finally, number three. There are some projects in your capital improvement plan that are only due to growth and, therefore, they are entirely included in the fee calculations. Let's advance to the next page and that is working with Spink Butler we tried to insure that our methodology was consistent and compliant with the Idaho state law. I won't go over all of these bullet points, except to say that the first one, establishment of and consultation with the advisedly committee, was very important to this process. We met with the advisory committee five distinct times during the course of this project, they met once without the consultants, and in a little bit I'm going to recap for you what their recommendation is for you to consider tonight. Also, I should point out that there is an appendix to our report, a matrix that checks off where in the report we believe we comply with the various elements of state law. Let's go to the next slide. And this is our first excerpt from the final report. We have calculated in the report the full cost recovery impact fee, meaning the impact fee that Meridian would charge if you want to recover one hundred percent of the growth -related projects for police, fire, and parks and recreation infrastructure over the next ten years. As you will notice in the gray bar, that totals 1,846 dollars per residential unit and 31 cents a square foot for nonresidential. Now, I mentioned -- and I believe this is in your packet as well, that the advisory committee has asked you to consider a different set of numbers, a slightly lower set of numbers. So, what you see here -- let's back up again. Thanks. That is the full cost recovery fee. The advisory committee has asked you to consider an amount that's 1,600 dollars per residential unit and an amount of 26 cents per nonresidential square foot. I believe there will be members of the advisory committee here tonight that will speak to that, but, in general, if I can paraphrase where they are coming from, I believe the concern is that 1,846 and 31, in the opinion of some of the members of the committee, might harm economic development in Meridian and might slow down growth and the feeling is that 1,600 dollars and 26 cents wouldn't have as much of an injurious impact on growth. But, as I said, I believe other speakers will cover that tonight. Let's go to the next page. And this page really summarizes what I'd like to say, that impact fees are a two-way street, meaning that if you decide to adopt expanded impact fees in these categories, it's not just new development that would be paying, because some of these projects, as I mentioned before, are split. Existing residents benefit, but new growth was the trigger. In those cases it's important that the city chip in funds, in addition to impact fees, to make sure that the CIP gets built. And if you will look at the number right above the gray bar at the bottom, that 2.8 million dollars, if you adopt the full cost recovery fee, the maximum that's in the report, the city would have a responsibility of about 2.8 million dollars over ten years, about 280,000 dollars a year. It doesn't have to be that precise where it's that amount every year, but the city would have to have confidence that you could afford that over a ten year span. If tonight you decide to not adopt the full cost recovery fees, but to go to the slightly lower amounts that the advisory committee is asking you to consider, the 1,600 dollars and the 26 cents, then, these numbers would go up, which just -- it's kind of like a balancing equation. If the impact fees are a little bit less, then, the city's share would be a little bit more. So, if you decide to adopt the lower amounts, then, the city's liability would increase to a little over six million dollars, instead of 2.8 million. So, it would be roughly 600,000 dollars a year that you would have to be comfortable, based on the advice of Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 13 of 74 your finance staff, that you could afford. It is within your power to adopt something less than the maximum. But there is an implication of that and that is the city would have to chip in relatively more. I believe that concludes my comments. I would be happen to answer any questions now or come back up after some other members of the public have spoken. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Thank you, Tom. We might ask you to return. Thank you. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Baird: Before Tom leaves the podium, I know that you inquired of us and requested that we be prepared to let you know where these numbers compare to some of the other communities in the area. I know that Tom is working with both the city of Caldwell and the city of Nampa and he can give you some details on that and I can show you that in the city of Boise they currently only collect a parks and recreation fee and it recently went up. Single family residences, 1,187 dollars per resident. So, just under 1,200 in the city of Boise. But if -- naturally, an appropriate time just to give perspective of where we are, I'll have Tom maybe address that question. De Weerd: Thank you. Pippen: Thank you, Ted. Anna, let's stay on this slide. If you'll notice the police fee up top, we are currently working with the city of Caldwell, which does not have a police fee, so I can't give you a number, but they are actively considering it and they are reviewing a draft report of ours. So, they are contemplating it. The city of Boise is also contemplating a police fee, but they don't have a number yet either. The one comparable number for a police fee would be the city of Nampa and whereas we are saying the maximum here would be 85 dollars a unit, Nampa has a range, depending on if it's an apartment or a single family home or a townhome, between 64 dollars and 84 dollars a unit. So, Nampa is between 64 and 84. On the nonresidential per square foot, Nampa has a very detailed table, depending on the type of land uses, ranging from a penny a square foot to 28 cents a square foot, depending on the type of land use. Fire fees. Caldwell, where we are working now, and Boise, city of Boise where we are working, have fire fees under consideration, but there aren't any numbers yet. You're ahead of them in terms of the consideration process. So, the comparable, again, would be Nampa. We have said that your full cost recovery fee would be 377 dollars. Nampa's fee per single family unit is 150 dollars. And one of the reasons why there is a relatively large disparity there is that Nampa's fee is focusing on stations and buildings and not as much on the fire trucks and other capital equipment. The state law calls for something with a useful life more than ten years. So, we have included vehicles and communications gear that we believe are going to last more than ten years in your fee calculation. Finally, for parks and recreation, Ted just -- you're at 1,384 full cost recovery. Ted mentioned that in Boise a single family unit is 1,187. Caldwell -- and we Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 14 of 74 did -- our team did their fee a couple years ago. They began at 750 dollars a unit and are inflating it. I don't know their exact number now, but it's less than 800 dollars and, then, finally, Nampa for a single family unit is 674. So, this parks and rec fee is near Boise, significantly higher than Caldwell and Nampa's, but I should indicate that we -- right now we are recalculating Caldwell's and Nampa's. We are working for both cities. So, I would expect that when our draft reports are done for them, their fees will go up substantially. And one of the reasons is the same reason that your fee is going up. Land prices, which are the big component of parks infrastructure have gone up significantly. So, Caldwell at 750 dollars a unit and Nampa 674, are a couple years old and based on land costs per acre that are significantly less than where we are at now. De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Ted. I appreciate that. Before we open this to public comment, we may want to hear from any of our directors if you have reports to make before we ask for public comment. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd like to make just a brief comment. When we are working with the public we often hear that one of their priorities is that growth pay its way and this was kind of -- we, actually, have a few numbers behind that now. If we were going forward talking to the folks in the south -- south of our city limits, talking to them about issues that are important to them. The highest single community value that they identified was planned for responsible growth and that was 24 of the 62 folks that participated in that study, identified that as an important community value and the two components of planning for responsible growth or making development pay for itself and not allowing forced annexations. So, again, this is just indicative that having growth pay for itself is an important public concern. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Stacy. Kilchenmann: I just wanted to point out to the Council that I put some information in front of you to look at when you consider -- De Weerd: Stacy, if you will just state your name for the record. Kilchenmann: Oh. Stacy Kilchenmann, finance director. De Weerd: I think Dean knows everyone back there. Kilchenmann: So, I just gave you some information -- some historical information to look at when you consider the committee's revised recommendation that requires the city to contribute almost 600,000 dollars a year. That is not impossible for the city to do, but, as you know, as we just went through our budget process that our base is growing with 82 percent of that spent on public safety. So, that would be -- when you consider this, it would will be a change in our spending patterns and when we make the decision to move our monies from capital -- or from the base to capital, that will impact the amount of personnel and so forth that we can add. So, what I have given you just shows the growth of our base. It also shows our total capital expenditure for the Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 15 of 74 General Fund and we have to remember that the rural fire has been paying for our fire stations in the near -- or in the recent past, so that's not a cost the city's had to absorb. And, then, the bottom line shows how much we spend in park impact fees on park development and how much we spend from the General Fund on park development. And our spending on the capital kind of goes up and down, like when we made the commitment to do the police station, of course, we spent about four million dollars. When we made the -- bought Settler's Park, that was a large infusion of cash. It was over a million dollars and since has gone down. So, I just wanted to let you know that that's a decision that the Council is going to have to think about when you make the decision to choose whenever impact fee you choose. De Weerd: Thank you, Stacy. Chief Anderson. Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as far as the police numbers that we have at this time -- De Weerd: Chief Musser. Musser: Oh, I'm sorry. Bill Musser, Chief of Police for the City of Meridian. Musser: Continuing, I'm satisfied in terms of the capital improvement items that we are looking at, which are primarily building related and communications equipment, especially long-term communication equipment that we are going to be facing with the methodology used and the numbers that were arrived at sufficient and very reasonable in terms of where we are headed down the road. De Weerd: Thank you, Chief. Anderson: Madam Mayor and Council, Ron Anderson, Fire Chief, City of Meridian. I would just like to comment, I guess, basically, on the 377 dollar fee that the consultant came up and, hopefully, you will understand that that is based off of our current level of service and I have read, I guess, the advisory committee's recommendation that the fire department should only have 300 dollars per residential unit and that concerns me, because they agree with the methodology, they agree with the calculations, and everything that we got to the 377 dollars, but for some reason they recommend a funding at a lower level, which would mean that they are, then, asking us either to lower our level of service to everybody else or the city is going to have to pick up that difference in the impact fees. I also would agree with the consultant. One of the reasons why Meridian's is significantly higher than Nampa's is when the consultant did Nampa's impact fee studies they didn't put any of the vehicles, the apparatus, anything that wasn't a building into impact fees and that's one of the reasons why Nampa is now looking at revising those impact fees and including those things and as you guys are aware, we just recently are going out to refurbish a fire truck that's 24 years old, so if that doesn't meet Idaho's definition for a capital item, it has much greater than a ten year life expectancy and fire trucks costing in the neighborhood of 400,000 dollars apiece, I would definitely consider those a capital item. So, I would encourage you as Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 16 of 74 you listen to the presentations tonight and as you take the advisory committee's recommendation into consideration that you, please, look at funding the fire department to the full allowable fee of the 377 dollars. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, chief. Mr. Strong, you're also the administrator of the impact fee committee; is that correct? Strong: That's correct. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Doug Strong, Parks and Recreation Director, City of Meridian. Just want to make a couple of comments and primarily just to thank the consulting team and the advisory committee for all the work. We have met many times and, certainly, our legal department has done a real banner job in keeping this process moving and working through what in the past has been a very complicated process for us and I think has brought our fee calculation to a much more predictable process of determining what a reasonable fee should be for impact fees. I think we have some groundwork set here that's very good. And in saying that, I -- the comment that I want to make that I think is most important and -- is that throughout this process we were often told that the fee calculation would -- as the calculation was taking place, they were erring on the conservative side of what we could potentially be asking for. So, I think the full cost recovery fee that you see before you really is kind of a bare bones of what we are looking at in a ten year capital improvement plan and certainly over ten years many things can change in a plan and we will come back annually and look at where we are with our capital improvement plan and the progress that we are making, but I think that the work that the consulting team has done has really kind of put us on the mark of where we need to be to address future growth and provision of a level of community service that the citizens expect that choose to live in Meridian. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nary, I assume that you want to say something, Nary: You have assumed correctly. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Bill Nary, city attorney. I did not sit as a member of the impact fee committee; Mr. Baird was the advisor for that committee. I did attend a couple of the meetings, one as an advisor and one as the chair, because Mr. Strong wasn't there. There is a member of the committee in the audience who I assume is going to speak tonight that's from the committee and there is also a member in the audience who attended all the meetings as well. I did want to help explain for the Council, as you listen to any of the other testimony, a little bit of the memo that's in front of you as part of the packet and how the committee reached that decision. There was a lot of discussion about the calculations and the methodology that was done by the consultants and the committee as a whole agreed with the methodology and the calculations that the consultants came up with. The reasons that the committee recommended a fee less than the full cost recovery was on other grounds and those grounds were more of a concern that the city hadn't continuously kept up with the process and I guess my opinion -- and it is just my opinion, is I think there was some misunderstanding among the committee that the city hadn't, prior to this year, engaged in a process like this, with a consultant, with as in depth of study and analysis as was done. The city had adopted fees annually like is Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 17 of 74 LJ required -- like the statute requires. They had addressed them annually and they didn't -- they didn't meet very regularly, though, to how those fees were being addressed out in the real world, whether they really were based on real world costs and real world numbers. So, the committee as a whole in their discussion felt that the city and the committee themself haven't spent as much time as they should have in addressing those types of real world situations and, therefore, to impose the full cost recovery fee at this time seemed onerous to the committee. In our discussions a number of times they did commit to the fact that the consultants work was stellar and they were very complimentary that the work and the methodology they came up with to come up with the full cost recovery fee was reasonable and supportable by the committee, they just felt that it was not the right time to impose a fee of that magnitude or that large an increase, because there hadn't been more interim work done. The committee did agree to meet more often. They did discuss the fact that the fees can only be recalculated annually anyway. There was certainly some discussion of the fact that even if they had met more often that the cost of the land, which as Mr. Pippen said, is a huge driver, especially in the park fee, the cost of land in this area, as all of you know and probably as some of the testimony you will hear, rose dramatically very quickly. And so I don't know if that was a fair consideration, but that certainly was what the committee considered or what was concerned with is that it was such a drastic increase in the minds of some of the committee members. In conclusion, again, they did agree to the -- the lesser amount as a committee and that's the recommendation in front of you. They also had recommended a different amount for the nonresidential, but that just doesn't bear out legally to do it that way, so they -- the nonresidential fee is based on the proportionate share amount that is reduced in the residential share portion as well. When I asked the committee at one of the meetings if they wanted to commit or at least recommend to the Council what they do with the fact that it's less, do they have a recommendation on whether the Council should lower the -- essentially the level of service by lowering the expectation in the capital improvement or whether the Council should consider infusing more money into the system, as Mr. Pippen stated. It appears at the end of the day that's what you're left with, to go to the lower fee, and the committee did not feel comfortable in making that recommendation. They felt that that was really within the purview of the Council and not the committee to make that recommendation. Again, I asked them, you know, that was simply a recommendation on their part and they still did not fell comfortable in making that recommendation to you of which of those is the end result of the lower fee. If you had any other questions about the process, I just wanted you to understand the committee's perspective from my perspective and, again, there is a couple of folks here who probably have more information on their perspective on the committee, so -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary, for the record, when did we last update this? Nary: The last update I believe -- Mr. Baird can correct me -- I think it's in April of 2005 or was it August of 2005? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's been just over a year and the current fee is around 800 dollars for parks only. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 18 of 74 Nary: Right. There is no current fee, as you know, for fire or police. So, the increase we are talking about is approximately 1,000 dollars above what is currently being imposed, of which of that over -- almost five -- 450 dollars of it is for police and fire, so the remainder is for parks. De Weerd: And I believe that it was after updating that fee it was felt we needed to retain a consultant to take us through a more methodical process and approach to make sure that as we look at these fees we've had more the specifics and made sure -- I believe even from the Ada County perspective that we needed to firm up our approach. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you are correct. I mean Ada County was uncomfortable with the process that we had used previously and there was even some discussion at the committee level that just a straight percentage increase would probably not have been defensible to the same degree, because, again, there was no analysis done and it wouldn't seem reasonable to just say close to 15, 20, 30 percent number would feel fairly random. Ada County was uncomfortable with how the fees had been calculated in the past, because, again, they didn't feel a very -- they didn't feel supported by the methodology that was done and that was the reason the city did choose to go a different route and to take a much more methodological approach to using a consultant and creating a much better back bone for defense of the fee in the future. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there a member of the committee who would like to speak of the recommendation? Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Echeretta: Miguel Echeretta. 6206 North Discovery Way. I'm here representing the building contractors. De Weerd: Thank you. Echeretta: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was also on the impact fee advisory committee. We appreciated the builders and I know my association, the involvement. The consultants were very good at walking us through the process and finding a way to look at this, a very complex thing, in a way that we can all understand and work through. We also brought the fees through working with the consultants down from where they were, somewhere around 2,500, 1 believe, was the initially proposed impact fees. Now, all that being said, there is certainly one I know on the impact fee advisory committee a lot of concern over just the amount. We are talking 1,846, reducing that possibly to 1,600. That's still doubling of the fees. So, clearly, our industry -- and I know my association, when we talk about doubling fees, that's going to raise some hairs and raise some concerns. So, certainly that was the case. I know that although Mr. Nary was I think very good in describing some of our discussions, there was debate beyond just not being too much or spending too much, as to what a system improvement or a capital improvement really entailed, because we did have a lot of Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 19 of 74 discussions about our fire trucks, our different communications equipment. There is a very -- it's very complex and I know there was some dissension, some disagreement there as well. We did come to, basically, a consensus that let's move forward with this, let's look at something less than the maximum allowable of 1,846. We chose 1,600 in part because it's still giving, again, a doubling of the fees and perhaps not overreaching to the extent that we could otherwise. Primarily, you know, adding fire and police, we can certainly understand that and increasing parks, we can understand that as well, but there is a number of things in there that perhaps there are alternate means or methods of paying for that equipment beyond just impact fees. And that's largely where we came to that conclusion. Let's allow the Council, let's allow the Mayor to look at that and look at what other options may be available for -- for instance, with some of the equipment. You know, again, just to, I guess, state our position, we are not here and I think it's a real credit to both Meridian and to our association, we are not here, necessarily, to oppose or say that there isn't a need for the city services to expand and that impact fees should be part of that, but we do want to see it in a more incremental fashion, you know, the 1,600 or below is something I think we can live with. It's something I think we can manage and plan for and I think from this point forward the impact fee committee spending more time looking at this in detail, you know, having that quarterly and annual review of the fees to see what's happened, to see how these -- this has worked out, because I know Doug had mentioned it's predictable and precise, but -- and the analysis that was done has created a more predictable precise methodology, but it's also very dynamic, you know, we are seeing the economy now shifting a little bit. We don't all know what that means, but it's just difficult to gauge. And I think keeping a tab on it, having the committee really meet regularly and monitor that -- if they need to go up again next year, then, I think we can do that. If they don't, maybe they even need to come down, then, we can do that, but it's tough without that constant monitoring that I think wasn't necessarily in place before this most recent change. So, again, I'd just say that we have appreciated the process of the consultants, the city, the Council and look forward to continue working here and being part of the community. I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, questions? Bird: I have one. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: Sir, your association, as long as it stays at the 1,600, you know, you could -- you wouldn't care if it was 377 for the fire and less for the parks or something like that? Echeretta: That's correct. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions? I guess I would -- I understand that the fee was at 2,400 and, then, through discussion on trying to find a fairer or more equitable balance Meridian City Council • r September 5, 2006 Page 20 of 74 in the capital improvement plan and how those growth factors were allocated, they did come down to the 1,846. Echeretta: Correct. De Weerd: That's correct? So, in the discussions the committee could not come back with a recommendation on either lowering our standard of service, so that it met with the fee that you're recommending or increasing the amount that our existing residents had to pay. What were some of the discussion points on that, that they couldn't come back with a recommendation? Echeretta: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the challenge there for the committee was information. We don't necessarily have or didn't have all of the budget numbers that you would be looking at for capital expenditures. It was difficult to gauge, you know, perhaps some of your expertise, your knowledge, as to where money was going to be allocated that perhaps impact fees would not need to be used for or could be used in addition to funding that was going to be directed from another source. So, you are correct in the fact that we didn't have specific line items as a committee to say let's remove these items from fire or these from police, rather a general number to perhaps create the dialogue here at City Council to look at that, to look at some of what the city can finance, what other sources or other funding sources could be available. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Echeretta: Thank you. De Weerd: I do have a number of people who have signed up to provide testimony or to indicate their support or neutrality. When I call your name if you'd like to provide testimony, please, come forward. William Bome. Bame. Bame. Is for. Would you like to provide testimony? Okay. Bame: Name and address? De Weerd: Yes, please. Bame: My name is William Bame. 2173 North Wingate Avenue. Madam Mayor, City Council members, I am just so delighted to see what's taken place here with the impact fee process. I made an embarrassing effort to try to get involved and I -- it was humbling, because it showed my ignorance to the process. But in doing so it gave me a revealing opportunity to observe and see the City of Meridian and its -- its investment in getting on board with a challenging step that it takes with growth. Impact fees is something that, you know, it's like you walk into a building or a bar or anyplace and want to have somebody -- everybody to be your friend. Well, you're not going to get that. But you got to -- you got to make tough decisions. The point here is that you ended up starting a process and it's the beginning, it's the seed for the future, and I'm impressed with the process that you have started here. It may not have all the right answers here Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 21 of 74 immediately, but it was a bottoms up process. It was a process where you said let's look as best we can -- there is not all the numbers here in place, but it was as best we can what are our needs. You weren't trying to impress everybody, it wasn't a matter of marketing and hype and promotion, but you did a bottoms up process and said what do we have, what's our budget, to the best your abilities, and I think you did it to the best of your abilities and, then, you came up with some numbers and you said that's what we got to try to look at as far as how growth can pay for itself and I was impressed with that. Why do I think that's so important? I think it's important, because it shows that the City of Meridian is a city that can carry on its responsibilities with integrity and tact and I think that's important as we look to the future when as a city we have to have a relationship with the state of Idaho and the legislature, when there may be other activities that will take place in looking at other revenue vehicles that will be on a far broader scope with a sense of vision looking down the road. But the City of Meridian can stand tall and say we are a city that is going to do to the best of our abilities to do it right and I think that's great, because there is a lot of shortcuts that can be taken, but, you know, I have learned through my life that shortcuts aren't the way to go. And this is beginning. So, in conclusion, what I would say is you have got a process started, so as soon as you're done may I suggest that the first step you do is start the process for this for next year. That's the best thing I'd say. There is a lot of discussion about this and that, but as soon as it's done take only five minutes and go, haa, we are done and, then, turn right around and say let's start for next year. Okay. Thank you so much for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Alisha Kromas? Signed up for. Kromas: Good evening. De Weerd: Good evening. Kromas: My name is Alisha Kromas. I live at 3297 West Kirkham Lane, Meridian. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I live in Ten Mile Greens, a senior community, west of Ten Mile between Cherry Lane and Ustick. We are right behind fire station two and our community has utilized the paramedic capability of the fire department numerous times in the five years I have been in Ten Mile Greens. Because Meridian has grown so much in these five years, I worried that the services we now enjoy will be severely curtailed if the Council does not impose impact fees to the maximum allowable amount in order to keep up with continued growth in Meridian. Our dollars are shrinking every year and we must keep up with the growth by utilizing impact fees to cover the continued need for police, fire, and parks in the new areas. Our tax burden has almost doubled in the five years that I have been here and I fear if this trend continues we will be taxed out of our homes. In closing, I urge the Council to impose the maximum allowable impact fees in order that all areas of Meridian will have the police, fire, and parks coverage that we all currently enjoy. Meridian is a wonderful place to live and I would like to see that trend continue. Thank you very much. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 22 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Mary Ann Porter signed up for. Okay. Thank you. I thought you looked really familiar. Nice to see you. Jim Kromas. J. Kromas: Mayor and Council members. Alisha, actually, is my wife, so we both live at the same address. De Weerd: If you will just restate your -- J. Kromas: 3297 West Kirkham Lane, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. J. Kromas: New one. 83646. I'm going to be honest with you, until recently I thought that impact fees were universally accepted. I just assumed we all paid impact fees when we came here. And looking at these numbers, I just went through my mind again, if I was going to buy a house that I knew I was going to have impact fees, I mean it's a no brainer, I mean there is -- it's going to cost me, what, a few cents to make sure that the facilities are going to be there and the discussion that I heard tonight, the presentation, already said what I want to say, everything is all said, that we need these impact fees and I think we are just up to the amount that we are going to have. And had something to say, but everybody said it and I don't have to prove anything, but all I'm saying is that I'd sure feel bad if the services that we receive now are lessened because of the impact fees or taxes increased. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Susannah Arnim. Arnim: I'm Susannah Arnim, I live at 3587 South Springfield Avenue. Madam Mayor and Council members, I want to thank the City of Meridian impact fees advisory committee for its hard work on this project and for its support of the consultants' full cost recovery fee recommendation for the police department. Their services in preventing crime and reducing the impact on individuals, families, and the community at large are critical in our community. But I must disagree with his recommendation for reduced amount for fire and parks. Implementing the full recovery amount will allow our fire department to maintain existing levels of service as our city grows. The number of fire calls and inspection requests for residential and commercial structures is rising. The fire department's need to support fire services for a growing community demands a full cost recovery fee. Homes lost to residential fires are in the news each week. Like most people, my home is my greatest asset. I worked hard to purchase it. My name is the only one on the mortgage. I have it insured, but I know from a friend's experience last year that the loss of your home and the irreplaceable family artifacts it contains is every bit as devastating as being the victim of a crime. Protecting the investment, small and large, businesses make in Meridian is also important. If a business has a fire it is a serious disruption to its owners and employees lives and livelihood. We must have the fire houses and response times to protect our current and future residents. Our parks and recreation offering have not kept up with our growth. Meridian is playing catch up in the establishment of city and neighborhood parks. If we want to succeed in attracting Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 23 of 74 quality businesses and employee residents, we need to continue offering an exceptional quality of life. Parks enhance neighborhoods and communities and are a quiet, but effective element of our economic development efforts. I believe that the sources of growth in our community should pay their own way and recommend the Council vote for the full cost recovery fee for all three departments, fire, parks, and police. De Weerd: Thank you. Trent Wright signed up neutral. Wright: Hello. My name is Trent Wright at 9550 West Bethel Court. I'm here representing the Treasure Valley Realtors Association. We have about 5,500 members here across the Treasure Valley and I did mark down I'm neutral. I didn't know, really, what to put. We are for some of it and we are against others, so I thought I'd at least put neutral and get up here. First off, I'd like to comment that the process in dealing with Meridian with the impact fees and coming to at least this point has been highly successful. I have been working with the city of Caldwell, Nampa, Boise, and a lot of the other surrounding communities over the last couple of years and never have I been part of a process that's been so comprehensive and so well thought out until I came to the process here at Meridian and Tom Pippen has been a great asset to Meridian. I know he and I have gone back and forth on a lot of issues, but the issues that I'd like to talk about first and foremost is the 1,600 dollars and that the Treasure Valley Realtor Association supports the 1,600 dollars and any efforts to lower those below that would be even more appreciated. We do not support any dollar amount above and beyond the 1,600 dollars, regardless of the support of effort that the consulting firm has provided to the city. I believe one of your questions, Mayor, earlier to Miguel was what was some of the reasons we couldn't agree on 2,400 originally and why we are at 1,800 now and now you're asking for 1,600 and I think that can be fairly easily summed up with the fact that a lot of the information that was provided in the consulting firm for the original CIP just didn't pass the test when it comes to the Idaho statute for impact fee structure. For instance, your Borup Park that is purchased out there is a large part of your acreage, it's undeveloped and when it's undeveloped you can't count it as part of your park infrastructure. In other words, if a city resident can't currently use Borup Park, it's not a park, it's simply dirt, and, therefore, it had to be removed out of it. That was a big chunk of your 2,400 dollars. You wanted to get further into the development. When you're looking at fire and police, if you look at the definition of facility in the Idaho statute, nowhere in there does it talk about the jaws of life. It doesn't talk about breathing apparatus. It talks about the facility. And when you're talking about the facility I think that that's exactly what it means, it means the bricks and mortar structure to help the city get off the ground to build that building and wait about 18 months and, then, property taxes kick in to fund the rest of it like they should in most other surrounding communities. I think another comment was made that now that the City of Meridian has become the size that it is, the fire has to have different insurance regulations now in order to keep the insurance quote at the rate that is for the city, but I would also specifically look at the Idaho impact fee statute 67-8203, part 29, where it talks about clarifications of the system improvements that specifically do not include upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 24 of 74 regulatory standards. I don't know how more specific to put it, but that was some of the more specific language in Idaho code for why we continue to reduce the fee over and over and over again to get to that 1,800 dollar mark, so -- and that's -- I wanted to address your question earlier that you asked of Miguel and I think that's a more direct answer of why we are at 1,800 and not 24 and I don't think that the City of Meridian will get to 24 anytime soon for those very reasons, but, once again, I'm in support. My association I should rather say is in support of 1,600, because of the underlying fact that you are going from 800 dollars to 1,600, you are doubling the fees of the impact fee structure for the City of Meridian. That's so hard to get your arms around it when you're trying to build into your budget if you are a large developer in the community trying to get your bonding off the ground to get your.money in place, I don't think it's as easy as assuming it's, well, I'm looking to buy a house, well, who can't come up with an extra 1,600 dollars on a 250,000 dollar house. That's not quite as simply as that when you're the developer or you're the builder trying to get your projects off the ground and I'm certain that you guys fully realize that. The realtors fully support the advisory committee meeting on a more regular basis and if we need to adjust that in the upward motion or the downward motion as years go on by, so be it, but at this point in time my members are supportive of 1,600 dollars. With that I'd like to stand for any questions. De Weerd: I just have a question. You know, the impact fees are based on certain formulas and one of the reasons we got our consultants on board to really make sure that we were following the process per state code and make sure we did it right, so I understand from the committee's perspective that no one disagrees with the capital improvement plan that the numbers were derived from. I believe one of the communities that was not named was Star and they went from zero to 2,000. Did your organization come out and testify against that and -- you know -- Wright: Mayor and City Council, I would be happy to address Star's budget and impact fee structure at a separate time. I'm here to speak directly to the impact fee structure of Meridian. De Weerd: Well, we are not going from zero to a number that's -- that everyone has agreed on the capital improvement plan. I just -- I'm trying to struggle with how do you reduce a fee without the result of either lowering your standard of service or increasing the amount that the existing citizens have to pay and that -- I won't be breaking a tie, because there is three people up here, so I will not have a vote on this, but that's the bottom line question. Wright: And that's certainly a decision that, unfortunately, I'm glad that I'm not in the City Council, that you're going to have to make, whether it's adjusting the growth portion of that impact fee -- there is many ways to look at this. I mean you could double your efforts in getting members of the develop community to donate their land. I know that you have specifically expressed it as becoming harder and harder as land values go up, why would I want to deal with the city when I can get top dollar, but there is a lot of wiggle room I think out there, there is a lot of arena, the building -- or, excuse me, in the bonding process. I just don't think that it's fiscally responsible to rely solely on impact Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 25 of 74 fees to keep a city floating on the city services. My association personally in our policy guidelines supports impact fees. They are necessary to keep communities going, but they are necessary to keep communities going from -- from -- from a standpoint of we don't want growth to stop. But we don't want the impact fees to be the crutch that carries everything. You know, routinely we hear the stories of large cities in other parts of the country that have 30,000 dollar impact fees and 45,000 dollar impact fees and so why are we here in the City of Meridian arguing about 1,500 and 1,600 and 1,800 and 2,000 impact fees and I'd just like to point out that if somebody in those communities would have got up and argued a lot of points that the builders and the realtors are arguing at this point in time, they might not have eventually got to those high dollar marks and I think that to make the argument that it's -- that it's just as simple as if I'm looking to buy a new home in a part of the community and that impact fees are just a small part of that, why wouldn't I want to pay that 1,600 or 1,800 dollars to have those services is very short sighted on the overall fiscal structure of the community. There are more people moving from within the community to other parts than there are actually outside people moving into specific new subdivisions in the new construction parts that this fee will be applicable to. So, I find it very difficult to say or support people that say that the growth does not pay for itself, I mean those people that live here are paying, you know, taxes in just about every form and fashion from going to the new Cabello's and buying gear, going to the gas station, going to the local gym, you know, local city attorneys and so forth. I mean there is so many areas that people are paying their fair share to make sure this community stays afloat and that's all new growth any way you want to look at it. De Weerd: Well, we appreciate them supporting our Council members. I just -- I would like to say something, because I think Councilman Bird really is the symbol of that. Our community has a long time tradition of not looking to our taxpayers first. We do look for community and we are community partners. We have public-private partnerships all over the place. So, this isn't the first place we look. And as I understand it from reading the reports and exercises, that it's the proportional share of this growth, it's not more and it's not less and I'm sure if it was more you would be standing here on legal ground telling me exactly which line item that applied to. We will look under every rock to make sure that we pursue grants or we look for partnerships with developments as they come in, we will continue to do that, and I do understand that was discussed at the committee as well. Wright: Mayor and Council, if I could point out -- I guess what I'm trying to provide for you is a little bit of cover. There are a lot of people that are watching what is going to happen to the City of Meridian with their impact fee structure, specifically because if you -- I guess what I'm trying to say is some of the definitions of what a facility is some other definitions that we are currently going back and forth of, will be defined for you in an effort to reduce what the cities can raise their impact fee budgets to. So, I would be careful in recommending a CIP that might be questionable in certain areas, because you might be crippling other communities that might want to use some of these particular issues that you're getting money for. Those decisions will be made for you at a higher level, I guess. If we need to go back in and clarify the state statute to say what Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 26 of 74 a facility is or what you can or can't raise the dollars and spend the money on, that is an effort and a direction that we are ready to go. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Trent, Miguel had made a comment in his remarks that at least his organization didn't have an objection and accepted and understood the full capital improvement amount of 1,846. Their concern more was directed on its immediate implementation versus maybe the phased in or addressed in a different way. Do the Treasure Valley Realtors feel the same way? Wright: Largely, yes. I think in addition to that they would also like to have a 60 day phase-in from the actual point that it's applicable, if you guys decide to implement it, instead of this traditional 30 days. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: The other question I had for you was you made reference to reductions in concerns with the fire impact fee schedule. If the parks impact fee schedule was reduced, was there something specific with regards to their capital improvement plan that -- Wright: I think largely some of the issues were, for instance, there was -- at the very beginning of this process there were lawnmowers, for example, there was two 65,000 dollar Iawnmowers that were part of the CIP program and that falls under the maintenance schedule of things and that's really something that the city has to pick up on your own dime. Another reference I made was to the Borup Park. That's a large chunk of land that the city currently has for its parks infrastructure, but it's not developed, it's not green, there is not grass out there, people can't use it, so you can't use it in your level of service for a thousand people, so that needed to be pulled out, too. Borton: I understand that. But when I look at the final approved capital improvement plan where a maximum allowed fee is derived, which doesn't include the Borup property -- Wright: Okay. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 27 of 74 Borton: -- then that maximum allowed fee is recommended to be reduced from 1,384 down to 1,215 -- Wright: Okay. Borton: -- of what's included in the capital improvement plan after those things have been removed, was there something, then, in addition that you thought shouldn't have been -- Wright: Well, I -- the association did feel that some of the trails and pathway improvement part of it should be removed -- and, granted, that's only a 75,000 dollar portion of it, but when we are talking about parks and recreation, I think largely where we would like to see the reductions come from -- I think that we can keep the total list here of parks improvement, but if we want to get to that 1,200 -- Borton: 1,215. Wright: Thank you. -- 1,215 number, we need to focus on a hundred percent contribution that's being placed on growth. I think that if we really realize it, I mean we are going to get communities from all over the valley using specific parks in our area, not just our residents, and our own residents that are currently enjoying the parks that are built using others. So, what is the sole reason for placing one hundred percent of that growth portion on new growth? I mean a large reason why the city of Boise is under 1,300 dollars is because their portions are a much lower percentage. Now, they come to it from a different mathematical standard, but they firmly believe in their structure that those percentages should be much less, because everybody in the community will be using those. Unfortunately, if you try to apply that same sort of growth portion of math to some of the fire and other instances, I think Tom could very well defend that -- the way that the fire and police services work is a much different standard, but when you're looking at parks, I think a large part of our association and belief is that that percentage should not stand at one hundred percent solely towards new growth. And I think that we could adjust those percentages to get to the number that would be recommended under the 1,600 dollar mark. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Wright: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Ted. Mr. Baird. Baird: While the threat of legislative tinkering is still in the air, I'd like to address what the committee did. It's been mentioned about the process and how what's in the CIP Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 28 of 74 has been fully vetted and everybody involved with the process, in my understanding, is comfortable that what's included is defensible. We have had legal reviews. We have had community reviews. I can't think of anything in there -- anything that was questionable was taken out. At every opportunity when the committee had to make a choice, the consultants always recommended the most conservative route. So, you have got, in our opinion, a very defensible capital improvements plan. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Wright: Thank you. De Weerd: Summer Crie has signed up for. Crie: Mine's really short. De Weerd: You can pull that down. Thank you. Crie: My name is Summer Crei. I live at 2282 South Retriever Way. My husband and I have lived in Meridian for almost eight years. We have two daughters, two and four years old. We choose to live in Meridian, because the quality of life that it has to offer to us and its services. We don't want to see our services deteriorate with the growing population and encourage you to require new growth to pay for itself and to adopt the maximum allowable fee proposed. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Those are the names that were signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Yes. Come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address. McCoy: Bruce McCoy. 2171 South Retriever. I just feel compelled to say a few things to the City Council in hearing all the discussion. As president of the parks commission in the past four years I have seen the city really struggle with the whole parks issue. I think some things are not understood. I mean property values here are great. My house has gone up 25 percent in six years, so has raw land. And that's the biggest issue with parks. By Idaho state law, we cannot provide greater services outside the City of Meridian than we provide to the City of Meridian residents in the city limits. So, that means that we are at the mercy of developers to provide parks beyond the city limits as new subdivisions come on. Also, I think it's misunderstood when people look at parks and recreation fees, it was being sort of expressed that that was something passed from the developer to the home buyer. In most cases what happens is those fees actually get processed from developed to the city in exchange for land values and they give city land -- land to the city for development in exchange for the dollar amounts. And by keeping that at that point it allows us to have more to deal with and actually get bigger parks and actually provide more amenities to the citizens and I think that's important to note. If that number shrinks, we won't get but maybe five acre parks here, little pocket parks there, and no large areas for people to congregate and enjoy the recreation that the city has to offer. So, I think those are some important issues to Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 29 of 74 consider. I support, obviously, the full proposed 1,846 with the full amount going to parks, that it needs to just keep pace. At this point we finding barely three acres per thousand residents in the city and the goal is to get the five and possibly seven or beyond to make this city be like many cities we all admire. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir. Whitney: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Ron Whitney. 2635 West Primeland Drive, Meridian. I'm kind of in Trent's position, I'm a little bit neutral. I'm going to wear two hats tonight. My first hat's going to be representing the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho and would like to say that we do really appreciate the open door policy you have had towards working towards developing these impact fees. It's been great to work with Tom and the group and the city advisory committee working on this. My -- and I just want to throw out a couple of thoughts, you know, is what you're thinking about this. I know there has been a lot of talk about how the fees have been developed and I think the methodology is very concise. There is state statute that says what you can use impact fees for. I think the biggest thing that hit me in the whole process is -- is that it's -- the whole thing's, basically, founded on growth projections and those growth projections are based on information that comes from various organizations and agencies that deal in that aspect throughout the Treasure Valley. But those projections are just that, they are projections. They are a crystal ball. They are a guess. And they are our best guess, but all in all what it means is that it is subjective. As objective as the process is, the final number is very subjective based on those growth projections and that's probably why you're seeing a lot of the variations in the fees that are being proposed. So, I don't think what we have is a concise number. It is based on some projections. Turning my other hat around, as a builder here in the Treasure Valley, a relatively small builder. I have projects in Boise and Garden Valley and the City of Meridian right now that I'm working with and within that I have two clients, one is a young family, I built a house for them five years ago here in Meridian and they have come to me and asked me to design another house and build them another house here in Meridian. The whole idea that growth must pay for itself, which we constantly hear, seems to assume that that growth is all coming from outside the city limits. Let's let those outsiders pay for this growth as they come in. What we forget is our own citizens here within the city who are making lateral moves. The other client I have is an older lady. She's moving down, she's redesigning her house so that she can move her mother in with her. They are both currently citizens of the City of Meridian and in each case, you know, as I'm going through the line items of what their cost on the homes are going to be and we are in the early stages, if these impact fees take effect before we get their plans in to plan check, they are asking, gees, you know, I'm already here, I'm not growth, why do I have to pay these fees anymore than my neighbor does, just because I decided that -- in one case they are moving within the same subdivision, probably not making any more than a half mile move and the older gal is probably moving about three miles within the city. So, I think we need to be careful about the concept of let growth pay for growth and assume that that growth is all coming from outside our city, because we do have a lot of citizens here who are moving laterally within the city. Thank you. I'll stand for questions. Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 30 of 74 De Weerd: Well, Mr. Whitney, I guess I will just make a statement. I was one of those lateral moves, but I know that someone from out of the area bought my house and so when I vacated that house and moved into the other house, I did create growth, because of the new people coming in. Did I pay the impact fee? Yes, I did. I created another impact. So, it is -- it still is an additional set of residents coming in, because that is who will fill that new -- your old house. Whitney: Only if that is the person who fills out that house. We do have young families who are buying their first homes right here in the City of Meridian that have growth up in the City of Meridian and most likely they are the ones who are going to buy that house for somebody else who is moving up, because that's going to be the starter home that they are looking for. So, I would agree that, yes, we know that a percentage of -- a high percentage of our growth is coming from outside the city. I just don't want us to forget those within the city and particularly those young families, you know, who are looking for new homes. We are looking at one set of fees here with the City of Meridian and we know that ACHD is increasing fees and we are seeing a constant rise in fees and we are just trying to make sure that we can also maintain an affordability to our housing. De Weerd: I appreciate your comments. Whitney: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further testimony? Okay. Tom, do you have any additional comments? Pippen: I would be happy to answer any Council questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If we can have -- just address -- there was a question on growth projections. If you could briefly address that for us. Pippen: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Tom Pippen once again. There was a question as to the growth projections. In my opinion, that's a good question, but I don't think it impacts, to excuse the pun, the fees, because impact fees are on a per unit basis. In other words, we have developed CIPs assuming a certain level of growth. If it turns out that Meridian grows slower than what we have projected, you will collect less money, but that's okay, because you won't need to build the full CIP. If it turns out that Meridian's growth accelerates beyond what we expect, then, you will need more than what we have talked about in the CIP, but that's okay because impact fees are on a per unit basis and in that case you would collect more than what we have estimated. So, it Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 31 of 74 CJ is true that we did have to use growth projections, but the key point is that those projections are tied to the CIP on a per unit basis and the actual level of growth that Meridian experiences in the future is neutral to the consistency and the integrity of the fee system. I can guarantee you you're going to grow at a different rate than what we estimate, but that's okay, because you'll either spend less than what we estimate, but the appropriate amount on a per unit basis, or you will spend more than what we estimate, but, once again, it will be appropriate on a per unit basis. De Weerd: Thank you. Did that answer your question, Mr. Wardle? Okay. Anything further? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Tom, I do appreciate your candor. It might be the first time I have heard someone acknowledge a growth projection might not be accurate. Pippen: I don't feel like I'm making a big concession there. Borton: Let me ask you just generally when an advisory committee makes a recommendation for an impact fee amendment based upon a capital improvement plan -- Pippen: Uh-huh. Borton: -- by way of example, Ida Max is in the capital improvement plan and an impact fee is amended to accommodate for that item -- Pippen: Right. Borton: -- or a reduced impact fee, let's say, to accommodate for that item and others. Is there any -- does that preclude the -- an advisory committee the next year or year and a half from forming again, reassessing the impact fees and if that particular item hadn't purchased yet or acquired yet -- Pippen: It could be put back in. Yeah. Nothing precludes the CIP from being updated every time the fees are updated. Barton: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Just one other. Have you seen other municipalities, either locally or where ever you have done your work, that have utilized some sort of regular schedule, be it every Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 32 of 74 single year, every two years, that you would recommend, regardless of what happens here today, Meridian get on a particular schedule going forward? Pippen: It's fairly common in most western states -- and I have done impact fees in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and now Idaho. It's fairly common for the advisor committee to meet at least once a year. Some communities consider meeting quarterly and in my experience that usually works for a little bit, but, then, meeting fatigue sets in and there is not new data every quarter. So, I would say meeting annually is a pretty common thing. Most communities do what has been incorporated in your ordinance that you're considering, which is saying that we are going to have an inflation adjustment every year and that will just go on until we decide to reexamine the fees. So, if your advisory committee met every year and if they didn't have a specific recommendation for how to amend the CIP in year one or year two, then, the inflation factor would apply. A lot of communities in the western U.S. are adopting the ENR, the Engineering News Record, which is a construction cost inflation index, and they only bring the consultant back or they only have staff update the study every three to five years and inflation just kicks in in between and both Trent and Miguel mentioned that the fees could go down. That is a possibility if construction costs go down. I haven't seen it recently, but if you do tie the fees to the index, it could drift up or drift down. De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on that same point, the committee did discuss both of those considerations, meeting more often, and they did recommend meeting on a quarterly basis to avoid that meeting fatigue. I mean they recognize that maybe the potential would be that they wouldn't have a quorum each time if they would attempt to meet quarterly to assess are the fees keeping in line with costs. Secondarily, the discussion also was from the committee, the meeting I attended, about the phasing in of that 1,846, was that a practical way to impose the full fee at some point in the future and the committee did not adopt that as a recommendation, because the idea is to meet annually to assess the fee. And so since they couldn't and shouldn't change the fee except annually anyway, having a schedule of implementation doesn't make much rational sense, because each year you have to come back and justified what the fee is that you're going to impose. So, trying to impose it in 2006 and say next year we will impose it -- we will add another 100 dollars to it, still requires you to do the work to justify it, so it didn't make much sense. So, they did discuss the possibility of phasing that in and didn't find it, was the way it's structured in the statute to make any real sense to do it that way. De Weerd: We will let Mr. Wardle plug himself in. Mr. Wardle, did you have any questions? Wardle: No. Thank you. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 33 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Council, is there any further testimony? Thank you. If you have no further questions or information needed from staff, there is no further citizen testimony, I would consider a motion to close the Public Hearing. Unless you have things you want to discuss. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I have a procedural question for Mr. Baird. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: I notice within the ordinance, which we will be talking about in Item 12, the amounts which were published are currently blank; correct? So, we need to decide -- do we decide once we close the Public Hearing, decide an amount, place that in the ordinance, what's the proper procedure for that? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, to clarify, the public notice for tonight's hearings listed both the full cost recovery or what we are calling the maximum allowable and the committee recommendation. So, the public's been put on notice that it could be one, it could be the other, it could be something totally different. When you get to Item No. 12, the ordinance, you will need to select the figures to fill in the blanks. All the way down. You will have six -- five items to fill in, since we are not collecting nonresidential square footage for parks and recreation. The second item that you will also need to do in the ordinance -- and I'm anticipating that this would be in the motion for the ordinance -- is to select an effective date. State statute requires that it be at least 30 days after passage and publication of the ordinance. So, the earliest possible date, if the ordinance is passed tonight, would be -- I'm thinking October 9th. But we'd need a specific date so we can put the billing department on notice to get their systems updated to collect that fee on the implementation date. So, those two items I would anticipate would be in the motion for the ordinance, but there is nothing to prevent you from discussing that and expressing your preferences on the record at this point while the hearing is still open. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Did that answer your question? Wardle: I think we need to discuss it now, right, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor, if I may, I'd like to thank the committee for their hard work and efforts. Thank all the people who have commented tonight and over the course of this process. I'm troubled by one -- one issue and, really, only one issue and that is understand the rationale that the committee came up with on the reasonableness of 1,600 dollars as an impact fee. I understand from a real world dollars and cents sort of measurement that that could be applicable to our current fee. I just -- the one thing that I have heard repeatedly from our staff and consultants is that the methodology supports a different number. And so I really am having a difficult -- I can understand the issues of affordable housing, people moving laterally from the community. I can understand all Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 34 of 74 those sorts of things. But I -- when -- I think what I'm being asked to do today is to tell our community, in my opinion, what we are going to set for the future and so that's, really, the discussion that I have been listening to this evening. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comment? Okay. I look for your direction. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Baird. Baird: If there is no further comment from the Members of the Council, I'd suggest that you entertain a motion to close the combined public hearings. De Weerd: I think I have already suggested that. I'm just waiting for their direction. Baird: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Before that, Mr. Baird, do we have to -- and should we approve the Item 11 -- I guess we have to close the resolution of capital improvement plan before moving on to 12? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, that's correct. We put them in this particular order, because that's what the statute requires that before you amend your impact fee ordinance you must update the capital improvements plan. That's being processed as a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, just because the law requires it to be that way. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Baird, we -- at this -- the Public Hearing on the amendment, we don't pass the fees and everything until we get to the ordinance 06-1255; right? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. The resolution adopting the capital improvements plan incorporates all of the information contained in the report that's dated -- I believe, the final version was dated August 28th. There is a matrix contained in one of the appendixes to the report that lists the multiple requirements of Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 35 of 74 the CIP and by passing resolution 06-528, you would be in agreement that we have met all those requirements. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Just a little statement before we close the Public Hearing. First of all, we had some that -- impact fees are not going to help at all with your taxes, whether -- you know, your taxes are going to go up because of your assessed value of your property, regardless of whether this impact fee is passed or not. We are increasing it -- you know, we are doubling it if we go the 1,600 and we are more than doubling it if we go the 1,846. We do need it to maintain the service that we have got now. We have become too large of a community to do like we did in the last 35 years and that was when you needed something you went out and got people and you went and done it. As your community gets larger you need more and you're not going to get that kind of support. And our business people can only pay for so much money. And regardless of what we think the developer and builder is not -- the consumer is going to pay at the end with a mark up, regardless of what fee we adopt, it will be passed onto the consumer. I hope that it is -- you know, that these young starter families can afford houses, but I think that interest rates raising -- it's going to be worse than impact fees as far as them qualifying. I'm struggling on which one to go to. Like I said, doubling the fee is pretty tough. I am very stuck on staying with the fire and police at the max on them. If we come down to it, I could wobble a little bit on the parks. That's my statement. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I will throw out my two bits on the process and what we have seen and I do appreciate the work of the committee. It's extremely impressive, as Mr. Pippen and everyone that worked with you, did a fantastic job. I might have a real convoluted concept of impact fees and I have been corrected many times. The way I see them, regardless of the amount, I view them personally as a tax. I use the word tax. I don't like to use the word fee or assessment when things happen. And the reason I do it -- and maybe it's for myself, is to remind me what's taking place and I use that word when government gets involved and takes a piece of a private transaction and I know it's necessary and required, but I'm very sensitive to it. Because that's what happens here and it is -- it's an element regardless of the fee, where it's set, that a large majority of it is borne by the consumer and that's understandable, it's accepted, and I don't think there is anyone in the room that would generally disagree with that concept. It doesn't mean we don't need impact fees, but I'm extremely sensitive to their impact on consumers, I'm sensitive to the fact that the growth paying for itself and the ability to use Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 36 of 74 impact fees to pay for some of these services -- and I'm not suggesting this government body does that at all, but, generally speaking, it opens an opportunity for government to utilize other tax resources for other spending. Unlike a business, for whatever reason, you don't find a lot of government entities -- and, again, I'm not speaking towards Meridian, but I'm explaining some of my philosophies. You don't find a lot of government entities pinching and clawing to save every dime. Rather, if they find another revenue source, they utilize it, they spend it, and rarely do you see an opportunity for government to, then, return funds or take the return funds to the taxpayer. It doesn't happen. So, by way of example, if impact fees go to whatever it goes to in a particular municipality, you can invite an opportunity for that government, then, to expend general revenues on other stuff. It may be necessary, maybe not, but it surely is never going to be returned to the taxpayer. That just, for whatever reason, doesn't ever happen. My thought on this particular impact fee amendment is one that definitely, as Mr. Pippen suggested, should be reviewed annually, amended annually. think we will find in a year doing this again, some of these figures will change. I think some of the expenses will change. I think, in particular, one of the items most likely to change is land costs and perhaps development costs. We have seen the market already start to make some changes in that regard. I think those expenses are more likely to change in that short amount of time, as opposed to fire trucks, station construction. So, I would be inclined to accept the hard work and diligent effort and compromise that the advisory committee recommended. I think that as is -- everyone in this room and Miguel and Trent both acknowledged and other builders might agree as well, that the higher fee might be one that we get to, and maybe it's next year it goes to 1,846, maybe 2,100. Maybe 17. If it allows us to provide a more accurate reflection of the cost to provide these and maintain these services to Meridian, then, I'm all for it. And if we come back in a year and our CIP denotes an actual fee that should be anything below 1,846, I'll be glad that the committee made some compromise and kept the costs as low as possible to maintain these level of services. So, my preference would be go to the committee recommendation from the advisory committee of 1,600 in the amounts as they set forth and request this matter to be addressed next year and every year as Meridian continues to grow. So, these figures can be adjusted and accurately reflect the expense to maintain services for Meridian residents. That's my short version. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I'm really glad we got the short version. Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: He's almost as good as the one we had sitting there two terms ago, in his short version, but -- no. I have got a question for Mr. Borton. I, too, agree with the 1,600. That's what I would support. With one change. I would want the 377 to stay with the fire and take the parks down to 1,138 dollars. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 37 of 74 Borton: Councilman Bird, you read my mind. And I don't know if I alluded to some of my concerns -- not concerns -- some of my focus on the parks capital improvement plan where there might be the greatest opportunity for fluctuations in resources necessary to meet and maintain those needs. I agree with what you're suggesting, that perhaps the fire impact fee maintain at 377 and -- I can't do the math off the top of my head -- 1,215 1 guess less 77. Bird: 1,138. Borton: You have done the math already for the parks and rec fees. Again, to be assessed and reevaluated in a year. I have no objection to that. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird. Baird: Might I suggest that the discussion include what to do with the nonresidential per square footage for fire. The consultant has said it, when one goes up, the others have to follow proportionately. Bird: That would go to 25. Borton: I presume that would -- yeah. Bird: That would go to 25. Borton: Twenty-five. Bird: We are going up there and it's not applicable in the parks impact fee, so it don't -- don't do anything there. De Weerd: Well, Council, I guess since the Public Hearing is still open and -- and while I appreciate the preservation of the goals of the institution of new fees for police and fire, I guess I need to understand in being able to answer, because I get the phone calls. I get the phone calls from our citizens and the comments that growth needs to pay its proportional share. And so I need to defend your decision. And so I need -- I need some help with this. Is the message that parks are less important? You know, I'm just trying to get an understanding of how we can maintain the police and fire and arbitrarily reduce the parks, because the costs haven't changed in the formulas and yet the market might show that the price of land might reduce, but I guess we enlisted the help of a consultant to make us -- help us do it right, so we could stand the questions from both sides of this. So, I just need your help in answering the questions that I believe my office will be getting, because I do have a number of e-mails, letters to the editor, that I am cc'd on on growth should pay for itself and I would appreciate your help, then, in how to respond. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 38 of 74 Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If I might just -- on the issue of consultant report versus Council decision, I will -- I'll make my comment that while the consultant did a diligent job and brought forward a report, our citizens elect us to sit here and make these decisions, not to simply take a consultant report word for word. And so on that issue I feel Council decision is certainly more important than -- than just rubber stamping a report. And on the issue of are police and fire more important than parks, from my perspective public safety is more important than parks and recreation. I have said that before. It's not a new issue. It doesn't mean the parks are not important, but if you prioritize those two, in my mind they are. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: For 41 years I believe in the City of Meridian I have probably been involved in as much parks work and youth recreation as anybody in town, but I believe that the impact fee for the parks at this point, by reducing it to 1,138, is not going to hurt it one bit. I see -- I have -- it was brought up about the Borup property out there. We don't even have a master plan on it. We need -- we need to step to the plate as a Council and make sure that these parks ground that we have got are developed. Now, I realize that we have taken some big steps. You can't be behind in park acreage like we were ten years ago and expect in one decade to catch up. Especially when the city has grown the magnitude and the quickness that we have grown. So, I have no -- I have no problem defending 1,138 impact fee for the city parks. I believe that in the fire and police we need to stay and maintain the safety aspect. As our city has grown, so has crime and so has calls. We have had over 300 percent increase in emergency calls at fire stations. So, I believe we need to stay with that and I can assure the realtors that under this administration, under Tammy and this Council and the fire chief, that anything that we use on here will be a capital improvement. It won't be air tanks and stuff like that, I can assure you that. By impact fees in there, that allows us to maintain our paramedics that we have on every call that comes out, a first line person, and as I have got older and had some problems, I'm glad to have somebody like that that can administer stuff, be first line, I don't have to wait for the ambulance. And by having an impact fee so that we can buy some capital improvements through the department, allows us to pay the extra to have paramedics on our fire department. So, that's why I would support the 1,600 and I want to keep the fire and police at the same and I will play with the parks. Thank you. De Weerd: Play with the parks. Baird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 39 of 74 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird. Baird: Staff might appreciate some input from Council with regard to where to make up the difference with parks. Basically, you're taking -- by my calculations, 3.2 million dollars out of the park's capital improvement plan. Would you like to see that capital improvements plan revised? Would you like to encourage us to seek donations? I think jumping on with -- Stacy had mentioned earlier I think we need a plan. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Baird. That's, essentially, what I was asking in -- in that reduction is it had to go -- something had to go and so I'm not saying you're less important than a consultant, but they gave us the numbers and now we need to modify them. If we modify the amount, we need to modify the numbers, so -- because I think you're much more important than a consultant. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Mr. Baird, is that something that -- obviously, what we are seeking per direction this evening, in addition to some of our other public hearings, is an amount from the Council and pursuant to that I would assume that we could have departmental recommendations come forward from any of those affected, would that make sense? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's within your discretion. If you pass the CIP resolution as is, that will be sending a signal that you're expecting either general fund, donations, or grants make up the difference. Wardle: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. If there is no further discussion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 10 and 11. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I -- it's just Item 10. Wardle: On Item 10. Thank you. Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 40 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Okay. A motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 10. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Resolution No. 06-528 : CPA 06-001 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. De Weerd: Okay. Moving to Item 11 on Resolution No. 06-528. Mr. Berg, would you like to read this resolution. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Resolution 06-528. A resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian to amend the text of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan to update the ten year capital improvement plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Resolution 06-528. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 11. Is there any discussion? If not, Mr. Berg. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Ordinance No. 06-1255 Third and Final Reading of Amendment to Impact Fee Ordinance increasing the park impact fee imposed on building permits for residential construction; and adopting new impact fees for fire and police capital improvements to be imposed on building permits for residential and non-residential construction: De Weerd: Okay. Item 12. Bird: Don't you have to read -- Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 41 of 74 De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read Ordinance No. 06-1255 by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1255, an ordinance to amend the municipal code of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, by repealing existing Title 10, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code, and by adopting a new Title 10, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code, to be known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance, to provide for the imposition and compensation and payment of a police impact fee, a fire impact fee, and a parks and recreation impact fee on future development, providing authority, intent, and definitions, providing for the establishment of the separate impact fee funds for each of such impact fees, providing for exemptions, refunds, credits, and waivers respecting such impact fees, providing general provisions, applicability and providing for conflict, severability and an effective date, which is 30 days. De Weerd: Thank you. And that's a -- Council, you have heard the third and final reading of Ordinance No. 06-1255. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? You already heard how boring the title was. Okay. Council, any discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would -- I guess it would be proper to insert the fees at this point before we pass it. The fees I am going to recommend are for police 85 dollars per dwelling unit, six cents per square foot on nonresidential. Fire impact fee 377 dollars per dwelling unit, 25 cents per square foot on nonresidential. And park impact fee, 1,138 dollars per dwelling unit and eight cents per square foot, for a total of 1,600 dollars impact fee and 26 cents per square foot on nonresidential. Baird: One correction to the math. That would be 31 cents per square foot. Berg: I think it was only the top two. Bird: I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 42 of 74 Baird: I might ask the maker of the motion to consider inserting the recommended effective date. Bird: Yes. I will do that. I haven't given the ordinance. And with that fee schedule, I would move that we pass Ordinance 06-1255 with an effective date of December 1st, 2006. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the fees as read by Mr. Bird. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from August 8, 2006: VAC 06-008 Request for a Vacation of a Pressure Sewer Easement within The Reserve Subdivision by Conger Management Group — southwest corner of North Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard: De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 is a continued -- and thank you all for being here tonight. We appreciate your involvement and your testimony. And thank you to our consultants. We appreciate the diligence you gave and leading our citizens committee. That was very much appreciated. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: And I hope that -- and I know you will, but I hope that we can at least -- I would hope that we -- our advisory committee on fees would meet quarterly and I'm sure you will see that that's done, if the rest of the Council agrees. Borton: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: My only comment to that is I would say quarterly, but to be reviewed annually by the Council. Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 43 of 74 Bird: Oh, yeah. De Weerd: We had that on the schedule. Okay. Item 13 is a continued Public Hearing from August 8th on VAC 06-008. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a requested vacation for a pressure sewer easement and the applicant has provided all the necessary relinquishments. Staff is recommending approval. Did you -- president -- it was a very short presentation, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: My goodness. Why thank you, Anna. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: It is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant here this evening? Canning: Madam Mayor, on the vacations there is no conditions of approval, so oftentimes the applicant -- if staff is recommending approval, there is no need for them to be here. De Weerd: They won't come, uh? Canning: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Council, it is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? I do have to ask. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Seeing no further Public Testimony, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 13. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council r September 5, 2006 Page 44 of 74 Wardle: I move we approve Item 13, VAC 06-008. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from August 15, 2006: VAC 06-004 Request for Vacation of the existing utility easements on the interior lot lines for Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26, Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 3 Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction — northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 is a continued Public Hearing from August 15th of VAC 06- 004. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a vacation of the public utilities, irrigation, and drainage easements for Sundance commercial subdivision, also known as Sundance No. 5. It's located on the northeast corner of Meridian and Ustick. We do have all the necessary relinquishments and staff is recommending approval. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application. Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 14. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Two ayes and one -- do we have enough to vote right now? Baird: Madam Mayor, yes -- Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 45 of 74 Canning: Madam Mayor, if you'd like to take just a moment to wait, I have to get some other drawings -- or some other slides up for another presentation that I have been waiting to do. Baird: Madam Mayor, I didn't realize the loss of your quorum and evidently that wasn't a permanent situation. Wardle: Aye. De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. That was closing the Public Hearing. Wardle: Sorry about that. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item 14, VAC 06-004. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 14 and to vote in Mr. Wardle as the next public works sewer meter changer. Okay. Canning: I thought he was coming to the charette for all four days. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll on approval of Item 14. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2006: MI 06-005 Request for a Miscellaneous application to amend the previously approved Development Agreement (AZ 03-038 and concurrent files PFP 03-007 & CUP 03-071) by removing a provision requiring all future uses on the site to be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process for Mussell Corner Subdivision by Brian Holleran — Northeast corner of Victory Road and Meridian Road: Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 46 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Item 15 is a continued Public Hearing from August 22nd on MI 06-005. 1 will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Mussell Corner project. It's located at the northeast corner of Victory and Meridian Road and the application before you tonight is a development agreement modification. To back up and give a little bit of the history, the city required, through a development agreement, detailed conditional use approval for all future uses in this development and that was done at the time of annexation in order for City Council --- at that time it was City Council, now it's the Planning Commission, to be able to review the buildings that were going to take place and the conceptual -- in the development of that property. There was no concept plan presented, other than for the small portion in the front, which now has the -- thank you. Double D on it. Sorry about that. It's getting late and my mind is going. So, there was that requirement placed on the development agreement. So, the applicant is proposing to amend two sections. One is the uses permitted by this agreement and then -- that's in section four. And, then, also section six, conditions governing development of subject property. So, if the Council chooses to approve this development agreement modification, each building on the subject property would just be subject to a certificate of zoning compliance approval through the planning department, unless the schedule of use required a Conditional Use Permit, but if it were a permanent use it would just go through the CZC process. To support this request the applicant has submitted a master site plan that I will show you momentarily and also nine pictures of what future buildings would look like on the site and also detailed elevations for the next building within this development. Currently on the site there are - - it's 23 acres and it's currently zoned C -G, but there is a combination feed store and gas convenience station, a landscape nursery, which takes up the bulk of the property and that was the existing use at the time of annexation. A sprinklers contractor's business called 2M and that's in the structure toward the front. And so those are the existing structures. And just to also let you know, this is an entryway corridor along Meridian Road, so any structures that face Meridian Road would be subject to the design review guidelines in our standards in our UDC. So, those are just some of the existing conditions to get up to speed. Okay. One of the things that the applicant is asking for, along with this development application -- there is a lot of stories to tell, so I'm trying to take them in order and this is one of those stories and that's the expansion of the 2M use. So, they are currently in a metal building on the property and they want to expand that use. At the time that the annexation went through, that 2M contractor's yard storage wholesale warehouse unit was viewed as accessory to the sprinkler -- to the Victory Greens operation. So, we had a large landscaping business staying on the site and there was a -- kind of ancillary sprinkler contractors building staying on the site as well. The original intent was that those would be redeveloped over time, he would see the concept plan. That's the concept plan you're getting before you tonight. But they are proposing that that nonconforming use, that contractors yard, sprinklers building, stay on the site. And they are actually proposing a new building to facilitate the expansion of that use. Now, staff worked with the applicant that -- the use is technically prohibited in the zone, it's an industrial use, this is a commercial property. The one avenue of approval that we were able to find is that flex space is an allowed use in the Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 47 of 74 C -G. Flex space is generally to accommodate -- there is usually some wholesale component or some warehousing or storage component, a small office, and also a small retail front. So, staff felt that this was the only thing close to what the built form that this use needed, so we have been working with them as this is a possible opportunity. We have worked with them. We have elevations of -- of that use. Here it is. So, this is the elevation that would face Victory Road and we have worked with them to make it look like several tenants. The flex space is not -- it's somewhat defined as being just those mixes of uses that I talked about with -- for -- in a multi -tenant structure and it's also talked about in the definitions of the UDC is generally a higher design standards than what you would see typically in like an industrial classification. The best example of a flex building that I can give to you is those on the backside of Winco. As you go toward Lee Reed there is some new little buildings there. You may have noticed the large retention basin that's landscaped nicely, but those -- the VGA did some buildings back there that are quite nice, but -- and those are our best example of flex space in the City of Meridian, so -- this is the applicant's proposal for the expansion of the 2M use. Staff has some concerns and we have voiced these. Typically, we are talking about a multi - tenant structure. So, what you would see on the backside of a facade like this would be four overhead doors. The idea being that -- you know, that -- that each of those is a separate unit, instead of housing one single unit. We did talk to the applicant, they felt that because this was a metal siding material, that those doors could be added at a later time. Okay. Now, I'm going to move on to the actual DA changes. The recorded development agreement currently states that each new use will be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process. What they are proposing is that instead that the language be modified so that uses allowed under the city's Unified Development Code - - that principally permitted use would be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit approval, provided all future buildings have -- and this gets to some of these elevations. I will put up Double D. That will help you picture some of these. A sloped metal roof with overhanging eaves that are supported by posts, are oriented toward the public street, front door facing street, siding visible from the street containing at least three foot tall wainscoating constructed of stone, brick, or other similar materials. And you can see all those features at play on this elevation. And each building is generally consistent with the nine pictures submitted with this application, as determined by the planning director. If a future proposed building is not consistent with the -- those provisions, then, the building would be -- require conditional use approval. Let me go through some of these photos for you. So, again, you have metal roof, large overhanging eaves. You don't see the wainscoating in this one. This elevation you see the metal roof, the overhanging eaves. You can see them in these two elevations. And, then, the wainscoting. Future construction would be consistent with the master site plan. I'll go up to that. This is the master site plan. This is the existing Double D building. This building, I believe, also has prior approval. These are the existing structures on the site. This area would be for the existing Victory Greens to continue until further decided. And, then, these would be the new structures proposed on the site. Do need to point out they have shown a northern entrance to the state highway facility. That was only approved as a temporary entrance for Victory Greens property use. It was very specifically temporary until such time as you saw this concept plan and, then, that direct access to the highway would go away. So, just want to make it Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 48 of 74 clear on the public record tonight that Council should view that northern entrance as not an appropriate entrance at this time as shown on the site plan. Furthermore, staff has suggested that any individual building be limited to a maximum 11,000 square foot building footprint and let me -- all buildings with frontage on Victory Road or Meridian Road will be limited to a maximum 11,000 square feet and no building on the site would have a footprint larger than 20,000 square feet. So, along the front you would have the smaller buildings and, then, as you got to the interior you get some larger ones. If the future proposed building is not consistent with the master site plan, then, the building shall be required to obtain CU approval. And, then, that all future buildings on the subject property will be required to submit a certificate of zoning compliance application and all future buildings adjacent to Meridian Road will be required to obtain design review approval. So, those two sections already applied. That was with regard to then allowed uses, so the next section is conditions governing development of the subject property. Currently now it just says that they all need to go through a CU. Staff is proposing that it just be changed to say that it needs to be consistent with section four and those were all the details I provided. I have gone through all the elevations with you. Staffs recommendation is for approval, but, please, direct the city's legal department to draft modifications to the recorded development agreement of Mussell Corner as proposed or as modified, but also, please, address some of the outstanding issues noted in the staff report and those, essentially, are do you want to require additional modifications to the existing 2M building that's in the existing metal building on the site at this time. Should the proposed flex building be allowed to house the expansion of the nonconforming 2M use, is the concept plan sufficient to remove the CU requirement in Council's mind. And, again, please, note that with any decisions you're making you're not authorizing the northern entrance to the state facility. And, then, are the proposed design standards sufficient to remove the CU requirement. So, there is a number of outstanding issues that Council needs to comment on and we can adjust them accordingly. With that I will end staffs presentation. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for Anna at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Oaas: My name is Eric Oaas. 519 West Front in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Oaas: Distinguished Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. We appreciate the opportunity to talk with you tonight about this proposal and with regard -- really, there is, really, two -- you know, in our mind there is, really, two parts of what we are proposing tonight. One is the modification to the development agreement and the second is to really address the 2M -- the specific use that we are talking about. So, with regard to the first, there, really, are three -- I guess three points that I'd like to make with regard to why we think it's appropriate to modify the development agreement and the first is that the CUP provision that is part of our development agreement is really no longer required by City of Meridian in similar subdivisions due to the adoption of the Uniform Development Code. We are, thus, only requesting that we be held to the same Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 49 of 74 standard as new subdivisions. Second, we -- as Anna mentioned, we will still need to get a certificate of zoning compliance, which must be approved by the planning department, so you're not handing us any kind of a blank check. And, third, we are creating -- actually creating less work for city staff by foregoing the CUP provision. It should shorten the process and save time and money for the city. Now, there are -- we have provided -- as Anna has said, we provided the City of Meridian the proposed development standards for the Mussell Corner in the form of a master site plan that you see and the representative pictures of similar buildings. These design standards have been reviewed and supported by staff. The development standards will provide uniformity and consistency to the design for the entire development. As Anna said, these guidelines include pitched standing seam metal roofs, wood frame porch roofs, and columns, attractive store fronts with a fair amount of glass. And the siding of future buildings will be similar in material, but different in looks, so that we are not necessarily making all the buildings look exactly the same. The second part of what we are proposing tonight is approval of the 2M building and, as Anna indicated, staff has been very helpful to us in trying to help us figure a way to make this work. And the reason that it's important is because 2M is a -- it's a Meridian business. It's been here for 11 years. They employ, you know, nine people, they are looking to add two more people and they have been in this location for -- for the entire 11 year period and there was a point in time when they came to us and said, you know, we need to grow, we don't have enough space in the current building, what can you do for us? We talked about laying out a new building -- next to the existing building and -- and, you know, got into this discussion with them. Well, they said, well, you know, that's fine, we'd like to go out and look at other sites in other areas. And so during this process, you know, we came to them with several proposals. They were actually looking at -- seriously looking at a site -- a couple of sites in Nampa and we were able to say now, wait a minute, this is where your market is, this is where your customers know you, this is where you need to stay. And Meridian wants to -- you know, wants to keep you here, you're a good valuable business to the community. They -- I think they gave it serious thought and they truly recognize that being here in this -- in this space was very important to them in their market. Their customers know where they are at and they have established a very good clientele there and they wanted -- they wanted to stay. So, we said, okay, let us go to work on it. To that end we -- you know, we put together a building and came back to them and, you know, proposed a lease rate that -- that they really had to swallow hard with and the reason is because the cost to the new building and the design modifications that we were making to the building were expensive. We worked with them over and over and over again. They said, you know, this is too much, we are going to go to Nampa, but, fortunately, we were able to -- you know, to get them back, get them back to the table and work through this -- this issue. What we are saying, though, at the end of the day is we are adding significant cost to this building over and above, you know, and those costs have to be borne and carried by 2M in their lease and -- and I guess in our opinion we have tried and with staffs support we have tried to make this building look as -- as reasonable as possible and a flex building -- as close to a flex building as possible, while containing the overall cost of the project. The fact that it is -- that it doesn't have multiple bay doors on the back side of the building to us is sort of irrelevant, because you can always add those doors later on, should another user Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 50 of 74 come into the building. You can always add dividing walls. All of these -- these items can easily be added to this building should it be required in the future. But we have negotiated with them, you know, a 15 year lease on the property, they want to stay there, they are a good employer, and we think we ought to work with them and we are requesting the City of Meridian to do the same. I guess with that, the bottom line is we believe that our proposed 2M building meats the intent of the planning and development standards required by the City of Meridian based on the following. One, the definition of a flex building, the use of a site for warehousing, offices, and/or retail showroom, flexibility and use of the interior spaces and low scale attractive exterior experience characterize flex buildings. Table 11-213, allowed uses in commercial districts. Under this table a flex space is a principally permitted use in a C -G zone. The table indicates that flex space is subject to specific use standards in accordance with Chapter 4 and, then, Chapter 4 goes on to say the specific use standard section that flex space retail shall not exceed 25 percent of the leasable area in any tenant space. At the end of the day we believe that what we are proposing is -- will comply with the -- with the flex space. We have -- we have modified the building to -- we think to the highest extent possible, while keeping the cost constraints in mind for this very valuable business. And with that I will stand for questions or, you know, I may call on our most able support staff here. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Oaas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council, do you have any further questions for Mr. Oaas? I guess, Eric, I do have a question for you, since there is no public testimony. It seems to me were you part of this -- the original application? Oaas: The original application for -- De Weerd: To annex this entire site and that sort of thing. I guess I ask you that, because I -- it seems to me like we had some neighbors from Observation Point that were concerned about what the view would be and, you know, certainly this is a better view than what they currently have, but the CUP also allowed them to be able to comment on design and that sort of thing, as new uses were allowed. Did you have a neighborhood meeting with the surrounding property owners? Okay. Perhaps your colleague can talk a little bit about that. Holleran: Brian Holleran, 519 West Front Street, Boise. Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 51 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Holleran: Madam Mayor, Council Members, we did -- we originally thought going to have to go through the CUP process, so we did have a neighborhood Sent out all the notices. I was not at that meeting. I do believe three -- tw neighbors showed up. Were you at that meeting, Eric? We had the meeting was little attendance. De Weerd: And there wasn't concern about the metal roofs or -- Holleran: I don't -- I don't believe so. De Weerd: Okay. Peterson: Eric Peterson. 2620 Pleasanton Avenue, Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. we were meeting. 0 or three and there Peterson: I was at that meeting and there was about five -- five neighbors from around the residents on the east side and they have no problem with any of the metal building that was going on there or that we had proposed. I hope that answers your question. De Weerd: Yes, it does. Thank you. Peterson: Any other questions? De Weerd: No. Thank you. Okay. Council, seeing that there is no further testimony -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I believe the planning director had some specific questions she needed answered. Canning: Yes, sir. There was -- do you want to require additional modification to the existing 2M building at this site. It's a -- it's just a metal structure. It doesn't meet these standards that they there are proposing for the new structures. Should the proposed flex building be allowed to have the expansion of the nonconforming 2M use. Is the concept plan sufficient in your mind to reduce -- to remove the CUP requirement. And also are the proposed designs sufficient to remove CU requirement. Wardle: Thank you. Madam Mayor, before I close the Public Hearing and make a motion, I will just -- from the design standard portion I think it really is something that we are asking. We used to require -- and I remember the discussion we had during this original application and the only ability that this Council really had to implement any Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 52 of 74 gateway standards or design standards would be through a conditional use. And so we placed that upon this application. Since that we have approved other applications that, in my mind, don't have the level of detail that's been shown tonight for this specific commercial development. So, I think that the site plan, comprehensive plan and design standards proposed in my mind meet our expectation and that -- for our original intent. From the flex space standpoint, I want to commend both the applicant and the planning director for working on how to -- how to fit a use -- how to come up with a way to be able to keep a business in Meridian and while I don't think it's something that we should encourage on every application that comes forward, it certainly seems in my mind to fit. I think we get a nicer product out of it. We certainly get a business that wants to stay in Meridian and make that work. So, those are -- I think -- did I answer -- Canning: Madam Mayor, President Wardle, the only one you haven't answered is the existing 2M building. And I don't have photos. It's -- it's a metal building. Yeah. Wardle: I guess my personal preference, Madam Mayor, would not be to require at this time that that -- that that building be changed. I didn't hear public testimony and heard that we did have some neighbors come to the meeting, so -- De Weerd: Eric, can I ask you another question? On the -- I do understand and appreciate your attempts to keep the existing business and meet their requirements for for their expansion. What is the intent on the existing building? Oaas: The existing building will be utilized by Victory Greens, the current landscaping -- well, nursery and landscaping business. It's there. De Weerd: So, it will be utilized by the business that is on site right now. Oaas: It will be utilized by the business and item -- one thing that I think is a real positive is they are going to be doing a lot of clean up. There is sort of a storage, containers, and various materials that are stored on the property that through this process they will be getting cleaned up and they can utilize this is -- this building to act as it really is, a service facility and a storage facility, so it leans up beside in a very significant way. De Weerd: Is there in any way to modify it, so at least it looks a little bit closer to what your flex building will look like? Oaas: Madam Mayor, with all due request, we are -- we are having to go through some pretty significant electrical upgrades to the building to bring it up to code. So, there are -- you know, are we really focused more a making the building a good, safe building to -- to live -- to work in, to add a lot of -- the materials that we are going for this flex building would be very significant and, essentially, would -- would price the building out of being able to utilize it for its intended use. It may be what we might propose is that -- that once the Victory Green -- Victory Greens facility is no longer present and, then, you Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 53 of 74 know, there is another use for the building and that -- and the properties, that they are not there anymore, maybe that's an appropriate time to look at upgrading the building. De Weerd: And maybe they can landscape it, to buffer the look. And we are providing landscaping, you know, across the whole -- you know, across the whole subdivision anyway. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Oaas? Okay. Thank you. Oaas: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Hearing no further comment, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 15. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor of closing the Public Hearing say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE ONES, ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any discussion, further information needed from staff? Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item 15, MI 06-005 and to instruct the City Attorney's Office to prepare the proper documents to amend the development agreement. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Mr. Wardle, do you have any requirements, then, on the existing 2M building that once it is no longer used by the landscaping business that it would go away or be brought up to a certain standard -- to the rest of the standard of the subdivision? Do you have a recommendation on that? Wardle: I don't have a specific recommendation, Madam Mayor. Unless someone would like to amend the motion. Bird: I don't. Wardle: I believe the applicant in the Public Hearing stated his willingness to do that. But I wasn't going to tie that to my motion. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. If they won't tie it to the motion, I'll tie it to your word. Okay. Any discussion, Council? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 54 of 74 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: 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: Item 17: Public Hearing: 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: Item 18: Public Hearing: 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: De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you. Items 16 is -- 17 and 18 have been requested to continue -- yes -- to September 12th, 2006. 1 will open these three public hearings for Council's continuation of AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we continue AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006 to September 12th, 2006. Wardle: Second. And, Madam Mayor, I believe we have the applicant here. Because we have continued this because we are missing a councilmember, if we could hear that that date would be acceptable to them. De Weerd: Okay. Well, this is a Public Hearing. We do have a motion and a second to continue it. Bird: We can still hear him, can't we? De Weerd: Procedurally, Mr. Baird -- Baird: let's see if we can get a nod. De Weerd: A nod is not a discussion. Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 55 of 74 Baird: Madam Mayor -- if we are going to have testimony, Madam Mayor, we should probably withdraw the motion. Bird: I will withdraw the motion. De Weerd: Thank you. So, I do have an open Public Hearing and we would like to hear from the applicant if continuing this to the 12th is acceptable. Applicant: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my clients and their consultants were here this evening and we are prepared to go forward. We did receive notice late on Friday from your legal counsel that this was a possibility that this would be continued. It certainly causes some delay and it certainly causes expense on my client's behalf. While we do recognize that Councilmember Rountree is not here and we respect your decision to go forward with continuing it until next week, we will be available then, but I do need to express our frustration at the late notice, because certainly had we been made aware of this week I think we would have been amenable to go ahead and continue it, not having to appear tonight and not having had all people here. So, with that we certainly would be amendable to continuing it until the 12th. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And we apologize for the inconvenience. Bird: Madam Mayor? I do, too, want to apologize, but we felt as a Council that Councilman Rountree had -- the one that had asked for the reconsideration, so -- and he I don't think had this planned a long time, something he had to do. Anyway, I would move that we continue AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006 until September 12th, 2006. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved to continue Items 16, 17 and 18 to September 12th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 19: Public Hearing: AP 06-001 Request for an Appeal of the Planning Director's determination that the submitted development applications for Waverly Place Subdivision are incomplete by Vacation Village Villas, LLC — 2510 Magic View Drive: De Weerd: Item 19 is a Public Hearing on AP 06-001. 1 will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Bird: Madam Mayor, before you open, can I make -- can 1 ask something? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 56 of 74 Bird: I was not here for the testimony on the original. I got in -- I come in late that night. I have read all the minutes, all the public testimony, so I'm asking my other two Councilmen if they feel I'm qualified to sit in on this. De Weerd: We haven't heard this, Mr. Bird. Bird: No. No. But I mean there is some background to it that I wasn't -- I didn't hear the people actually testify. I did hear -- I did read it and I have gotten ensuing e-mails and letters and stuff. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would say that while there is some background information, this is a separate applicant that I think the planning director is seeking Council's direction on and I'm comfortable with -- Borton: Absolutely. Bird: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: I guess just for the public record, this hasn't been in front of Council, has it? Baird: Madam Major, Members of the Council, we will certainly let Mrs. Canning give her presentation, which will contain lots of background, but that's correct, this is going to stand on its own tonight. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Waverly Place project and it is located on -- actually, I have got -- it's on Magic View. This area here. You had heard previous applications -- and I believe the ones that Mr. -- Councilmember Bird is referring to were on the other side of the street, but it was a similar situation. But this is a very separate application that you have not heard before. The only item you're considering tonight is my decision not to accept the application. You're not discussing proposed uses, you're not making a decision on anything other than my refusal to accept the application. The applicant turned in a project for a multi -family development on the property I noted and I determined that it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and could not be -- the complete application, unless it had an accompanying Comprehensive Plan amendment. That is the decision that they are appealing tonight. So, ultimately, the job of Council tonight is just to decide whether erred in not accepting that application. And now I'll go into a little bit more of the story. The future land use map for this area designates this property as office. The property to the interior of Wells Street is noted as commercial and, then, you will see the surrounding properties have a mix of medium density and low density residential. The applicant was not proposing a bump in a land use designation, they were just proposing Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 57 of 74 L -O zoning and, then, a multi -family development, which is conditionally allowed in that L -O zoning. I have to toggle back and forth between several things today here. The Comprehensive Plan -- I'm going to use the analogy of a bundle of sticks and you're all familiar with that for land use, but what we have got going here is that the Comprehensive Plan divides that bundle of sticks into various parts and, then, the zoning category divides that in a different way. So, it's important to focus -- in my mind it's important focus on what the Comprehensive Plan divisions were. This is shown as office and it states that this designation will provide opportunities for low impact business areas. These would include offices, technology and resource centers. Ancillary commercial uses may be considered particularly within research and development centers of technological parts. So, this is one of the most restricted comp plan designations that we have. It's not one of the most, it is the most restricted Comprehensive Plan designation. It only picks out a very few of those allowed uses from the unified development code and says, really, only a few of those would be appropriate in this area. Now, you can compare that to like the wastewater treatment plant mixed use area where the only excluded use is residential. So, in this case we have got this designation that really has a very limited number of appropriate uses that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. My understanding is I have been told about the hearing process for the Comprehensive Plan is that that was used because there was a commitment made to the residents -- at that time to the north and to the west that that office designation would provide a buffer between their residential estates or larger residences and the commercial area kind of at the core of the Wells Street property and that that office designation was purposefully very limited to provide that. So, when this application came in the applicant has suggested that L -O zoning is appropriate and consistent with the Comp Plan and I would agree. But they are also saying that -- find the right one. Sorry. That all the uses allowed within L -O are therefore appropriate. Their argument is that because the L -O use is appropriate, therefore -- because the L -O designation is appropriate in general with office, that any use allowed within that district is similarly appropriate and that's why when you get down to multi -family development where it's listed as conditional, they are saying that that's an appropriate application and does not require a Comp Plan amendment. Just to point out some of these conditionally allowed uses. We have restaurants, public infrastructure, parking facilities, nursing or residential care facility, nursery or urban farm, multi -family development, laundry and laundromats, light industry, informational industry, hospital, civic and social fraternal organizations, church or place of religious worship. So, to use their analogy, if multi -family is appropriate in this location, then, a hospital would be as well and I would believe that those uses, multi -family or hospital or many of those I read off, would not be a low impact businesses. The final thing I wanted to talk about with regard to my decision was -- if I can remember what it was. I lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. Oh. The multi -family development that they are proposing would be condominiumized. We ran into this issue before on Casa Meridiana in that the unit appearance would be very much like a single family detached -- or attached units, not necessarily an apartment complex that you would typically think of a multi -family development, this would be closer to townhouses. They would be condominiumized, therefore, they meet the definition of multi -family, but this would, essentially, be medium density residential development in the L -O zone and, then, Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 58 of 74 again, to remind you, the decision previously on the property to the south, they did provide a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Council did decide that residential wasn't appropriate on that piece of property. But that former action by Council did weigh into my decision as well. The general gist of that was that residential development wasn't appropriate at that time. So, all those factors led to my decision. And I think I have articulated it as best I can. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Canning: But I would be happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Angstman: T.J. Angstman -- I'm too short. T.J. Angstman, 3649 Lake Harbor, Boise, Idaho. 83703. De Weerd: Thank you. Angstman: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, I'm usually here or usually in front of city councils about applications pending. This is the first time I have ever been here about an application that's not pending and I guess -- I think I have figured out, as I sat here today, why we are here. Actually, I think the staff is -- if they could bring up the -- could you bring up the slide showing what the office -- it says in the Comprehensive Plan. Right here -- this elucidates where our problem is coming here. In my -- our submittal showed this. City Council passed Resolution 04-54 -- pardon me -- 454 in 2004, 1 would suppose, and modified that -- the Comprehensive Plan in this regard and added this following language to the bottom of that office paragraph. It says: Additionally -- it says additionally, as noted in the residential district section of the Comprehensive Plan, light office uses may be appropriate in limited circumstances and at the discretion of City Council. And what the applicant is appealing is the planning director's removal of your discretion -- from your discretion whether or not in this instance a light office use would be appropriate in this application and without evening allowing us the due process to bring our case forward to the Council, the decision has been made without public input and without a Public Hearing. I will tell you that my client has made a considerable effort to meet with the neighbors and gain consensus in the neighborhood in order to propose a project that would be appealing, not just to the applicant, but also to the neighbors, and so in that regard I have a few submittals, because we have statements from the neighbors that we would like to submit to the clerk and have in the record. I have from Jim Flecker -- Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 59 of 74 Baird: Madam Mayor? I'm sorry to interrupt at this point, but I really want to caution the Council from getting into the merits of the actual application and I don't want to cut you off, but I think that you're going there. Angstman: Sure. Quite frankly, I agree. I'm afraid that we are going to get into whether or not it's a good idea or bad idea in today's forum. Really what the question is, is it an issue of the Council's discretion or is it an issue where the discretion on whether or not an application should be approved has been delegated improperly or properly to staff and I think that your attorney is correct. Although we do have people who have asked us to submit their comments. And so I don't -- with that regard, I don't know what to say. I will say this. One of these is important and touches on the issue not of whether or not our project is a good project or not, but it touches on what the Comprehensive Plan says and this is from Richard Allison, who actually participated as a drafter in the 1993 Comp Plan and what he said in his letter that the 1993 Comp Plan is the primary policy document in identifying policies to guide future development and in the 1993 Comp Plan it designates the area that we are talking about as a mixed use -- it says mixed use area adjacent to 1-84 Overland Road and Franklin Road. In it it states probable mixed uses for the area could be commercial, combined medium to high density residential, open spaces to buffer highway noise, tourist lodging, industrial, office, medical and related land uses. That's the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, which is kind of an overriding guiding document and he submitted that in this -- and we do have from -- I would say, you know, from the neighbors that are adjacent that came to our neighborhood meeting, we have their letters of support. I agree with Council that, really, the question is whether the decision is taking away something that was at your discretion, correct or incorrect, but I don't know what to do. They did -- these people do ask that we submit them, so maybe rather than read them, if I could just submit them to the record, keep the -- our promise, you know, to them. That's up to you. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd suggest that since they are being offered that we accept them and keep them in the record. I'd advise you not to consider anything that's not relevant to the question before you. However, if this does make it to the next hurdle, those will be available to be considered on the record as the application is before you. That way they don't have to send the e-mails again. Angstman: Thank you. And I will just submit those to the clerk. Now, as I stated, it appears that one of -- perhaps the staff is operating without the benefit of this resolution indicating that these sort of things are a discretion of the Council members, not at the discretion of staff. But, nonetheless, even if there is -- what the Comprehensive Plan said and it hadn't been amended, we still believe that a -- should the -- if this is designated on the Comp Plan as office, had the city decided to annex this, perhaps involuntarily as -- and maybe the City of Meridian doesn't have that policy, but other cities in this valley have done that in recent memory. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 60 of 74 De Weerd: We don't. Angstman: Understood. But should you, it would be annexed with an L -O zone and what we are saying is if this is a conditional use in an L -O zone, it's the Council's discretion to determine whether or not it should or should not be approved and the public should have input, not just a -- the planning director deciding that the application is not complete. And at this point in time we have tendered a check for -- with our application fees and, then, we also had to pay 603 dollars just to have the benefit of coming here tonight. And it does seem to be a little bit onerous, because we really want to have the benefit of the input of the Council, if it were denied, to know, you know, what would -- what the Council would like to see in this area and without ever getting to the over the hurdle of having an application we will never know what the city wants us to -- how the city would like us to develop the site. I also -- I suppose most of these points have been made in our submittals and I would, you know, stand for questions on anything else that -- any other remarks that have been had or that were contained in our papers that were filed along with our application. I'll stand for questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions? Bird: I have none. Angstman: Thank you. De Weerd: Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the amendment to which -- I'm sorry, I have forgotten his name -- to which he referenced -- you will recall that a few years ago -- a couple years ago we did an amendment to allow parcels that were designated as residential for you to consider office uses if those properties were less than three acres in size. That's what that amendment refers to. The portion he was reading refers to office uses proposed in a residential district, not offices proposed in an office district -- or designation. So, that -- I didn't copy that for your consideration tonight, because this isn't a residential district -- or designation, so that's why you're not seeing it. It was that amendment that we did for those parcels that were three acres or less, where the surrounding patterns had not accommodated them through stub streets and where it was not possible for them to really redevelop the property as residential, but that, instead, an office use. And, again, just office uses could be considered there, not the full range of L -O uses permitted. And that was quite a bit of the discussion that we had during those hearings was just about the limited -- very much limited to an office use, not the full range of L -O. The 1993 Comp Plan was noted by the applicant as being an overriding policy document. It is not. The now 2006 amended Comprehensive Plan is a stand alone document, other than a capital improvements plan and design guidelines that are adopted as addendums to that. There is no overriding policy plan from the 1993 Comprehensive Plan. There was one thing I forgot to point out and I apologize for that. I had left the commercial designation up there, because it does note that in some Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 61 of 74 cases different classifications of uses may be consistent. So, we have got a multi -family residential listed as appropriate in a commercial district and you may recall you had an application before you the other night where there was -- and I said district again. Designation. Commercial designation. There was an R-15 district proposed within a commercial designation and I did determine that that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That's kind of the flip side of the question that's being asked tonight. So, just to clarify those things and to make it clear as to what the applicable Comprehensive Plan is. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I do have a number of people who have signed up in favor of the appeal. Mr. Baird, before I name these off and ask them if they'd like to provide testimony, can you give an overview of what kind of testimony we are seeking on this? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think when you gave your opening remarks you stated very clearly what the question is before you. It's not is this a good project or not a good project, it's not do we want this across our fence or not, it's -- the way it's been framed is -- is the application, should the application move on for your full consideration at a future time, a future hearing. And with that I'm going to throw it over to Anna and see if she's got any other thoughts. I know that Anna did talk with Bill Nary today about exactly how this thing was anticipated to be run, so -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, to my knowledge -- and we haven't done many appeals of my decisions, so this is a first for everybody a little bit. But I really think the only thing under consideration tonight is did I error or not. If you feel I have erred, just kind of similar to some other applications, what will happen will be I will accept the full range of light office uses on these areas designated as office within the Comprehensive Plan. There are other areas in the city that have this designation, but I guess that would be the next step -- or the dominoes in what would happen with this. I don't know if you want to extend that to other uses at this point. I guess I would just extend it to the L -O uses, but -- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Anna, when you use the term light office -- and reading the -- some of the materials provided by the appellant for this case -- are you using the term light office and L -O zone as one and the same? De Weerd: Yes. I'm sorry. It is actually limited office. I apologize for that. I think it used to be light office and now it's limited office. So, what he's saying is that all the zones listed in this -- all the uses listed in this zoning category of L -O would be appropriate in anywhere that's designated office on the Comprehensive Plan. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 62 of 74 Borton: And -- Madam Mayor? I guess is it your read on it -- it is mine -- that the analytical leap is the definition of -- or the language in the office definition of the Comp Plan which uses the phrase light -- the phrase light office is actually making reference to specifically the L -O zone? Canning: To my knowledge it doesn't. It says that low impact business areas include offices, technology, and resource centers. Borton: Right. I was making reference to the sentence that was added that was referenced by the applicant that says: Additionally, as noted, the residential district section of the Comp Plan, light office uses may be appropriate in limited circumstances. The phrase light office in that definition -- Canning: But that only applies to the residential district. So, I wouldn't say that there is that leap here. I guess I don't agree that there is a leap. So, it's hard for me to agree with your statement. Borton: I see where the confusion lies. Thank you. Baird: Madam Mayor? So, to recap your original question, the testimony should be limited to whether or not the planning director's decision was in error. De Weerd: Okay. Baird: That's the question for you tonight and what the testimony should be limited to. De Weerd: So, the application you received was for a residential development? Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: And why wasn't there a Comprehensive Plan change, then, request? Canning: Madam Mayor, that's what I asked for to deem it complete and they chose not to provide that application, they chose instead to appeal my decision. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Okay. I do have a number of people who have signed up. If you would like to provide comment when I read your name -- remember this isn't on the project itself, it's just should this be heard by Council. Rich Allison for. Allison: My name is Rich Allison. 916 North Main Street, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Allison: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Councilmen. There were a couple of references I made, which I provided a written copy to the Council and the Mayor, but there are a couple of things that I made reference to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan and the reason Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 63 of 74 I did so directly relates to testimony given by the planning director where she stated that the residents surrounding Magic View Subdivision had been promised it would be office only and that's incorrect. As stated in my letter, it says during our discussion -- and here we are into what -- well, maybe I should preface this slightly. We identified areas for special use planning. This property is in the mixed use areas adjacent to 1-84, Overland Road -- Overland and Franklin Roads. It states probable mixed uses in an area that could be commercial, combined medium to high density residential, open space uses to buffer highway noises, et cetera. Then, further, during our discussion in this area a number of residents from the Green Hill Estates Subdivision to the north of the property expressed concern about a 24 hour a day business that might be built right across their fence. Therefore, it was my recommendation that we designate the perimeter lots at Magic View Subdivision L -O, allowing as many uses as outlined in the section of this plan, but would prevent other such uses as a 24 hour a day gas station. This satisfied the adjacent owners. And this is actual -- actually, what I did at the meeting during the 1993 Comprehensive Plan review that we prepared in December of 1993 and was adopted in December 1993. Then, I went further to explain what limited office district -- what it actually means by ordinance and by ordinance it is a very lengthy -- not this meaning, but a very complete meaning and that is in the letter. And to my knowledge by ordinance it has never been changed. And, then, I went on to -- with regard to other things, which Council has said we shouldn't discuss. But I think those should be looked at carefully by the city attorney. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Celeste Fox is signed up in favor. Thank you. Okay. Just to go on record that you favor the -- support the appeal. Gene Fox supports the appeal. Okay. Alta Jones. Okay. Thank you. Rita Exline supports. Peggy Slotten supports. Okay. Is neutral on this. Okay. Betty Pearcey. Pearcey. Okay. She's in favor of the appeal. And her husband is also. Okay. Thank you. Robert Orcutt in favor. Okay. Bonnie Robinson in favor. Okay. Thank you. Judy Handlee in favor. Okay. And Sheri Stiles in favor. I'm sure she has something to say. No? Good evening. Stiles: Good evening. Sheri Stiles from Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens in Eagle, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Stiles: We are here only for one reason and that is because this is the second attempt we have made to submit an application on this property and the second time it has been denied. We were left with no other choice but to ask for an appeal to let it go through the due process and be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and to be judged according to the merits of the project. I would certainly hope that every project that comes in here has to comply implicitly with what the planning director wants and just be based on her opinion of whether it should be approved or not. As speaking from experience, it was unheard of to deny an application that was complete. We have submitted every piece of information that is requested for a complete application, except for the Comprehensive Plan change. It does not require a Comprehensive Plan change. The reason for the L -O designation adjacent to those Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 64 of 74 residential homes was to provide a buffer between the more intensive commercial uses and those homes. I can see where maybe the Council would be a little concerned that, you know, it would just be widespread residential subdivision after residential subdivision out there, but due to the price of the property and -- that's not going to be the case. I don't want to get into anything about the project. I guess I see if we are denied to go forward, at least to be heard and have our application continue through the process, there is no difference between someone coming in and requesting a commercial use that's allowed in an L -O district as a conditional use, because it's not office. I mean it's ludicrous. And all we are asking is that you let us go forward and let us go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, talk to the City Council and make our presentations and you just judge it according the merits of the project. You can approve multi -family as a conditional use in an L -O zone, but you do need to let the applicant know what -- under what conditions it will be allowed. I don't know if you have any questions of me, but that's all we are trying to do. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony on this application? You do have wrap-up remarks. You are the applicant. Angstman: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilmen. I would like to -- I have got a copy of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and I just -- I have to refute the statement that the -- that this amendment had to do with residential -- the definition of what's allowed in residential. And I wish -- I can give you one copy is all I have, but I will show you -- the underlined portions are what are changed. Here is residential and there is a section, as the staff indicated, regarding use of three acre -- three acre properties in a residential section, but that's not the section I'm referring to. You go down here where it says office and what I read to you is at the end of the office definition, not in the residential definition and I guess I can submit this if you don't have -- Borton: Madam Mayor, that is -- that definition is included in your submittal, the one you have -- Angstman: It is. You do have my submittal, so -- Borton: Page two of your remarks. Angstman: Okay. And that -- I just have to -- that's the only thing I had to say in rebuttal is that it is in the office definition, not in the residential where it says that this issue is a -- is a City Council discretionary issue, not staff. I would ask -- I don't know if it's possible. Like you said, this is the first time you have been faced with this. But think my client should get his 603 dollars back. I mean I really don't think that we should be here and have to appeal this decision when it's clear in the ordinance. So, I don't know if it's in your discretion to give that back, but I would request it if it is. Thank you. Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 65 of 74 De Weerd: Sir, I do have a question of you. I guess the same question I had asked the staff is why there wasn't a Comprehensive Plan change request with this application. Angstman: The use submitted is an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit in the -- under the Comprehensive Plan. It would be costly to my client to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment and useless, because it's not required under the Comprehensive Plan, it's not required under the ordinance. The ordinance says Council can determine whether or not this use is appropriate in an L -O zone and it's a conditional use under the L -O zone. Should this property be annexed it would necessarily be annexed with a zoning designation of L -O and as a conditional use in an L -O zone, Council can approve a multi -family development and that's what's being proposed is a multi -family use. It is a good buffer between commercial and residential and that's why your ordinance allows a conditional use. One of the things that staff said is the applicant believes that these uses should be allowed. That's not what we believe. We believe that Council should make the decision whether they be allowed. Council is elected, they are -- they have constituents, they live in the community, and they get to decide whether or not such a use should be -- should be approved or not, not staff. And that's fundamental to due process that the elected officials would make these discretionary types of decisions and that is why we chose not to simply submit a Comp Plan amendment and stipulate to -- that we don't comply with the Comp Plan, when we do. De Weerd: But that is her job to interpret that and you do have an appeal and that's why you're in front of Council tonight is you disagree with a determination that our staff was given the authority to make and that authority was given by this Council and so that's all I have to say on that is please don't keep beating up staff for doing their job. She was doing her job as she's asked to. You have the ability to appeal and that's why you're here in front of us today. This Council will make that determination, then. Angstman: Madam Mayor, I do take issue with the thought that I'm beating up staff. It is my job today to present my client's case, not -- my client's case is staff made an error. That does not mean that I don't -- I have sat here today and I have listened to her do a remarkable job on all these other projects. It is not meant to be a criticism of her as a person or the way she does her job generally. De Weerd: Okay. Angstman: In this instance she made a mistake and the mistake is the definition of office under the Comp Plan. It says that this is an issue at the discretion of Council and that does -- you know, this does raise due process issues. If your own Comp Plan says this is an issue that should be submitted to Council and staff members are taking that issue away from Council, that's a due process issue. De Weerd: Sir, I believe this is your due process, so it's here in front of Council. Meridian City Council • • September 5, 2006 Page 66 of 74 Angstman: It is, indeed. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I think I understand now what Councilman Borton was trying to get at and the applicant, but I think if you go back to that text amendment it's clear that that section reference was with regard just to the residential districts and that's why the residential districts are referenced in the introductory clause to that statement, so -- Baird: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Because your decision might hinge on which interpretation of 04-454 you believe is correct, could I suggest we take a short intermission, get you each copies of that, before you make your decision? De Weerd: That's an excellent suggestion Reconvene at 10:45. (Recess.) Council, I will call a recess for ten minutes. De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order. We are back in order. We are back in meeting. I think. Okay. Good to go? Okay. Council, you have in front of you Exhibit A, the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and I guess I would ask Anna for comment and, then, I would ask the applicant. Canning: Yes, ma'am. I can give quite a bit of information on that resolution that you're seeing tonight. This is the staff report written for that Comprehensive Plan amendment. As you will see here Wendy Kirkpatrick was the staff working on the application and this was the one that generated 04 -- just lost the -- 04-454. So, as you will see in the summary and the background material, that this will modify the Meridian Comprehensive Plan by adding a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The text will allow applicants to request L -O zoning in areas where the Comprehensive Plan designation of residential, which are located along arterial streets and section line roads. Additionally, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will allow applicants to request property with a public, quasi -public designation -- and I'll leave off there, because it's getting out of the realm of what we are talking. And, then, it goes through the specific proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and you will see here the underlying text of at the discretion of City Council, areas with a residential Comprehensive Plan designation may request office uses. And you will go down to office and you will see that language that was pointed out to you earlier and also some Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 67 of 74 language we changed for public, quasi -public. Staff went on to do a Comprehensive Plan analysis. Low density residential -- going to the last section. This application would allow for an applicant to apply for L -O zoning when the subject property is located on an arterial street or a section line road. Medium density. Again, this applicant would allow for an applicant to apply for L -O zoning when the subject property is located on an arterial street or section line road. High density same. Office. The proposed text amendment will not change what is allowed in areas with a Comprehensive Plan designation of office. So, the definition that would apply, that added language, was just with regard to folks applying for an office use within a residential designation -- district. Or a residential designation. I think that shows why I am sticking to what I see as the Comprehensive Plan, the allowed uses within that office designation include offices, technology and resource centers. Ancillary commercial uses may be considered, particularly with research and development centers or technological parks. And I guess there was a comment made earlier that if a commercial use came in that was not one of those listed, would I turn it away as an incomplete application -- and exactly that's what would do. So, you know, I wasn't doing this just because it was a residential project, was doing it because I felt it didn't meet this definition as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. De Weerd: Okay. Sir? Angstman: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, I respectfully disagree with that analysis. What you have been shown is a staff report, which is not ordinance and does not become the law for the City of Meridian. What is the law is what the Comprehensive Plan amendment stated and it states within its definition of what an office use would be, that it's the discretion of Council. Now, I do -- I can see how this could become an issue and how this decision could be made, but I, frankly, when I see the statement in the staff report, that doesn't change how office uses would be handled, I can -- we looked at the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, discussed it, and if this doesn't change what was happening before, what was happening before was office uses included anything under L -O category in the comprehensive -- in the zoning ordinance. So, if this doesn't change how offices were being handled, then, it would still include all the conditional uses listed in the ordinance under office. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Is there any further public comment? Meridian City Council 0 0 September 5, 2006 Page 68 of 74 De Weerd: Is there any further public comment? Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we close the Public Hearing on AP 06-001. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I see the problem with this is a disagreement with what was intended by the Comp Plan amendment and what specific definition states. For what it's worth -- and think the intent of staff is right on line with what perhaps was discussed and the staff report makes reference to. From my read on it, for what it's worth, the office definition and the additional language does actually modify -- modify that definition. And perhaps it's actually a question for legal counsel, Mr. Baird to determine, but I see the addition of that language and contractual interpretation rules which would allow you to pull out the phrase within the comment to determine what's been added and in the office definition it does add additionally light office uses may be approved in limited circumstances and that light office uses includes into the office definition in what was added. It makes reference to as noted in the residential district. I think what was intended was to apply that light office use to residential districts. It doesn't say that. Coupled with the fact that it's actually included within office definition paragraph, creates, I think, the confusion between staff and the applicant and I think that's my sense of what Mr. Angstman -- how he reads it. I see it ripe for a prompt Comp Plan textual amendment to fix that. It doesn't sound like that was what was intended when the amendment was made, but that's how it reads in the staff report, it's not what indicates or dictates what the requirements are upon an applicant. Those are specifically set forth in the Comp Plan. So, for what it's worth that's how I read it. I don't think we are -- I would be inclined to grant the appeal. I make no comment or no reference or indication one way or another on the application itself, whatever it would say and whatever it would do, I give no indication whether I would be in support of it or against it, regardless of what anyone has said here tonight. But I do think that the appeal is warranted in light of the language that's set forth in the office definition. And that needs to be fixed, because I think you will get additional requests the way it's written. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 69 of 74 Canning: Can I ask a follow-up question? De Weerd: Anna. Canning: Would deleting that sentence fix it? It seems to me that that's what needs to be done, but does it need to be modified or deleted, do you think? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: If the inclusion of this sentence permits light office uses at the discretion of Council -- so if that's not what is intended, then, the sentence should be removed. Including that -- the comment portion as noted in residential districts section, doesn't clarify its definition nor does it limit its scope to residential districts, it only sort of invites confusion that we have got, so I guess delete it. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, perhaps the direction could just be to planning to work with legal to craft language that will fulfill the original intent of the '04 amendment. Again, that's beyond the scope of the question before you, but if you see a problem you're telling us how you think it should be fixed. Borton: But I think that's the only thing that's fair to staff. Got to make these judgment calls and, then, if it's unclear you're the one that's got to wrestle with it, so to clarify it as best we can. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I guess I -- not having the experience in law school as a number of my colleagues here, the one thing that I look at is the question in my mind is really an appeal of the planning director's decision and I can understand her interpretation of this specific code and, then, were there any questions for her, she has some background information from the Council on a not -- not the same project, obviously, but in the original Comp Plan amendment, which was denied, there is some very specific public testimony language, discussion by this City Council as to the merit of any residential projects within a very very very specific geographic boundary, so I -- in that sense I can understand her specific decision on the incompleteness of the specific application without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 70 of 74 Bird: Put my penny's worth in. I agree with Councilman Borton. I think -- and I think we need to sit and really take a hard look is this what we really want in there or how do we want to do it. And, then, on staffs -- the benefit of staff, they -- we can change things up here. They can't. They have got to go by what the thing says. So, that's why they do their rulings that they do, because they have to live with it. We can change it. You know, I'm like Councilman Borton, how I vote today -- tonight isn't going to determine how I would vote on the application. De Weerd: Okay. With all the discussion, do I have a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approval or affirm or grant, whatever word fits there, AP 06-001, a request for an appeal of the planning director's determination. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second approving the appeal. Is that right? Bird: His motion is approving the appeal. Borton: Or -- De Weerd: Granting the appeal. Bird: Upholding the appeal of the applicant. De Weerd: Can you give me the words? Baird: Madam Mayor, let's go with grant the appeal and you might want to give further direction that what that -- what that means is that you're going to direct that it be accepted and set it for appropriate hearings. Borton: So moved. Motion to reflect that it be deemed complete, received, and set for appropriate hearings. De Weerd: Okay. Second agrees? Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council • September 5, 2006 Page 71 of 74 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: And I don't think the motion meant this and the second certainly didn't, but the applicant asked about the refund of his fees for this appeal. That isn't included, is it? Borton: It is not. Bird: Okay. Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 20: Ordinance No. 06-1256 : 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 North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: Item 21: Ordinance No. 06-1257 : AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) zones for _Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC — north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: Item 22: Ordinance No. 06-1258 : AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: Item 23: Ordinance No. 06-1259 : AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential) (10.42 acres) and C- N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC — southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Item 24: Ordinance No. 06-1260 : 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 25: Ordinance No. 06-1261 : 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: Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 72 of 74 Item 26: Ordinance No. 06-1262 : 2006 / 2007 Fiscal Year Budget: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Next items are ordinances on Items 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. 1 am surprised that no one wants to sit here and listen to these ordinances read by title only. Oh, Frank will. Thank you, Frank. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read these -- Berg: I will start, Madam Mayor, with the ordinance Item 20. Mayor and Council, Item 20, Ordinance 06-1256 an ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of the south quarter -- excuse me -- south half of the southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories 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-8 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 of the rules and providing an effective date. Berg: Item 21, 06-1257, an ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories 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. Berg: Item 22, Ordinance 06-1258, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the west half of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories 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-8 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: Item 23, Ordinance 06-1259, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, Meridian City Council 4 September 5, 2006 Page 73 of 74 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-8 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: Item 24, Ordinance 06-1260, an (AZ -06-027 Tapestry Subdivision) for annexation of property being all of lots 14 through 17, Van Hees Subdivision, as recorded in Book 12 of Plats at page 688, records of Ada County recorder, Boise, Idaho and a portion of the SE quarter of the NE quarter of Section 14, 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-8 (Medium 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. Berg: Item 25, Ordinance 06-1261, an ordinance finding that John Homan, the owner of certain real property has made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification (RZ-06-005 - Meridian Professional Office) for real property being Lots 1-3, Block 1 of Salisbury Land Subdivision, and portions of W. Sedgewick Drive and N. Meridian Road in Section 1, 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 limits of the City of Meridian; and re -zoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-4 (Low Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office 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. Berg: Item 26, Ordinance 06-1262, an ordinance pursuant to Idaho Code 50-1002 and 50-1003, providing for title and findings providing for the option of the budget incorporation of 95,835,010 dollars to defray the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian in accordance with the object and purposes in the certain amounts herein set specifically for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2006, and ending on September 30th, 2007, to levy all such appropriate taxes and levies as authorized by the law upon the taxable property and to collect all unauthorized -- excuse me -- all authorized revenues, to provide for the waiver of the second and third readings pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902 and providing for an effective date. The filing of a Meridian City Council September 5, 2006 Page 74 of 74 certified copy of this ordinance with the Secretary of State. And there will be a test tomorrow. De Weerd: I'm sure we will pass. Okay. You have heard all of those very worthy ordinances read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear them read in their entirety, any one of them? Thank you so much. Council, I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 06-1256, 06-1257, 06-1258, 06-1259, 06-1260, 06-1261, and 06-1262 with suspension of rules. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve ordinances on Items 20 through 26. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn if there is no further business. Bird: So moved. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:59 P.M. (TAP SE PROCEEDINGS) MA € WE RD °°� %DATE APPROVED TT EEMN IAM G. BERG JW, CITY CLERK sr'Bi/ H 1111 11111 1111111 +4\\ September 15, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 19, 2106 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -C REQUEST Approve Minutes of September 5, 2006 Pre -Council Meeting AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone. Emailed: Staff Initials: Medal presented at pWft rneetbW Axl become properly of the City of Meddkm. • Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting Setatember 5 2006 The Meridian City Pre -Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 by President Councilman Shaun Wardle. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle and Joe Borton. Members Absent: Charlie Rountree. Staff Present: Bill Nary, Bob Stowe, Ron Anderson, Anna Canning, Steve Siddoway and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Joe Borton O Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Bird: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we adopt the agenda as published. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. All in favor. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Item 3. Discussion with Lt. Bob Stowe about the 2008 Western States Police and Fire Games: Michael Perkins - Presentation Stowe: Thank you very much. Madame Mayor, members of the Council I am here tonight with Mike Perkins from Boise Police Department to give you an idea of what we would like to see come to fruition. We have been working very hard on an event. The Western States Police and Fire Games, just a little brief history of them. They started out in the late 1960's as the California Police Olympics. They have grown in huge proportions to include not only Police Departments from all the western United States, but also Fire Departments, too. We are 0 • Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 2 of 12 looking to bring those games here to the Treasure Valley in 2008, which is two years away, but still a very short time. In doing so, we anticipate a huge economic impact on the Valley. It is going to be organized by a group of people from various law enforcement agencies and fire departments in the Valley. So, with that I think I will let Mr. Perkins speak and tell you exactly what the particulars are on it. Perkins: Madame Mayor and Council members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to take a few minutes of your time. I think most of you are familiar with the concept of this. This is an opportunity that we look forward to bringing to the Treasure Valley and we are going to promote it as a Treasure Valley game. There is not any one city that can host these games. It is going to take the effort of all the cities throughout the Treasure Valley to include Boise, Meridian, Nampa and Ada County. All the venues that we are going to have — 55 different sporting events that will be offered to the athletes that will participate will be throughout the Valley. Many of them in Meridian. We look forward to the opportunity. This will bring between 5,000 and 6,000 competitors to Boise and historically they bring 1.3 people each with them, so we are talking about anywhere from 10,000 to 12,000 people coming to the Treasure Valley for a week. We have been working very closely with the Convention of the Visitor's Bureau. We have secured the (inaudible) hotel downtown and the Convention Center for our registration area. They inform us that a group of this size come in and will fill all of the hotels from Boise clear to Nampa for a week's period of time. Economic impact from the other games will be similar in our area; we will bring in $10 million into the area in a week's time. So, we are very excited about it. This is an opportunity for us to showcase our cities. At the Convention Center we will have vendor booths and I would encourage and we talked about this that the police agencies and fire agencies will each have an ability to have a recruiting or vendor booth there during the whole week of the games and have that available to the athletes that come through. We are certainly looking forward to that in our agency because as you know the pool is pretty thin and we need to try and increase that opportunity and as people see our area and see the quality of life here, I think we can do that in a big way. The other benefits for this that we really want to push through our market and advertising of these games is that all these sporting events are open free to the public. That is part of the games — there is no charge to attend any of the events and we really want to encourage the children and the kids to get out to these events with their parents and make this a family opportunity. Also, the time we are having this is already scheduled for August 16th through the 23rd of 2008, will coincide with most areas in the west about the week before school starts and so we are really going to encourage this as not only an opportunity to come here, but also a vacation in Idaho and economically, I think it will be a big benefit, not only to us, but the whole area. I will give the sheet and I will let you guys reference that at your leisure because I don't want to take a lot of your time, but on the third page we talk about a finance request and we have requested this of all the cities and the county to assist us in getting the games afoot and going. To give you an idea, this is the exact same 0 • Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 3 of 12 thing that Reno, Sparks and the two counties that hosted them last year. This is their financial agreement that they agreed to. I just talked to the director in Reno and to give you an idea, Reno, Fresno, CA and Hawaii were going to bid the 2008 games and when they found out that we were going to bid, they were very supportive and they have backed off of that and they are going to bid in 2009, 2010 and they wanted us to have it as they are trying to expand this out into the west. So, we are the only bidders at this point. The Site Committee was here two weeks ago to visit all the venues. We spent a week with them in very detailed meetings. They are very impressed with all of our venues and basically, we have the games, we just have to go to Mesa in November on November 9th and we will present the formal bid, which the Convention (inaudible--) is preparing for us and with our assistance so they are the same people that secured the Winter Special Olympics, so they know what they are doing. They were in meetings with us and helped us with the site visits. They are also putting up the $10,000 bid fee; if we get the bid the (inaudible) Bureau is paying the $10,000 to secure the bid. As a financial aspect of this, I talked to the director of the Reno games, the Mayor from Reno went to him in the last couple of months after all the figures were in and told him to bid the games, they want them back and the city is going to underwrite it because they have made according to the Mayor in the city coffers $1.5 million from the games, not counting the gambling. So, it is very beneficial. Mesa is underwriting the games themselves this year because they see the economic benefit to the city. So, we feel it is very reasonable to ask that support. Boise City has committed to that. The County is committed to that and Nampa has committed to that. We are very pleased with that. The last part, the last pitch — two pages there is a resolution — it is just a resolution of support that we would like to include in our bid packet from each city and county that says that we welcome the games, we support them. It is just a letter of resolution and it goes a long way to show that support. As we prepare the bid, just so you could be aware, we would actually be videotaping the Mayors instead of having you go down there we will do a video presentation with all the Mayors and the County Council and have you say a little bit and welcome the bid and do it that way as opposing to have you go down with us to Mesa and save some money that way. Save your time, too. So, are there any questions? Wardle: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mike thanks for the presentation. I think this sounds really interesting. My question is where does the figure that you requested from each of the cities totaling it looks like $100,000. Is there an estimated budget or break down of 0 0 Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 4 of 12 where that comes from? I take it that is an expense to actually host the games, not acquire the bid? Perkins: The registration fee from the athletes themselves pays for most of it and through partnering with not only government, but additional community resources, other businesses that we are going to contact, we will raise the rest. That usually will be $150,000 to $200,000 plus with the athletes to put the games on. Anything that is left over after the games will be divided equally — I know Reno had when it was all said and done from merchandising at $75,000 — in our case, what we have proposed as the Board that money will be split evenly between all youth agencies within the cities. So, Boise PAL, Meridian PAL, Nampa PAL and Ada County Youth Organization and the Fire Youth Organizations that they have. All that money will be given back to the youth organizations in the various cities, if we have anything left. We are not doing this for profit, but there usually is from merchandising during the games. Wardle: Okay, Council any more questions? Mike thank you very much for the presentation. This is going to be a great event for the Valley. Just a quick — we have a resolution which certainly — which involves our support. I don't believe there is an amount requested in that, is there? Perkins: In the resolution? Bird: No, the resolution doesn't state anything. It is just a resolution of support, right? Perkins: Right and you can read through that. It was just an example that we used with Boise, the same language. Bird: When do you need this Mike? Perkins: Tomorrow — no. Bird: I would not doubt it. Perkins: On the financial page there it specifies on how to break it down so the cities and people can budget. Bird: No, I mean, when do you need this resolution? Perkins: We would hopefully like it by October 1St, so we can include it in the bid pack before we head down to Mesa. Bird: Can we have it? Nary: Umm hmmn. 0 • Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 5 of 12 Bird: He said he can have it next week. De Weerd: Mr. President. Wardle: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Yes, I can tell from the format that the City Clerk is going to want to revamp it a little bit. I guess, we do need discussion on the financial support of it as I can see that $5,000 would be due in next fiscal year as well as $10,000 of that amount. So, $15,000 for the upcoming budget and they probably do need to know our financial commitment can be as well. If you can discuss that. Wardle: Thank you Madame Mayor. I would on a financial aspect voice my support for the City of Meridian joining as part of this group from a budgetary perspective — I would certainly have to talk to the Finance Department, but I believe that the City Council has in their specific budget, not that we typically ever use it, but we have some discretionary spending, which has already been appropriated for fiscal year 2007. 1 certainly would work the Finance Department to see if those funds would be available this fiscal year. We could certainly budget for the remainder of next fiscal year. Bird: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mike when will you know? Perkins: If we get the bid? November 9th. Bird: But, you want the first check of $5,000 by November 1st? Perkins: Well, that is what we had asked the cities because it will help us go down to present the bid, but — Bird: You have already been told you had the bid, non -official? Perkins: Yeah, we just have to make the presentation. If we don't get the bid, we would give it back. Borton: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I agree with your comments and what Mike and Bob have said and I think it also benefits the city a great deal as a recruiting tool and an opportunity for both police and fire to expose their services to a wider array of residents and 0 0 Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 6 of 12 will assist them in acquiring new candidates. That is an additional reason and a great opportunity to participate. Wardle: Council, I will work with the Finance to bring forward a budget amendment if that would be your direction. Bird: Yeah, that would be mine. Wardle: We will bring that forward and we will get you — we will get you an approval of the resolution by next week or so and certainly by October 1St. We will work on the funding piece and bring it back before you. Thanks for joining us this evening. Item 4. Update and Discussion regarding Fire Station No. 5: Ron Anderson / Rich Green Anderson: Thank you Council President Wardle. I would like to give just a brief update and kind of tag team with Commissioner Green here on Station 5. 1 understand there have been some discussions lately about where we are at on that process. We had been looking originally to decide whether we should build Station 5 should go to the southwest part of Meridian on the south side of the Freeway or should they go to the north and we had that question answered for us when we invited Doug Young from the Idaho Survey and Rating Bureau to come visit us at one of our Rural District meetings and he went over the criteria for what they weight a fore station for in that survey and rating process and it became very apparent because of the development that has already occurred in the north part of Meridian and where our water system is currently that the most benefit would be derived for both the city and the Rural Fire District by placing that station to the north. We have a piece of property up on Linder Road, just a little bit south of Chinden that we are looking at building that station on and I know that you guys had a meeting with City Council from Eagle recently and there was some discussion about Eagle Fire building a fire station on Linder Road also. I have contacted the Eagle Fire Chief and we have talked about the location of their station and the location of our station and I actually went out and physically drove the distance in those stations. Where their piece of property is and where ours is, is actually 2.8 miles apart, which is right at that three mile range that we kind of strive for as we lay out fire stations anyways. The stations will actually compliment one another very nicely as they are built and they will probably end up backing each other up and have automatic (inaudible) agreements as those get built for additional staffing when one department or the other one needs it. Don't worry about, I guess the fact that you hear that Eagle is building a fire station on Linder Road. It will not impact us adversely and in fact it may be favorable for us. I wanted to let you know that. The other thing, I guess, is the timing of the fire station and I talked to you a little bit about that fire station at budget time. Presently, the Rural Fire District is committed to building the fire station and paying for the staffing costs for the first year of operation. Now, in Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 7 of 12 order to do that, they are probably going to have to split the cost of that station over two of their fiscal years. So, the timing may be towards the end of '07 when that station actually gets built and we will kind of have to see after we build the training tower how much money is left over and how much they can afford. If the funding is there then we may go ahead and do some of the construction on that, award a contract and do some of the construction towards spring or summer so that it finishes in the late fall or winter of '07 and then the staffing will probably be at the end of '07 or the start of 2008 is what our timing projections are right now. A lot of that will depend on the funding of the Rural District and what some of the other expenses that they will have this year and costing them. With that I have brought Commissioner Green and we together would stand for any questions that you guys may have on Station 5. Green: Councilman Wardle, members of the City Council, do you have any questions for me? The intent is to again, build a station in 2007, fund it through 2008 at which time we would ask that you take over in 2009 the funding of the station. That will allow us to proceed with Station 6. We already believe that we have the funding pretty much for the training tower right now. I believe that we have looked at some land, is that correct? For Station 6 we have looked at some land to purchase at Overland and Ten Mile. There is a development going in there. We have been offered a site possibly for about $100,000 for an acre of land, which today is a pretty good cost effective measure based on what an acre is going for in that area. We kind of look forward to continue to support you and do what we think is the best for the citizens of the Rural and the city. It will give us a nice paramedic program out there and I think that is what we owe our citizens. Not much of a talker as Mayor De Weerd can tell you. Wardle: Council, Mayor, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Mr. President. Wardle: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Just appreciate our partnership with the Rural District and appreciate that they have really been a proactive partner to giving service not only to the Rural District that they serve, but actually enhancing a service that we provide as well. So, I appreciate that Rich and please share that with the rest of your board. Green: Again, it is about serving our customers, not about who is in charge or who gets what. You and I have discussed that on several occasions and to me that is what that is all about in government, serving the public and spending taxpayer's dollars wisely. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you and thanks Chief. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 8 of 12 Item 5. Update on the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan: Wardle: Steve, I will just start off with thanking you for all your hard work and the Planning Department as well as the Mayor's staff and all the personal efforts and I think this is moving along great and I have been involved in some of the procedures. I will turn it over to you. Siddoway: Thank you. De Weerd: I won't steel your thunder. Siddoway: Thank you Council President, members of the Council and Mayor. This is an update to the Council on the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. We had a very successful public workshop, open house this last Thursday. On the sign in sheets, we had 316 people sign in. So, we know that there was at least that many that attended, possibly more. But, 316 attendees that signed the sign in sheets is just a fantastic turnout. During most of the evening, it was standing room only. During the initial presentations and as they walked around to view the various boards, there was a lot of interaction and just a very good turnout. Just to orient you once again, our Ten Mile Specific Area Plan looks at the area centered on the Ten Mile Interchange, the red line being 1-84, Ten Mile Interchange — the boundaries run basically from Linder as its boundary on the east to McDermott and it's boundary to McDermott and its boundary on the west and it runs from the railroad on the north to the half mile line between Overland and Victory on the south. We are taking in all sides of the Interchange itself and trying to look at this area that is about to open up for development with the new sewer extensions that are going in and in anticipation of the new Interchange. There are several components to this. There is of course a land use plan, given that it is a comprehensive plan addendum, but we are also looking at the local transportation system and trying to look at the transportation and the land use together. We are doing a market analysis upfront so that the land use decisions that we make are guided by the realities of the market, so that in the end this will not be just a pie in the sky wish list of future land uses, but it will be a land use plan that is grounded in market realities that we have for this area. That said, this area is also going to be about quality. I heard this from the Council and from the Mayor time and time again. We are doing a design guidelines component for this area that can be looked at for implementation elsewhere should we so choose down the road. We will be developing design guidelines for the Ten Mile Interchange area and then looking at an implementation program getting from the plan through implementation. I am not going to read the whole project mission to you, but you know we really want to do it right. We have been granted an earmark from the Federal Legislature of $19.6 million and we really want to do it right the first time. Learn lessons from Eagle and Meridian interchanges and plan the land use and the transportation together here at Ten Mile in a way that works seamlessly. Okay, here we have the project. It is a fairly fast timeline. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting • September 5, 2006 Page 9 of 12 You saw this when you were going through the contract, but just real briefly we just passed this August 31St date where we had the public meeting last Thursday. That day we also had an agency coordination meeting. Our next big event which I will talk about in more detail here in just a second is the Charrette week of September 25th through the 28th. Now, we had an early kickoff meeting at which we also had great participation and Councilman Wardle was there. The team has been doing stakeholder interviews for stakeholders from all different walks of life that are about this area. Our main event as I said is this Charrette week and then looking forward we plan to have a draft plan in hand by the first of December that we can turn around and submit as a comprehensive plan amendment application on the December 15th cutoff date. What a Charrette is, is a multiple day, intense planning workshop where it is focused on design. We bring in all the public and stakeholders that we can and experts to help capture the vision that the people bring us. So, the public and stakeholders will be invited to day one out of which alternative plans will be built. There will be a public meeting and that will then be refined into some refined plans, taken back to the public again and at the end we will have a preferred plan when we get to day four. Now that preferred plan will still be refined and tweaked and taken forward to a second agency coordination meeting so that we can show a draft preferred plan to all of the various agencies and stakeholders with a stake in this planning process to make sure that we have got it right and are meeting their needs. This is the process for Charrette week. Now, how does Council get involved in this and ,Will, if you would pass out the Charrette schedule that is detailed for those four days? I have highlighted a few things on that and a copy is coming to you right now. For the public there is also copies of Charrette week schedule back on the back table that you are certainly welcome and encouraged to pick up. What I have done is highlighted in yellow on the sheet a few times that we would encourage, not necessarily all Council members, but we would certainly like a Council representative to come and be involved and the Mayor as well — 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 26th; 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 27th and then we are looking at holding a dignitaries dinner and inviting the Governor and as many Legislators as we can get to at 5:30 on Thursday, September 28th. In pink I have also highlighted the public meetings. They will be held on Monday at 7:00 p.m. On Tuesday there is an open house that runs from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. and then at the end of it to rule out the preferred plan there is another public meeting on Thursday, the 28th at 7:00 p.m. You are welcome to attend all. You certainly don't need to attend all. If I were to encourage where I thought you might get the biggest bang for your time, the final public meeting on Thursday is where you will be able to see the results of Charrette week. That will be a great opportunity, but as you can tell we really want some of that policy, guidance and direction during the week. So, I would like to engage the Council in selecting a representative that might participate with us during Charrette week on those Tuesday and Wednesday time slots. I would encourage the public, all two of them that are in the audience. But, the word is getting out. We did a major blitz for this last one and we will be sending out media packets and emails and everything we can do to promote Charrette week. We have got notices going out Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 10 of 12 in the water bills to the entire city and encouraging the public at large to come and be involved. It will be an exciting process. It will be an intense process, but it will be something that we have never seen and it will be fantastic. With that, I will stand for any questions. Wardle: Thank you Steve. Just a question for you. Are you aware of any other communities in the state going through this process for transportation projects? Siddoway: Charrette's have been done. I know that there was a Charrette held De Weerd: In Caldwell. Siddoway: -- oh, yeah, Caldwell held a Charrette for their downtown day lighting of the Creek; Harris Ranch held a Charrette. So, they aren't unheard of, but to be done big and done right they are rare. It is much easier to just hold a single public meeting and move on, but this will be an intense and focused process. Wardle: Council any questions for Steve? Borton: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Steve, on one of your first (inaudible) you made reference to the market analysis. Where does that play into the Charrette plan? Meaning do people show up and let's say the public involved doesn't have any concept or clue about what the market might rightfully bear in that area. Where does that guidance come from during this week? Siddoway: We as the staff and the consultant team will certainly be educated on that. The person doing the market analysis is wrapping it up right now. We received a draft today and we are reviewing it. We forwarded it to Cheryl Brown, who also is reviewing it and we will be getting some final comments back, but we will have it done before we go into Charrette week. Borton: Okay. (Inaudible discussion) Siddoway: Yes, when we were going through the approval of the contract, Councilman Rountree asked about what kind of sideboards will we have to keep things from going astray as we work through Charrette week and come up with many different ideas and the market study will provide one of those clear sideboards, which within we will stay. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting September 5, 2006 Page 11 of 12 Borton: Okay, good. Wardle: Council? Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. President, I guess I would just like to give kudos to staff. That event — I had my priorities, I didn't go to the football game; I went to the kick off of the Ten Mile. But, it was very well run and at every half hour our every hour on the half hour, they did a presentation and both the consultant with ITD on the Interchange did his piece. Steve did ours. You will not see a consultant speaking with passion that our staff was able to really radiate at about the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan and then when you went into the room that we had, you know do you like this? Do you like this? And people had the opportunity to voice their vision and everyone I talked to as they came out of the different rooms, you could go into it and get a better idea of what is going on to give your input. They were so impressed with how that was laid out and they all had an opportunity to share a personal voice in this kickoff event. It just seemed so well put together and even take down was impressive. I mean, they were done just like that. It was amazing. Just kudos to staff and the feedback that we have gotten since then has just been all positive. Siddoway: I will pass that on to the team as a whole. Thank you very much. Wardle: All right. Thank you very much Steve for that update. Council will select a representative at a later time. Councilman Rountree might go. Bird: (Inaudible) Wardle: So, we will have someone at those important meetings and certainly if all of us can make it, we will let the City Clerk know so that he can notice that properly. Item 6. 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): Wardle: Item 6 is Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a). Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn into Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a). I will have a roll call vote. Roll Call Vote: Bird, aye; Borton, aye; Wardle, aye; Rountree is absent. Meridian City Pre -Council Meeting 0 September 5, 2006 Page 12 of 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Wardle: I would accept a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor. THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. Wardle: That brings us to the end of our regularly scheduled Pre -Council agenda, Council. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. Wardle: All in favor. THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:44 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: �f 1 ATTE N /Iq/0% DATE APPROYFR,,,,! CF 2--'�- - L WILLIAM G. BERG, OR., tItY RK • • September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of August 8, 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. September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of August 15, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meefings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 40 September 1, 2006 AZ 06-018 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Incline Vilage, LLC ITEM NO. 5-C REQUEST Development Agreement -- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Incline Village Subdivision -- north side of Cherry Lane and west of 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: COMMENTS See attached Development Agreement OTHER: Contacted: Date: % �4P Phone: 3?6- ?-?s6 Emailed: ��,l St ff nitials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f >r CITY OF s IDAHO y -'-�iF'f ftl I�Itk_. �yUl2F Ur�11�' SINCE 1903 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joseph W. Borton Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS City Attorney/HR 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HR) Fax 884-8723 Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234/fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 1�Bower Street 8 79 / fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533/fax 888-6854 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678/fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500/fax 898-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211 / fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191/fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242/fax 884-1159 • August 1, 2006 Daren Fluke JUB Engineers, Inc. 250 South Beechwood Avenue Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709 • JJ -/U -B I^E�nlg' i ek3rs � f AUG 0 3 2005 11 Ips' SE, IDAHO Re: Development Agreement — Incline Village Subdivision AZ 06-018 Dear Mr. Fluke, Enclosed please find the original Development Agreement for Incline Village Subdivision, which is ready for your review and signatures of the appropriate parties. Please sign where indicated and return to the City of Meridian City Clerk's Office for placement on the next available City Council Agenda for approval. Please call me if you have any questions at 208-888-4433. Sincerely, Tara Green Deputy City Clerk enc. CITY FALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK— FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING— FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE —FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled paper • ADA COUNTY RECORDERVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 45 BOISE IDAHO 09/21/06 011p DEPUTY ViId Allen RECORDED C R QUEST OF III I�II�IIIII�II�II�IIIIIIIIIIIII ��� CIV of Meridian 106151230 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Incline Village, LLC, Developer 3. Bob L. Kell, Shannon Smith, and Phillip Smith, Owners THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this day of Lam, 2006, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State &t Idaho, hereafter called "CITY", Incline Village, LLC, whose address is 1820 Mace Road, Eagle, Idaho 83616, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", and Bob L. Kell, Shannon Smith and Phillip Smith, whose address is 1820 Mace Road, Eagle, Idaho, 83616, hereinafter called "OWNER". 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "Owner" are the sole owners, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. § 67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re -zoning that the "Developer" and/or "Owner" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of the Unified Development Code, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Developer" has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of the "Property's" described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of (R-4) Medium -Low Density Residential District, (Municipal Code of the City of Meridian); and 1.5 WHEREAS, "Developer" and/or "Owner" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will be made; and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 14 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the 27t` day of June, 2006, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the "Findings"); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the "Developer" and/or "Owner" to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 "DEVELOPER" and/or "OWNER" deem it to be in their best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at their urging and requests; and 1.10 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Developer" and/or "Owner" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure re -zoning designation is in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City Code Title 11, Unified Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 14 0 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 "DEVELOPER": means and refers to Incline Village, LLC, whose address is 1820 Mace Road, Eagle, Idaho 83616, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any subsequent developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "OWNER": means and refers to Bob L. Kell, Shannon Smith and Phillip Smith, whose address is 1820 Mace Road, Eagle, Idaho 83616, the party that owns said "Property" and shall include any subsequent owner(s) of the "Property". 3.4 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be annexed and zoned R-4 (Medium -Low Density Residential District) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City's" Zoning Ordinance codified in Meridian City Code Section 11 which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of a Certitwate ofZoning Compliance shall be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to a future development in the R-4 zone, and the pertinent provisions of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan are applicable to this AZ 06-018 application. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 14 i • 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. "Developer" and/or "Owner" shall develop the "Property" in accordance with the following special conditions: 5.1.1. That 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. 5.1.2. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. 5.1.3. That the applicant be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 5.1.4. 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. 5.1.5. That the following shall be the only allowed uses on the property: single-family detached homes and allowed accessory uses on the R-4 zone. 5.1.6. That a maximum of 61 single-family building lots shall be platted on this property. 5.1.7. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 5.1.8. That the applicant construct a multi -use pathway on Lot 25, Block 3, as shown on the revised preliminary plat. 5.1.9. That one public street access, and no driveways, will be allowed to Cherry Lane. Existing driveway(s) to Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane may be utilized until the internal streets within the plat are constructed DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 14 0 0 and approved by the Transportation Authority (ACRD). At such time, direct lot access to Cherry Lane and Black Cat Road shall be prohibited. 5.1.10. That the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual physical hook-up of the existing houses to municipal services. The hook-ups shall be completed prior to Certificates of Occupancy for each phase for which that house lies in. Lot 2 Block 4 shall be hooked to municipal services prior to Certificates of Occupancy of the phase that connects to W. Cherry Lane. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the "Developer" and/or "Owner" or "Developers" and/or "Owners" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in Idaho Code § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: "Developer" and/or "Owner" consents upon default to the reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to -wit: 7.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Developer" and/or "Owner and if the "Developer" and/or "Owner" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. INSPECTION: "Developer" and/or "Owner" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development. 9. DEFAULT: 9.1 In the event "Developer" and/or "Owner", or "Developer's" and/or "Owner's" heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 OF 14 0 fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property", this Agreement may be modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 9.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Developer" and/or "Owner" of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Developer's" and/or "Owner's" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Developer" and/or "Owner", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re -zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 11. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. 12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Developer" and/or "Owner", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 12.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City" and "Developer" and/or "Owner" shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non -breaching parry's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 OF 14 0 r] 12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed ` hereunder by either "Developer" and/or "Owner" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the "Developer" and/or "Owner" agree to provide, if required by the "City". 14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Developer" and/or "Owner" agree that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the "City" and "Developer" and/or "Owner" has entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Developer" and/or "Owner" agree to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Property" shall be subject to de -annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 DEVELOPER: Incline Village 1820 Mace Road Eagle, ID 83616 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 7 OF 14 0 OWNER: Bob L. Kell, Shannon Smith and Phillip Smith 1820 Mace Road Eagle, ID 83616 with copy to: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 1] 16.1 A parry shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other parry a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 18. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other parry so failing to perform. 19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City's" corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the "Developer" and/or "Owner" of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Developer" and/or "Owner", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if "City", in its sole DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 OF 14 and reasonable discretion, had determined that "Developer" and/or "Owner" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. r 20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Developer" and/or "Owner" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Developer" and/or "Owner" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re -zoning of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the "City" has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. DEVELOPER INCLINE VLL 0 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINL VILLAItE SUBDMSION PAGE 9 OF 14 C 9 A n Smith CITY OF MERIDIAN MAYOR 1 ' - Attest: ' � d REAL CITY CLERK If q l9�d6 @6969 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 14 Of STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada, ) On this % 79 day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State persona ffl1. tf 7 T p y appeared P T. srh t/, ,e, , known or identified to me to be the of Incline Village, LLC, acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Sp • w .r c� (SEALk�Q OTA* S S PUBL'*G OF STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada, ) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Qo4o & - ,G My Commission Expires: Us .0 On this day of"Z 61* 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said Stat6', personally appeared Bob L. Kell, known o dentifi ! me to be the person who signed the instrument, and acknowledged to me that he 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. 1E)�N�_ II s _ �►� oip Notary Public for Idah. :• �G8 Residing at: at ld�o ;��,%• r• My Commission Expires: Z DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 11 OF 14 • STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss County of Ada, t ) d On this Z:91h day of 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said Std te, personally appeared Shannon Smith, known or identified to me to be the person who signed the instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the daym4ygar in this certificate firlt above written. .'��. NOT � (SEAL) .o '�►ir+o�- L IC IDA STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County Ada, ) Ao�, otary Public for Idaho Residing at: of s� My Commission Expires: / v9 Residing in Boise, ID mycommission Expire 11!06!2009 this day of 2006, before me, the undersigned, a No ublic in and for said State, personally appeared Phillip Smith, known or identified to me to be person who signed the instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNES REOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this c ificate first above written. (SEAL) Notary Publi'N01 Residing at: My Commission Idaho DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDMSION PAGE 12 OF 14 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ' ) On thisday of Scream , 2006, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., known or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City 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. otary Public for Idaho Residing at: -CCLW,1 *11 - ip Commission expires:��Q�(11 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-018) INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 13 OF 14 Project: 10-05-125 Date: February 9, 2006 INCLINE VILLAGE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY That portion of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 4; thence along the Southerly boundary of the Southeast 1/4, North 89'17'10" West, 990.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said boundary, North 89 ° 1 T10" West, 334.35 feet to the East 1/16 corner of Section 4; thence along the Westerly boundary of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said section, North 00°41'26" East, 1,475.33 feet; thence South 89 ° 18'47" East, 793.86 feet; thence South 00°3T43" West, 822.68 feet; thence North 89 ° 2230" West, 461.44 feet; thence South 00"36'00" West, 652.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 20.006 acres, more or less. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Ronald M. Hodge, P.L.S. REV W APP VA B; J MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. RMH/tlk:lhc PAGAL\10-05-125 - Incline Village\10-05-125 - Admin\Descriptions\10-05-125-Annex.doc CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER RECEIVED XV 6 2006 Meridian ry :IF erk Office ! iu,wrr 5 f In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) AND Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 20.01 acres, for Incline Village Subdivision, by Incline Village, LLC. Case No(s).: AZ -06-018 and PP -06-016 For the City Council Hearing Date of: Jane 27, 2006 A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 27, 2006, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 27, 2006, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 27, 2006, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 27, 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 § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER GASP NO(S) A7,06-01 8 / PP -06-016 - PAGE 1 of 4 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 party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 27, 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 § 11-5A 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 flat stamped February 8, 2006, by J.U.B Engineers, Inc., is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing: a. Requiring a Development Agreement in which the applicant also agrees: 1. The number of building lots to be platted shall total not more than 61; 2. A multi -use pathway shall be constructed on Lot 25, Block 3, as shown on the revised preliminary plat. 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 27, 2006, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. 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, CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -06-018 / PP -06-016 - PAGE 2 of 4 and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, may be 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 11-613- 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 determine4 and approved by the City Council may be 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 may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 27, 2006. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -06-018 / PP -06-016 - PAGE 3 of 4 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER. SHAUN WARDLE VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED OCA COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED__ TIE BREAKER MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED — Nom` a WEERD ATTEST: dc;;AL LIAM G. BIFRG, JR.,cf CLT `01 Copy served upon: ✓ Applicant ,. Planning Department Public Works Department City Attorney By: Dated: -- - Q V Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -06-018 / PP -06-016 - PAGE 4 of 4 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATL- OF, JUNE 27, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 6/27/2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: C.. Caleb HoodC�411elk6f'71G' w Current Planning Manager �,OAHU Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 �•� - SUBJECT: Incline Village Subdivision AZ -06-018 Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential). PP -06-016 Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family residential building lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone, by Incline Village, LLC. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Incline Village, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) for 20.01 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site is located on the north side of Cherry Lane, approximately 950 feet west of Black Cat Road. Currently, there are three single-family homes and associated outbuildings on this site. All three of the existing homes are to remain on site, on proposed lots. The site is composed of four tax parcels and has not been previously platted. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. 2. SUN (MARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (AZ and PP) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. 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 annroval of the proposed Inclin Y& -ye Subdivision (AZ -06-018 and PP -06-016) with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Stam KeoortThe Meridian Planning and _Zoning Commission heard the item on May 4 2006 At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Daren Fluke ii. In opposition: Don Clower, Steve Cady, Brent Law iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood v. Other staff commenting on application: Mike Cole b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Location of multi -use pathway in this area and through this site. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Accepted applicant's proposals for fencing type, limiting 3 lots to single -story homes, and micro -path construction on this site. The Commission also recommended approval of the revised preliminary plat dated April 19, 2006 (please see Exhibit B for all Commission changes). d. Outstanding Issue(s) fur City Council: i. None. Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-018/PP-06-016 PAGE I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 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 AZ - 06 -018 and PP -06-016 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of June 27, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers AZ - 06 -018 and PP -06-016 as presented during the public hearing on June 27, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must stale specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Numbers AZ -06-018 and PP -06-016 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: 1947 & 1923 N. Black Cat Road and 5136 W. Cherry Lane; north side of Cherry Lane, approximately 950 feet west of Black Cat Road / 3N1 W4 b. Owner: Bob L. Kell, Shannon Smith, and Phillip Smith 1820 Mace Road Eagle, ID 83616 c. Applicant: Incline Village, LLC 1820 Mace Road Eagle, ID 83616 d. Representative: Daren Fluke, J -U -B Engineers, Inc. e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Requcst: The applicant is requesting concurrent approval for Annexation and Zoning of the subject 20 acres to R-4 and Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family buildable lots and 8 common lots. All of the homes within the development are proposed to be single-family detached. There are 10 lots that are below the minimum 8.000 ssuare foot minimum lot size of the proposed R-4 zone. The average lot size in the proposed development is 10,200 square feet. The gross density of the project is 3.2 dwelling units per acre. About one acre of the site is being set aside for open space. 1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 2/8/06 2. Date of landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 2/23/06 (revised 3-23-06) h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: We believe that we have designed a viable, attractive project that complies with the spirit and intent o the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-018/PP-06-016 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 Ordinance. We look forward to working with the city on this project (please see Applicant's Submittal Letter fro more information.) 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 bgfore 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. Newspaper notifications published on: April 3n' and 170'2006 (for P & Z Commission hearing) and June 511 and 19'", 2006 (for City Council hearing). d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: March 24d1, 2006 (for P & Z Commission hearing) and June 2"d, 2006 (for City Council hearing). e. Applicant posted notice on site by. April 100t, 2006 (for P & Z Commission hearing) and June 17', 2006 (for City Council hearing). 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There are three single-family home and some associated outbuildings on this site. The existing homes are to remain. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area contains a mix of five -acre parcels in Ada County, developing subdivisions in the City, and two churches. It is anticipated that area to the west and south will not be able to develop in the City until sewer service is available. This area is rapidly transitioning from rural to urban. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Single-family lots within Turnberry Subdivision, zoned R-4 2. East: Two churches, zoned L -d; Single-family homes on large parcels, zoned RUT (Ada County) 3. South: Single-family home on large parcels, zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. West: Single-family homes and agriculture on large parcels, zoned RUT (Ada County) d. History of Previous Actions: None. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: There is a sewer stub to this property from. Turnberry Subdivision to the north, and a sewer trunk in Black Cat Road. Location of water: There is a water stub to this property from Turnberry Subdivision to the north, and 12 -inch main in W. Cherry Lane to the south. Issues or concerns: The need for a sewer easement through the property to the east of this to extend sewer service. Ability to provide sewer service to the southernmost existing house. Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-01S/PP-06-016 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 2. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Stafford Sublateral lies along the northern boundary of this property. There appears to be other irrigation ditches that traverse through this site. All open irrigation ditches, laterals and canals, should be tiled when this property develops. 3. hazards: No hazards have been identified on this site. 4. Proposed Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) 5. Size of Property: 20.01 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 64 2. Non-residential Lots: 0 3. Total Building Lots: 64 4. Common Lots: 7 5. Other Lots: 1 (Nampa -Meridian Irrigation Well Lot) 6. Total Lots: 72 7. Gross Density: 3.2 units per acre (net density is 3.65 d.u./acre) 8. Minimum House Size: 1,400 square feet g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): Per UDC (Table 11-2A-4) a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to arterial streets. Cherry Lane is a classified arterial roadway. Street buffers are not required on any of the internal, local streets. 2. Width of buffers) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: 1.1 acres/5.5% 4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to multiuse pathways and micropaths should generally comply with UDC 11-3B-12. Common open space lots should include at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (CJDC 11 -3G - 3E2). h. Amenities: Open space, micropath, and park lot. i. Off -Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6 requires single-family detached dwellings to have 2 enclosed parking spaces (a garage) and a 20' x 20' parking pad in front of each garage. j. Proposed and Required Residential Standards: Setbacks (in feet) Proposed Required Front Living Area (to sidewalk) 15 15 Side Accessed Garage (to sidewalk) 15 15 Front Accessed Garage (to sidewalk) 20 20 Side 5 5 Rea 15 15 Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-018/PP-06-016 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 Frontage 60 60 Lot Size 7,242"` 8,000 All buildable lots must be at least 8,000 square feet. k. Proposed and Required Non -Residential: N/A Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to the two northernmost homes is currently provided from a private access easement to/from Black Cat Road. The existing home to remain near Cherry Lane currently takes access to Cherry Lane. The applicant is proposing to remove these existing accesses and provide access to all of the dwellings within this development via internal public streets. For this development, the applicant is proposing to construct a new public street access to Cherry Lane (Powder Way), and extend O'Conner Avenue into the site from the north. All of the internal streets are local streets with 36 -feet wide street sections (measured back of curb to back of curb) and contain 5 -foot wide attached sidewalks. The applicant is proposing to provide two stub streets, one to each of the undeveloped properties to the east and west. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed street system. ACHD has not submitted comments and conditions back to the City for this project. However, City Staff has spoken with ACRD staff about this project and does not believe that there are any significant changes to the plat that will be required from the District. ACHD's conditions will be included in Exhibit B once they are received by the City (prior to Council). 7. COMMENTS MEETING On March 31, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Fxhibit 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 proposed Preliminary Plat includes 64 single- family lots on 20.01 acres for a gross density of 3.2 dwelling units/acre. The proposed density is above the anticipated density for this area. Staff is recommenJng that the applicant remove at least three of Jim groused lots so the density of this develoument comAlies with the Comprehensive PI 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): 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. • Sunilary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. Incline Village Subdivision AZ406-018/PP-06-016 PAGE 5 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN INO DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 • 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 Sheriffs 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 (ACRD). 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 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 comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above. Chapter V1, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6 - Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The submitted prellntinary plat proposes to extend the one stub street currently provided to this property from the north (O'Conner Avenue). In addition, two stub streets are being proposed to the eastern and western parcels that are currently zoned in Ada County RUT, which staff anticipates will re -develop in the near future. Staff believes that the applicant has done a nice job of connecting and extending the existing stub street as well as providing for future connectivity to the east and west. Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13 - Review new development for appropriate Opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments. See analysis above. 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. The applicant is proposing to construct a six-foot tall closed fence around the boundary of this development, Including adjacent to Cherry Lane. Prior to house construction, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter of this site. See Analysis below and Exhibit B for more Incline Village Subdivision AZ -06-01 S/PP-06-016 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORTFOR THE HEARING DATE OP JUNE 27, 2006 l information. 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 applicant is proposing to construct five foot wide sidewalks adjacent to all of the proposed streets, which`. connect to adjacent properties. The applicant is also proposing to construct a micro path so the lots in the northern portion of this development have easy access to the proposed park area. Staff is supportive of the proposed pedestrian connections. Chapter VII, Goal 1V, Objective C, Action 6 - Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. See above. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The existing access to Cherry Lane, an arterial street, should be removed. The new public street connection to Cherry Lane, has been reviewed and approved by ACRD. City Staff is also supportive of the location of Powder Way; no additional access points to Cherry Lane should be allowed. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 - Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. The applicant is proposing a residential zone. Staff finds that the existing single-family residential properties to the north, south, east and west, as well as the churches to the east, are compatible with the proposed development. Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action R - Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. Staff recognizes that there are some existing low density residential land usac to the east and west. The applicant is proposing to construct a six-foot tall privacy fence around this development to screen this subdivision from the larger parcels. Further, most of the larger lots in the subdivision are on the perimeter of the development, providing a transition from the large county parcels to the internal 8, 000 square foot lots. Stafffinds that the proposed fencing should provide enough screening between the proposed urban development and the rural residences surrounding it. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any written or verbal testimony provided from neighbors when determining if additional screening or more transition in density is appropriate. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objcctivc C, Action 10 - Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, and high-density single family, multi -family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-018/PP-06-016 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 The subject application includes a request for the R-4 zone. Turnberry Subdivision to the north obtained an R-4 zone. The LDS church and the 7m Day Adventist Church obtained L -O zoning. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation contributes to the variety of residential zoning categories in this area and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site. Staff believes that if at least three buildable lots are removed (providing a gross density of 3.05 dwellings/acre), the &nsity and zoning for this property would be appropriate. 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. Schedule of Uscs: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2-1 lists single-family detached homes as permitted uses in the R-4 zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: R-4 Medium 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: As mentioned above, there are ten lots that do not conform to the minimum lot size requirement of the R-4 zone. All of the proposed lots comply with the standard street frontage requirements of the R-4 zone established in the UDC. No dimensional modifications are being requested for the proposed development. Therefore, the applicant must meet all dimensional standards. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of pacts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the requested R-4 zone is appropriate for this property. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for annexation. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on February 9, 2006 by Ronald M. Hodge, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-018)PP-06-016 PAGE 8 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE. I1EAR1NG DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 Special Considerations: Development Agreement: UDC 11 -5B -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 necessary to enwure that this gropes is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the comprehensive plan dmenation and does not negatively impact nearby ��.-= Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill Narv. at 888-4433 Jo initiate this process. The DA shall incorporate the following: • That all future uses shall not involvc 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. • 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. • That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. • 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. • That the following shall be the only allowed uses on this property: single-family detached homes and allowed accessory uses of the R-4 zone. • That a maximum of 61 single-family building lots shall be platted on this property. • That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. • That the applicant construct a multi -use pathway on Lot 25, Block 3. aag shown on the revised oreliwinaa_plat. • That one public street access, and no driveways, will be allowed to Cherry Lane. Existing driveway(s) to Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane may be utilized until the internal streets within the plat are constructed and approved by the Transportation Authority (ACRD)- At such time, direct lot aces to Cherry Lane and Black Cat Road shall be prohibited. • That the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual physical hook-up of the existing houses to the municipal services. The hook-ups shall be completed prior to Certificates of Occupancy for each phase for which that house lies in. Lot 2 Block 4 shall be hooked to municipal services prior to Certificates of Occupancy of the phase that connects to W. Cherry Lahr. Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-018/PP-06-016 PAGE 9 i i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN'NTNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 2. PP Application: The proposed preliminary plat substantially complies with the Unified Development Cale. Special. Considerations: Density As noted previously in this report, this area is designated for low density residential uses. Low density residential is defined as up to three dwelling units per acre. The submitted plat has a gross density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. There are existing rural lots to the east, west and south of this site. Therefore, staff is rccommcnding that at least three lots: Lot 3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and at least one lot in Block 3 be removed This will place the density of the development at 3.05 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Meridian Police Department has commented that Lot 8, Block 2, creates a residence that will be isolated from their surrounding ncighbors. Such areas have an increased crime potential. The applicant should work with Lt. Bob Stowe to revise the plat/site plan such that the houses/dwelling units in the general area are oriented toward one another and encourage interaction between more neighbors (See Exhibit B). Staff believes that the only way this comment can be complied with is if Lot 8, Block 2 is removed. Multi -Use Pathway; The Parks Department has commented that they need a multi- use pathway through this site. The Parks Department has given the applicant several options for location of said pathway. Said pathway shall be 10 -feet wide and constructed to either tie in with the sidewalk on Black Cat Road or Cherry Lane, and continue on to the west property line. If constructed from Black Cat Road, the applicant shall use the existing access easement between the LDS church and the 71 Day Adventist Church to the western boundary, OR construct a 10 -foot wide multi- use pathway from Black Cat Road using the existing access easement to the first street in development, then north to Safford Lateral (as a 5 -foot wide sidewalk), then west along Safford Lateral (if allowed by Settlers' Irrigation District) to west boundary, OR construct a 10 -foot wide multi-usc pathway from Black Cat Road into the site using the existing access easement to the first street in the development, then north across the Safford Lateral (as a 5 -foot wide sidewalk) to tie into the sidewalk in Tumberry Subdivision. If constructed from Cherry Lane, the applicant shall construct the pathway on the west side of Powder Way (in lieu of concrete sidewalk if allowed by ACRD) to the Marcum property (Parcel No. S1204438650). Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts, Associates, on 2-23-06 (revised 3-23-06), labeled Sheet #L-1 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Construct a 25 -foot wide street buffer along Cherry Lane, exclusive of ACHD right-of-way. Said buffer should be constructed in accordance with UDC 11- 3B-7. • Per UDC 11 -3G -3A, set aside at least 5% (1 acre) of the site for useable open space. • Incorporate Lot 3, Block 1, into the common park area, Lot 2, Block 1. • Place landscaping, as allowed by the Public Works Department, within Lot 25, Block 3. Incline Village Subdivision AZ -06-01 S/PP-06-016 PAGE 10 • C� CITY OF MEWDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 • Per UDC 11-30-3E1, at least one deciduous shade tree per every 8,000 square feet of common open space should be planted, and common areas should be improved with lawn, either seed or sod. • Per UDC 11-3B-10, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Duff, on designing, adopting,- and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. • Maintain at least a 5 -foot wide landscape strip on both sides of the proposed micropath on Lot 20, Block 2, and the Parks Department required multi -use pathway, and construct trees at a rate of 1 tree per ever 35 linear feet. • A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit copies of a revised landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the final plat application(s). Access: Access to this site is currently provided from Cherry Lane and a private street to Black Cat Road. Except for the proposed public street, Powder Way, direct lot access to Cherry Lane and Black Cat Road should he prohibited, place a note on the final plat. The applicant should abandon any vehicular access interest this property has in the private street easement to Black Cat Road. Staff recommends that prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant be required to submit a copy of a recorded document, a release of dominant parcel interest, for the interest that the subject parcels have in the private street (coordinate the drafting of this document with the City's Legal Department.) Stub Streets: The applicant should be required to provide public stub streets to the Cady property to the east (Parcel #51204449100) and the Marcurn property to the west (Parcel #51204438700) as proposed. Exist Resi�dences/Buildings:, The site currently contains multiple buildings. All existing buildings to remain shall be located/re-located in accordance with the building setbacks of the R4 zone, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. Fencing: The applicant is proposing to constrict 6 -foot solid fencing along the entire perimeter of the site. 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 /multi -use fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A-7. Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Incline Village Home Owners' Association. Ditches. Laterals. and Canals:_ Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, including the Safford Sublateral, but exclusive of any natural waterway, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Pres�su g I ri agation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-0I$/PP-06-016 PAGE 11 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 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, a single 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- 15aand MCC 9-1-28. b. Staff Recommendation: _Staff recommends anuroval of the subject annlications AZ -06- 018 and PP -0"16. BM the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Re ort for the hearim date of June 27.2006. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 2-8-06, revised 4-19-06) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: 2-23-06, revised 3-23-06) B. Conditions of Approval L 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 C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Incline Village Subdivision AZ-06-018/PP-06-016 PAGE 12 C11Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF K NG 27, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (Revised 4-19-06) i 6 — I / IIP�bii BJq ijwE. `Fi r! j .I sn'sea3lawirnr YP as` �� IJ Ai = g� I Jill _.. � 1� is ' • eil r ' �!• e 1 � � �: C. ei e� .i L_l__I h �l 1 i i r Do 11V P. 1i re e.t IY1tAWIN WL1 I ijwE. `Fi r! j .I f L _R s` WWN�Qj YP as` �� IJ Ai = g� I Jill _.. � 1� is ' • eil r ' �!• e 1 r Do 11V P. 1i re e.t Exhibit A —Page 1 I ijwE. `Fi r! `r -i -i �� YP as` w ° 1 `r I r ' �!• e 1 � � �: C. ei e� .i • h �l 1 � .. @r➢ s. A I � 4 Exhibit A —Page 1 CTTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 Landscape Plan (dated 2-23-06, revised 3-23-06) Exhibit A — Page 2 0 0 C;H Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I TEARING DATE OF ]UNE 27, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP -06-016) 1.1.1 The preliminary plat labeled as Sheet 1 of 3, prepared by J -U -B Engineers, Inc., dated April 19, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments and conditions of the accompanying`. Annexation and Zoning (AZ -06-018) application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP -06-016) 1.1.2 The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts, Associates, on 2-23-06 (revised 3-23-06), labeled Sheet #L1 -I is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Construct a 25 -foot wide street buffer along Cherry Lane, exclusive of ACRD right-of-way. Said buffer should be constructed in accordance with UDC 11- 3B-7. • Per UDC 11 -3G -3A, set aside at least 5% (1 acre) of the site for useable open space. • Place landscaping, as allowed by the Public Works Department, within Lot 25, Block 3. • Per UDC 11 -3G -3E 1, at least one deciduous shade tree per every 8,000 square feet of common open space should be planted, and common areas should be improved with lawn, either seed or sod. • Per UDC 11-313-10, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. • Maintain at least a 5 -foot wide landscape strip on both sides of the proposed micropath on Lot 20, Block 2, and the Parks Department required multi -use pathway, and construct trees at a rate of 1 tree per ever 35 linear feet. • A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. 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. The proceeding modifications and notes should be shown on a revised landscape plan submitted with the inial plat application(s). 1.1.3 All lots within the development shall conform to the dimensional standards of the proposed R-4 zone, including a minunum 8,000 square foot lot size. At least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing, submit 10 full size and one 8.5" x 11" copy of the revised preliminary plat that depicts all changes requested by the Commission. 1.1.4 Place a note on the face of the final plat that prohibits direct lot access to Cherry Lane and Black Cat Road. 1.1.5 Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded document, a release of dominant parcel interest, for the interest that the subject parcels have in the private street easement to Black Cat Road (coordinate the drafting of this document with the City's Legal Dcpartment.) Exhibit B - Page 2 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNiNU DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 1.1.6 Provide public stub streets to the Cady property to the east (Parcel #S1204449100) and the Marcum property to the west (Parcel #S1204438700) as proposed. 1.1.7 All buildings that span across proposed lot lines, or do not conform to the dimensional standards (setbacks, height, -etc.) of the UDC shall be removed, relocated or made to conform to city code, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. The accessory structures on Lot 10, Block 2, Lot 3 and 4, Block 4, and Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 shall be removed prior to the signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 1.1.8 Provide a 6 -foot tall solid fence around the perimeter of the development, as proposed. Vinyl fencing shall be installed adjacent to the Cady's property (adjacent to Blocks 3 and 4). A detailed fencing plan shall 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. 1.1.9 The applicant shall construct a minimum 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway on this site. The multi- use pathway shall be constructed in accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. The pathway must connect from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed must be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway. 1.1.10 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Incline Village Home Owners' Association. 1.1.11 Per UDC 11 -3AB all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, including the Safford Sublateral, but exclusive of any natural waterway, 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. 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. 1.1.12 Underground, pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. 1.1.13 The future homes on Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 3, shall be limited to a single -story. Bonus rooms shall be allowed on the subject lots, but no south facing windows are permitted. 1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP -06-016) 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 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.3 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All storrawater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subjcct to UDC 1I - 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 Exhibit 13 — Page 2 0 0 CITY Or MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPOkl* FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 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. 1.2.4 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. Y 1.2.5 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. 1.2.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains located in Tumberry Subdivision and trunks in Black Cat Road. The applicant shall install mains to and through this development, cuordinatc 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 Sub -standard grade shall be allowed on the off-site sewer of no less than 0.30%. 2.3 Prior to construction plan approval the applicant shall submit an executed easement for the sewer being proposed through the property to the east. The easement shall include Public Works standard language (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHMIT A) and an 8-1/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be signed by the property owner granting the easement, and sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. 2.4 Any sewer mains not located in the right-of-way shall have a 14 -foot wide all weather access road, built to Meridians Standard Specifications, placed over the sewer main to facilitate cleaning and maintenance of the sewer system and its appurtenances. 2.5 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Tumberry Subdivision. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, including connecting to the 12 -inch train in W. Cherry Lane, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. The applicant shall execute Meridian's standard form of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 2.6 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. 2.7 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 plana 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 evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre -construction meeting. Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 2.8 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, a single -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. 2.9 The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual physical. hook- up of the existing houses to the municipal services. If the house on Lot 2 Block 4 cannot gravity to the proposed mains, a single grinder pump shall be installed. No other lift stations shall be allowed for this development. 2.10 The following lots do not meet the required minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet for the R-4 zone. The applicant shall revise the plat so all lots meet minimum frontage and square footage. a.) Lot 2, Block 2. b.) Lots 4, 5, 8, 13, 20, 21, and 22, Block 3. 2.11 All existing structures spanning proposed lot lines or not meeting the new setbacks shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.12 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. 2.13 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. 2.14 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. 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. 2.15 The applicant has not indicated how the storm drainage from the proposed parking lots associated with the attached units will be disposed. 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. 2.16 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. 2.17 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. 2.18 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths, Exhibit 8 — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE Or, JUNE 27, 2006 pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.19 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. 2.20 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. 2.21 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.22 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.23 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.24 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. 2.25 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. 2.26 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 dotcrmined 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. 2.27 No manholes or water valves are allowed within roundabouts. If utility lines run under the roundabouts then trees shall be prohibited. 3. Fire Department 3.1 One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrauts shall be placed an avcragc 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. 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 specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. C. 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. Exhibit 0 — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 3.4 The phasing plan may require 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. Cul-de-sacs require a 96 -foot radius. 3.5 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.6 Operational file 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 proposed 64 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 186 residents at build out. 3.8 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 3.9 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). 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 Any interior fencing next to common open space shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 4.2 Lot 8, Block 2, creates a residence that will be isolated from their surrounding neighbors. Such areas have an increased crime potential. The applicant shall work with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff to revise the plat/site plan such that the houses/dwelling units in the general area are oriented toward one another and encourage interaction between more neighbors. The plattsite plan shall be revised in accord with those discussions. 5. Parks Department 5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed. 5.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed. Exhibit S — Page 2 u LJ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 5.3 Pathway and Trail standards: The applicant should be required to construct a 10 -foot wide multi- use pathway through this site from either Black Cat Road or Cherry Lane. The required pathway and/or trail shall be constructed in accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. 5.4 Standard for City to assume Maintenance of a section of Pathway: The pathway must connect from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed must be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 SSC has no comments related to this application. 7. Ada County Highway District Site &e -q& Con&dons ofp roval 1. Construct the site's access intersecting Cherry Lane approximately 143 -feet east of the west property line, as proposed. 2. Construct sidewalk in compliance with District policy along Cherry Lane located a minimum of 41 -feet from the centerline of the roadway. 3. Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Cherry Lane abutting the parcel by means of a warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichcvcr occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way dedicated which is an addition to existing ACRD right-of-way if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with the ACRD Ordinance in effect at that time (currently Ordinance #200), if finds are available. 4. Extend O' Connor Avenue to the north (with Turnberry #2 Subdivision), as proposed. Consult District staff regarding the utilization of the road trust deposit funds set aside from Turnberry #2 for the cost of piping and paving over the Safford Sublateral where O'Conner Street connects. 5. Construct one new stub street to the east from W. Cornice Street located approximately 370 -feet north of the south property line; and one new stub street to the west from W. Cornice Street located approximately 370 -feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 6. Provide traffic calming along N. Powder Way (i.e. chokers, bulb -outs, traffic circles, etc.). The applicant should coordinate the location and design of the traffic calming devices with District Traffic Services staff. 7. Construct internal streets as 36 -foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5 -foot attached concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. 8. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Exhibit B Page 2 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 Standard Conditions oLAWroval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of-way. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 6. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District'*. Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 firll 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. 12. 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 authodzc d 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. 13. 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 Exhibit B — Page 2 0 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granters 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. t 8.2 The following,plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. ccntml scwagc and ccutral water. 8.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. Exhibit B — Page 2 0 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 C. Legal Description "ect: 10-05.125 Date:. February 9, 2006 WWNE VILLAGE ANNEIUTION BOUNDARY That Portion of the SQUOMRst 1/4 of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 County, West, Boise Meridian, Adaty, ham, and more partkulAft described as follows: Soldl.st 1 /M4, N k.* 8g'a Tt d' We9t,tcor f f t4'- the ce S��Y boundary of the thence am Unutng along sold boundary, Nwth 89` 1r1O' West, 334.35 feet to the East 1 /16 cber of Sectlgn 4; m N"OD-417V Fast U ,e WI) boundary of the East 1/2 of the Sou"w4a •1 /4 Of said sgtvM 5.feLm4 thence South 89'1W East, 793.86 feet; thence South W'37'4r West, 822.68 feet; thence North 59.22W West, 461.44 feet; theme South 00'36.00' West, 652.31 feet to the PAINT OF BEGINNING. CW"fR ng 20.006 acres, more or toss. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared b>r J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. RaltaWAL HQ0j% P.L.S. ey�V W APP,y� - MaRM AN PUSUG WORKS DEPT. RMHAUCthc P:10AL110-0y 9S - tnom VAtW18'W1" • AtfmW0ftalp W&104S-1S-kn,.dac Exhibit C — Page 1 0 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NNE 27, 2006 Exhibit C — Page 2 8575 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a fill 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 R4. Council funds 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-4 zone, if the applicant enters into a development agreement with the city. 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. S. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City ((JDC 11 -SWM). The R4 zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions in the near vicinity, and transitions well to the existing rural lots in the 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 findings listed above, Council finds that Anncxation and Zoningops vrogerty to R-4 would bg in the best interest of the City if the applicant enters into a Development Aglr� u t (DA) with the City. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-maldng body shall make the following findings: Exhibit D - Page 1 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 27, 2006 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Council finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Council generally supports the proposed plat layout as it generally complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, and Analysis, Section 10 of the Staff Report. Z. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. 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 dcvclopment at their cost, Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. 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, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings, and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B for more detail.) S. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Council is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed suhdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Council is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. 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. 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. Exhibit D — Page 2 11 September 1, 2006 • AZ 05-064 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Tuscany Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 5-D REQUEST Development Agreement -- Requst for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for Bear Creek West Subdivision -- south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard 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 Development Agreement Contacted:Zx:,�2�Date:Phone: Emailed: • P "Inifials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. } 0 11' CITY OF IDAHO SFR �d".rREA.SUI2E VARY SINCE 1903 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joseph W. Borton Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS City Attorney/HR 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HR) Fax 884-8723 Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234/fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579/fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533/fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678/fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500/fax 895-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211/fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191/fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242/fax 884-1159 July 11, 2006 0 RECEIVED JUL 14 2006 Becky McKay AUG 2 5 2006 Engineering Solutions, LLP Ci 150 East Aikens Street �� Of Me Clerk Office B Eagle, ID 83616 Re: Development Agreement — Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ 05-06x4 Dear Ms. McKay, Enclosed please find the original Development Agreement for Bear Creek West Subdivision, which is ready for your review and signatures of the appropriate parties. Please sign where indicated and return to the City of Meridian City Clerk's Office for placement on the next available City Council Agenda for approval. Please call me if you have any questions at 208-888-4433. Sincerely, J " Akk� Tara Green Deputy City Clerk enc. CITY FALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK— FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING— FAX 8874813 MAYOR'S OFFICE— FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled paper • ADA COUNTY RECORDEP"VID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 55 BOISE IDAHO 09121/06 0WI PM DEPUTY VIW Allen RECORDED -REQUEST OF City of Meridian 106151232 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. r City of Meridian 2. Tuscany Development, Developer 3. Tuscany Development, Owner 4: Kenai Partners, LLC, Owner 5. R Craig and Rebecca Groves Foundation, Owner THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into thisW day of J.A 2006, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State daho, hereafter called "CITY", Tuscany Development, whose address is PO Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", and Tuscany Development, whose address is PO Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642; Kenai Partners, LLC whose address is 6233 N. Discovery Way, Boise, ID 83713; R. Craig and Rebecca Groves Foundation, whose address is 6233 N. Discovery Way, Boise, ID 83713, hereinafter called "OWNERS". 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "Owners" are the sole owners, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. § 67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re -zoning that the "Developer" and/or "Owners" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Unified Development Code 11 -5B -3.D2, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Developer" has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of the "Property's" described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of (R-8) Medium Density Residential District, (Municipal Code of the City of Meridian); and 1.5 WHEREAS, "Developer" and/or "Owners" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 13 0 • Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the 25d' day of April, 2006, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the "Findings"); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the "Developer" and/or "Owners" to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 "DEVELOPER" and/or "OWNERS" deem it to be in their best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at their urging and requests; and 1.10 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Developer" and/or "Owners" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure re -zoning designation is in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City Code Title 11 and Title 12. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 13 0 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. r 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 "DEVELOPER": means and refers to Tuscany Development, whose address is PO Box 344, Meridian, Idaho 83642, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any subsequent developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "OWNERS": means and refers to Tuscany Development, whose address is PO Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642; Kenai Partners, LLC whose address is 6233 N. Discovery Way, Boise, ID 83713; Richard C. and Rebecca Groves, whose address is 6233 N. Discovery Way, Boise, ID 83713,the parties that owns said "Property" and shall include any subsequent owner(s) of the "Property". 3.4 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be annexed and zoned R-8 (Medium Density Residential District) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City's" Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Unified Development Code which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of a Certificate ofZoning Compliance shall be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to a future development in the R-8 zone, and the pertinent provisions of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan are applicable to this AZ 05-064 application. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDMSION PAGE 3 OF 13 • 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. "Developer" and/or "Owners" shall develop the "Property" in accordance with the following special conditions: 5.1.1. That 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. 5.1.2. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed 'in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. 5.1.3. That the applicant be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 5.1.4. 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. 5.1.5. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 5.1.6 That five-foot wide sidewalks and street buffers constructed in accordance with City Code, be installed along S. Stoddard Road and W. Kodiak Drive with each phase, prior to occupancy of any new dwelling units for said phase. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the "Developer" and/or "Owners" or "Developers"' and/or "Owners"' heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 13 • Subject Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in Idaho Code § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: "Developer" and/or "Owners" consents upon default to the reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to -wit: 7.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Developer" and/or "Owners and if the "Developer" and/or "Owners" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. INSPECTION: "Developer" and/or "Owners" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development. 9. DEFAULT: 9.1 In the event "Developer" and/or "Owners", or "Developer's" and/or "Owners"' heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property", this Agreement may be modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 9.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Developer" and/or "Owners" of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Developer's" and/or "Owners"' cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Developer" and/or "Owners", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 OF 13 0 . with the re -zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 11. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. 12• REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Developer" and/or "Owners", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 12.1 In the event of a,material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City" and "Developer" and/or "Owners" shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non -breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Developer" and/or "Owners" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the. party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code § 12-5-3, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the "Developer" and/or "Owner" agree to provide, if required by the "City". DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 OF 13 14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Developer" and/or "Owners" agree that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the "City" and "Developer" and/or "Owners" has entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Developer" and/or "Owners" agree to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Properly" shall be subject to de -annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: DEVELOPER: c/o City Engineer Tuscany Development City of Meridian PO Box 344 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Meridian, ID 83642 OWNERS: Tuscany Development PO Box 344 Meridian, ID 83642 Kenai Partners, LLC 6223 N. Discovery Way Boise, ID 83713 R. Craig and Rebecca Groves Foundation 6223 N. Discovery Way Boise, ID 83713 with copy to: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDMSION PAGE 7 OF 13 City Clerk City of Meridian ` 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 16.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 18. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City's" corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the "Developer" and/or "Owners" of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, _ except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Developer" and/or "Owners", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if "City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that "Developer" and/or "Owners" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDMSION PAGE 8 OF 13 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Developer" and/or "Owners" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Developer" and/or "Owners" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re -zoning of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the "City" has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. DEVELOPER: TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT • ' TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT </,� ' y, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION PAGE 9 OF 13 0 11 KENAI PARTNERS, LLC R. CRAIG & REBECCA GROVES FOUNDATION CITY OF MERIDIAN •' A1171j.- • Orr No f Attest: *`�A 4-1 SEAL - ITY CLERK i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 13 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada, ) On this day of Acks �-2006, before me, the undersigned, a N tart Public in and for'i said State, personally appeared Soon known or identified to me to be the w s► A e of Tuscany Development, acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. B ON -'* NRY aQ '� ®® .• �� "'Iz PPA TE�4 °°°°oe .%2 Ra0®00ge� STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada, ) Notaky Public for Idaho Residing at: Y Aev� & �,q My Commission Expires: On this —Y day of A t j Lk s I , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a otary Public in and for said State, personally appeared -wn, known or identified to me to be the of Tuscany Development, acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ;:]G839ggggg. go ' o AV �, = No Public for Idaho * S. PUB�'� •��o Residing at:% '•.° s '••..°...•°°�Q"o. My Commission Expires: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION . PAGE 11 OF 13 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada, ) On this %�� day of s 2006, before me, the un ersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared �Y' known or identified to me to be the r e 1n P v,.� of Kenai Partners, LLC, acknowledged to me that he executed t e sa eon behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ° RY ` ®�o•'v 4Z. 00 rA TV, STATE OF IDAHO, ) No Public for Idaho Residing at: `7 �?L.B()Jop My Commissi n Expires ss County of Ada, ) On this _ day of 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, Ilersonally appeared Sandra L. Berenter, known or identified to me to be the Trustee of R. Craig and Rebecca Groves Foundation, acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of said foundation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.the day and year in this certificate first above written. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDMSION PAGE 12 OF 13 Z (SEAL) 4Ntary Public fo: • d Residing at: My Commission D9do* dei �.✓ � C'_ lr �®®+ ���8®eg8e90899®1y;34�®: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDMSION PAGE 12 OF 13 Z V� STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this_ day of nnnjr , 2006, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. 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 Idaho Residing at: (�a ich LX 1. 1, 1 p Commission expires: J d`j 1-�(I DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 05-064) BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION PAGE 13 OF 13 IDAHO SURVEY GROUP Project No. 04-268 0 DESCRIPTION FOR • ANNEXATION BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION 1450 East Watertower St. Suite 150 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone (208) 846-8570 Fax (208) 884-5399 July 6, 2006 A parcel of land located in the W 1/2 of Section 24, UN., R.1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap monument marking the C 1/4 comer of said Section 24 from which a 5/8" iron pin marking the N 1/4 corner of said Section 24 bears North 00°51'53" East, 2634.95 feet; thence along the North-South centerline of said Section 24 South 00051'53" West, 170.09 feet to a 5/8" iron pin marking the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said North-South centerline South 00151'53" West, 827.30 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving said North-South centerline North 89024'36" West, 661.27 feet to a 5/8" iron pin on the East boundary line of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 24; thence along said East boundary line South 00049'26" West, 331.46 feet to a 5/8" iron pin on the South boundary line of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 24; thence along said South boundary line North 89°21'42" West, 518.26 feet to a point on the northerly boundary line of Eggers Subdivision as filed in Book 29 of Plats at Page 1804, records of Ada County, Idaho, said point also being on the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal and on a curve to the left; thence along said northerly boundary line and said centerline the following 14 courses: along said curve 295.77 feet, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 67047'06" and a long chord of 278.82 feet which bears North 29054'34" West to a point of compound curve; thence along said compound curve 287.11 feet, said curve having a radius of 700.00 feet, a central angle of 23°30'00" and a long chord of 285.10 feet which bears North 75°33'07" West to the point of tangency; thence North 87°18'07" West, 76.22 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; Professional Land Surveyors thence along said curve 100.36 feet, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 23°00'00" and a long chord of 99.68 feet which bears North 75°48'07" West to the point of tangency; thence North 64°18'07" West, 164.62 feet; thence North 53038'07" West, 183.05 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; thence along said curve 104.72 feet, said curve having a radius of 225.00 feet, a central angle of 26°40'00" and a long chord of 103.78 feet which bears North 66°58'07" West to a point of compound curve; thence along said compound curve 128.72 feet, said curve having a radius of 125.00 feet, a central angle of 59000'00" and a long chord of 123.11 feet which bears South 70°11'53" West to the point of tangency; thence South 40°41'53" West. 127.21 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; thence along said curve 98.03 feet, said curve having a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle of 112°20'00" and a long chord of 83.07 feet which bears North 83°08'07" West to a point of compound curve; thence along said compound curve 99.48 feet, said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a central angle of 19000'00" and a long chord of 99.03 feet which bears North 17°28'07 West to the point of tangency; thence North 07058'07" West, 234.45 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; thence along said curve 32.34 feet, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 07°24'45" and a tong chord of 32.32 feet which bears North 11140'30" West; thence North 89018'07" West, 126.06 feet to a point on the West boundary line of said Section 24; thence along said West boundary line North 00041'53" East, 548.41 feet to a 5/8" iron pin marking the W 1/4 comer of said Section 24; thence continuing along said West boundary line North 00041'54" East, 2108.21 - feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving said West boundary line South 52°41'34" East, 201.43 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 69016'34" East, 277.88 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 64°55'34" East, 315.97 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 60°34'34" East, 351.89 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 77°18'34" East, 313.83 feet to a 5/8" iron pin on the North-South centerline of the NW .1/4 of said Section 24; thence along said North-South centerline South 00°46'51" West, 789.08 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving said North-South centerline South 30°37'41" East, 510.19 feet to a 5/8" iron pin marking the beginning of a curve to the left; thence along said curve 990.51 feet, said curve having a radius of 970.00 feet, a central angle of 58030'26" and a long chord of 948.03 feet which bears South 59052'54" East to a 5/8" iron pin marking the point of tangency; thence South 89008'07" East, 231.37 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING containing 117.47 acres, more or less. Prepared By: Idaho Sw oup, P.C. 729 Gregory G. Carter, PLS �A�pROVA�- 'R I gY ,ut p 12006 "� QR S �EpT�G 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER RECEIVED MAY 0.5 2006 'an ffice � 111.111G ,1� In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) AND Preliminary Plat Approval for 321 single family residential lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres by Tuscany Development. Case No(s). AZ -05-064, PP -05-064 For the City Council Hearing Date of: April 4, 2006 (approved on April 25, 2006) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 4, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 4, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 4, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 4, 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 juiiicial 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 § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -05-064 and PP -05-064- PAGE 1 of 4 0 0 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 party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 4, 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 § 11-5A 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 Submitted and REVISED Mar-& 2, Anril 18, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 4, 2006 incorporated by reference; and, 3. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing: a. Thosegortions of Lots III and 113 Block 5 that are currently encumbered by the BAM casement for the Ridenbanghh C'anal shag be made to be in a -common lot (the buffdable lots shall not be encumbered by the easement.), D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Twelve (12) Month 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, may be 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 - CITY OF MERIDIAN FM'NGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -05-064 and PP -05-064- PAGE 2 of 4 0 • 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 may be granted. With 411 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 may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of April 4, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -05-064 and PP -05.064- PAGE 3 of 4 0 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED"_� COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED__YL4-.., COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED TIE BREAKER MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED de WEERD ATTEST: 1 , LIAM G. BERG, JR., Olt Copy served upon: Applicant �'� ��r•• r:+`' `Z Planning Department Public Works Department City Attorney By.hJX 0 A Dated: G.-In-Q(o City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION k ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -05-064 and PP -05-064- PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 STAFF REPORT City Council Hearing Hearing Date: 4/4/2006a 6) 044�r (ppioved 425•.0 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Wilson, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Bear Creek West Subdivision • AZ -05-064 Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT and Rl to R-8 zone • PP -05-064 Preliminary Plat of 320 single family building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone • VAR -05-026 Variance to exceed the maximum block length for Bear Creek West Subdivision 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Tuscany Development, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 116.81 acres from RUT and RI (Ada County) to R-8 (Medium -Density Residential)and Preliminary at single family residential. lots and 34 common lots. The site is located wesPlo I approval of st o0 Linder Road, and south of Overland Road This site currently contains vacant land. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on January 19 and February 16, 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Becky McKay ii. In opposition: None. iii. Commenting: Don Weber, Neil Bowl, Chuck Rough, James Prather, Allen Bradshaw, Jan Young iv. Staff presenting application: Josh Wilson v. Other staff commenting on application: Mike Cole b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Lot sizes on perimeter of subdivision ii. Impact of subdivision on existing church to the north and vice versa c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Delete Condition 3.2 ii. Modify Condition 1.3.6 to reference the Ridenhaugh Canal Incorporate changes from the January 19, 2006 emailfrom Becky McKay to Don Weber OTE: The tit has submittgd a revisedDr e ' lat dated March 2, 2006 which complies with these changes): 1. Move Elias Drive south 10 feet and increase the depth of the lots adjoining the church facility to 150 and 155 feet in depth. 2. Adjust lot lines to reduce the number of lots that adjoin the church parcel from three to two. Bar Creek West Subdivision AZ.05-064, PP -05-064, VAR -05-026 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 3. The two lots adjoining the church property will be restricted to single story homes. 4. A two foot berm with a six foot sight obscuring fence will be installed along the north boundary of the Bear Creek West property. 5. The developer will install a landscape buffer on the north side of the two lots which adjoin the church facility. 6. The developer shall disclose in purchase agreements for lots which adjoin the church facility that outdoor activities take place at the church. These activities are approved and pre-existing, and should in no way be considered a nuisance. This language shall also be included in the covenants of the subdivision. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council. i. Block Length Variance: Staff is recommending approval of the subject Variance application (VAR -05-026) for the reasons listed herein. We find that the application meets all of the findings required in the UDC in order for the City Council to grant a variance (see analysis below and Exhibit D). 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approve (All Applications) I move to approve File Numbers AZ -05-064, PP -05-064, and VAR -05-024 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 4, 2006, and the preliminary plat dated Mm:eh4, AUCLIS,_2006 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Deny (All Applications) I move to deny File Numbers AZ -05-064, PP -05-064, and VAR -05-026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 4, 2006, and the preliminary plat dated A4amh 2, ADS, 2006 for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial). Continue (All Applications) I move to continue the public hearing for File Numbers AZ -05-064, PP -05-064, and VAR -05-026 to (date certain). 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: West of S. Stoddard Road, east of S. Linder Road, and south of W. Overland Road W1/2, Section 24, T3N R1W b. Owners: 1. Tuscany Developmetit P.O. Box 344 Meridian, Idaho 83642 2. Kenai Partners, LLC 6223 N. Discovery Way Boise, ID 83713 3. Richard C. and Rebecca Groves Hear Creek West Subdivision AZ -05-W, PP -05-064, VAR -05-026 PAGE 2 0 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE %TEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 6223 N. Discovery Way Boise, ID 83713 4. Nick and Zhana Hansen P.O. Box 140838 Boise, ID 83714 c. Applicant: Tuscany Development P.O. Box 344 Meridian, Idaho 83642 d. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, LLP e. Present Zoning: RUT and RI f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of REVISED Preliminary Plat (attached as Exhibit Al): Mwvh 2, 20e6- Anri1 18,2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached as Exhibit A2): November 11, 2005 h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (reference submittal material): "It is in the best interest of the City that the property be annexed to the City of Meridian with a zoning of R-8. The project will provide a diversity of housing and lot sizes. The proposed overall net density (3.52) of the project complies with the City's designation of Medium Density Residential, which calls for 3-8 units per acre. The project offers a variety of lot sizes within the development and construction of a portion of the City of Meridian's multi -use pathway system. The project also offers amenities for the neighborhood while still providing an urban density development." 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation and/or rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 16, 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 12 Chapter 3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: March 13 and 27, 2006 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: March 10, 2006 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 25, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant land and a rural residence b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Mostly agricultural land with some rural residences and the existing Bear Creek Subdivision to the east. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ -05-064, PP -05.064, VAR -05-026 PAGE 3 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 I. North: Existing rural residences and agricultural land, zoned RUT and Rl (Ada County) and R-8. 2. East: Existing residences in Bear Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4 and a future middle school site, zoned RUT (Ada County). 3. South: Existing rural residences in Eggers, Model Farm Acres, and Pebble Lane E�tates Subdivisions, zoned RI (Ada County). 4. West: Rural residences in Ariel Estates Subdivision, zoned RI (Ada County) and agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County). d. History of Previous Actions: None. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer. Currently not serviceable. Will sewer in the future to the Black Cat Trunk Location of water: There is water in S. Stoddard. Issues or concerns: The need for a second water feed. Not currently serviceable by the City of Meridian's sewer system 2. Vegetation: None. 3. Flood plain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The property is bounded on the south by the Ridenbaugh Canal. 5. Hazards: None. 6. Proposed Zoning: R-8 7. Size of Property: 116.81 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information 1. Residential Lots: 320 2. Non-residential Lots: 1 3. Total Building Lots: 321 4. Common Lots: 34 5. Other Lots: N/A 6. Total Lots: 354 7. Open Lots: 34 8. Residential Area: 116.81 9. Cross Density: 2.74 units per acre g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): A 25 -foot wide street buffer is required along Linder Road which is an arterial street, and a 20 -foot wide street buffer is required along Stoddard Road, which is an urban collector (UDC 11-2A-5). The applicant is proposing a 35 - foot wide landscape buffer along Linder Road and a 30 -foot wide landscape buffer Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ -05-064, PP -05-064, VAR -05-026 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 along Stoddard Road Road. Staff is generally supportive of the street buffer widths Proposed, h wev a existino t,.,w,p -- T.--,-- . - - r vic ed to - """ ".niv a zs-tot street buff t be finder Road aeiLent to the home. Street buffers are not required on any of the internal, local streets. The applicant is proposito provide a 20 -foot street buffer on W. Kodiak Drive, which is consistent with ang collector roadway. Staff is supportive of the proposed street section design. Z. Width of buffers) between land uses: N/A 3, percentage of site as open space: 16.38 acres/14% (including street buffers acres/10.3% (excluding street buffers). (including ) and 12.05 4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micro paths should comply With UDC 11-3B-12. Common open space lots should include at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (UDC 11 -3G -3E2). h. Proposed and Required Non -Residential Setbacks: per the R-8 zone for detached single family R-8 Standard Front (Living area) 15 feet Front (Garage) 20 feet Side 4 feet Rear 12 feet Max- Building Height 35 feet Min. Lot Size 5,000 square feet Min. Street Frontage 50 feet i. Summary of Proposed Struts and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the development will be from Kodiak Drive, with one access point ri one access point to S. Stoddard Road. to S. Linder Road and The existing access to Linder Road must be eliminated. Please see ACRD report and discussion below for details. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 30, 2005 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments Present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks D Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Co an Department, and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached F,xhibl g included all comments 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This properly is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain from three to eight dwellings per aero (see Page ac of the Comprehensive Plan.) The proposed Preliminary Plat includes 320 single-family lots on 116.81 acres for a gross density of 2.74 dwelling units/acre. As allowed b Note F d Use a thea li Y #2 on the faces of the ._ _ ,• is eQUestln� a atm, ri.,...« :., a-..__��_ - _ finds that the n�y ` DejCmprehesive Plan policies apply to this application: Staff Chapter VII•, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 - Require that development projects have Planned for the provision of all public services. Bear Creek West Subdivision Az -o5-064, pP_05_064, VAR -05-026 PAGE CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRII.4, 2006 When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject properly. The City of Meridian plans top to be annexed in the following manner, rovide municipal services to the lands proposed • Sanitary sewer and water service wild be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural IF District. Oncet annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian Ci Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within thejurisdiction of the Ada county Sheri s Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian police D a Ty Office. • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands erre currently owned and maintained ,�y the Ada County Highway District (ACID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently will not change. serviced by the Meridian School District 42. This service • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian y District. This servc will not change and the Meridian Library District should su�`er norevenue loss asr 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 Company. Services, and Sanitary • Chapter VT, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3 - Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" Walking in all land -use decisions. from the National Center for Bicycling and This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkw construction and reconstruction project in a aY facilities in new Staff believes that the subject p manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. above. applications comply with the policies listed in the literature noted • Chapter VII, Goal L Objective D, Action 9 - Require new residential development to Permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and Prevent windblown pro er debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties. A six foot tall closed fence has been proposed around the entire perimeter of the development. Prior to house construction, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter ofthis site. • Chapter VI, Goal $ Objective A. Action 5 - R development to link subdivisions together to Prom e n�eighbo hood connectivity as part ",ors in all of a community Pathway system. Staff is supportive of the proposed pedestrian connections to adjacent properties and along the Ridenbaugh Canal. • Chapter VII', Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6 -Requiredevvelopment to link subdivisions together and Promote pedestrian eig bo hood connectivity. Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ -05-064, PP -05-064, VAR -05-026 PAGE 6 Raw CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 See above. • Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 2 - collectors and arterial streets. Restrict curb cuts and access points on One public street access to Linder Road and one proposed, an& staff is recommending that access from �he existinlic street g home � Lrt�eaRoad not be allowed. Direct lot access to Linder Road and Stoddard Road should be prohibited by a note on the plat, e ' Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective C, Action l incompatible land use development on adjacent - rcProtect existing residential Properties from The applicant is proposing a residential zone. Sta the south, east and west are co .ff hdY that the existing residential properties to mpatible with the proposed development. Chapter VI% Goal IV' Objective C. Action 10 - (low-, medium-, and high-density single family, multi -fat y of residential categories apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of ovidin Y, townh°uses, duplexes, affordable housing opportunities, g the City with a range of The subject application includes a request for the R-8 zone. Sta designation contributes to the variety of residential zoning caategoriestinerequested ng generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this sitethis area and. is 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2A-2 Conditional Use. lists single family developments as a b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the residential districts is to housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Com re Provide for a range e City of Meridian water and sewer P pensive Plan Connection to the Residential districts are di is a requirement for all residential districts. corresponding hosts g typdistinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units pr ac re and es that can be accommodated within the density range. e 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation AIMUMIN MAUS& Based on the policies and Plan and the general compliance of the goals contained in the Comprehensive believes that this is a good location for tthhesproposed sin ent with the Zoning Ordinance, staff Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings may development. Please see The annexation legal description submitted with the application by Gregory Carter, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the repting corps bounldary of the City of Meridian_, 2005 That the applicant will be responsible for all costs extension. dated with the sewer and water service Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ-05-Wl PP -05-064, VAR -05-026 PAGE 7 CITY OF MEglpLkN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 removed from their domestic serviceper City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are , available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used . for non-domestic purposes such r landscape irrigation. as 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. 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. S2ecial Considerations• p� Stdewalk` A future middle school site is planned to project on Stoddard Road. At open at the northeast corner of the gest meetings, the City Council and the public have expressed concerns over the lack of sidewalks adjacent to arterial streets and how difcult its for children to walk/bike to nearby schools. In light of these concerns applicant required to construct a 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk along th lr frontage of SS.. Soedard Road e and W. Kodiak Drive, prior to issuance of building permits in the first phase of the development. e el mt em t: UDC 11 -5B -3.D.2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a Property owner to enter into a bevel that may require some written commitment for all future uses. S1 belent ieves th tt a DA isent (DA) with City n o ensure t this nronerty is developed ' a fashion Ar is ° istent�v-th the com reh 've 1 des' on and does of a tiv 1 ' � ro Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance and the developer. the applicant sh os 'n 18 m at c n ct a City ttornev Bill ��, ar $gg33 to�nutiate this of Ci C un ' a rovai f the ann tin lest. The DA shall incorporate the following: • That all future uses shall not involve uses, activities conditions of operation that will be detrimental to an activities, equipment and reason of excessive production of y Persons, PrOPe1ly or the general welfare by P traffic, noise smoke, fumes, glare or odors. • That all future development of the subject propertyshall be City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. constructed in accordance with • That the applicant will be responsible esponsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service • That any existing domestic wells and/or systems removed from their domestic service septic stems v�nthm this Project will have to be available from the City of Meridian. Wells lmmayy be uty sed f Or non-dtion omestic when services are landscape irrigation. purposes such as • That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Property be subdivided in pment Code. * That five-foot wide sidewalks and street buffers, co be installed along S. Stoddard Road and W. Kodiak Driv�tt di accordance with City Code, any new dwelling units for said phase, Pie, Prior to occupancy of PRET, ARY PLAT ANAU C: Based on the policies andals in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the Proposed develop Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the development with theZoning Products. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts andtownhouse residential Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ -05-064, PP -05-064, VAR.05-026 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE BARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 1' C �Ueto eNrt of ft—PLOP-Staff has been made aware that there is an existing indoor/outdoor church located adjacent to the north property line of the project. The representative of the church is concerned about conflicts between the existing church use and the homes proposed on the north boon the church property which ma �'• There is an apprOVed pA system on adjacent. Please reference the letter dated d D cembert icts 12residential 055 from D des which are Becky. McKay regarding the church's concerns. The Comana Armstrong to consider public testimony to determine whether the proposal and Council should proposalwill have detrimental effects on adjacent properties, 2• tt B e aloe in r o Sto required along Linder Road which is an arterialRo A 25 -foot wide street buffer is required along Stoddard Road, which is an and a 20 -foot wide street buffer is collector applicant is proposing a 35 -foot wide landscape buffer along Linder Rom cod -a 30 -foot wide landscape buffer along Stoddard Road. Staff is generally buffer widths proposed, h w the exi ho supportive of the street mustess o in ° d tha is to r st[eet5 wlthi t P su divi3l n and a mem u in t d a° d d'ac t to th h 25 -foot not required on any of the internal, local streets. The applicant Street buffers are 20 -foot street buffer on W. Kodiak Drive, which is consistent with a of lector roadway.osing to Provide a 3 in and ce Staff is supportive of the proposed landscaping design. The applicant is proposing to set aside 12.05 acres (10.3% of the r required street buffers, for open property), exclusive of space, and will function as P space' All common lots which are approved as open drainage areas' shall be vegetated and usable by residents. 4 �m to R ' • The existing home to remain on Lot 38, Block 5 shall be the plat pr required rohibiting direct lot take access from an internal subdivision street and a note shall be placed on access to Linder Road and Stoddard Road should modify the plat to extend W. Bear Creek Ct. to the north to The applicant frontage to Lot 38, Block 5. The landscape plan shall also be modified o internal Item #2 above. 5, esUM ri°nThe City of Meridian requires that supplied by ayear--round source of water Pressurized irrigation systems be required to utilize an existing(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be Yill surface a well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle--point comiection to the culinary shall be required. water system If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior o 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. 6. Fene� The applicant has submitted a detailed fencing dated November 11, 2005) with the pre g P� (on the landscape plan Staff is generally Supportive of the fencing Y Plat application for the subdivision. 3A-7 requires that fences ad' proposed, with the following changes: UDC- height if sight obstnfwtin adjacent to common ot ifpen space are restricted to four feet in 6 ots 40 foot vinyl fence adjacent to the commond six feet in er pen space onen ion. The Lot 8, Block and shows and 44, Block 5. The landscape plan shall be amended to comply with UDC 11-3A-7 and Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ -o-064, PP -05.064, VAR -05-026 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 412006 restrict solid fencing adjacent to these lots to four feet prior to submittal of the final plat. All perimeter fencing rnrt be completed nor to iswithin 20 s should taper down to 3 feet P uance of building permits. All fences should be installed in accordance th UDC -3A-7. t of all right-of-way. All fencing 7 i o- :All micro paths shall be constructed in accordance with (construction) and UDC 11-3B (landscaping). UDC 11-3A-8 8' �QWn � -- Maintenance of all common areas s Creek West Home Owners' hall ASSOClatlOm be the responsibility of the Bear 9. i rhes Later Ic and Canals. There are exiting Perimeter of this property. The Rhere a irrigation ditches that run along the this site. Large facilities which would Cana] runs along the southern boundary of open and Staff r require very large pipe sizes are all to remain recommends that the City not require the applicant to tile the Ri Canal abutting this site. Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, denbaugh exclusive of natural waterways, the Ridenban amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided waterways being used as YARIAI_VCE AN YSIS: The h g shall be covered. length of 750 feet. Theapplicant a� � ��ed a mance to exceed the maximum block provided for traffic circulation with a street layout that Provides adequate stub streets and. connections to adjacent r Ridenbaugh Canal to the south and � properties within the constraints of the of the street layout and acknowledgesa t developed properties to the north. Staff is supportive Properties wherever feasible. The that efforts have been made to connect to adjacent traffic conflicts b Proposed subdivision increases interconnectivity and reduces Y Providing a collector road which connects Linder Road and Stoddard Road. b. Staff Recommendation: The subject property is within the Urban Service PI subject applications (AZ and PP) were submitted to the planning planning Area. The Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis Department for concurrent review. annexation and zoningand recommended conditions of approval for the requested Preliminary Plat applications. 11. EDITS A. Drawings 1. REVISED Preliminary, Plat (dated: March 2, 2006) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: November 11, 2005 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 C. Legal Description Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ -05-064, PP -05-064, VAR -05-026 PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Bear Creek West Subdivision AZ -05-064, PP -05-064, VAR_05-026 PAGE 11 P Wry 41 r F Yjl 146 7, q7 I - WMARMI'lipm. , -.-ri CITY OF IAN PLANNING AEPAitT n STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated: September 9, 2005) '. Xt r- j ' {1 syr. � a_�`:$\.�d-'.^:1�. "�')(�t't'i �)r�'l i'._ti'��;•�'^_ Exhibit A ';��c I I i _ •.µFS ;.� dWk CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINC3 DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 Exhibit A CITY OF MERMANPLANNING, DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4,2006 Exhibit QM"NA 'EAR c EMST Rr PLAT ,R,R% , p LLC ....... ..... QM"NA 'EAR c EMST Rr PLAT ,R,R% , p LLC CITY OF WRIDIAN PLANNING DEPAR7WMNT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4 2 006 Exhibit A Alfillk CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING ]DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 m, MAYw so ONO A�l _t .44.. LLC 111;441 lv,151�4 Exhibit Eli 10, I it A�l _t .44.. LLC 111;441 lv,151�4 Exhibit Eli CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL, 4, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 ANNEXATION COMMENTS Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the developer, The IicantProperty shall t ownerC(atthetime, �of aaanexation ordinance adoption), and incorporate the following: ..uncrl a ° -- • •.'a LU nuuate T1713 ° exatio r , The DA shall • That all future uses shall not involve uses, activities processes, conditions of operation that will be detrimental to an materials, equipment and reason of excessive production of Y Persons, property or the general welfare by hake noise, smoke, fuares • That all future development� bare or odors. City of Meridian of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with ordinances in effect at the time of development. • That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. • That any existing domestic wells and/or septic tos removed from their domestic service systenancems within this Project will have to be available from the Ci of Meridian.W us 1 � f� 7, non-domesticwhoi services are landscape irrigation. CityY Purposes such as • That Prior to issuance of any building Permit, the subject accordance with the City of of Unified bevel ➢ Property be subdivided in • That five-foot wide sidewalks and street b��s' Development Code. be installed along S. Stoddard Road and W. K constructed"' accordance with City Code, any new dwelling units for said phase. °� Drive with each phase, prior to occupancy of 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS_pRELRAWARY PLAT 1.2.1 The REVISED preliminary plat labeled as PP -1 prepared b Fn ADM 11 066 is approved, with the conditions listed herein. g Solutions, dated l nh accompanying Annexatron/ZOning (AZ -05-064) shall also be consideredcomments/conditions is/conditions of the Preliminary plat (PP-05-064),conditions of the 1.2.2 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Bear Creek West Subdivision Homeowners' Association. 1.2.3 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with °p space are subject to UDC 11 - surface materials shall not be used in grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non -vegetated Where the applicant has submitted a space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. such plan, the landscapiconsistentng preliminary landscape Plan and where staff has reviewed Proposed by staff. If the sttOnuwaber detention facili with the Pre mazy Plan with modifications as be incorporated into the aPproved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, �othen the applicant shall re, the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable ares.. It is the the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other redory requirements at responsibility of the time of final construction. 1.2.4 The landscape Plan shall be amended to depict fencing adjacent to Lot 8, Block 14 and Lots 40 44, and 115, Block 5 as a maximum of four feet for solid fencing, in co 3A-7, prior to submittal of the final. plat. compliance with UDC 11 Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANMNG DEPARTMENN j• STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APS 4, 2006 1.2.5 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or Ridenbaugh Canal, and waterwa canals, exclusive of natural waterways, the area being subdivided shall be ered g used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the 1.2.6 The existing home on Lot 38, Block 5 to rem Road and take access from int must eliminate the driveway access to Linder buffer must be provided in a internal streets within the subdivision. A minimum 25 -foot street 1.2.7 The plat shall be modified to e�endlot along Linder W. Bear Creek Ct. d adjacent to the home. frontage to Lot 38, Block 5, prior to submittal of the final t0 the north and give internal street 1.2.8 Direct lot access to S. Linder Road and S. Stoddard Road is plat. the final Plat restricting access to S. Prohibited. q note shall be placed on P Linder Road and S. Stoddard Road. 1.2.9 Thamp nnr"--- ..e r — _ 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.6 1.3.7 Exhibit B `• " M (le toh a iC - •• 1, got be enctu�tbered by the easeaaentn s ) u 10 a bufldable to s GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision Pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized systems source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant be supplied by a year-round or well water for the cant sO�d be req ed to utilize any existing surface primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point developer will be responsible for the a Point connection is utilized, signature on the final plat by the Ci En payment of assessments for the common areas prior to should be installed to all �' gtneer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC�9-11--28. areas per a approved specifications and in accordance with A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with final plat p ordinance and as The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing P application. subdivision. ff permanent fencin g P with the final Plat application for the debris must be installed around the not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain should taper down to 3 feet Peter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fences maximum within 20 feet of all right -of --way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the Property additional trees, being the P PAY shall be replaced by installing Required landscaping a equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. P g trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of the RidenbauQh Canal intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled Pei' UDC 11-3A-6, unless otherwise approved by Nampa Meridian Irrigation need to be approved by the appropriate nTi gallon District. Plans w (ditch owners), with written approval llon/drainage district, or lateral users association If lateral users PP or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility, for compliance. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMT STAFF REPORT FOR THE IiEARt7vr, DATE OF AP RIL 4, 2006 1.3.8 ]?relumrnary plat approval shall be subject to the ex . 2• PUBLIC Wp Puahon provisions set forth in RKS DEPARTMENT UDC 11-6B-7, 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 Exhibit B This development is currently not serviceable b y the This area is master planned to sewer to the Black CatCtt City f Meridian's sanitary sewer system conditional on sewer being available and the City of Meridian The not of this development timelines outlined in the UDC. Poem is guarantee service in the The aPplicant`shalI install mains to and throw size and routing with the .Public Works D '� this development; applicant shall coordinate main any mains that are required to Provide vice. nt, and execute standard forms of easements for cover from top of pipe to sub -grade P de service. Minimum cover over sewer conformance of City of o idipuis less tth � th three feet mains is three feet, n than alternate materials shall be used in « ePartments Standard Specifications. No temporary" or "interim" lift -stations shall be allowed in this develo Water service to this site is beingPment. proposed via extension of mains in S. Stoddard Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install water main size and routing with public Works. Ex mains to and through this development, coordinate that are required to provide servicestandard forms of easements for any mains This entire development, approximately 321 lots, is being connection in S. Stoddard Road. in order to achieve redundancy, a with a single water of Meridian's water system at the intersection of Liner and Over' a second be required. to the City This development is on the edge of hand shall be required Proposed pressure zone boundaries. The applicant shall be responsible to install a pressure Road. The pressure reducing reducing vault at the connection to the water line in S. Stoddard vault shall be designed to include co are consistent with the City of Meridian's SCADA communication capabilities that at the public Works Department, Coordinate location with Len Grady The applicant shall reserve a portion of Lot 44, Block 5 for possible dedication to the City of Meridian for a well site. The applicant has not indicated who will own and o Proposed development. If it is to be Perste the pressure irrigation system in this be reviewed by the public Works Department a as a private system, Plans and specifications will copy" of the operations and maintenancearttrient as part of the construction Plan review. A "draft final Of being required prior to final manual will be required prior to plan approval with the Plat signature on If it is to be owned and maintained by an Im the last phase of this project. shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre -construction meetingdence of a license agreement The City of Meridian requires that pressurized ' source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). Theairrilicantg� systems be supplied by a year-round connection to the well water for the should be required to use any existing surface or primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single point culinary water system shall be the developer will be responsible for the a required' If a single -point connection is utilized, Engineer of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City All existing structures not meeting setbacks or zoning signature on the final plat by the City]Engineer.°rdutance shall be removed prior to Additional width to the public utilities, drainage and irrigation shall be dedicated where the sidewalk is located past g easement along the right -of way needs to be sufficient to allow for 10 feet of `°free andtcl right-of-way. The additional width easement past the sidewalk. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4 ,2006 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 The existing house shall be required to connect to City services. Theapplicant responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual physical hook-up f the hebe xistin house to municipal services. g e Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this domestic service per City ��nance Section 9-1-4 and 9„4_8 Project shall be removed from domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. Wells may be used for non - Street signs are to be in place, water t drainage lots construct system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, ed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to a 1 A letter of credit or cash sure PP 3'mg for burldtng permits. fencing, lands,, in surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted P g, amenities, pressurized irri n, Lary sewer, water, etc., Prior to signature on the final plat. �nO sanitary All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fen,' Pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior tobtaining ' certificates of occupancy. Applicant shall be required to Pay Public Works development plan review, inspection fees, as determined during the plan review nstruction Per Resolution 02-374. Proeecs, , and co Prior t signature on the final plat It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to all the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Hoouus�Actdevelopment features comply with APPlicaut shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Applicant shall be responsible for application and co li that may be required by the Army Corps of Engine ance with any Section 404 Permitting Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian BuildingD Pads receiving engineered backfill, where foot' would sit at fiDepartment for all building � atop material. 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 l .foot above. Two -hundred fifty and one hundred wa high-pressure i locations designated by the Public Works Department. sodium streetlights shall be required at subdivider', expense. Typical locations are atDa�enn Al streetlights shall be installed at design locations and quantity are der street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final Company. The street light Power deigns are completed by Idaho Power contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1. 111 famil duration of 2 hours to swervice the en ellings win require afire -flow of 1,000 gallons a Pml�• Fire hydrate shall be P&' minute available for Pact. International Fire Code Appendix C. P an average of 500 feet Exhibit B Now CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4 2006 3,3. For all Fire banes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.4. Insure that alb yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation. 3.5. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature 3.6. landscaping. operational fire hydrants, t surface are required before or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather combustible construction is brought on site. 3.7. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum Portion of the project, which serves more of two points of access will be required for any no less than '/: the diagonal measurement than 50 homes. The two entrances should be separated by ent of the full development. 3.8. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two storyco 3.9• The roadways shall be built to Ada Cour Highway nstruction, shall have a clear driving�'Standards cross section requirements and surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29 street width ure have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking orb on o ne side. These measurements shy � based on the face of curb able to accommodate an ' pension. The roadway shall be dosed load of 75,000 GVW, 3.10. The fire department r development of this requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the response by fire and emergency�e equipped with Opticom Sensors to medical service vehicles. This ensure a safe and efficient borne by the developer, cost of this installation is to be 3.11. Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy, 3.12. The applicant shall work with PlanningDepartment and a sign which meets the r theCJ staff to provide an address identification plan intersection(s).e1nents of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required 3.13. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the Iutemational Building & Fire Codes. 3.14. Pool chemicals shall be stored in compliance with the 7ntemadonal Fire Code. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1. The proposed plat and/or site design encoura es hi shall work with the Ada Coun g -spm tet -through traffic. The applicant travel speeds on W. Kodiak ty Highway District to provide traffic calming design to decrease 4.2, Any interior fencing e. shall allowvvisibili solid fencing is used. �' fiom the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if S. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1. Pathway and Trail standards: Theroposed pathway and/or trail accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. shall be constructed in Exhibit B r EPARTi.MEN STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE CITY OF M$RIp1AN PLANNING DP OF APRlI, 4, 2006 5.2. Standard for City to assume Maintenance of a section of Pathway. from one major arterial to another, and either an easementY The pathway must connect before the city will assume the or ownership deed must be granted 5.3. Standard for Mitigation of tre maintenance of any section ofPathway. Ordinance The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape (UDC 11-3B-10) will be followed. 5.4. Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees durin the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (UDC 1 I- g Co nstrttction: The standard established in 3B-10) will be followed 6. SAAIITARY SERVICE COMPANY 6.1 Trash collection for the existing residence needs to be from a local street, not from a arterial. CO_collector or 7. ADA Site Specific Conditions Cp A DISTRICT ofApproval I Dedicate 35 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Stoddard Road abutting the parcel b means of recordation of a final subdivision plat. The owner will not be co additional right-of-way because St y brou oddard Road is classified as a collector roadeway and is , ght to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties.be 2• Dedicate 48 -feet ofriy "recordation et a final -of way from m the cue ee of Linder Road abutting P will not be co the parcel by means right-of-way because Linder Road is classified as a collector roadway compensto be ated Poor this u dght to o adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties.and 3. Construct Stoddard Road as one half of a 46 -foot street section with vertical curb foot detached (or 7 -foot attached) concrete sidewalkand a 5- minimum of 28 -feet from the centerline of Stoddard Road. t theto be located a the right -of --way, provide the District with an easement Ifsidewalk meanders aside of 4. Construct a 5 -foot concrete sidewalk on Linder Road located a minimum of centerline of Linder Road. If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right_of-wa -feet 41 from the District with an easement. y, provide the 5. Construct Kodiak Drive to intersect Stoddard Road at the northProperty with the mann entrance to Bear Creek Subdivision located on the east is d of St direct alignment Proposed. *** Kodiak Drive is proposed to be located on the north Stoddard Road, as to have an island located within the right-of-way. With the isl P��' �e and is proposed Of the right-of-way onto the Meridian School District Prop the sidewalk extends outside required to obtain an easement for the sidewalk that a enderty to the of the The applicant will be ght-of-way. 6. Construct Kodiak Drive to intersect Linder Road approximately 760 -feet south of the north Property line, as proposed. 7. Construct Kodiak Drive as a 40 -foot street section with verb sidewalk within 54 -feet of right -of s C '--c--1 curb, gutter and a 5 -foot detached the curb with an 8 -foot wide landscape . Coo ct the sidewalk is proposed to be detached, from District, as proposed.striplanter and located within an easement to the Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 S• Construct West Eggers Drive as a 29-footstreet section with vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot attached concrete sidewalk within 42 street of right-of-way. Provide the District with written documentation showing Fire Department approval of the reduced street section. 9. Construct the internal streets as 36 -foot street sections with rolled curb sidewalk within 50 -feet of right -of -way, tr proposed. , gutter and 5 -foot concrete 10. Construct fivb cul-de-sac turnarounds without center islands within the subdivision, as proposed. Provide a minimum turning radius of 45 -feet for all of the turnarounds 11. Construct several islands within the public roadways, as proposed Construct the islands to minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet and Ovide a be a feet on either side of the island, p minimum of 21- 12. wAnyillbProposed landscape islands/medians within the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat e required to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this will be required on the final plat, 13. Construct a southbound left -turn bay on Linder Road at the Linder Road Kodiak Drive intersection. 14. Construct a northbound right -turn bay on Linder Road at the Linder Road Kodiak Drive intersection. 15. Construct a northbound left -tum bay on Stoddard Road at the Stoddard Road and Kodiak Drive intersection. 16. Construct a southbound right -turn bay on Stoddard Road at Kodiak at the Stoddard Road and Kodiak Drive intersection. 17. Other than the access points that havey access to these roadwaysare ��� been approved with this application, direct lot access restriction. prohibited. A note will be required on the final plat stating this 18- Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions ofApprovai 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of-way. 3• All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be dam the construction a the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file ed urin number) for details. 5• Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARMG DATE OF APRIL 4, 2000 6. 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 011e numbers) for details, 7. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Highway District Policy applicable ACHD Or ca ements, Construction Services procedures and all Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 8. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff a (or other required Permits), which in PPro� Prior to issuance of building pest corporates any required design changes. 9. 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. 10. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also Mown as Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance, 11. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the ri applies at no cost to ACED shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The ' 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 ACRD Traffic filled) are compromised during Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or any Phase of construction, 12. 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. 13• 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, or other regulatory and le dulances, plans, or ary gal 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 e law effect at the time the change in use is sought. thin Exhibit 13 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 C. Legal Description IDAHO SURVEY GROUP Project No. •04268 1450 Eau l a w1 S. sU6 iso MM&an, Idaho 83643 Phone (2 09) M6. M ra- fm) 8865399 November 15, 2005 DESCRIPTION FOR BF -AR GRAEXATION EEK WEST S BpMSION A parcel of land located in the W1/2 of Section 24, T.M., R.1W., a M County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: ., Ada Commencin Section 2 from whichtan a 5/B aluminum roin cap monument marking the C1/4 cx�mer of said North 00.51'53' Easy 26 518- i onfeeP marking the N1/4 comer of said Section 24 beam; thence along the North-South centerline of said Sedton 24 South 00°51'53" West, 170.0g feet to a 5/8' Iron pin marking the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence 827.30 feet to 8 lug pin �g said North-South centedine South 00°51'53" Wei thence leaving said North-South centerline North 89°24'36" West, 66127 feet to a iron pin on Section 24; the East boundary line of the W1/2 of the NEIM of the SWI/4 of said thence along said East boundary line Iron pin the South South 00°49'26° West, 331.46 feet to a 5/8° Section 244;; boundary line of the W1/2 of the NE1/4 of the SWIM of said thence along Bald South boundary line North 88°21'42° West, 518.26 feet to a point on the northerly boundary tine of Eggers Page 1804, Subdivision as filed in Book 29 at Plats at Canals of Ada County, Idaho, saki point ahm being on the centerline of the Rkienbaugit Canal and on a curve to the left; thence along said northerly boundary line and said centerline the following 14 courses: along said curve long feet, Bald 8.82 having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of t37°47'06" and a long chord of 278.82 feet which bears North 29°54'34• West a a point of compound curve: to thence 8lnncl said .mpnund curve 787.11 feet, said curve having a rariitl; ;t 7Cltrth feet, �� 'Wp,,central angl. Of 1:3'30'00' and a long Chard of 285.10 ft:e! .vh'.-;h b=ar;• Kurth 75'33'0r LV�a�t tO thea taint of tangency, thence North 87°18'07- West, 78.22 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; $188 Prged ;M sdMW Bwnrdery pprnenbieear creek Mreat kmeuc p=MdM Exhibit C 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 thence along said curve 100.36 feet, said curve havinga WOW centralangle of 2 )0'00" and a long chord of 99.68 ; 0 • —--- CITY -- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA'I'S OF APRIL 4, 2006 thence ala said North-South centerline South 5!8' iron pin; i°46'51" East, 789.08 feet to a thence leaving said North-South centerline South 300'3741" f=ast, 510.19 feet to a 5/8" iron pin marking the beginning of a curve to the left; thngl a along said curve 990.51 feet, said curve having a radius of 970.00 feet, a central angle of 58°30'26" and a long chord of 948.03 feet which bears South 59°52'54" East to a 5/8" iron pin marking the point of tangency; thence South 89°08'07' East, 231.37 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING containing 117.47 acres, more or less. Prepared by.. "So PtaJ*d1n 1w Meridian Scfmni sandy (04.26gK) ,M1N w Creek Wast A'w Dass doc Extubit C I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 I _ ._A ��. -f, -- - .. ,\• ,,` ^,, • - • •:may ! i � • �'•,' I ellePllieil �- S:aiCee.98I r OIYIMR �y�� X11--�►v`4 i i I - -t- .�IVT� •.1 ` �QYI ®'�sO.i iii -TD ._I I� .,. .`1cnt.'r.9L.—leu4 saou. i BOAR H wm I �N8/ ER/N6 Z ;4 $UIIDlVIBiUN X vI� 4 Fucwcro unF_y�nr Exhibit C • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE DARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 ,1 t,i 1 f j � �. ory wq rlaal rr.,ro®amts e�tawwwA igvr aa'aey� -- ._ _ .. ? .`.I j�1 ('^-ee.Mrw Ww ro. •• ... .... _-..— Y.�4YW 71 QI].W i�f FvsYIA W -01N Wmm. — !8!U, u.sccwvFr,,,.., Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTAMNT STAFF REPORT FOR TIME HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 J � r c, ' l I -I I--r�••IJ, I �C, •' •4yh a�6 �7' .^•• '—=c�;'•r�+ ^'_ II Z�+r• L I ! �• �I�� ,7 `>;� '." SSI• `_ � ,� I :� _� �- I �• ,� � ..Y __- _ _moi I• If%- ••�:.1_•_, f+l(%31.�.`I �'•'tEI>•'`.1••.� I,• jr-J';rl ' 'I TI II — (Iw —_ _ _•• `�� ,�''••�'_r'r:� �,!�`..-F�`•, – –c •---;ill �.1 ..�r ter- •- •- • '� - - �-_ �_ -' _-�- -• I - it % / ,n • 1. ... –' 1 �' � Ire' �•-- _ I . ~i Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning ordinance 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 inap amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; . The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to R-8. City 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, City Council finds that single family detached residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of R-8 as a Principally Permitted Use. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land will be developed with lot sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that conform to the proposed zoning designation, 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 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, Staff 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 (UDC 11 -5B -3.E). The R-8 zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions in the near vicinity. City 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 findings listed above, City Council_finds that Annexation and Zoning of this property to RA would be in the beg interest of te Cityt, 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision -malting body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; City Council finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Staff generally supports the proposed plat layout and Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 proposed density as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section S, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development, City Council finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings for more details.) 3. 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, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; See finding 'Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail. 4. 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 that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 5. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, City 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. 3. Variance Findings The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in Section 11 -5B -4E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following fmdhW: 1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district: City Council finds that the granting of a variance to the property would not grant a right or privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. As noted above, staff finds that strict compliance with the City's Ordinances would not be of benefit to the City, the surrounding property owners, or the applicant. Based on the nature and location of stub streets within the adjacent development, staff finds that strict compliance would be unreasonable and granting the variance would not result in inhibiting the objectives of the UDC. 2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 4, 2006 The applicant has provided for traffic circulation with a street layout that provides adequate stub streets and connections to adjacent properties within the constraints of the Ridenbaugh Canal to the south and existing developed properties to the north. City Council is supportive of the street layout and acknowledges that efforts have been made to connect to adjacent properties wherever feasible. 3. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. City Council finds that approving the variance to the maximum block length would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare. The proposed subdivision increases interconnectivity and reduces traffic conflicts by providing a collector road Which connects Linder Road and Stoddard Road. Exhibit D September 1, 2006 AZ 06-015 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Farwest, LLC ITEM NO. 5-E REQUEST Development Agreement — Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8, TN -R, and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision — southeast comer of Meridian 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: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacte Emailed: COMMENTS See altached Development Agreement Phone: _3 `�7Cxj of fhe City of Meddlan. ADA COUNTY RECORDER J.NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 63 BOISE IDAHO 09/21/06 01:39 DEPUTY Patti Thompson II I I I II II I II I III I I I II I II I II I II I I I III RECORDED -REQUEST OF City of Meridian 106151214 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Marty Goldsmith, Owner 3. Farwest, LLC, Developer THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this 2$11" day of�daho, , 2006, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the Stateafter called "CITY", Farwest, LLC, whose address is 4487 N. Dresden Place, Ste. 102, Garden City, Idaho 83714, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", and Marty Goldsmith, whose address is 4487 N. Dresden Place, Ste. 102, Garden City, Idaho 83714, hereinafter called "OWNER". RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "Owner" is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. § 67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re -zoning that the "Developer" and/or "Owner" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of the Meridian Unified Development Code, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re- zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Developer" has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of the "Property's" described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of (R-8) Medium Density Residential District, (TN -R) Traditional Neighborhood Residential District, and (C -N) Neighborhood Business District (Municipal Code of the City of Meridian); and 1.5 WHEREAS, "Developer" and/or "Owner" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 12 subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the 22nd day of August, 2006, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the "Findings"); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the "Developer" and/or "Owner" to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 "DEVELOPER" and/or "OWNER" deem it to be in their best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at their urging and requests; and 1.10 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Developer" and/or "Owner" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure re- zoning designation is in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City Code Title 11. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 12 • 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 "DEVELOPER": means and refers to Farwest, LLC, whose address is 4487 N. Dresden Place, Ste. 102, Garden City, Idaho 83714, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any subsequent developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "OWNER": means and refers to Marty Goldsmith, whose address is 4487 N. Dresden Place, Ste. 102, Garden City, Idaho 83714, the party that owns said "Property" and shall include any subsequent owner(s) of the "Property". 3.4 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be annexed and zoned R-8 (Medium Density Residential District), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential District), and C -N (Neighborhood Business District) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City's" Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Unified Development Code Section 11 -5B -1B which are herein specified as follows: Application for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to a future development in the C -N zone, and the pertinent provisions of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan are applicable to this AZ 06-015 application. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 12 0 . 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. "Developer" and/or "Owner" shall develop the "Property" in accordance with the following special conditions: 5.1.1 That 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. 5.1.2 That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. 5.1.3 That the applicant be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 5.1.4 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. 5.1.5 That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property shall be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 5.1.6 That future uses within the C -N area will comply with the schedule of use for the C -N zone in effect at the time of the building permit submittal; that prior to issuance of any building permit within the C -N zoning area, a re -subdivision of the C -N lot be recorded, and that with the re -subdivision application, the applicant agrees to submit elevations for approval by the City Council; and that the construction of any subsequent structure(s) in this area shall be generally DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 12 compatible in appearance and bulk with the Council approved pictures/elevations. 5.1.7 That the applicant agrees to construct and provide for the maintenance of a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer along the west side of the C -N zoned property, where it abuts residential zoning. 5.1.8 That the applicant agrees to annex the Rumple Lane property and include it within the boundary of the concurrent subdivision. 5.1.9 That, except for emergency access as required by the Fire Department, the applicant agrees to relinquish any interest this property may have in Rumple Lane. 5.1.10 That one public street access will be allowed to Meridian Road, located lh mile south of Victory Road; direct lot access to Meridian Road shall be prohibited. Said public street access shall align with Harris Street, across Meridian Road, and use the public street stub/right-of-way provided from Reflection Ridge to the south. 5.1.11 That public street access will be allowed to Victory Road, as approved by ACHD; direct lot access to Victory Road shall be prohibited. 5.1.12 That the applicant should construct sidewalk adjacent to the out parcel on Victory Road and adjacent to the out parcel on Meridian Road. NOTE: If the construction and easement for the pathway is not allowed in writing by the owner of the out parcel, the applicant agrees to bond or provide another city -approved method for providing assurance that the pathway improvements in that area are construction when the out parcel redevelops. 5.1.13 That the applicant agrees to construct a multi -use pathway through this site from the southeast corner of the property to Meridian Road. 5.1.14 That a maximum of 548 single family lots shall be platted on this property. 5.1.15 That the applicant agrees to provide commercial design, building massing and construction materials for this development as proposed during the public hearings on July 11, 2006 and August 8, 2006. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDMSION PAGE 5 OF 12 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitmentspcontained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the "Developer" and/or "Owner" or "Developers" and/or "Owners" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property' of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in Idaho Code § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: "Developer" and/or "Owner" consents upon default to the reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to -wit: 7.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Developer" and/or "Owner and if the "Developer" and/or "Owner" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. INSPECTION: "Developer" and/or "Owner" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development. 9. DEFAULT: 9.1 In the event "Developer" and/or "Owner", or "Developer's" and/or "Owner's" heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property", this Agreement may be modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 9.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Developer" and/or "Owner" of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 OF 12 solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Developer's" and/or "Owner's" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Developer" and/or "Owner", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re -zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 11. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. 12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Developer" and/or "Owner", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 12.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City" and "Developer" and/or "Owner" shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non -breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Developer" and/or "Owner" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 7 OF 12 13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds, irrevocably letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the "Developer" and/or "Owner" agree to provide, if required by the "City". 14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Developer" and/or "Owner" agree that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the "City" and "Developer" and/or "Owner" has entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Developer" and/or "Owner" agree to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Property" shall be subject to de -annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 16 NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Marty Goldsmith 4487 N. Dresden Place, Ste. 102 Garden City, Idaho 83714 with copy to: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 DEVELOPER: Farwest, LLC 4487 N. Dresden Place, Ste. 102 Garden City, Idaho 83714 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 OF 12 16.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 18. TEWE IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City's" corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the "Developer" and/or "Owner" of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Developer" and/or "Owner", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if "City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that "Developer" and/or "Owner" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Developer" and/or "Owner" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Developer" and/or "Owner" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 9 OF 12 Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re -zoning of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the "City" has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. DEVELOPER Farwest, LLC By: OWNER Marty Goldsmith DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN BY: MAYOR T de WEERD Attest: *a\ ��OF WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., OfFY CLERIS Te, s STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this 5**' day of 5Ck'3}-t'm6fA-- . 2006, before me, allotary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. °•��vr.s�oo (SEA„) M'� Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: O -Q I d LLf L t, in Commission expires: M-11-11 DEVELOP (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDMSION PAGE 11 OF 12 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada, ) On this IL day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared S , known or identified to me to be the mewAcr of Farwest, LLC, acknowledged to me that they executed the same on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) ftp UW --,44)P, 7 •��'©F 19 �` STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada, ) Jn,4 A, F &vL Notary Public for Id o Residing at: My Commission E pires: '! P 112 On this 97JI'`' day of Aun wsk- , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, ersonally appeared Marty Goldsmith, known or identified to me and acknowledged to me that he 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. 1 B. C©t (SEAL) k *QT ARr ~0G �t1Av� . jzWA, F CWL Notary Public for I aho Residing at: My Commission Exp' s: a la DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ 06-015) TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 OF 12 Updated Legal Description DFSCRFF nON FOR AW=Ai1GN To CITY OF KWUMN PROPOSEb TANANk VALL 6 SUBDNMON zok R-8 May31. 2008 A FARM OF LAND SEM PORTIONS OF THENORTHWEST 14 AND THE NORTHWEST W OF TW NORTHEAbi 114 OF SECTION 30. TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, PMIGE 1 FAST, 8018E MERIDU.W, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. MORE PARTICUIJ itLY MCROM AS FOU OMB: OOMId6N .MAT THE NORDIM&STCORNER OF8ECTIONp%T.3N-.FC 1 E., P.M, AGA COUNTY. IDAHO. THE REAL POIFT OFU OF THIS DESCRrMN; NTHEem � THE NOM LIFM A E OF-THE EC NW 1N OF SAID STM 8O THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH UNE 8 00'17'15- E 707.60 FWT TO -A POINT- ON A CURVE, THENCE ALONG A CURVE To THE RIGHT 128.91 FEET. SAID CLlRVH HAVING•A RADIUS OF 68150 FEET. A CEN1 a ANGLE OF 10'39'14'.'TANGENTS OF63 d4 FEET, ANO A a�R� VIfhFICH BEARS N 52'I3'81' E 126.72 FEET TO A POINT OF TANdENCY; THENCE N 5T43W E SOX FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THEJ-EFT-321.47 FEET,."D CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 317.50,F°W ACENTRALANGLE OF 54VW43', T)WOEM OF M,04 Mt. AND A CHDRD WHICH SEAR$ N 28'43'07''F,30i-91 FMT TO A POINT OF TANGENCY: THENCE N 00 :1715' W 335,00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH UNE OF OD Nye/ 1µ; THENCE N 884745• E 11!3.00 MMT TOA k)Wr. THENCE Ie 00.17"15' E MW FEEL' TO A POINT; THENCE N 89'4745' E 619.12 FEET TO A POINT- THENCE N 00.17'18' W 441.99 PEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 74'28'57` E 1 WS FTETTO A po(M , THENCE N 61'14'00" E 30111 FEET TO A POINT; TH[NCE-N 48'S2j4`E 97,Ti FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 143229^ E 1,78.38 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SND NORTH LINE OF THE NW 114 OF THE NE 1,4: THENCP,ALONG SAID NQBTH LINE N 89'42'82" S 600.85I M TO A POINT; THENCE 8 01'440" E 490.17 FEET TO A,POWT; THENCE N 89'4732".E21400 FEET TOA POINT; THENCE S'00'W'33' W 30,00 FEET TO A POINT.. 50823-Amwx-3-11-9-Am THENMCONTINU ING N 8S°59'21' E 89.71 FT3ET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING N MSI IV.8 434.98 FEET TO A POUNT; THENCE LEAVING SAId SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY N Qn rlS" W 32.00 FENT T*0 THE OF THIS DESCRIP TIOTI. SAID PARCEL CONTAWS 177.90 ACRES, MORE OR I=% AND 1NCLUAES SOME PRESCR>pnvE R M OF WAY ALONG L VICPO$.Y ROAD. WAYNE K BARBER SU823.Si-,21 -o e.'.:r 49444 a7�/ lun 0 12006 � yjf1yPK! pEpT G DEBCWMM FOR ANNEXATION TO CRY OF MERIOIAN PROPOSED LOOKOUT RIDGE SUBOIVISION ZONE C -N February 9,.2008 A PARCEL OF LAND QEWG A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST V4 OF SECTi)3N•30, TOM/FtS18P 3 NORTH, RANGA:1 EAST. OWE MEARIDAK ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: •OOMIAENCI NG AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 30, T. 3N., R.1 E, B.M.; /IDA ��Y, 1040. THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1!4 OF SAID SEC110N 3b N W474S' E 159426 FEET TO THE REAL pdMT OF BEGM 00 OF THIS DESCRIPTION;' THENCE CONTINUING N 68'4745' E 282.60 FEET TOA PONT; THENCE 8 00.17'15' E 335.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 1HENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RO-IT.321.47 FEET. SAID CURVE HAVMIG A RADIUS OF 817.60 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE:OF 68'00'43', TANGENFS OF 17894 FEETA , AND. CHORD WHICH BEARS 8 26'43'07' W 307.81 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE 6"67'43'26' W 50.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; E ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 126.9.1 FEET. SAID CURVE HAMNG A RADIOS OF 882.60 FEET. A CENTRAL. ANGLE bF 10'99.14'. TANGENTS OF 83.84 FEET. AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS 8 fin T6Y W 128.72 FEET TO A PWI- THENCE N 00'17'1b' w 707.60 FEET To THE IiEAL POINT OF el oMMO OF T q S. DESCfiIPTION. SMD PARCEL CONTAINS 3.94 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. WAYNE K BARBER LS 644.4 Ft APVRp p� 14AY2s2o06 DESCRIP7M FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY OF MERIDIAN PROPOSED TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION ZONE TN -R May 3, 2006. t A PARM OF LAND BEAIG3 PIDR77ONS OF THE NORTMVM 1/4 -OF THE. NORIUWEST 1/4 AND 11M NORTMMT 174 OF THE NO=fU ' 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSW 3 NORT13; g"GE LEAST,:BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUM. IDAHO, MORE PAIMCULAILLY DFSCRIDED AS FOLLOWS: COI CINo AT TfM NCIRTH*EST CORNER OF SECTION 30. T. IN, X 1 E., BM, ADA COUNIY.IDARO; THEN¢ ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF M NW 114 OF SAID SECTION 3014 8042'43" E 2051.75 FEET TO M -RE& rMT OFBF,C3>rL-NN6OF TfM DESCRTI7ION,- THENCE CONTINUING ALONG}' HE NORTii L*M OF TIM NW 1A OF SAID SECTION 30 N 89'42'45`' B 398.97 F13G7' TO THE NoitnjEAS1' CORNER OF THF; NW 1/4 OF SAID SECT)ON 30; IMCE ALONG THE NORTH LME, OF no NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SEC170N 30 N 89°42'3T E 220.13 FEET THl&CE CONTINMG S 00"1M" E 285.02 FEET TQ A PAINT; THENCE S 00°ITIS" E 447.99 FEET TO A 1'0irlT. 712 NCE S 89042 45" W 619.12 FEET ID A POINT, T XCE N 0061715* W 733.00.FM TO THE RF.AI. pMjT OF BF.ORMM OF. TITS DBSCRUMON. SAIDPARCEL COTS?A1NS 10.42 ACRES, MOPE OR LFSS. WAYNE K- AARBER . 50823 -AN= -3 ry Rdoc PIs 8444 ft 6W APPRov ev MAY 2 5 216 ` MERIDIAll PUBUC WORKS DEPT.. 16 RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2Q06 Caty 0 Meridian rk Office r nv rug CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning of 192.26 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 (Medium Density Residendal)(177.90 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood- Residential)(10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business)(3.94 acres), AND Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single-family residential lots,1 commercial lot,1 school lot, and 20 common lots on 177.94 acres in proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones, for Tanana Valley Subdivision, by Farwest, LLC. Case No(s).: AZ -06-015 and PP -06-013 For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 11 and August 8, 2006 (Findings approved on August 22, 2006) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 11, 2006, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 11, 2006, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 11, 2006, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 11, 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -06-015 / PP -06-013 - PAGE l of 4 I The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 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. F 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, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 11, 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 § 11-5A 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 March 7, 2006, revised on May 21, 2006, is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 11, 2006, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. 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, may be 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LARD AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -06-015 / PP -06-013 - PAGE 2 of 4 0 • determined and approved by the City Council may be 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 may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 11, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -06-015 / PP -06-013 - PAGE 3 of 4 0 • By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2� r day of r�� ,t , 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE a VOTED 4(ex- COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED_*� -- COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED_-$�—` COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED TIE BREAKER MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED MAYO,],T A de WEERD ATTEST: `��-\ '% WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., it CLERK 7. dS' ,,�Q,� Copy served upon: y"'., Applicant ..r Planning Departm'eti't`����� _ wof_ Public Works Department ✓ City Attorney By: �_ 1 uw 9,A0 Dated: $-a4-oLo iC'j Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAV AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -06-015 / PP -06-013 - PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANA DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII G DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 7/11/2006 (approved on 8-8-06) TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: C. Caleb Hood Current Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ -06-015 �' Annexation and Zoning of 192.26 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(177.90 acres), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood- Residential)(10.42 acres) and C -N (Neighborhood Business)(3.94 acres). PP -06-013 Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single-family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot, and 20 common lots on 177.94 acres in proposed R-8, TN -R and C -N zones. I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Farwest, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to R-8 (Medium- Density MediumDensity Residential), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood -Residential), and C N (Neighborhood Business) for 182.60 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site is located on the southeast corner of Victory Road and Meridian Road. Currently, there is a single-family home and associated outbuildings on this' site. The majority of this site is currently being used for agricultural purposes. The existing home is to remain on site, on a proposed lot. The site is composed of four tax parcels and has not been previously platted. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (AZ and PP) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. 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 aRLoval of the ZMsed Tanana Valley Subdivision (AZ -06-015 and PP -06-013) with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff ReportThe Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on June 19` 2006. At the public hearing thea moved to recommend 4Rproval. NOTE: Since the original submittal, the applicant has submitted a revised Qreliminary plat that reflects most of the Planning Staff and Commission's recommendations The Commission voted to recommend approval of this revised plat. Also as Staff requested. the applicant has acquired the property for Rumple Lane A majority of the area currently being used for Rumple Lane, a private street, will be dedicated to ACHD with the platting of this pzQ2M. With the addition of the Rump a Lane property, no additional property owners lie within the 300 foot radius requirement for receiving notice of the development• no buildible lots have been added to this proj ect The revised preliminary plat and updated legal descriptions for thisymj ect have been scanned into the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 110' 2006 a. Summary of Comission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Justin Martin ii. In opposition: Lorelie Smith, Russell Cheney, Mert Logue, Lisa Sullivan Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARR G DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood v. Other staff commenting on application: Mike Cole, Ted Baird b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Dedication of school lot and improvements being made to said lot with this = development (e.g. — construction, or not constructing landscape street buffer); ii. Construction of pedestrian path along the out parcel on Meridian Road; iii. Types of housing products proposed; iv., Anticipated uses in the C -N zoned lot; and, v. Expected build -out date. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Recommend approval of the modified preliminary plat; H. Granted the applicant's request to delay construction of the landscaping around the school lot and the commercial lot, until they develop; and, iii. Accepted the applicant's proposal to construct a pool, construct a pathway adjacent to the out parcel on Meridian Road, and maintain a maximum of 548 single-family lots on this property. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Prior to the City Council hearing, the app icant was gang to approach the owner of the out parcel on Meridian Road to see if that ownervyQuld allow the go can to construct a pedestrian p thway along the frontage of their property Staff recommends that the Council get an update from the applicant as to any discussions the applicant may have had with the owner of the out parcel 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move approve File Numbers AZ -06- 015 and PP -06-013 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of July 11, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers AZ - 06 -015 and PP -06-013 as presented during the hearing of July 11, 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 AZ -06-015 and PP -06-013 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: Southeast comer of Victory and Meridian Road (SH 69) in Section 30 Township 3 North Range 1 West b. Owner: Justin Martin 4487 N. Dresden Place, Ste. 102 Garden City, ID 83714 Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAADEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR§DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 c. Applicant: Farwest, LLC 4487 N. Dresden Place, Ste. 102 Garden City, ID 83714 d. Representative: Ben Thomas, Briggs Engineering, Inc. e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) t f. Present Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential & Mixed Use - Neighborhood g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting concurrent approval for Annexation and Zoning of the subject 182.60 acres to TN -R, R-8 and C -N and Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single-family buildable lots, 1 school lot, l commercial lot, and 20 common lots. The average lot size in the development is 8,750 square feet. The gross density of the project is 3.09 dwelling units per acre. About 24 acres (13.5%) of the site is being set aside for open space. 1. Date of preliminary plat (attached in Exhibit A): 3/7/06 2. Date of landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 1/19/06 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. 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. Newspaper notifications published on: May 15" and 29", 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing), and June 19s' and July P. 2006 (for City Council hearing) d_ Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 12', 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing), and June 16s 2006 (for City Council hearing) e. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 22°d, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing), and July 1", 2006 (for City Council hearing) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There is a single-family home and some associated outbuildings on this site. The existing home is to remain. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area contains a mix of uses. To the north, across Victory Road are a commercial nursery and other commercial businesses and single-family homes in Observation Point Subdivision. To the south and east are recently approved subdivisions in the City. To the west, across Meridian Road, are large parcels and single-family homes in the County. This section is rapidly transitioning from Waal to urban. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Single-family homes within Observation Point Subdivision, zoned R-4; Commercial nursery, convenience store and feed store, zoned C -G Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 2. East: Grange Hall, zoned RI (Ada County); Single-family homes within Tuscany Village Subdivision, zoned R-8 3. South: Approved Sicily Subdivision, zoned R-8; approved Reflection Ridge Subdivision, zoned R-8; Storage facilities; zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. West: Single-family homes and agriculture on large parcels, zoned RUT & R6 (Ada County) d. History of Previous Actions: None, t e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: There are existing mains in Tuscany Village and a private lift station that flows to observation point. Location of water. There are existing mains in E. Victory Road. Issues or concerns: The need for an "Off -Peak Pumping" station. Redundancy concerns for the new high zone. Sewer trunk routing. 2. Vegetation: There are some existing trees on this site that should either be preserved or mitigated for. The rest of the site is primarily used for agricultural purposes. 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Ridenbaugh Canal bisects the subject property. There are a couple of other ditches and/or drains that abut this site. Except for the Ridenbaugh Canal, the applicant should cover all ditches and laterals that cross, intersect, or are adjacent to the site. Please see the Analysis section and Exhibit B below for requirements related to the irrigation ditches, laterals and canals on this site. 5. Hazards: The Ridenbaugh Canal is deep and wide and could be hazardous to children. 6. Proposed Zoning: 7. Size of Property: R-8, TN -R and C N 182.60 acres 8. Description of Use. Single-family, alternative school site, and future commercial f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 548 2. Non-residential Lots: 3. Total Building Lots: 4. Common Lots: 20 5. Other Lots: 0 6. Total Lots: 570 7. Gross Density: g. Landscaping 2 (1 school lot and 1 commercial lot) 550 3.09 units per acre (net density is 4.09 du./acre) 1. Width of street buffu(s): Per UDC (Table 11-2A-4) a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to arterial streets. Victory Road and Meridian Road (SH 69) Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAMODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 are both classified arterial roadways. Meridian Road is designated as an entryway corridor, a 35 -foot wide landscape buffer is required Street buffers are not required on any of the internal, local streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: Per UDC (Table 11-2B-3) a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer is required between C N zoned property and residentially zoned property. A 20 -foot wide landscape buffer should be provided along the western boundary of the proposed C -N lot (Lot 2, Block 1) 3. Percentage of site as open space: 13.50/o/24.05 acres 4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to multiuse pathways and micropaths should comply with UDC 11-3B-12. Common open space lots should include at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (UDC 11 -3G -3E2). h. Amenities: Open space and pathways. i. Off -Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6 requires single-family detached dwellings to have 2 enclosed parking spaces (a garage) and a 20' x 20' parking pad between access and garage. j. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: The applicant is proposing to construct public street accesses to both Victory Road and Meridian Road. On the submitted preliminary plat, two public streets are shown to intersect Victory Road, and one public street is shown to intersect Meridian Road. However, the applicant has stated that the eastern most access to Victory Road will not be constructed. The ACRD is requiring that Standing Timber Way be constructed as a residential collector, with no front -on housing. All of the other internal streets are proposed local streets with 33 -foot wide street sections (measured back of curb to back of curb) and contain 4 -foot wide detached sidewalks. There are two blocks in the center of the project that propose access to the units from the alley. The applicant is proposing to provide stub streets to the previously approved Sicily Subdivision to the south, Reflection Ridge to the east, and one to the Grange Hall. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed street system (see Analysis below). ACHD's conditions are included in Exhibit B of the Staff Report, 7. COMAIENTS MEETING On March 17, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" and "Mixed Use — Neighborhood" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain between three and eight dwellings per acre. The purpose of the mixed use designation is "to provide a blend of high-density residential, small-scale commercial, entertainment, office and open space uses that are geared to serve all residents within a one to two square mile area. The centers should offer an internal circulation system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathway(s). They will also serve as public transit locations for future park and ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops or other alternative modes of transportation." (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) This property is also designated for a Neighborhood Center on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Some of the key concepts of a Neighborhood Center include: short blocks, commercial area located at the %z mile and not at the arterial intersection, schools located mid - Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANK&EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HDATE OF JULY 11, 2006 section, interconnected circulation that is convenient for automobiles, pedestrians, and transit, variety of housing choice, housing arranged in a radiating pattern of lessening densities, residents can access neighborhood commercial services without being forced onto arterial streets, facilitates more efficient transportation along arterials, grid street pattern, connects and integrates With the larger street and pathway system, providing public open spaces. Staff believes that these = concepts are already designed into the project, or have been conditioned by staff. Staff believes that this project generally complies with the Neighborhood Center designation. Staff finds thepfollowing Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): 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 WD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACBD). 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 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 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. Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-0151PP-06-013 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIODATE OF JULY 11, 2006 The submitted preliminary plat proposes to extend two stub streets provided to this property from previously approved subdivisions. In addition, a stub street is beingproposed to the eastern parcel (Grange Hall) currently zoned in Ada County Rl, which staff anticipates will re -develop in the near future. Staff believes that the applicant has done a nice job of connecting and extending the existing stub street as well as providing for future connectivity to the east and west. NOTE. - The location of the Nyack Avenue stub street does not appear to directly align with Caesar Avenue to the south. Chapter VI, Gbal II, Objective A, Action 13 - Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments. See analysis above. 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. The applicant is proposing to construct a six-foot tall fence along Meridian Road. No other fencing is shown on the submitted landscape plan. Prior to house construction, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter of this site. Chapter VI, Goal U, 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 applicant is proposing to construct four foot wide sidewalks adjacent to all of the proposed streets, which connect to adjacent properties. The applicant is also proposing to construct a micro path so the lots in the northern portion of this development have easy access to the proposed park area. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed pedestrian connections to the adjacent properties. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 6 - Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. To promote better connectivity, staff is recommending that additional micro paths be provided to tie into the multi -use pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and ACFID's standards, the applicant is proposing public street access to Victory Road and Meridian Road. To ensure that the out parcels surrounded by this development have access to local streets, staff is recommending that access be provided from the subject property. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 - Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP4)6-013 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNOLEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIODATE OF .TULY 11, 2006 The applicant is proposing residential zoning for most of the property. Staff finds that the existing single-family residential properties to the north, south, east and west, as well as the Grange Hall to the east are compatible with the proposed development. Staff believes that the proposed development generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffznds = that the proposed density, land uses and zoning for this property are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 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. Schedule of Uses: The Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2-1 lists single-family detached homes as permitted uses in the R-8 and TN -R zoning districts. There are several principally permitted, accessory and conditional uses allowed in the C N zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: • R-8 Medium -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. • TN -R Traditional Neighborhood Residential: The purpose of the TN -R District is to provide for a variety of residential land uses including attached and detached single-family residential, duplex, townhouse, and multifamily. A TN -R District includes open spaces and promotes pedestrian activity through well-designed and varied streetscapes that also provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic. Most dwelling units should be accessed from alleys. The maximum density of the TN -R District is fifteen (15) units per acre. The minimum density is eight (8) units per acre. Density should decrease away from the center and closer to conventional residential districts. The TN -R District should be generally located: adjacent to a TN -C District, along a transit corridor, or within a mixed use neighborhood. For the purposes of this Title, the term residential district shall also include the Traditional Neighborhood Residential District. C -N Neighborhood Commercial: 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. General Standards: UDC 11-2D-6 — The standards of the Traditional Neighborhood District are to be negotiated by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The following are the standards approved by the City Council for TN -R developments (see Analysis Section 10 below for additional standards). Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANI DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARR9DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 Lighting. In addition to the standards as set forth in Section 11-3A-11, the following standards shall apply within the TN -R district: All dwelling units shall have a minimum of two (2) lights at the front of the unit. All dwelling units on alley accessed properties shall have a minimum of two (2) lights along the alley. All lighting required in this section shall be on a photocell that activates the lighting at dusk and turns it off at dawn. Fencing: Rear yard of alley accessed properties and alley side yard properties: All fences within the required rear shall be open vision. Fences shall be setback a minimum of five -feet (5') from the alley (measured from property line). Side yard fences that' follow the side yard property line shall only be allowed where the side setback is five feet (5') or greater. 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-8, TN -R and C -N zoning is appropriate for Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII LPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAADATE OF JULY 11, 2006 this property. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for annexation. The annexation legal description submitted by the applicant (stamped on May 3, 2006 by Wayne K Barber, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate = - boundary of the City of Meridian. Special Considerations: Development Agreement: UDC ll -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 necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and does not ne tively impact nearby properties. Rumple Lane: Originally the area containing Rumple Lane was not part of the subject applications. It is staffs understanding that the applicant has subsequently acquired Rumple Lane. In order to facilitate a future public street extension to this property from Meridian Road, staff recommends that the applicant abandon Rumple Lane as an access to the public roadway system (Rumple may be used as a temporary emergency access if approved by the Fire Department.) Any interest that the subject properties have in Rumple Lane should be surrendered upon annexation. Further, prior to the City Council hearine an this project the applicant should submit new legal descriptions for this project that describe the parcel for Rurl}p Lape,AND submit new copies of.4 nreliminary plat showing the revised location of Harris Street Access to Arterials: Except for the public street accesses approved by ACRD, all other vehicular access to Meridian Road and Victory Road should be prohibited for this site. Multi -use Pathway: On the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, a multi- use pathway is depicted on this property. The applicant is proposing to construct the multi -use pathway on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal from the east property line to Meridian Road. Staff is generally supportive of the location of the pathway. Sidewalk: There are two out parcels that will create gaps in the sidewalk system along Victory Road and Meridian Road, once this property develops. This could become a hazard to pedestrians using the sidewalk facilities. Consistent with ACHD's Site Specific Condition #4, the applicant should construct sidewalk along the out parcel on Victory Road and adjacent to the out parcel on Meridian Road. Commercial Lot: Staff originally thought that a TN -C zone would be appropriate for a portion of this site. However, due to the close proximity of the planned commercial uses at Victory Greens, staff believes that it may not be appropriate in this case. Staff believes that the proposed C N zoning for 3.94 acres of this site is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, no details of how this lot willimay develop have been submitted Staff has concerns over the lack of a concept for this commercial area and is recommending that details be provided to Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-01S/PP-06-013 PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PUMODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARRATE OF ]ULy 11, 2006 Staff and the Council prior to construction of any commercial buildings on this site. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attomev. Bill Nary, at 888-4433 to initiate this process within l8 months of City Council approval of the annexation request The DA shall incorporate the following: • That 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. • That all future development of the subject property shall be constricted in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. • That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. • 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. • That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. • That all future uses within the C -N area will comply with the schedule of use for the C -N zone in effect of the time of building permit submittal; that prior to issuance of any building permit within the C N zoning area, a re -subdivision of the C -N lot be recorded, and that with the re- subdivision application, the applicant agrees to submit elevations for approval by the City Council; and that the construction of any subsequent structure(s) in this area shall be generally compatible in appearance and hulk with the Council approved pictures/elevations. • That the applicant agrees to construct and provide for the maintenance of a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer along the west side of the C N zoned property, where it abuts residential zoning. • That the applicant agrees to annex the Rumple Lane property and include it within the boundary of the concurrent subdivision. • That, except for emergency access as required by the Fire Department, the applicant agrees to relinquish any interest this property may have in Rumple Lane. • That one public street access will be allowed to Meridian Road, located %z mile south of Victory Road; direct lot access to Meridian Road shall be prohibited. Said public street access shall align with Harris Street, across Meridian Road, and use the public street stub/right-of-way provided from Reflection Ridge to the south. • That public street access will be allowed to Victory Road, as approved by ACRD; direct lot access to Victory Road shall be prohibited. • That the applicant should construct sidewalk adjacent to the out parcel Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE I 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLDFPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARVDATE OF JULY 11, 2006 on Victory Road and adjacent to the out parcel on Meridian Road. NOTE: H the construction and easement for the pathway is not allowed in writing by the owner of the out parcel the applicant agrees to bond or provide another city -approved method for providing assurance that the pathway improvements in that area are constructed when the out = _ Parcel redevelops. • That the applicant agrees to construct a multi -use pathway through this site from the southeast corner of the property to Meridian Road. • That the City has accepted the applicant's proposal to construct a pool within this development. • That a maximum of 548 sin lg e=family lots shall be platted on this property, • That the applicant agrm to provide commercial design budding massing and construction materials for this development as proposed during the public hearings on July 11 2006 and Augost 8 2006. 2. PP Application: The proposed preliminary plat substantially complies with the Unified Development Code, Below are specific considerations and changes that should be made to the submitted preliminary plat. Ditches, Laterals. and Canals: The Ridenbaugh Canal and the Kennedy Lateral traverse through this site, There are other irrigation/drainage laterals that bisect this parcel. The City has historically not required the Ridenbaugh Canal to be piped (it would take a large diameter pipe.) Per MCC 124-13, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided should be tiled Staff recommends that exclusive of the Ridenbaugh Canal, all irrigation ditches, laterals and canals be tiled. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not availablc, a single -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 MCC 12-13-8 and MCC 9-1-28. F in : Except for along Meridian Road, the applicant is not proposing to construct fencing within the development. UDC 11 -3A -7A7 requires the developer to constrict fencing adjacent to micro -paths to distinguish common from private areas. All fencing adjacent to micropaths and internal common lots should be restricted to either a 4 -foot tall solid fence or a 6 -foot tall open -vision fence. Further, staff recommends that an open -vision fence (or a 4 -foot WE closed fence) be installed along the buildable lots that are adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat (MCC 12-4-10.F.3). If permanent fencing is not provided prior to issuance of building permits, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARODATE OF JULY 11, 2006 space, and micro path /multi -use fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A- 7. Multi -use Pathway: The applicant is proposing to construct the multi -use pathway that is depicted on the Future Land Use Map along the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. - The applicant is proposing to construct the pathway 10 -feet wide along the entire length of the property. Staff is supportive of the proposal to construct the multi -use pathway as depicted. However, staff has concerns with fencing and landscaping adjacent to the pathway. City Code 11-3B-12 requires a 5 -foot wide landscape buffer along the pathway. The submitted landscape plan depicts only a couple of feet of sod and no trees directly adjacent to the south side of the pathway. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to construct a 5 -foot wide landscape buffer (including trees) along the south side of the multi -use pathway and fencing on the south side of the landscaping (north side of the buildable lots.) Mieropaths: The applicant is proposing to construct some micropaths with this plat. Staff is generally supportive of the pedestrian connections between the different subdivision blocks. However, staff is recommending that additional micropaths be provided. UDC 11 -6C -3F prohibits blocks from being longer than 1,300 feet without a pedestrian connection. Block 8 exceeds the maximum block length without a pedestrian connection. The applicant is not proposing to provide any micropath connections to the multi -use pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff is recommending that a micro -path be added near the bulb -out in Block 1 (near Lots 76 and 77) and between Lots 7 and 8, Block 12. To enhance pedestrian access to the future school site on Lot 41, Block 20, a pedestrian connection from Rising Sub Street to Pistioa Street should also be provided. This micropath should be located in general alignment with Nyack AvenuelCaesar Avenue. In the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood centers are supposed to have commercial uses that are geared towards pedestrian access. The proposed C N zoned lot does not provide a good relationship to the residential uses surrounding it. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant provide a pedestrian connection from Thunder River Avenue to the proposed commercial Lot 2, Block 1. This micro -path shall be located approximately between Lots 7 and 9, Block 1. All micropaths shall be constructed at least 5 feet wide, with 5 feet of landscaping on each side of the path (UDC 11-3B-12). Detached Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing to construct 4 -foot wide detached sidewalks on the internal streets. The sidewalks are detached from the curb with a 5 - foot wide (varies) landscape strip. In accordance with the recently passed ACHD planter width standards and UDC 11 -3A -17E, the width of the planter strip should be constructed 8 -feet wide and include Class II trees OR 6 -feet wide with root barrier around the trees, if the parkway is being counted towards the open space requirement. Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Tanana Valley Home Owners' Association. Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, on 1-19-06, labeled Sheets #LS -1 through LS -4 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Construct a minimum 25 -foot wide street buffer along the entire length of Victory Road (including adjacent to the school lot), exclusive of ACHD right- of-way. Said buffer should be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7. Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 13 CITY OF MERIDIAN PL DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING ATE OF JULY 11, 2006 • Construct a minimum 35 -foot wide street buffer along the entire length of Meridian Road, exclusive of ITD right-of-way. The applicant shall provide a landscape design in Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 111, Block 1, consistent with noise abatement standards for residential uses along state highways in accordance with UDC 11 -3H -D. (Berming at a 2:1 slope is not approved.) = _ • Per UDC 11-3B-9 and UDC Table 11-2B-3, construct a minimum 20 -foot wide landscape buffer on the west side of Lot 2, Block 1. • In accordance with the submittal, set aside at least 11 % of the site for useable open space. • Per UDC 11 -3G -3E1, at least one deciduous shade tree per every 8,000 square feet of common open space should be planted, and common areas should be improved with lawn, either seed or sod. • Per UDC 11-3B-10, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. • Maintain at least a 5 -foot wide landscape strip on both sides of all micropaths, and the Parks Department required multi -use pathway, and construct trees at a rate of 1 tree per ever 35 linear feet. • A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit copies of a revised landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the final plat application(s). Access: Access to this site is currently provided from Meridian Road via a private lane. Except for the proposed and approved public streets, direct lot access to Meridian Road and Victory Road should be prohibited; place a note on the final plat. The applicant should abandon any vehicular access interest this property has in the private lane to Meridian Road. Staff recommends that prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant be required to submit a copy of a recorded document, a release of dominant parcel interest, for the interest that the subject parcels have in the private lane (coordinate the drafting of this document with the City's Legal Department.) NOTE: Several of the neighbors in this area have expressed concern over the lack of entrances into this development. Staff believes that the concerns from the adjacent neighbors are due to the main entrance of Tanana aligning with the entrance to Observation Point and funneling all of the traffic to a single intersection. Staff is typically supportive of limiting access points to classified roadways. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council determine if another public street, and not just a secondary emergency access be provided to this site from Victory Road (please see Secondary Access below). Secondary Access: The Police and Fire Departments have concern over the lack of secondary emergency access into the northwest portion of this development. There are more than 50 homes that are being served on a single access. The Police and Fire Department recommend that secondary/emergency access be provided to this site from Victory Road, in general alignment with Swan Creek Avenue. Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP-06-013 PAGE 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN P DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARVDATE OF JULY 11, 2006 Stub Streets: There are four stubs streets provided to this property from the adjacent developments. Staff recommends that all of the stub streets be extended. Staff has concerns about the extension of the public street stub from Reflection Ridge at Rumple Lane. The submitted preliminary plat does not show the extension of this street into the subject property and continuing out to Meridian Road. Staff = recommends that this street be extended into the site, and that Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, be designed so they are not double -fronted lots. Coordinate the design of the Harris Strect/Reflection Ridge Street intersection with ACHD staff. The applicant should be required to extend the other public stub streets as proposed. There are two out parcels that are surrounded by the subject development. One of the out parcels is on Victory Road, the other is on Meridian Road. Both of these out parcels currently take direct access to the adjacent arterial roadway. To allow for access to these parcels to be provided from a local road, staff recommends that Pola Lake Court be extended as a stub street to Parcel No. S1130233652 and that public street access be provided to Parcel No. 51130120800 by extending Tahoe Street where Lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 20 currently are. NOTE: Providing access to Parcel S1 130120800 may cause the applicant to lose a lot in that area. Development Along State Highways: UDC 11-3H-1 is intended to achieve three purposes: 1) limit access points to state highways in order to maintain traffic flow and provide better circulation and safety within the community and for the traveling Public, 2) to preserve right-of-way for future highway expansions, and 3) design new residential development along state highways to mitigate noise impacts associated with such roadways. Staff believes that the applicant has met the purposes mentioned above. The applicant should obtain an access permit from TTD for the Harris Street access. The applicant should construct a 10 -foot wide multiuse pathway with a public use easement along Meridian Road. In accordance with UDC 11 -3H -4D, the applicant should construct noise abatement along Meridian Road. Flag Lots/Common Drives: UDC 11-2A-3 requires street frontage for 2 properties sharing a common drive to be 15 feet and street frontage for 3 or 4 properties sharing a common drive to be 10 feet. Lots 10 and 11, Block 17, shall have at least 15 -feet of frontage and share a common drive and Lots 12-15, Block 1, Lots 23-26, Block 12, Lots 7-9, Block 20 and Lots 19-21, Block 20, shall have at least 10 -feet of frontage and share a common drives. When a common drive is being used, UDC 11 -6C -3D7 requires setbacks, building envelopes, and orientation of the lots and structures to be shown on the plat; building setbacks should be measured from the edge of the common drive easement or property lines, whichever is more restrictive. Further, UDC 11-3C-6 requires every single-family detached dwelling to have a two -car garage and a 20' x 20' parking pad on the lot. The asphalt for the common drive should not count towards the required parking pad area. Alleys: The applicant is proposing to construct two alleys in this development. The UDC requires the following for alleys: a. Alleys shall have a minimum of sixteen feet (16') of paving. b. All alleys shall serve as fire lanes. C. All alleys shall be concrete or asphalt with a concrete ribbon curb. d. The entrance to the alley from the public street shall provide a minimum twenty-eight foot (28') inside and forty-eight foot (48') outside turning Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-0I5/PP-06-013 PAGE 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIIIGDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 radius. No parking shall be allowed on either side of the street within fifty feet (50) of the alley entrance as measured from the centerline of the alley. e. Alleys shall be designed so that the entire length is visible from a public street. TN -R Lots: All TN -R zoned lots shall comply with the recently adopted standards for the TNR zone, including: the dimensional standards/setbacks, all dwelling units shall have a minima,,, of two lights at the front of the unit and all dwelling units on alley access properties shall have a minimum of two lights along the alley, operated by photocell. All fencing should comply with UDC 11 -3A -7C. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommm&aimroval of the su iect aovlications AZ -06- 015 and PP -06-013, with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of he Staff Report for the hearing date of June 1 2006 On June 1 2006 the Meridian Pjamft & Zoning Commission voted to recommend ap EMW of the subject applications, with the modified Conditions listed in Exhibit B 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 3-7-06 REVISED 5-21-06) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: 1-19-06) 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. Idaho Transportation Department 10. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District C. V24ated Legal Description D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Tanana Valley Subdivision AZ-06-015/PP4)6.013 PAGE 16 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIPDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING OF JULY 11, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary plat (dated: 3-7-06 REVISED 5-21-06) LNA a C ffull R1 I. 111i �+ + t •,i Exhibit A —Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANIODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIYDATE OF JULY 11, 2006 �i�i ••� M�1 .1ww1VItW��MM a t r d .f1.�i11 i.l.a BedlrerRt�lfl 1 ���1dll�ilj6 E � � Exhibit A — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINDEPARTMEN[' STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 Exhibit A — Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY It, 2006 -$ h � •E i • •F �i dti ry • . - 'H y ,� •i I I Exhibit A — Page 4 7^ T'r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAMAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE •ATE OF JULY 11, 2006 Landscape Plan (dated 1-19-06)) Exhibit A—Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINIREPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINVATE OF JULY 11, 2006 Exhibit A — Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNSEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINN ATE OF JULY 11, 2006 Exhibit A — Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAM*EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE�DATE OF JULY 11, 2006 s uswuNKMnuF. I'_ .-. fill IYW A xwIM- , Exhibit A — Page 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DIN OF JANUARY 19, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1 SUE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP -06-013) = - 1.1.1 The preliminary plat labeled as Sheet 1 - 4, prepared by Briggs Engineering, Inc., dated March 7, 2006, revised on May 21.2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments and conditions of�the accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ -06-015) application shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP -06-013). The applicant shall comps with the provisions listed in the recorded Development Agreement with the City (see Section 10 a 1 of the Staff Report). 1.1.2 The landscape plan prepared by Harvest Design, on 1-19-06, labeled Sheets #LS -1 through LS -4 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Construct a minimum 25 -foot wide street buffer along the entire length of Victory Road (Adjacent to the school lot the auplicant shall install 5 -foot wide sidewalk an provide the easement for landscaping_]] a School District will be responsible for the constriction of the landscagina when the lot develops), exclusive of ACHD right-of-way. Said buffer should be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7. • Construct a minimum 35 -foot wide street buffer along the entire length of Meridian Road, exclusive of rrD right-of-way. The applicant shall provide a landscape design in Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 111, Block 1, consistent with noise abatement standards for residential uses along state highways in accordance with UDC 11 -3H -D. (Berming at a 2:1 slope is not approved.) • Per UDC 11-3B-9 and UDC Table '11-2B-3, construct a minimum 20 -foot wide landscape buffer on the west side of Lot 2, Block 1. E oyide said easement with the recordation of the final pkat and construct the landscaping when the commercial lot develops (prior to occupsancy of any commercial buildine). • In accordance with the submittal, set aside at least 11% of the site for useable open space. • Per UDC 11 -3G -3E1, at least one deciduous shade tree per every 8,000 square feet of common open space shall be planted, and common areas should be improved with lawn, either seed or sod. • Per UDC 11-3B-10, the applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. • Maintain at least a 5 -foot wide landscape strip on both sides of the proposed micropaths, and the Parks Department required multi -use pathway, and construct trees at a rate of 1 tree per ever 35 linear feet. If the Nampa -Meridian Irniaation District does not allow trees to be Planted between the athway and jhe ton of bank of the Ridenbaugh Canal. the applicant should not be required to install trees. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. 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. The proceeding modifications and notes should be shown on a revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat application(s). Exhibit B — Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAIEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DAAOF JANUARY 19.2006 1.1.3 Construct fencing adjacent to micro -paths to distinguish common from private areas. All fencing adjacent to micropaths and internal common lots should be restricted to either a 4 -foot tall solid fence or a 6 -foot tall open -vision fence. Construct an openrvision fence (or a 4 -foot tall closed fence) along the buildable lots that are adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat (MCC 12-4-10.F.3). If permanent fencing = _ is not provided prior to issuance of building permits, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro -path /multi -use fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A-7. V. 1.1.4 Construct a 10 -foot wide asphalt multi -use pathway along the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal, from the eastern boundary to Meridian Road. Construct a 5 -foot wide landscape buffer (including trees) along the south side of the multi -use pathway and fencing on the south side of the landscaping (north side of the buildable lots.) The multiuse pathway shall be constructed in accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. The pathway must connect from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed must be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway. 1.1.5 Provide a micro -path connecting Squaw Valley Avenue and Soda Springs Avenue through Block S. Provide a micro -path near the bulb -out in Block 1 (near Lots 76 and 77) and between Lots 7 and 8, Block 12. To enhance pedestrian access to the future school site on Lot 41, Block 20, a pedestrian connection from Rising Sub Street to Pistioa Street shall also be provided. This micro - path shall be located in general alignment with Nyack Avenue/Caesar Avenue. Provide a pedestrian connection from Thunder River Avenue to the proposed commercial Lot 2, Block 1. This micro -path shall be located. approximately between Lots 7 and 9, Block 1. All micro paths shall be constructed at least 5 feet wide, with 5 feet of landscaping on each side of the path. 1.1.6 Construct 4 -foot wide detached sidewalks along all of the internal streets. Detached sidewalks shall be separated from the curb by at least 5 feet of landscaping (sod or groundcover). Or if the parkway is being counted towards the open space calculation, they should be widened to 8 feet and includes Class II trees OR be 6 -feet wide with root barrier around the trees. 1.1.7 Place a note on the face of the final plat that prohibits direct lot access to Victory Road and Meridian Road. Access to Lot 2, Block 1, is approved his shown on the orellmrinary plat labeled Sheet 1-4. dated March 7. 2006, revised on May 21, 2006. 1.1.8 The applicant shall abandon any vehicular access interest this property has in the private lane (Rumple Lane) to Meridian Road. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded document, a release of dominant parcel interest, for the interest that the subject parcels have in the private lane (coordinate the drafting of this document with the City's Legal Department.) 1.1.9 Provide secondary/morgency access to the northwest portion of this development from Victory Road, in general alignment with Swan Creek Avenue. 1.1.10 Extend the stub street from Reflection Ridge, at the south property line, into the subject property and out to Meridian Road. Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, shall be reconfigured so they are not double - fronted. Coordinate the design of the Harris Street/Reflection Ridge Street intersection with ACHD staff. The applicant shall extend the other public stubstreets as proposed. Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DOOF JANUARY 19, 2006 1.1.11 Extend Pola Lake Court as a stub street to Parcel No. S 1130233652. Extend Tahoe Street as a public stub street to Parcel No. 51130120800. Extend Snow Pass Street (not Mesa Avenue) to Parcel No. S1130120700, as proposed. 1.1.12 The applicant shall obtain an access permit from ITD for the Harris Street access. The applicant _ shall construct a 10 -foot wide multiuse pathway with a public use easement along Meridian Road. The applicant shall construct noise abatement along Meridian Road, in accordance with UDC 11- 3H -4D. 1.1.13 Lots 10 and 11, Block 17, shall have at least 15 -feet of frontage and share a common drive, and Lots 12-15, Block 1, Lots 23-26, Block 12, Lots 7-9, Block 20 and Lots 19-21, Block 20, shall have at least 10 -feet of frontage and share common drives. The common drive easements shall be depicted and explained on the face of the final plat; building setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the common driveway easement or property lines, whichever is more restrictive. In accordance with UDC 11 -6C -3D7, depict the required setbacks, building envelopes, and orientation of the lots and structures on the lots mentioned above, on the face of the final plat. In accordance with UDC 11-3C-6, provide each single-family detached dwelling with a two -car garage and a 20' x 20' parking pad between the garage face and the common driveway (the asphalt for the common driveway shall not count towards the required parking pad area.) Comply with all common driveway provisions listed in UDC 11 -6C -3D. 1.1.14 Access to the lots in Block 21 and 22 shall be from the alley, and not the adjacent public street. All alleys shall have a minimum of sixteen feet of paving. All alleys shall serve as fire lanes. All alleys shall be concrete or asphalt with a concrete ribbon curb. The entrance to the alley from the public street shall provide a minimum twenty-eight foot (28') inside and forty-eight foot (48') outside turning radius. No parking shall be allowed on either side of the street within fifty feet (50') of the alley entrance as measured from the centerline of the alley. Alleys shall be designed so that the entire length is visible from a public street. 1.1.15 All TN -R zoned lots shall comply with the recently adopted standards for the TN -R zone, including but not limited to: all dimensional standards/setbacks; all dwelling units shall have a minimum of two lights at the front of the unit and all dwelling units on alley access properties shall have a minimum of two lights along the alley, operated by photocell; and, all fencing shall comply with UDC 11 -3A -7C. 1.1.16 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Tanana Valley Home Owners' Association. 1.1.17 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of the Ridenbaugh Canal, 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. 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. 1.1.18 Underground, pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. 1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP -06-013) 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). Exhibit 3 — Page 2 IRCITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIRDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DOF JANUARY 19, 2046 1.2.2 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.3 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 1I - 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. 1.2.4 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 1.2.5 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. 1.2.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 2. Public Works Department 2.1 This property is master planned to sewer to the Black Cat Trunk main, since they are proposing to temporarily sewer this development out of shed the applicant shall be responsible to install a temporary off-peak pumping station in a location coordinated with the Public Works Department. The station design and capacity shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department; the design shall include communication capabilities that are consistent with the City of Meridian's SCADA system. If new information arises from ongoing modeling exercises or other subsequent sources, then this condition may be rescinded by the City Engineer. 2.2 The applicant is showing approximately 137 lots flowing to mains in Tuscany Village. The applicant shall be responsible to install a second off-peak pumping station in this location, or enlarge the wet well at the primary location to handle the effluent from Observation Point. The number of building permits allowed in this development will be directly proportional to the number of ERU's that are storable in the off peak pumping station. 2.3 An ongoing study of the Master Sewer Plan is being accomplished at this time. There may be a need to route a main line trunk through this project. Prior to construction plan submittal the applicant's engineer shall meet with Public Works to coordinate this routing in the construction plans. 2.4 The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this project; applicant 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. 2.5 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Victory Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development which Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA4POF JANUARY 19, 2006 includes a 12 -inch main in the frontage along Meridian Road. oras otherwiseallowed bathe Public Works Department; coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.6 The applicant shall be required to install a flushing station along the Ridenbaugh Canal, design and location to be coordinated with the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department will work with Natuna -Meridian Irrigation yDistrict for approval of the flushing - station. 2.7 Due to existing topography, this development will have two separate water pressure zones. The applicant shall be required to install pressure reducing vaults to ensure the separation between the two zones is not compromised 2.8 A portion of this development is serviceable by the existing pressure zone; however the remainder of the property cannot be served by municipal water until two sources for the new zone are established. The first source would be from a 150' x 15_0' well lot which the developer would donate to the City of Meridian or a connection to the high zone being established in the development to the south. The second source would be a booster station which would be installed at the applicant's expense if a well or connection to the high zone being established in the development to the south is not available. The applicant stall coordinate with Len Grady at the Public Works Department regarding this condition and he may waive the requirement for one of the two sources if subsequent development warrants it. 2.9 Any potential water or sewer line 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. 2.10 The applicant has indicated Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. Therefore a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre -construction meeting. 2.11 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, a single -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. 2.12 If "stair step" grading of lots is constructed then the side lot lines shall be laid out as to allow for the sloped portion of the lot to be owned by the lower lot:. 2.13 Any retaining walls greater than three -feet in height shall be engineered. 2.14 All existing structures not meeting setbacks or dimensional standards in the UDC shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.15 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius of water meters. The applicant shall crake the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements. 2.16 Additional width to the public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along the right -of way shall be dedicated where the sidewalk is located past the right-of-way. The additional width needs to be sufficient to allow for 10 feet of easement past the sidewalk 2.17 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 - Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DAOF JANUARY 19, 2006 domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2.18 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and the Ridenbaugh Canal, 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. 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. 2.19 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. 2.20 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. 2.21 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.22 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. 2.23 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. 2.24 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.25 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.26 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Where mailboxes are located on or near sidewalk the applicant shall comply with all American with Disabilities Act requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access. 2.27 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. 2.28 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. 2.29 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. 3. Fire Department Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNYDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DVOF JANUARY 19, 2006 3.1.1 One and two family dwellings will require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500 feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix C. 3.1.2 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. 3.1.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fixe Department. Fire Hydrants AW have the 4'/z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.1.4 The phasing plan may require 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. 3.1.5 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.1.6 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. 3.1.7 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. No parking will be allowed in cul-de-sac lots. 3.1.8 Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation. 3.1.9 Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 3.1 .10 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent streetsigns and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.1 .11 To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances should be separated by no less than %z the diagonal measurement of the full development. The applicant shall provide a stub streettemergency access to north, in general alignment with Swan Creek Avenue. 3.1.12 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 3.1.13 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. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA• F JANUARY 19,20M 3.1.14 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be ,placed per Appendix D. 3.1.15 The proposed subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total = _ estimated population of 1,589 residents at build out. 3.1.16 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development 0 this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 3.1.17 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.1.18 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.1.19 There shall be afire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 4 Police Department 4.1 To increase emergency access to the site, the applicant shall provide a street to Victory Road from the property access by Sierra Meadows Drive. Prior to the next public hearing, the applicant shall submit a revised plat/site plan to reflect this requirement. 4.2 Lots 9 and 19, Block 20 and Lot 10, Block 17, create a residence that will be isolated from their surrounding neighbors. Such areas have an increased crime potential. The applicant shall work with the Police Chief and/or Planning Staff so the plat/site plan such that the houses/dwelling units in the general area are oriented toward one another and encourage interaction between more neighbors. The plat/site plan shall be revised in accord with those discussions. Auulicant has met with Lt. Stowe and agreed to adiust Lot 19, Block 20 Aonlicant is requesting not to make any changes to Lot 9 Block 20 and Lot 10 Block 17 4.3 Any interior fencing next to common open space shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 4.4 Adequate lighting should be provided along all pathways. 4.5 A school site bordering Victory Road creates a safety concern. 5. Parks Department 5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed. 5.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance will be followed. Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANA DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 5.3 Pathway and Trail standards: The applicant should be required to construct a 10 -foot wide multi- use pathway through this site to/from Meridian Road. The required pathway and/or trail shall be constructed in accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. 5.4 Standard for City to assume Maintenance of a section of Pathway: The pathway must connect = _ from one major arterial to another, and either an easement or ownership deed must be granted before the city will assume the maintenance of any section of pathway. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. 7. Ada County Highway District Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The City of Meridian, the applicant and 1TD should work together to determine if additional right-of-way or improvements are necessary on Meridian Road (SH 69). 2. Dedicate a total of 48 -feet (or 38 -feet with the sidewalk in an easement) of right-of-way from the centerline of Victory Road abutting the parcel by means of a warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat far signature by the ACRD Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of-way dedicated which is an addition to existing ACRD right-of-way. 3. Construct a 5 -foot detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site on Victory Road located a minimum of 41 -feet from the centerline of the roadway. If any portion of the sidewalk is located outside the public right-of-way, the applicant shall provide the District with an easement. 4. The District recommends that the applicant construct a 5 -foot concrete sidewalk across the two out -parcels along Victory Road on either side of the proposed school site. This sidewalk should either be constructed within the existing right-of-way or within an easement provided by the property owners. 5. Construct an eastbound right turn lane and a westbound left turn lane on Victory Road into the site at the intersection with Standing Timber Way. Dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary for the turn lanes without compensation. The widening of Victory Road for the auxiliary turn lanes may necessitate the widening of the bridge west of the proposed entrance road. If the bridge widening is necessary to construct the pavement tapers required for the turn lanes the applicant shall be required to design and construct the bridge widening at that time. 6. Construct the entrance road, Standing Timber Way (intersecting Victory) as a residential collector with vertical curb, gutter, and 5 -foot concrete sidewalk, from its intersection with Victory to its crossing of the Ridenbaugh Canal. The street should be constructed as a boulevard style with a 27 -foot wide islands and 21 -foot street sections on each side of the island. The center islands shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. If any portion of the sidewalk is located outside of the public right-of-way, the applicant will be required to provide an easement. Exhibit B - Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA9OF JANUARY 19, 2006 The applicant shall re -design the center island (to be no wider than 12 -feet) at the intersection of Standing Timber & Victory to allow for simultaneous left and right turns (eastbound and westbound) on Standing Timber Way. 7. Harris Street, entrance street intersecting Meridian Road, will be required to be constructed as a standard residential collector with a 36 -foot street section (vertical curb, gutter, and 5 -foot concrete sidewalks) from its intersection with Meridian Road to its intersection with the stub street being extended from Reflection Ridge t, 8. Provide a road frust deposit with the District for one-half of the cost for the design and construction of the signal for the intersection of Harris Street and Meridian Road (SH 69). When the property on the west side of Meridian Road develops, the road trust deposit funds can be utilized to construct the signal at that time OR at the time when ITD approves a signal in that location. Design Harris Street to accommodate a future signal at the intersection with Meridian Road, District staff recommends that the private lane, Rumpel Lane, be closed and/or incorporated into the new public street, Harris Street, and that all access be taken to the new public street. The City of Meridian and ITD should coordinate on the firture closure of this roadway to ensure that only one street intersects Meridian Road at the half -mile. 10. Construct the internal local streets as 33 -foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter, 4 -foot detached concrete sidewalks within 50 -feet of right-of-way. Receive written approval from the Meridian Fire Department for the reduced street section OR construct the streets as standard 36 - foot street sections. 11. Construct two 20 -foot wide alleys in Block 21 & 22, as proposed. The alleys shall comply with the following policies: • Minimum right-of-way width is to be 16 -feet. • Access is allowed to and from a fully improved alley (District policy 7204.10.2). Parking shall be designed so the minimum clear distance from the lback of the parking stall to the opposite side of the alley is 22 -feet for perpendicular parking. • An access to an alley shall be located a minimum of 25 -feet from the nearest public street. • A minimum of back -of -curb radius of 15 -feet is required at all alley intersections. 12. Extend a stub street from the east and from the south from within Tuscany Village Subdivision. 13. Extend a stub street from the out and from the south from within Reflection Ridge Subdivision, as identified on the revised site plan. 14. Construct a new stub street to the south and one to the east to the undeveloped parcel. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadways stating, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." If the stub streets are greater than 150 -feet in length, provide a temporary turnaround at the terminus of the roadways. 15. Submit the bridge plans for the crossing of the Ridenbaugh Canal (Standing Timber Way) for review and approval prior to the pre -construction meeting and plat approval. 16. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access to Victory Road is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat. Exhibit B — Page 2 C1TY OF MERIDIAN PLANNMEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA41OF JANUARY 19, 2006 17. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 1 • Any testing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACRD roadway or right-of-way. t. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 6. 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. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 ACRD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 12. 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. 13. 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 Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNODEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DOOF JANUARY 19, 2006 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. r 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. 9. Idaho Transportation Department (see Letter dated March 27, 2006) 9.1 Provide a stub to the parcel (shown as "NAP.') which is located off of S. Meridian Road. 9.2 Provide noise abatement for Residential Development. 9.3 A permit will be required for any pedestrian walkways within ITD right-of-way. NOTE: City Staff has discussed ITD's comments regarding this proiect and they are agreeable to proceed with the proj ca. with 19 M911:9= mentioned herein. 10. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District 10.1 Applicant shall apply for a land use change application prior to final platting. 10.2 All laterals and waste ways must be protected. 10.3 The District's Ridenbaugh Canal and Kennedy Lateral course through this proposed project. These easements must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. 10.4 All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. 10.5 The Developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 10.6 NMID recommends that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Exhibit B — Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIVEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DAROF JANUARY 19, 2006 C. Updated Legal Description DE9CRP70N FOR A NNWrATION. TO My OF YfB IRAN P TANANA VAd LEY SUBW4MN ZM R-8 14y 31. 2008 A PARE! OF LAND RENJG PCOtTiONg OF THE -NORTHWEST V4 AND THE NORTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHEAST 114 OF 81G' WN 30, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH. RANGE 1 EAST, SOME MERIDIM, ADA C•01JM CAM MORE PARTMARLY DESCRWWAS FOUDM- COMMICING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF-SEMION A T. 3N., R.1 E., B.M.,. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, THE. REAL POW OF W OF TNI" DtMORyMOM TH MEAL0M THE WWH UNE OFTHE NW 114 OF SAID SECTION 30 N 89'42'45' E 158425 FMTTO A POINT. THENCE LEAMNO SAN NORTH LINE 8 00°17'15' E 707.80 FEET TO -A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE ALONG A CURVETO THE RIGHT 125.91 FEET..itiJUD CARVE 14AVING-A RADIUS OF 68280 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10'39'14', TANGSM OFa3.84 FEET, AND A C410RU•WHICH WARS N 00MVE E 126.72 FMYTO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 87'4328' E 80.00 FEET TOA POINT OF OURVATuRrg THENCE ALONe A CURVE TO THE,urr.32i.47 FEET,.OND CURVE HAVttiti A RADIUS OF 917.50 FEET, A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF OBW43-, TI�INQI;INTS OP MX FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 28°43'07' E•307.91 FL; er TQ A Pow OF TANGENCY: THME N 00'17"16` W 33$.00 FEET TO A POW ON I;HE NORTH UNE Nw 1w THENCE N 89.42'45" E 185.00 FEET TO A POINT, 'THENCE S 60917°18' E 733A0 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE N-81`48'46' E 818.12 FEET TOA PONT-, THWNC.E N 00.17'16" W 44P.99 FEET TOA POINT; THENcra N 74WO7' E I f8.78 F@ETTO A POINT; THENCE N 6144'00'' E *k FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N'48WWE 97 fl FEET TOA POINT; 171EINc:E d 10°4•29r' E 1y8.3B BEET TO A POINT ON TW SAID NORTH UNE OF THE NW 114 OF THE NF 14; 1"WCEALONG WM NORTH UNE N $4'42'32" 9OW OB FEET TO A PONT; THENCE B 0.1'48'40" E 4MI7 FEET TO &POINT. THE NCE N M'42W 1214.00 FEET TGA POINT; THMM 3.00°0 W W 3040 FEET TOA POIM;• 30823 -Acus x -3 -R -salvo Exhibit C — Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNSEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DOOF JANUARY 19, 2006 TAENCE•CONTWM(; N 85°59" 1" E 89.71 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING N 8MS' 19".E 430.98 FEET TO A POW; THENCE LEAVWG SAID SOMEMLY R[GHT OF WAY N OnT15- W32.00. FEET TO �$ V= 011 BF,Gny W OF THIS DESCRUYkON. SAID PARCEL CONTAW$ I7T.90 ACRES. MOM OR L%% AND INCLUDES SOWPRESCRIPTIVE RMW OF WAY ALONG E. VX -WRY ROAD. WAY)!iE IC BARBER Exhibit C -- Page 2 44 8444 sr o� 1l►;; a 12046 M NgpK4 p@pT G CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY OF'MEFUDIAN PROPOSED LOOKOUT RIDGE SUBDIYI WN ZONE C -N February !#,.21106 A PARCEL OF LAND REI NGI A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF 8ECTl13N;3D, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST. @DISE MEIIIDI W, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. MOkE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ,COMMENCING ATHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF T ALONG THE NORTH LINE NW 1!4 OF SAID�SEC'noN 30 N 89'4745 E 159426 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF 8182 VG OF THIS DESCRIPTION;: THENCE CONTINUING N 88°4746" E 292.50 FEET TOA POINT; THENCE 8 00'•17'15" E 335.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; TH@ICE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 32147 FEET. SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 817.50 FEET, A CIEMRALA1gLEOF 58"00'43', TANGEN . OF 176.04 FEET, ANDA CHORD WHICH BEARS S 2e4"r W 307.91 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S gr432r W 50.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 128.8.1 FEET, SAID CURVE HAMM A RADIOS OF 60-M FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1039440, TANGENTS OF 63.84 FEET. AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 5=51' W 126:72 FEET TO A POINT; - THENCE N 00" Ir18' W 707$0 FEET TO THE REAL PONT OF 89GOO is OF Mls. DESCRIPTION. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 3.94 ACRES, MORE OR I. WAYNE K. BARBER 't'F:._hr!u•r...'-'4i.6nL Exhibit C - Page 3 IS 8444 B� APPNO/�IL 14AY252oM �wo� s oerr CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING HATE OF JANUARY 19, 2006 DESCRWTIQN FOR ANNEUT ION TO CIYY OF MERIDIAN PROPOSED TAI4ANA VALLEY OMMSION ZONE TN -R May 3, 20(Z A'PA1tCEL OF LAND Bmo pMTTOINS OF nMNORTABAS7' 1/4.OF THE. NORTHWEST 114 AND THE NORTHWEST 114 OF THE NOMIMAST 1/4 OF SWn0N 30. TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH; RANGE i.BA U, BOL4E NnMLW, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COIVAIFNCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SUCTION 30. T. 3N., X I E., 113L, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; TIIBNCE ALONG TIM NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SE=-. N 30 N $9°42'45" E 2051.75 FEET TO THE �FdT pq QEAF&1N g fC' OF TALS DESCR7n0N, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG TIM NORIA L *M OF THE NW .114 OF SAID SECTION 30 N'89°42'4P E 398.97 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNEA OF THE NW 114 OF SAM SECT10N 30; VICE ALONG THE NORTH LAVE. OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30 N 89°4232" E 220.13 FWr THENCE CONTINUING S 00°177.8" E 285.02 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00°17'15" E 447.99 FEET TO APOINT; TBENCE S 89042'45" W 619.12FEET TO A POINT, TFIENCE N 0061715- W 733.00,FW TO TAEF1Z .AL POIlVT OF $ q&M OF. T HM DESCMPTION. SAM- PARCEL.CONT'ARVS 10.42 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. WAYNE K. BARg$R .50823 -ANNEX -2 -TN -Moo Exhibit C - Page 4 M 8444 t0 t11e! aPPRcv MAY 2 5 20 MERMIAtI Y J" WORKS DEPT. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNA DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA100F JANUARY 19, 2006 i. 1 F a j I 1• Exhibit C — Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNSEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DOOF JANUARY 19, 2006 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a fall 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 R-8, TN -R and C -N. 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-8, TN -R and C -N zones, if the applicant enters into a development agreement with the city and develops the property in accordance with the Staff Report. 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. S. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11 -5B -3.E). The proposed zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions 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 findings listed above, Council finds that Annexation and Zoning of f this pry to R-8, TNR and C -N would be in the best interest of the City if the applicant enters into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-maidng body shall make the following findings: Exhibit D — Page 1 CI'T'Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DIA OF JANUARY l9, 2006 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Council finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Council generally supports the proposed plat layout as it generally complies- with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, and Analysis, Section 10 of the Staff Report. 2. PubliF services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. 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 finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. 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 funding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings, and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Council is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision. ACRD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analysis. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Ridenbaugh Canal bisects this property. Council finds that the Ridenbaugh is a waterway that should be preserved through the development of this site. Council is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, if the Ridenbaugh Canal is preserved, 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. 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. Exlubit D - Page 2 0 • September 1, 2006 RZ 06-005 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT John Homan ITEM NO. 5-F REQUEST Development Agreement — Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L -O zones for Meridian Professional Office — 2835 and 2825 North Meridian ••o 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 aftached Development Agreement (Pe V -P-/ V11r. G Date: d Phone: Ink Klil�� !'T TS�CdlrrSt Initials: AIlr Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. PARTIES: entered into Meridian, a Homan, whc ADA COUNTY RECORDER Ak NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 30 BOISE IDAHO 09/21/06 01:39 PM RECORDEDDEPUTY Pd - REQUEST OF ��� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ��� City of Meridian 106151216 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1. City of Meridian 2. John Homan, Owner/Developer THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), is made and s �515+ day of AUQ, 2006, by and between City of inicipal corporation of t State of Idaho, hereafter called "CITY', and John address is 21035 W. Wapoot Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642 hereinafter called 7T7T r%T)T"99 RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "OWNER/DEVELOPER" is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the "Property"; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. § 67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re -zoning that the "Owner/Developer" make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Ordinance 11-15-12 and 11-16-4 A, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, "Owner/Developer" has submitted an application for re -zoning of the "Property" described in Exhibit A, and has requested - a designation of (L -O) Limited Office District, (Municipal Code of the City of Meridian); and 1.5 WHEREAS, "Owner/Developer" made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested re -zoning designation of the subject "Property" held before the Planning & AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 1 OF 11 0 • Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7Y WHEREAS, City Council, the 15th day of August, 2006, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the "Findings'); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the "Owner/Developer" to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 "OWNER/DEVELOPER" deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and requests; and 1.10 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Owner/Developer" to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the "Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure re- zoning designation is in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City Code Title 11. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. I DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided fo�unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 2 OF 11 3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 t' "OWNEWDEVELOPER": means and refers to John Homan, whose address is 235 W. Wapoot Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any subsequent owners and/or developer(s) of the "Property". 3.3 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of "Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be re -zoned L -O (Limited Office District) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City's" Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian Unified Development Code, Section 11 which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to a future development in the UO zone, and the pertinentprovisions of the City ofMeridian Comprehensive Plan are applicable to this RZ 06-005 application. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. I'I "Owner/Developer" shall develop the "Property" in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. That no alterations, expansions, reconstructions or other enlargements to the existing single-family structures will be permitted except through a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and except where 1) the use of the structure changes to a use consistent with this Development Agreement and 2) the structure shall meet all applicable DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 3 OF 11 development standards such as set backs, frontage, height, etc. of the L -O zone. 2. That no building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building, structure or land be established or changed in use without a Certificate of Zoning t Compliance (CZC). 3. That all parking areas, drive aisles, landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, signage, building height and building setbacks for this development shall comply with the applicable provisions set forth in the Unified Development Code. 4. That 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, lighting or odors. 5. That the following shall be the only allowed uses on this property: principally permitted uses within the L -O zone. 6. That the posted hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7. That any new structure(s) (or remodel of existing structure(s)) 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. 8. That up to four office -type buildings may be constructed on this site. That said buildings shall have a maximum size of 3,270 square feet each, and be limited to a single -story. Each building shall have the same stucco and brick accents. 9. That the applicant agrees to construct a 6 -foot tall masonry fence along the south and west property lines, as proposed. That although not required, the applicant has offered to construct said fence on top of a berm, if some of the adjacent property owner(s) allow the berm to be partially constructed on their land. 10. That a 25 -foot wide landscape street buffer will be constructed adjacent to Meridian Road, located entirely outside the right-of-way. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 4 OF 11 11. That a 10 -foot wide landscape buffer will be constructed adjacent to Sedgewick Drive, located entirely outside of the right-of-way. 12. -That a 20 -foot wide land use buffer will be constructed along the south and west property lines. 13.' That vehicular access to this site shall be restricted to Sedgewick Drive, as approved by ACHD and the City; Except for emergency access, no vehicular access to Meridian Road is approved. 14. That the applicant shall be required to install any and all sewer mains, water mains and/or fire hydrants that are deemed necessary during construction plan review. This may include water connections in both Sedgewick and Meridian Road. 15. That the applicant shall provide easement for all required sewer and water mains that are not located in the right-of-way. 16. That the applicant shall be required to use, with written permission, the existing pressurized irrigation system for all landscaping. 6. . COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the "Owner/Developer" or "Owners/Developers" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in Idaho Code § 67- 6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: "Owner/Developer" consents upon default to the reversal of the zoning_ designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to -wit: 7.1 That the "City' provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to "Owner/Developer" and if the "Owner/Developer" fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. INSPECTION: "Owner/Developer" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 5 OF 11 thereof in ats dance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordin of the "City" that apply to said Development. 9. DEFAULT: 9.1 In the event "Owner/Developer", "Owner/Developer's" heirs, t successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the "Property", this Agreement maybe modified or terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 9.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Owner/Developer" of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Owner/Developer's" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Owner/Developer", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re -zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 11. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified herein. 12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City' or "Owner/Developer", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 12.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that "City' and "Owner/Developer" shall have thirty (3 0) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non - breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 6 OF 11 0 0 (3 0) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as maybe necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Owner/Developer" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the "Owner/Developer" agrees to provide, if required by the "City". 14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Owner/Developer" agrees that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the "City" and "Owner/Developer" has entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City". 15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Owner/Developer" agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the "Property" shall be subject to de - annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: X" c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 with copy to: OWNER/DEVELOPER: John Homan 21035 W. Wapoot Drive Meridian, ID 83642 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 7 OF I I 0 0 City Clerk ' City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 16.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other parry a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 18. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City's" corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the "Owner/Developer" of the "Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of "Owner/Developer", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if "City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had_ determined that "Owner/Developer" has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Owner/Developer" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 8 OF 11 conditionsr understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Owner/Developer" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City". t 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re -zoning of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the "City" has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 9 OF 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN Approved by City Council % tv 6 Attest: r CITY CLERK V v �S I•..l?� 4y r✓d✓✓✓r � � Mt,. ��a�a�Eaaa9 �a9��a®a, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 10 OF 11 STATE OF IDAHO, : ss: County of Ada, On this 'll%r day of AaQgS�-- , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared John Homan, known or identified to me to be the person -who signed the agreement, and acknowledged to me that he 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. (SEAL)V`0 f ® TA PZ ® G g B 1, oFQa®oo®® STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) - '9�. V, Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: My Commission Expires: ( p On this day of Sen p� e.f bey- , 2006, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. .••,,■■...•• �•'�e, IV '' • • '••QF aIIoA;'�0�• ju�'aaa_ NU-)-) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: (VA(LLLX_L1 I I) Commission expires: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-005) MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PAGE 11 OF 11 B. Legal Description tier 16 as 033zer. Arrow Land 208-939-7321 P,p A 7'OPOGRAMU BOC7 WARY. PFOC AND A-I-T.A. SURVEYS a °Ot�;a`r Land Surveying, Inc. TIM & Sba1e street Sult.1f Fatale, Idaho 9W6 WSM 1-ffia-va9=»» tax: ,•Ma -9W7321 Job No. 06135 2,22-M D.R.I,. REZONE DESClZlMON FOR LKV ARCHi7'BC'I'S 1 Lots 1.3; Block 1 of sauxuy Laae Subdivisim and pottiom of Ws Wyowlok Drive and N. Meridian i{oad in Section 1, Township 3 Noah, Paw 1 West of the Boise Mwidiao. City ofMaildUn, Ada County, Idshe doaeribed ass Co m—euciog at the Northeast coma of Section• 1, 7awashlp 3 North. Range 1 Wcat of the Baso M -Dian. CRY of Mo kU-„•Ada County. Mob* and. running *== 500.17-24-W 1023AS foot along the Fast line of said Section to the oenterana. intst -'Of N. Meridian Road and W. Sedgewkk Drive (said point being the P0FW OF 830INNINO); dmm NW42.3&W 234.64. foot along the eaatadlno of said W. SedWwtok Drive to a point of curve with a radius v['200.00 foot, a aeronaut angle of 12"W'02” and a chord that begs SWI7'23"W 41.61 feet; dtaaron t9 the "slong.said td eeedine curve 41.69 foes; titotm S15°27'04"E 170.41 feet alone the Weit line.gfyafd a Lot 3 to the Nordwwv corner of said Lot 2; thoitcc S00"17'2 -4'W I Ies .ILdl foalocag die West line of said Lot 2 to ft &m&wcw oar w otsaid Lot 2; tAawc S6902r04"E 200.00 Boot along the South line of said Salisbiuy Lmm Subdlvisioa;-*once S69°42'36"9 30.60 feet along said South line to tha.eeatedine ofsaid N. Meridian Road; *mace N00"17'24"E 26730 feet along.said eenteriine to the point of begioaiiRg. Mea ooataioi 1.6 acral MAY 0820M M= mMLIC Woarrs oaPT. LJ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER • RECEIVED AUG- 10 2006 c• �.dYan Office cql(wwIQ.LIL w Lv IDAHO }/i, f ti In the Matter of a Rezone of 1.6 acres from R4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office) for up to four office buildings, by John Homan. Case No(s). RZ-06-005 For the City Council Hearing Date oh July 25, 2006 (findings approved on August 15, 2006) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report far the hearing date of July 25, 2006 incorporated by reference and the official minutes on file with the City Clerk's Office) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 25, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 25, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 25, 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 currcnt zoning maps thcrcof. 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 § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06.005- PAGE 1 of 3 0 • 4. Duecqnsideration 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 party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the submitted Legal Description and the Development Agreement Provisions listed in Exhibit A of the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 25, 2006 incorporated by reference. The Staff Report is cuncluded 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 § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing .Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: The applicants request for Rezone is approved subject to the provisions listed in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 25, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 25, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT_, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-005- PAGE 2 of 3 h By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the l Sf day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED_q� COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED_#� COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED_#�� COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED_0e4L- TIE BREAKER MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED ATTEST: G. BERG, Copy scrvcd upon: MAY094ANQUY de WEERD COF . Cis` � '• Ir jR6&ftYCLftK Applicant Planning Departin`e�Ii"n+++` ✓ Public Works Department ��— City Attorney By:� .Uu Dated: Yrlu-ou City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-005- PAGE 3 of 3 0 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 25. 2006 f:l IY /IF STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: 7/25/2006 � • � TO: Mayor & City Council uYll�'�€i? y 7y, FROM: Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager IDAHO SUBJECT: , Meridian Professional Office Rezone for John Homan�4-r• -rel RZ-06-005 Rezone of 1.6 acres from R4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office) for up to four office buildings, by John Homan. 1. SU MIARY DESCRIPTION OF AP'PLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, John Homan, has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 1.6 acres from R4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) to L-0 (Limited Office) for two buildable lots and one common lot within Salisbury Lane Subdivision. The site is comprised of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Salisbury Lane Subdivision (Lot 1, Block 1, is a common lot). The applicant is requesting the subject property be rezoned so that up to four office buildings may be constructed on this site. The site is located on the southwest corner of Meridian Road and Sedgewick Drive, approximately 1,000 feet south of Ustick Road. This site currently contains two residences and outbuildings. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends aDvroval of RZ-06-005 as presented in. the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 15, 2006 based on the Findin&s of Fact as listed in Exhibit C Staff has included all agency/department comments and Development Agreement provisions in Exhibit A. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on June 15, 2006 and July 6, 2006. At the July 6. 2006 public hearing the Meridian Planning &Zoning Commission moved to recommend approval a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Amber Van Ocker 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. Uses allowed in the L -O zone; and, ii. Proposed fencing/screening of residential properties; C. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval I move to approve File Number RZ-06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 25, 2006, with the following changes to the staff report: (add any proposed modifications). Denial I move to deny File Number RZ-06-005 as presented during the hearing on July 25, 2006, for the Meridian Profminnal Office— RZ-06-005 PAGE 1 0 CITY OF M�ERID(AN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARtNG DATE OF JULY 25, 2006 following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial. They should address how the applicant might redo the application to gain your recommendation for approval). Continue I move to continue the public hearing for File -Number RZ-06-005 to (date certain) for the following reason(s): (insert reason). 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 2825 and 2835 N. Meridian Road / southwest corner of Meridian Read and Sedgewick Drive in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range I West. b. Owner: John Homan 23035 W. Wapoot Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 c. Applicant: John Homan 23035 W. Wapoot Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 d. Representative: Brook Thornton/Amber Van Ocker, LKV Architects e. Present Zoning: R-4 f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting to rezone 1.6 acres from R-4 to L -O so that up to four office buildings may be constructed on this site. 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 11-5B-3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: My 29`h and June 12s', 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and July 10`h and 17 , 2006 (for City Council hearing) c. Radius notices mailed to properties within. 300 feet on: May 19''', 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and July 7a', 2006 (for City Council hearing) d. Applicant posted notice on site by: June 26, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and July 1St", 2006 (for City Council hearing) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Single-family dwellings. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Existing single-family dwellings and a nearby church. c. Adj aeent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Common lot, zoned R-4; Single-family residence, zoned RUT in Ada County, Meridian Profmional Office —RZ_o6-oo5 PAGE 2 0 CITY OF MIERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE 14EARTNG DATE OF JULY 25. 2006 j2. East: Existing residences, zoned R-8. '3. South: Existing single-family residences, zoned R-4. 4. West: Existing single-family residences, zoned R-4. d. History of Previous Actions: In 2000, the City approved Salisbury Lane Subdivision, a 42 lot residential subdivision. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer. There are currently mains in Meridian Road. Location of water: There are currently mains in Meridian Road. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: NA 3. Flood plain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: None. 5. Hazards: None. 6. Proposed Zoning: UO 7. Size of Property: 1.6 acres 7. COMMENTS MEETING On May 26, 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. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Medium Density Residential." The purpose of a medium density residential designation is to allow smaller lots for residential purposes within city limits. Uses may include single-family homes at densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre (Page 95, 2002 Comprehensive Plan). In 2004, the City approved Resolution No. 04-454, which amended Chapter VII, Section 1, of the Comprehensive Plan to include the following language: "At the discretion of City Council, areas with a Residential Comprehensive Plan designation may request othce uses if the property has frontage on an arterial street or a section line road and is 3 acres in size or less in size. In this instance, no ancillary commercial uses shall be permitted." Staff finds that the subject property has frontage on Meridian Road, an arterial street, and is less than 3 acres in size (1.6 acres total). Because the property is designated for residential uses, the property is less than 3 -acres in size, and it is located on an arterial street, staff believes that a residential use of the property may not be the best use of the land. Staff believes that an office zone/use on the subject property is appropriate as the request is consistent with the intent of Resolution No. 04-454, lithe Commission and Council find the zoning is appropriate for this site. Please see the following facts and circumstances and Section 10 of the Staff Report below for further analysis of the proposed zoning designation and anticipated office uses. Meridian Professional Office — RZ-06-005 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 25, 2006 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): • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) On the submitted conceptual site plan, the applicant is proposing a single access to this site from Sedgewick Drive. An emergency access to Meridian Road is also proposed in the middle of the property. Staff is supportive of the proposed access into the site. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 4) Meridian Road is designated as an arterial street. By City Ordinance, a 2S foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Meridian Road. A landscape buffer along Meridian Road will be required by the City with future UC/Subdivision approval. "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action item 5) The applicant is not specifically proposing to install any landscaping with the subject rezone application. In order to construct buildings on this site the applicant will be required to construct internal and perimeter landscaping. • "Permit new.... commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter W, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) This property is already within the corporate boundaries of the City ofMeridian. Sanitary sewer and water are available to this parcel. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunitic s within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposed zone, which allows office uses, does contribute to the variety of uses in this area. Staff finds that the new zoning to L -O should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Resolution No. 04-4S4. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on staff's analysis, other agency/department comments, and any other comments received regarding the appropriateness of zoning this site for office use(s). 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists several uses as permitted and conditional uses in the L -O zoning district. h. Purpose Statement of Zone: 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. Meridian Professional Office — RZ-06-005 PAGE 4 CITY OF KiERIDIAN PF ANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 25. 2006 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation REZONE ANALYSIS: Approval of the subject rezone application would allow the applicant to obtain an office zone. According to current City Code, professional offices and clinics are principally permitted in the proposed L -O zone. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan showing how this site may redevelop with the office building, parking and landscaping. On the submitted plan, the applicant has depicted one access to Sedewick Drive. Although this site has frontage on Meridian Road, no vehicular access is proposed (one emergency access to Meridian Road is shown). The applicant states, in the submittal letter, that the proposed zoning will buffer the residential uses from a roadway that is quickly growing in intensity. The buildings will consist of two 3,000 square foot and two 3,270 square foot, single story structures. The design of the buildings will be compatible with the surrounding residential buildings as a blend of architectural finishes with stucco and brick access will be used (see the applicant's submittal letter). The applicant held a neighborhood meeting and the main concern from the neighbors was buffering. The applicant is proposing to construct a solid masonry fence on both the west and south property lines. Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed concept plan with the Zoning Ordinance for L -O zoning, 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 16, 2006 by Darren R. Leavitt, PLS) shows the property within the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. UDC 11 -5B -3D2 provides the P&Z Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Due to the proposed use, staff believes that a Development Agreement is necessary to ensure that this -y= rty is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and does not negativelyimpact nearby prwerties If the Commission or Council feels additional development agreement requirements are necessary, staff recommends a clear outline of the commitments of the developer being required. A Development Agreement (DA) will be required as part of an annexation of this property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill NaM at 888-4433 within 18 months of Council approval to initiate this process The DA shall incorporate the following (also see Exhibit B): Access: Consistent with the applicant's conceptual site plan and the comprehensive plan, vehicular access to this site should be limited to Sedgewiek Drive, and not Meridian. Road. Because only one access to the public roadway system is being approved for this property, staff recommends that cross access be provided to for both of the current lots (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Salisbury Lane Subdivision) to use this access. NOTE: Emergency vehicular access to Meridian Road is okay, if required by the Meridian Fire Department. Future Development: Meridian Professional Office — RZ-06-005 PAGE 5 • CLTY OF JERiDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 25, 2006 Office Use: Professional -and sales offices, laboratories, health care services and medical clinics are some of the most common principally permitted uses within the requested L-0 zone. Staff believes that these principally permitted uses are appropriate for this property and meet the intent of Resolution No. 04-454. However, there are several retail and ancillary commercial uses that can occur in the L-0 zone with conditional use permit approval. Staff is concerned that this area may turn into a commercial retail site, and is recommending that the City limit the uses that can operate on the site to office(clinic type uses. This recommendation is intended to protect the neighbors from more intense commercial uses that could potentially operate on this property with CUP approval, and to ensure that the uses intended in Resolution No. 04-454 (light office, low -impact businesses) are upheld. All future uses on the subject property shall be limited to principally permitted uses in the L-0 zone only. According to UDC 11 -5B -1A, no building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building, structure or land be established or changed in use without a certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) issued by the Administrator. A CZC shall be issued only in conformity with the provisions of the UDC and shall be required before the issuance of a building permit. Upon rezone ordinance approval the existing residcnccs will bccomc lcgal non- conforming uses. The applicant, Commission and Council should be aware that no alterations, expansions, reconstructions or other enlargements to the structures will be permitted except through a CZC and except where the use of the structure changes to a use permitted in the L-0 zone. Prior to occupancy of any building for office use on this site, a curtipic:ate of zoning uompliauce permit should be obtained. Hours of eration: In the submitted application, the applicant lists that the hours of operation will be from 7 am to 7 pm. Consistent with previous Commission actions, staff is recommending that the hours of operation for businesses on this site be limited through a Development Agreement from 6 am to 10 pm. Tandscapina_ Meridian Road is a classified arterial roadway. A 25 -foot wide landscape buffer is currently required adjacent to arterial roadways (UDC Table 11-2B-3). There is currently a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer easement (in a common lot) along Meridian !toad adjacent to this site. However, most of the landscaping adjacent to this site lies within the right-of-way for Meridian Road, and not within the landscape buffer. A full 25 -foot wide landscape buffer, constructed outside of the Meridian Road right-of-way, should be constructed adjacent to this site. UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 10 -foot wide landscape street buffer along local streets. A 10 -foot wide landscape buffer, constructed outside of the Sedgewick Drive right-of-way, should be constructed adjacent to this site. UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer between residential uses and L-0 uses. To buffer the adjacent residential uses, the applicant is proposing to construct a solid masonry fence on both the west and south property lines. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal. The masonry fence proposal should be in addition to, not in lieu of, the 20 -foot wide landscape buffer that is required by City Code. Landscape buffers along Meridian Road, Sedgewick Drive, and the south and west property lines, in compliance with the UDC, will be required by the City with CZC/Plat approval. Meridian Professional Office — RZ-06-005 PAGE 6 0 C� i CITY Or, MIERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAPP REPORT FOR THE IIEARING DATE OF JULY 25, 2006 Site P • Staff is generally supportive of the submitted conceptual site plan for this property. However, some of the dimensions shown on the plan do not comply with the UDC. Currently, City Code requires all 90 -degree parking stalls to be at least 9 -feet wide, 19 -feet long, adjacent to 25 -foot wide drive aisles. All parking areas, drive aisles, landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, signage, -building height and building setbacks for this development should comply with the applicable provisions set forth in the Unified Development Code. t Building Elevations/Construction Materials: The applicant is proposing to construct up to four office buildings on this site. The potential buildings for this site have a maximum size of 3,270 square feet each, and are single -story. As proposed by the applicant, staff recommends that each future building have some stucco and brick accents. That any new structure(s) (or remodel of existing structure(s)) should 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. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of RZ-06-005 for Meridian Professional Offices as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions for a Development Agreement m the attached Exhibit A. On July 15 2006 the Meridian Pl�nnir�g , Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject application to the Citv Council. 11. EXHIBITS A. Development Agreement Provisions and Agency and Department Comments 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Meridian Fire Department B. Legal Description C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance D. Conceptual Site Plan & Elevation Meridian Professional C?gicr. — R7._06-005 PAGE 7 0 0 CITY OF MIERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 25, 2006 A. Development Agreement Provisions and Agency and Department Comments Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City ofMeridian, property owner (at the time of rezone ordinance adoption), and the developer. The annlicant shall contact the City Attorney Bill Nary at 888-4433 to initiate this opr cess. The DA shall incorporate the following: • That no alterations, expansions, reconstructions or other enlargements to the existing single- family structures will be permitted except through a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and except where 1) the use of the structure changes to a use consistent with this Development Agreement and 2) the structure shall meet all applicable development standards such as setbacks, frontage, height, etc. of the L -O zone. • That no building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building, structure or land be established or changed in use without a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). • That all parking areas, drive aisles, landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, signage, building height and building setbacks for this development shall comply with the applicable provisions set forth in the Unified Development Code. • That all fiaure 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. ghM& or odors. • That the following shall be the only allowed uses on this property. principally permitted uses within the L -O zone. • That the hosted hours of operation shall be limited to 6 7 a.m. to 4$ 2.p.m.. • That any new structure(s) (or remodel of existing structure(s)) 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 this site. That said buildings shall have a maximum size of 3,270 square feet each, and be limited to a single -story. Each building shall have some stucco and brick accents. • That the applicant agrees to construct a 6 -foot tall masonry fence along the south and west property lines, as proposed. That although not reauired the apolicant has offered to construct said fence on ton of a berm. N some of the adjacent urooerty owner(s)' allow the berm to be gat Hy constructed on their land. • That a 25 -foot wide landscape street buffer will be constructed adjacent to Meridian Road, located entirely outside of the right-of-way. • That a 10 -foot wide landscape street buffer will be constructed adjacent to Sedgewick Drive, located entirely outside of the right -of --way. • That a 20 -foot wide land use buffer will be constructed along the south and west property lines. • That vehicular access to this site shall be restricted to Sedgewick Drive, as approved by ACHD and the City, Except for emergency access, no vehicular access to Meridian Road is approved. • That the applicant shall be required to install any and all sewer mains, water mains and/or lire - hydrants that are deemed necessary during construction plan review. This may include water connections in both Sedgwick and Meridian Road. • That the applicant shall provide easements for all required sewer and water mains that are not located in the right-of-way. Exhibit A CITY OP M�RIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 25, 2006 • TO the applicant shall be required to use, with written permission, the existing pressurized irrigation system for all landscaping. 1. PLANNING nFPARTMF.NT 1.1 The rezone legal description submitted with the application (prepared on March 16, 2006 by Darren R. Leavitt, PLS) shows the property within the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. a 1.2 All future construction/uses on this site should comply with the provisions of the Unified Development Code in effect at the time of submittal. 1.3 Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 The current residences are serviced by existing service lines to the City of Meridian's domestic water and sewer systems. The condition of these services is not known at this time. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with any sewer and water service extension or upgrade. Wells may only be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPA1C1'MENT 3.1 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. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers 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 1FC 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. 3.3 The phasing plan may require 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. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, 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 Commercial and office ucc:upancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.8 The office development will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has Exhibit A 0 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 25, 2006 experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by the year 2010. 3.9 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.10 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff and Fire Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). 3.11 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 accordancc 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). For buildings equipped throughout with an approved autumade sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.12, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Exhibit A CITY OF hlr-RIDIAN PLANNINO DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TILE !GEARING DATE Of JULY 25. 2006 B. Legal Description Mar 16 08 03,28P. Arrow land 20B -g38-7321 P.2 TOPOOKAMIC AND A.L.T.A, St3A' EYS LOW 5urnying, Inc. CONSTRUCTION STAXINO sz,'scAr�Itl�to 1721 L Slate street- Sufi MS • took, kfahe 83616 offkw1-208-tF39=73J'a Mx:1-�-9a�73�t Job No_ 0613S 2,22•(115 REZONE DESCRJMON FOR i LKV ARCHMCTS 7 Lots 1:3; Bio* 1 of &Hsbury Lade. Subdivision; and Porti = of W. Sadgewick Drive and N_ Meeidiati 4"d in Sia 1, T*Wndgp 3 Nottk Range 1 West of" Bois, Marldiaa. Clty. ofMer6dlan, AAa Comty. Idaho desenbed a. Covmnaoolugat tate Northeast ash of Scctkm-1, TO.WMWp 3 Notlh, Ran& 1 West of the Balsa Maidian, Citi, of MWdian,.Aft Cowdy,. hu and n mining *mina SWI W 1023.45 feet along fire Just line of said Swoon to therhe inUwambou of N. [ itGaa Riad and W. •SedgwM* Drive (will point being the POINT Op BEGIiVIVtING), thele 14*42'364W 234.64. foot aioag fire unwr lee of said W. Sm*"v k D dvc to a Mitt of mve wttb a tadiW of 200.00 §Pet, a ee+*w angle of IM'02" ead a chord that bens S84d17•x3"11W 41.61 fixig: to the Igfi tdorlg. said c0aft liito w'e 41.89 feet~ tbehoe 815"2T04"E 170.41 fief Wkmg t6 Went line.nfsaid Lot 3 to the t+lmtln. elct caamx of sold, Lot 7: thciKv SOOd1M4'"W I I ILO fog along dine W"A line of said Trot 2 to ft Sot'"ast Omw0f8mW Lot % tb=w 88JP2r04-E 200.00 fW along the Sao& "m Of BW SalisbwY L4mc SI:bdlWVI*V r;•t wom SW42'3rg 30.00 fit along said South Un- 00 &a.cetxtafte ofsaid W. Macidiam Road; •th.. NW T2418 28930 fed along. saw oentariine to the poft of beginning Ann contab* 1.6 aat+es Exhibit B MAY 0 8 IS MeuN vusuas wosxs Den CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMCNT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 25. 2006 I � I � I � aI ' gh I ( I L� .' N. mmwmax eats Ti 1 1 # INN a a -a IZ64-698-008 Fxhibit B pue-1 ana.lu vEL:8O.9O V0 MDR CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15. 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 finds that several uses are permitted within the requested zoning district of L-0. The future uses and buildings on this site should conform to the dimensional standards of the proposed zoning designation. Council finds 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 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. Exhibit C CITY OF 14ERIDEAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE Or, JUNE 15. 2006 D. Site Plan od Elevation Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIJAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JUNE 15. 2006 Exhibit D • September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -G REQUEST Resolution — A Rate Increase for Solid Waste Collection Services due to the Net Percentage of Change in the Consumer Price Index for the Pacific Northwest to Provide for the Solid Waste Disposal Rate Changes Within the City of Meridian 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 Resolution Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL: C� RESOLUTION NO. e 6'— �Z 7 BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS AND PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ALLOW, ON BEHALF OF SAID MUNICIPALITY, A RATE INCREASE FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES DUE TO THE NET PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, TO PROVIDE FOR THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RATE CHANGES WITHIN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 1, 2006. WHEREAS, the franchise agreement entered into between Sanitary Services Company and the City of Meridian provides that rate adjustment based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in accordance with Section 21 of that agreement be passed on to the consumer; and WHEREAS, Sanitary Services Company has provided detailed information regarding the annual adjustment based upon the "net percentage of change in the Consumer Price Index for the Northwest"; and WHEREAS, the requested increases in solid waste collection fees are reasonable and in compliance with the franchise agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to allow, on behalf of the City of Meridian, the solid waste disposal rate increases within the City of Meridian as set forth in that certain memorandum dated August 17, 2006 from Sanitary Services Company. A copy of the memorandum is attached to this resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. RESOLUTION - FEE INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES Pagel of 2 SECTION 2. The effective date for these solid waste collection rates shall be October 1, 2006. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho Jr day of ��/Z?3-64- .. , 2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 2F:�R/G� 2006. ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JRV; APPROVED: r' mu W-6-1 ,A CLERK � ��%J<V/t9991 Vi44AVi4\\4 RESOLUTION - FEE INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES Page2 of 2 RECEIVED •MEMORAN®U-M AUG 18' 2006 City of Meridian . TO:. ' Mayor•Tammy.de Weerd ' City Clerk office City Council Members Mr. Shaun Wardle - President Mr'. Joe Borton —Vice President Mr. Keith Bird Mr. -Charlie Rountree - FROM: -Steve Sedlacek, Business Manager, Sanitary Services, Inc. Bill Gregory; Operations Manager, Sanitary Services, Inc. DATE: :August 17, 2006 SUBJECT: Annual CPD Rate Adjustment for Solid Waste Collection Services This memorandum presents the solid waste collection rate, adjustment based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in, accordance with Section' 21 of our contract with the City of Meridian. This rate adjustment coincides with the beginning of the next fiscal year, October 1; 2006;' Adjustment Methodology Our contract -requires that, our costs be adjusted annually, based upon the "net percentage of -change in the Consumer Price Index -for the Pacific Northwest." (The CPI is no longer published for the Pacific Northwest so •wehave used the CPI for the Western Region of the United States.) Further., we reduce the calculated change 'in the CPI ,by ten percent to account for aspects of the CPI that do not apply'to our business. Attached to this memorandum is the CPI he from .the U.S. Bureau of labor Statistics. The CPI for'July'one year ago was 198.6 and this -year it is 206.7. The net percentage change -between the two values' is 4.0.8°/x•: Then, reducing this number by, 1.0 percent yields a. CPI adjustment of 3.67%o that is applied to our costs. Another requirement of our contract is that'we.exclude the landfill portion of our fees from the adjustment. OR P.Q. Box 626, Meridian, ID 83880 Phone 208!888-3999 Fax 208/888-5052 `� PriMed oft Rec ilad Paper Results of state Change' The current and proposed rates are presented in. tabular form in an attachment to this memorandum. The residential rate will * increase, by $0.30 per. month- to $1•1:25, for unlimited weekly service with -curbside recycling. The percentage of change • by various categories. of rates is shown in Table 1. The percentages vary with the different types of systems that we .operate because each has. a different percentage that is disposal. Table 1 Percentage.of Rate Change by System Residential rates ' : 2.7% Commercial can 'rates 0.9%-1.95% Commercial container rates 3.08% Commercial'com ctor rates 1.96% - 2.22% Temporary container rates' 3.67% Miscellaneous services 3•.67% Rolloff Services 3.67% A more detailed analysis is available 'to the Mayor, Council or City staff upon request. If further information -is . necessary we would. appreciate, treating the information. as "business confidential.' Bureau of Labor Statistics Data � • Page 1 of 1 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau f Labor Statistics s Bureau of labor Statistics Data www.b1s.govM Search - I I Advanced Search I A -Z Index BLS Home I Programs & Surveys I Get Detailed Statistics I Glossary What's New Find Itl In DOL Change Output i ^_ Options' From: 1996 4 si To:i 2006 A: [I include graphs NEW[ More Formatting Options ► Data extracted on: August IS, 2006 (3:50:03 PM) Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers Series Id: CUUR0400SAO,CUUSO400SAO Not Seasonally Adjusted Area: West urban Item: All items Base Period: 1982-94=100 Year can I Feb Mar I Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep tact I Nov Dec JAnnual HALF1 HALF2 1996 155.3 155,8 156.4 157.1 157.6 157.5 157.9 158.0 158.6 159.1 159.2 158.7 157.6 156.6 158.6 1997 159.6 160.1 160.8 161.1 161.1 161.0 161.1 161.5 162.1 162.8 162, 8 162.8 161.4 160.6 162.2 1998 163.0 163.2 163.3 163.6 164.3 164.2 164.3 164.8 165.1 165.5 165.8 165.8 164.4 163.6 165.2 1999 166.4 166.9 167.3 169.0 168.7 168.3 168,91-169.5 170-01170.4 170.4 170.5 168.9 167.8 1170.0 2000 171.0 172.0 173.5 173.7 174.0 174.3 175.2 175.9 176.6 177.2 177.2 177.1 174,8 173.1 1176.7 2001 178.3 179.3 180.1 180.4 161.3 182.0 182.0 181.9 182.5 182.5 182.3 181.6 181.2 180.2 1182.1 2002 182.4 183.2 184.0 185.1 184.8 184.5 184.7 185.3 185.7 185.8 185.8 185.5 184.7 184.0 1185.5 2003 186.6 188.1 189.3 188.8 188.5 188.1 188.4 189.2 189.6 189.4 188.5 188.3 188.6 188.2 1188.9 2004 189.4 190.8 192.2 192.3 193.4 193.3 192.9 193.0 193.8 195.0 195.1 194.2 193.0 191.9 1194.0 2005 194.5 195.7 197.1 198.6 198.8 198.0 198.6 199.6 201.7 202.6 201.4 200.0 198.9 197.1 1200.7 2006 201.7 202.7 203.8 205.3 206.9 206.4 206.7 204.5 Frequently AskeduestiPns I Freedom of Information Act I Customer Sun= privaCy lk Se uriUStatement I J,-nking.to Nr Site I .A9eesi lite U.S. Bureau of Labor Statlstles Phone: (202) 691-5200 Postal Square Building Fax -on -demand: (202) 691-6325 2 Massachusetts Ave„ NE Data questions: bls-d stat A1hlr&aev Washington, DC 20212-0001 Technical (web) questions �rebmasterCc� Is.goa Other comments: feedbilck0bla.goy http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servIeVSurveyOutputserviet?data tool=dropmap&series_id=CUUR0400SA0,CU... 8/16/2006 0 0 Proposed Solid Waste Collection Rate Changes Proposed Rates Effective 10/1/06 Sanitary Service Inc. Proposed Current Rate Rate Structure Structure Residential $ 10.95 $ 11.25 Toter Carts $ 2.60 $ 2.70 Habitual Late Can Fee $ 5.00 $ 5.00 _Commercial Cane (Current) 1/wk 2/wk 3/wk 1- 3 cans $ 17.84 $ 35.58 $ 63.52 4 - 6 cans $ 35.68 $ 71.36 $ 107.04 7 - 9 cans $ 44.14 $ 88.29 $ 132.42 _Commercial Cans (Proposed) 1/wk 2ANk 3/wk 1 - 3 cans $ 18.00 $ 39.00 $ 54.00 4 - 6 cans $ 36.00 $ 72.00 $ 108.00 7 - 9 cans $ 45.00 $ 90.00 $ 135.00 Commercial Containers (Current) 1/wk 2/wk 3/wk 4x/wk 5/wk 6/wk 11/2 Yd $ 65.11 $ 92.85 $ 120.09 $ 161.10 $ 202.02 $ 242.95 3 Yd $ 68.24 $ 110.52 $ 152.88 $ 201.42 $ 264.78 $ 320.75 6 Yd $ 106.46 $ 172.00 $ 237.46 $ 316.63 $ 395.83 $ 475.00 8 Yd $ 126.38 $ 196.66 $ 262.14 $ 339.07 $ 421.03 $ 499.34 Commercial Containers (Proposed) 1/wk 2/wk 3/wk 4x/wk 5/wk 6/wk 1112 Yd $ 67.12 $ 95.71 $ 123.79 $ 166.07 $ 208.26 $ 250.44 3 Yd $ 70.34 $ 113.93 $ 157.59 $ 207.63 $ 272.94 $ 330.64 6 Yd $ 109.74 $ 177.30 $ 244.78 $ 326.39 $ 408.03 $ 489.64 8 Yd $ 130.28 $ 202.72 $ 270.22 $ 349.52 $ 434.01 $ 514.73 Commerctai Compactors (per dump) Current Proposed 2 Yd $ 28.07 $ 28.65 3 Yd $ 43.78 $ 44.75 4 Yd $ 66.18 $ 58.30 5 Yd $ 66.55 $ 67.90 6 Yd $ 77.48 $ 79.00 8 Yd $ 104.48 $ 106.55 Temporary Container Service Current Proposed Delivery $ 18.48 $ 19.16 Daily Rental $ 0.69 $ 0.72 Monthly Rental $ 1BAB $ 19.16 Extra Dump 3 Yd $ 21.17 $ 21.80 Extra Dump 6 Yd $ 33.26 $ 34.25 Extra Dump 8 Yd $ 42.83 $ 44.10 u Miscellaneous Collection Services Tires $ 2.75 $ 2.85 Refrigerators $ 37.86 $ 39.25 Overflow Cleanup $12.70 for 5 min $13.00 for 5 min Roll Off Services (Current) $46.00/haul + disposal + franchise fees (6 -10 CY containers) $103.00/haul + disposal + franchise fees (20 - 40 CY containers, Weekdays) $156.00/haul + disposal + franchise fees (20 - 40 CY containers, Weekends) $136.00/haul + disposal + franchise fees (asbestos - Ada County) $215.00/haul + disposal + franchise fees (asbestos - Idaho Waste Systems) Extra services $ 84.57 per hour Roll Off Services (Proposedl $47.70/haul + disposal + franchise fees (6 -10 CY containers) $106.75/haul + disposal + franchise fees (20 - 40 CY containers, Weekdays) $161.75/haul + disposal + franchise fees (20 - 40 CY containers, Weekends) $141.00/haul + disposal + franchise fees (asbestos -Ada County) $223.00/haul + disposal + franchise fees (asbestos - Idaho Waste Systems) Extra services $ 87.65 per hour Roll Off Container Rental (Current E 6 Yd $ 1,42 per day $ 42.47 per month 8 Yd $ 1.84 per day $ 55.06 per month 10 Yd $ 2.04 per day $ 61.35 per month 20 Yd $ 2.46 per day $ 70.54 per month 30 Yd $ 3.08 per day $ 86.22 per month 40 Yd $ 3.36 per day $ 98.53 per month Roll Off Container Rental (Proposed 6 Yd $ 1.47 per day $ 44.03 per month 8 Yd $ 1.91 per day $ 57.08 per month 10 Yd $ 2.11 per day $ 63.60 per month 20 Yd $ 2.55 per day $ 73.13 per month 30 Yd $ 3.19 per day $. 89.38 per month 40 Yd $ 3.48 per day $ 102.15 per month Disposal Rates with Franchise Fees (Current -3 1 container $ 35.00 $ 68.00 $ ars.uu 2 containers $ 68.00 $ 98.00 $ 128.00 Compact Wood Size SW Dump Demo Dump Dump Waste 6 Yd $ 19.08 $ 38.16 $ 9.54 8 Yd $ 25.44 $ 50.88 $ 12.72 10 Yd $ 31.80 $ 63.60 $ 15.90 20 Yd $ 63.60 $ 127.20 $ 127.20 $ 31.80 30 Yd $ 95.40 $ 190.80 $ 190.80 $ 47.70 40 Yd $ 127.20 $ 254.40 $ 254.40 $ 63.60 -3 1 container $ 35.00 $ 68.00 $ ars.uu 2 containers $ 68.00 $ 98.00 $ 128.00 0 September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT September 5, 2006 ITEM NO. 5-H REQUEST Resolution - Adoption of the Ada County Emergency Mgmt Plan, All Hazards Mitigation Plan, Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan, Ada County Flood Response Plan, Ada County Hazmat Response Plan, Ada County Terrorism Response & Ada County Wildfire Respons AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS See attached Resolution �v q," 1 0 b OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubUc meetings shag become property of the City of Meridian. 10 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE INCLUDING A PROPOSED PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE INCREASE AND PROPOSED NEW IMPACT FEES FOR FIRE AND POLICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PARKS, POLICE AND FIRE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS; NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho including but not limited to Idaho Code section 67-8206 and 67-6509 that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a combined public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday September 5, 2006 for the purpose reviewing and considering a revised parks, police and fire Capital Improvements Plans and proposed amendments to the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance. The proposed revisions to the Capital Improvements Plans are the City of Meridian Impact Fee Advisory Committee's and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. The proposed amendments to the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance are based on the July 3, 2006 Final Impact Fee Report prepared by BBC Research and Consulting, and recommendations made by the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The proposed increased parks impact fees are to be imposed on applications for new residential building permits and the proposed new impact fees for police and fire capital improvements are to be imposed on applications for new residential and non-residential building permits so that a proportionate share of new public facilities is borne by new developments which have been deemed to create an increased demand for parks, police, and fire services. The proposed fees are summarized as follows: Police Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Fire Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Cost RE $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot $377.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.25 per square foot Recommend $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot $300.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.20 per square foot Parks Impact Fee Schedule: Residential $1,384.00 per Dwelling Unit $1,215.00 per Dwellinc Unit -- ---a September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-1 REQUEST Water Main Easement Agreement No. 1 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments, 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: v - MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Matedals presented at pubac meetings shag become property of the City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORD. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 5" BOISE IDAHO 09121 41 PM t�v DEPUTY Iil I'I��II'll'lllll'II�IIIII'IJ�I�III - RECORDEDD- - REQUEST QUEUE ST OF II 1 11 I Clt of Meridian 1061512220 WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this Oday of August, 2006 between Schwenkfelder Investments,, LLC, 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 water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main 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 water main 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 water 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 the Grantee, in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and replacement. However, the Grantee will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring any permanent structures, large trees or brush placed within the area described in this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed Water Main Easement Page 1 C056232 EASMT.WTR. 2 081806.doe n_..,_ I . I,, any permanent structures, large trees or brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. 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. 9'0�� 7 Yk Schv6kfelder STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada } On this - �,E _ day of August, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared J.R. Schwenkfelder, known or identified to me to be the owner, respectively, 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 first above written. 040 V .Br to �, �•.•'' ''• S'�T[ARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO • ,�o't AR r w. dV•! esi t: /�i�tc�� y/2 PU9,10, 'ssion Expires: ri of Water Main Easement Page 2 C056232 EASMT.WTR 2 081806.doc Parra '�) V1 6 • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy Weer or 8,1:4: .. s W 'am G. Berg, Jr., City Cl = ef-, :-• M ,t 1 Approved by Council on�� �� ., fit j/ STATE OF IDAHO, . ss. County of Ada, ) On this AW day of �tl /J �'�� L h" 200 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of daho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho and who subscribed their names to 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: _ _ nu My Commission Expires: 0 • EXHIBIT A A water line easement over, under and across a portion of Lot 6, Block 1, Layne Industrial Park Subdivision as shown on the Official Plat recorded in Book 69 of Plats at pages 7113 and 7114 records of Ada County, Idaho and situated in a portion of the N1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point marking the NE corner of said Lot 6, thence along the North line of said Lot 6 S89°38'29"W a distance of 30.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said North line S00° 1847"W a distance of 99.84 feet to a point; Thence S22°11'13"E a distance of 36.39 feet to a point; Thence S00°1847"W a distance of 141.12 feet to a point; Thence S44°41'13"E a distance of 11.65 feet to a point; Thence N45'1 8'47"E a distance of 7.19 feet to a point; Thence S44°41'13"E a distance of 7.22 feet to a point on the East line of said Lot 6; Thence along said East line S00°01'07"W a distance of 61.70 feet to a 1/2 rebar marking the SE corner of said Lot 6; Thence leaving said East line and along the South line of said Lot 6 N88°57'09"W a distance of 1.70 feet to a point; Thence leaving said South line N00°19'12"E a distance of 24.60 feet to a point; Thence N44°4V1 3 "W a distance of 52.40 feet to a point; Thence N00° 18'47"E a distance of 145.43 feet to a point; Thence N22°11'13"W a distance of 36.39 feet to a point; Thence N00°18'47"E a distance of 32.23 feet to a point; Thence N89°41'13"W a distance of 87.16 feet to a point; Thence S00°00'00"W a distance of 9.45 feet to a point; Thence N90°00'00"W a distance of 20.00 feet to a point; Thence N00°00'00"E a distance of 29.55 feet to a point; Thence S89041'13"E a distance of 107.27 feet to a point; Thence N00°1847"E a distance of 51.36 feet to a point on said North line; Thence along said North line N89°3829"E a distance of 20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 8,887 square feet or 0.20 acres more or less and is subject to any easements and or rights -of -ways of record or implied. Attached hereto is "Exhibit B" and by this reference is made a part hereof 0056232 Lot 6 Water Main Easement EXHIBIT "B" MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE A PORTION OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION' SITUATED IN THE N1/2 OF THE 9111/4 OF SECTION e TOWNSHIP 3 NORM, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERMIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006 - COMMERCIA ST. _N89°38'29"E 200.00'__ _ L'4j M II Lo �S89'38'29"W 30.90' to o� w S89'41'13"E 107.27' 1 — a Av b LOT 6 O N N89'41'13"W 87.16' w NQ90—'00'00"W I S00'00'00"W 00 N 20.00' 9.45' M i �N00' 19' 1 2"F;1 lo g 24.60'ul ;H ET CHECKED BY: KNS N88'57'09"W DATE 1.70' nEDRAWN BY: LOT 7 GENERAL LEGEND BOUNDARY LINE ROAD CENTER LINE ROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY EASEMENT LINE -W(10-)-- NEW WATER LINE (PIPE SIZE) NEW FIRE HYDRANT D4 NEW WATER VALVE O EXISTING 1/2" REBAR LINE TABLE UNE LENGTH BEARING L7 11.65 S44'41'13"E L2 7.19 N45! 1 8'47' L3 7.22 S4 '41' L4 20.00 N89'38'29" PAK MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE YINNAULE :ALE: wAT E R EiA E eti ENT Engineers, Inc. waw r �. or, wt. %sore mro R4Ca��N 4s A8140CIATirR r4mm Q7 l UNKATIW 1'or E 5788/---------- " n�Loclsr 6rW exisr aw °/s S"*w" s z4 I _--� mTe n ow'or 6144 oma I ; x o o c 0 6570 TM n to n www " I I w ff� $�KiMmg S pN i 8 I d m 1 I I i en � �, c maror • t j g g ii �i � � i° • I � I � i E�?[ 32 .i i p I w i g N I N i M wm7r . g m C:�' QQ ( I I + I 1-3 'w' _ r s mm'°r • ( —!L N. vabY C WDae' i ^ b 1 N �B AVOW41#ii m I I • I I �� Z I I 11 I I II o Mmye I I I I ■ 1 ±I n t_ 1 4:73 •' I I ` z I I I I P N W Y r P N r it fir I gel $ggj 0 X MAa,lle AVE7iIJE;� e„� I MAN 6ASM W BEAR No °[fi y UNPLATTED � lay E A 9 K 3z �� e s =s j al • Memo To: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Karie Glenn CC: File Date: 8/22/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for 8/28/06 City Council Meeting City of Meridian Public Works Dept. AUG 2 3 2006 City Of Meridian. City Clerk Office The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the 8/28/06 City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: 1) Water Main Easement #1 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #1 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. 2) Water Main Easement #2 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #2 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. 3) Water Main Easement #3 for Commercial Tire by Lea Electric. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #3 for Commercial Tire by Lea Electric and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. 0 Page 1 • WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this 1:' day of August, 2006 between Schwenkfelder Investments. LLC the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the parry of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main 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 water main 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 water 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 the Grantee, in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and replacement. However, the Grantee will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring any permanent structures, large trees or brush placed within the area described in this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed Water Main Easement Page 1 C056232 EASMT.WTR 2 081806.doe 9 any permanent structures, large trees or brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said -easement, for the purposes stated herein. 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. 7 �4 ilk. S-chwenlAlder STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this It day of August, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared J.R. Schwenkfelder, known or identified to me to be the owner, respectively, 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 first above written. ion Expires:-�O'-// Water Main Easement Page 2 C056232 EASMT.WTR. 2 081806.doc 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, Mayor William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Approved by Council on: STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada, ) • On this day of 20M before before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared. Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho and who subscribed their names to 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: My Commission Expires: 17.0 W] M a A 20.00 foot wide water line easement over, under and across a portion of Lot 5, Block 1, Layne Industrial Park Subdivision as shown on the Official Plat recorded in Book 69 of Plats at pages 7113 and 7114 records of Ada County, Idaho and situated in a portion of the N1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 1/2 inch rebar marking the NW corner of said Lot 5, thence along the North line of said Lot 5 N89°38'29"E a distance of 27.49 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said North line N89°38'29"E a distance of 20.00 to a point; Thence leaving said North line S00°18'47W a distance of 188.75 feet to a point; Thence S45°00'00"W a distance of 36.56 feet to a point; Thence N45°00'00"W a distance of 20.00 feet to a point; Thence N45°00'00"E a distance of 28.34 feet to a point; Thence N00'1 8'47E a distance of 180.30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 4,339 square feet or 0.10 acres more or less and is subject to any easements and or rights -of -ways of record or implied. Attached hereto is "Exhibit B" and by this reference is made a part hereof. C056232 Lot 5 Water Main Easement EXHIBIT "B" MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE A PORTION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE N1/2 OF THE SWI/4 OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006 - - - - _, COMMERCIAL STREET a _ N89°38'29"E 200.00' TL4— -- -- -- -- N89'38'29"E 27.49' LOT 5 0 — — — — — — — — 00nl Lo Co00 SCA1: MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE PINNACLE T E F2 EAS E M E N T Engineers, Inc. 12952 W. E.wIM W., SWG B. San. IQdw R 1..lpEEN 8c ASSOCIATES 9J7 (209) 88]-T155 f r LENGTH BEARING L1 36.56 S45'00'00"W L2 wl N45'00'00"W L3 28.34 N45'00'00"E L4 20.00 N89'38'29"E LINE ROAD CENTER LINE I ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY i — — EASEMENT LINE I—W(10")— NEW WATER LINE (PIPE SIZE) I 1 NEW FIRE HYDRANT of �4 NEW WATER VALVE CHECKED BY : KNS z DATE �o I EXISTING 1/2" PIN 08-17-06 z DRAWN BY: / l IN / I I � I J I L_ � I i SCA1: MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE PINNACLE T E F2 EAS E M E N T Engineers, Inc. 12952 W. E.wIM W., SWG B. San. IQdw R 1..lpEEN 8c ASSOCIATES 9J7 (209) 88]-T155 LINE TABLE NUMBER LENGTH BEARING L1 36.56 S45'00'00"W L2 20.00 N45'00'00"W L3 28.34 N45'00'00"E L4 20.00 N89'38'29"E SCA1: MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE PINNACLE T E F2 EAS E M E N T Engineers, Inc. 12952 W. E.wIM W., SWG B. San. IQdw R 1..lpEEN 8c ASSOCIATES 9J7 (209) 88]-T155 GENERAL LEGEND I BOUNDARY 1 LINE ROAD CENTER LINE I ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY i — — EASEMENT LINE I—W(10")— NEW WATER LINE (PIPE SIZE) I 1 NEW FIRE HYDRANT �4 NEW WATER VALVE CHECKED BY : KNS DATE o EXISTING 1/2" PIN 08-17-06 DRAWN BY: SCA1: MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE PINNACLE T E F2 EAS E M E N T Engineers, Inc. 12952 W. E.wIM W., SWG B. San. IQdw R 1..lpEEN 8c ASSOCIATES 9J7 (209) 88]-T155 September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 54 REQUEST Water Main Easement Agreement No. 2 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments, 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: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST. INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. • ADA COUNTY RECORD QAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 b BOISE IDAHO 09!21106 �1 PM EY Mlde RIJI l�II�IIIIIiII�II�II�IIIIIIIIIII'll ECORCORDEQ—REQUEEQUEST OF I I I 11 I City of Meridian 106151219 WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this1Y' day of August, 2006 between SchwerMelder Investments LLC 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 water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main 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 water main 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 water 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, its successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that the Grantee, in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and replacement. However, the Grantee will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring any permanent structures, large trees or brush placed within the area described in this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed Water Main Easement Page 1 C056232 EASMT.WTR. 2 081806.doc 0 • any permanent structures, large trees or brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. 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. r, 0, / W,4' Schwenidelder / STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) On this _I r day of August, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared J.R. Schwenkfelder, known or identified to me to be the owner, respectively, 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 first above written. ••�.••'�, BROIIiti•. �e���oT AR �► N T UB IC,, f OR IDAHO ., PUS J' �''�•....�'' +� ommission Expires: Water Main Easement Page 2 C056232 EASMT.WTR. 2 081806.doc /►.. r,_ _. ") - t:: Ll CITY OF MERIDIAN Approved by Council on STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada, ) • On thisLdayof SA20Q'S� before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of fdaho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., known to roe to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho and who subscribed their names to the within instrument and acknowledged to nae 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_ SEAT, S(AkyM &yup Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: ^P(U. L k)o-, Jof My Commission Expires:. Ip-- ( S- I( rte__ -Z% - xzz` A 20.00 foot wide water line easement over, under and across a portion of Lot 5, Block 1, Layne Industrial Park Subdivision as shown on the Official Plat recorded in Book 69 of Plats at pages 7113 and 7114 records of Ada County, Idaho and situated in a portion of the N1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 1/2 inch rebar marking the NW comer of said Lot 5, thence along the North line of said Lot 5 N89°38'29"E a distance of 27.49 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said North line N89�38'29"E a distance of 20.00 to a point; Thence leaving said North line S00° 18'47"W a distance of 188.75 feet to a point; Thence S45000'00"W a distance of 36.56 feet to a point; Thence N45°00'00"W a distance of 20.00 feet to a point; Thence N45°00'00"E a distance of 28.34 feet to a point; Thence N00°1847"E a distance of 180.30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 4,339 square feet or 0.10 acres more or less and is subject to any easements and or rights -of -ways of record or implied. Attached hereto is "Exhibit B" and by this reference is made a part hereof. C056232 Lot 5 Water Main Easement N89'38'29"E 27.49' LOT 4 EXHIBIT "B" MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE A PORTION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1., LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE N1/2 of THE SWI/4 OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF NIERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2008 — I — — jL COMMERCIAL STREET 0 M 0 a0 W h 02 O 0 z 08-17-06 DRAWN BY: PA - SCALE: 1"-40' N89'3829"E 200.00'------ I 00.00'___ 4� LOT 5 �U-) ---_-----� ao0o � L� I I I I I� �N 1 — J L_ C o I LENGTH BEARING cin I I I S45'00'00"W L2 20.00 I I I L3 28.34 �N 1 — J L_ C GENERAL LEGEND — — LINE TABLE NUMBER LENGTH BEARING L1 36.56 S45'00'00"W L2 20.00 N45'00'00"W L3 28.34 N45'00'00"E L4 20.00 N89'38'29"E GENERAL LEGEND — — BOUNDARY LINE — ROAD CENTER LINE ROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY -- -- — EASEMENT LINE o—W(10')-- NEW WATER LINE (PIPE SIZE) ol ol & NEW FIRE HYDRANT ol D NEW WATER VALVE 0 EXISTING 1/2" PIN MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE WATER EA�FiM ENT R tJOECN de A1914QOIAT �S laa7a R 6maftA. P�. 611b & Bdq 1ldi. area (9m� 117-71s s 0 Memo To: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Karie Glenn CC: File Date: 8/22/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for 8/28/06 City Council Meeting • City of Meridian Public Works Dept, AUG 2 3 2006 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the 8/28/06 City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: 1) Water Main Easement #1 for Commercial Tire bv Schwenkfelder Investments LLC. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #1 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. 2) Water Main Easement #2 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #2 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. 3) Water Main Easement #3 for Commercial Tire by Lea Electric. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #3 for Commercial Tire by Lea Electric and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. 6 Page 1 0 WATER MAIN EASEMENT • THIS INDENTURE, made this lk— IV day of August, 2006 between Schwenkfelder Investments LLC 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 water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main 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 water main 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 water 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 the Grantee, in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and replacement. However, the Grantee will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring any permanent structures, large trees or brush placed within the area described in this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed Water Main Easement Page 1 C056232 EASMT.WTR. 2 081806.doc 0 • any permanent structures, large trees or brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. 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. 2k�t v'l J"k. Schwenkfelder STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) On this Z— day of August, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared J.R. Schwenkfelder, known or identified to me to be the owner, respectively, 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 first above written. �4- •''••••••'•;1,;h�ARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO s �pT A$ p Z tesit&ot: PUB"-1A.orr, nission Expires: • O '••.9 rE of Water Main Easement Page 2 C056232 EASMT.WTR. 2 081806.doe CITY OF MERIDIAN hammy de Weerd, Mayor William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Approved by Council on: STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada, ) On this day of ,200k before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho and who subscribed their names to 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: My Commission Expires: 0 A water line easement over, under and across a portion of Lot 6, Block 1, Layne Industrial Park Subdivision as shown on the Official Plat recorded in Book 69 of Plats at pages 7113 and 7114 records of Ada County, Idaho and situated in a portion of the N1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point marking the NE comer of said Lot 6, thence along the North line of said Lot 6 S89°38'29"W a distance of 30.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said North line S00° 18'47"W a distance of 99.84 feet to a point; Thence S22°1 FIVE a distance of 36.39 feet to a point; Thence S00°18'47W a distance of 141.12 feet to a point; Thence S44°41'13"E a distance of 11.65 feet to a point; Thence N45'1 8'47E a distance of 7.19 feet to a point; Thence S44°4V1 3 "E a distance of 7.22 feet to a point on the East line of said Lot 6; Thence along said East line S00'01'07W a distance of 61.70 feet to a 1/2 rebar marking the SE corner of said Lot 6; Thence leaving said East line and along the South line of said Lot 6 N88°57'09"W a distance of 1.70 feet to a point; Thence leaving said South line N00°19'12"E a distance of 24.60 feet to a point; Thence N44°4V1 3 "W a distance of 52.40 feet to a point; Thence N00'1 8'47 "E a distance of 145.43 feet to a point; Thence N22°11'13"W a distance of 36.39 feet to a point; Thence N00'1 8'47E a distance of 32.23 feet to a point; Thence N89°41'13"W a distance of 87.16 feet to a point; Thence S00°00'00"W a distance of 9.45 feet to a point; Thence N90°00'00"W a distance of 20.00 feet to a point; Thence N00°00'00"E a distance of 29.55 feet to a point; Thence S89'41'1 YE a distance of 107.27 feet to a point; Thence N00'1 8'47E a distance of 51.36 feet to a point on said North line; Thence along said North line N89°38'29"E a distance of 20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 8,887 square feet or 0.20 acres more or less and is subject to any easements and or rights -of -ways of record or implied. Attached hereto is "Exhibit B" and by this reference is made a part hereof. C056232 Lot 6 Water Main Easement L� J EXHIBIT "B" MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE A PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE N1/2 OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006 CL COMMERCIAL ST. _—N89°38_29"E 200.00'-- —1 U m� L4T M II .n S89'38'29"W 30.90' Co Co I rn 0 w S89'41'13"E 107.27' z Co Co LOT 6 LOT 7 orn to N N -- I o I -N89'41'1 37W 87.16' w N990''00'00,"WI so0.00'00"w Co N I i GENERAL LEGEND 20.00' ' 9.45' N n DATE 08-17-06 DRAWN BY: PAK _oma I N LA " a � L ! (J ! I I I I - I � � It I3 I w n I :o- �I k o o Io 0 I I s7R I o 3 i� 0 to N0719'12"E to 24.60' N N887' 1. 1.70' — — BOUNDARY LINE — ROAD CENTER LINE 11.65 ROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY — — EASEMENT LINE —W(10")— NEW WATER LINE (PIPE SIZE) -(tl NEW FIRE HYDRANT A NEW WATER VALVE 0 EXISTING 1/2" REBAR LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 11.65 S44'41'13"E L2 7.19 N45'18'47"E L3 7.22 S44'41'13"E L4 20.00 N89'38'29"E MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE PINNACLE W A T E F2 - E A S E t..t E N T Engineers; Inc. 12532 W. En B, SWt S. BOW, palm RVOEEN de ASSOCIATES '3 (203) W-7]30 Or m UNPLATTED . --- \ NW C_ r! SESW t/4 N. LOCUS VE ROAD a7snf \ 1/4 S.cNm 8 z9 E N oomror E — — —73' I �- ---- �_ _ i --- i7 aw 3w I I; II I I +� i i � s mm• .• I I 1 I I I 1 I I, I or I I 7A I I I somw. I , wctvr I � I I I I I � I N 0001'07' L I I I I li I m I I I u I I + I I I I � I Z 0 II � I 2 f y n I I 3 n 1 c I I I II i 1 I � I I � I II II I I I I I I 1 ' I I I I � I I 'I 1 11,1 I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I II� I OP N 0091roT I I I I I ... •n'S O'DV4:r W BASIS OF BEARING UNPLATTFD t N 0090.24' W A —\ 662.56• --i r I� I xjN-�I °�;1 + I � I I c s o°roT L 2J000' $ 1 Mv1w 47 1 I It I I I I I II I II I 'I II II I � E­41, eo I ,I N O I jQii , I I I I I E� I II I I I I I 4 � 1 I II I I I I E moo I � I II I Q t I 1 I � 11 1 Z I � N � iQ a t 5 �s kggg?gg an-• o t m �}l a Rai EalES li"'awl^3 :jQ 4194 3Y ®q n $ @ aS § 3 3 �e �i�RF'33 gg & 3 n I s�wf AVEIiJE +t � mr � S 0094'45 W 66232 7 Ile I P. m m Y 9 3 vtP l N g MgE1.13 _ !, �� fir,64'8 $ 3� g �' a iQ a t 5 �s kggg?gg an-• o �}l a Rai EalES li"'awl^3 :jQ 4194 3Y ®q j4. R Eie e $ @ aS § 3 3 �e �i�RF'33 gg & 3 n • September 1, 2006 • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5,2W6 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -K REQUEST Water Main Easement Agreement No. 3 for Commercial Tire by Lea Electric AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See altached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ` l� 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 Meddkm. • ADA COUNTY RECOR� DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 E BOISE IDAHO 09121103W.41 PM DEPUTY 'Acid Allen ` RECORDED—REQUEST OF III �'II'lllll'll'II�IIIII�II II City of Meridian 106151221 WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this a I day of August, 2006 between Lea Electric, 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 water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main 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 water main 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 water 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 the Grantee, in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and replacement. However, the Grantee will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring any permanent structures, large trees or brush placed within the area described in this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed Water Main Easement Page 1 C056232 EASMT. WTR. 1081806.doc • • any permanent structures, large trees or brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. 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. Dave amarq STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this __a I— day of August, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Dave Lamarque, known or identified to me to be the owner, respectively, 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. •�••••ORtNa..o�,•••4 �0'C AR Y S ' G ' ;* -n'•0 I.!U D I> O 'k; � TE O� �9 ••� N Y PUBLIOR IDAHO Why" Residing at: Commission Expires: Water Main Easement Page 2 C056232 EA,SMT.WTR. 1081806.doc Pamw CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, _A/ W William G. Berg, Jr., City Approved by Council on STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada, ) is r+r�i tistt�'�� On this day of 200 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho and who subscribed their names to 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 officinal seal the day and year first above written. SEAL Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: be JC( My Commission Expires: A water line easement over, under and across a portion of Lot 7, Block 1, Layne Industrial Park Subdivision as shown on the Official Plat recorded in Book 69 of Plats at pages 7113 and 7114 records of Ada County, Idaho and situated in a portion of the N1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a 1/2 inch rebar marking the SW corner of said Lot 7, thence along the West line of said Lot 7 N00°01'07"E a distance of 61.70 feet to a point; Thence leaving said West line S44141'1 YE a distance of 12.78 feet to a point; Thence S45°18 47"W a distance of 7.19 feet to a point; Thence S44041'13"E a distance of 20.74 feet to a point; Thence S0001911211W a distance of 33.14 feet to a point on the South line of said Lot 7; Thence along said South line N88°57'09"W a distance of 18.30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Said easement contains 844 square feet or 0.02 acres more or less and is subject to any easements and or rights -of -ways of record or implied. Attached hereto is "Exhibit B" and by this reference is made a part hereof. :_�M 0056232 Lot 7 Water Main Easement 0 • EXHIBIT "B" MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE A PORTION OF LOT 7. BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE N1/2 OF THE SVI/4 OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHW 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST. BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006 J0ATrTr- 1 7-C DRAWN 9T: PAK SCALE: 1'-20' 1 GENERAL LEGEND BOUNDARY LINE - ROAD CENTER LINE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ---- — EASEMENT LINE --W(10-)— NEW WATER LINE (PIPE SIZE) �} NEW FIRE HYDRANT D4 NEW WATER VALVE NEW WATER MANHOLE 0 EXISTING 1/2" PIN � I 1 t �- S44'41 ' 13"E 12.78' 0 I S45" 18'47"W \ S 7.19' \t wl _ n Zt LOT 6 I I �1 1 NI LOT 7 b O N88'�57'09„W O- -- -- - - 18.30' MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE PINNACLE ersc. T E PZ m .d. . s E M PC N T 7Z6siX @ sort. a. eehlw Pedro R a.IQEEN da A':294O�ATEffi �� r.{2ae) 117-770D � u«aLAVED ---- Are 0541,------ - mw C— SE W xw,/+ 4, f K LOCUST aR6vE *W s \ sw t/+ s.�lw7 a IL OWN* e 1 69175 I , F.- I a I i I sr I I , s I 1 N I I II I j I x'W II I I IY7 r Y I I jQ I I I j6�Gf6 I i i I I I I v I , I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I z I II I I s 'er • r I I I I I I I V z v ,p I Z >� A • w L 00777 G A N�y�O G y 1 t 11 LJ I 1 I 1 11 I I I A V a r H r w aw to> a� NC ` i I II , I , U NZ m I �I (' I I I w ew7vr i V � I I c I I II o I � I I I I 7 ---- - -- -� M' HApA6 N m,� .rig•_ s _ a�aw 824AN {ypyff OF BEARING 6,g iQ 4 UNALATTED Z A I i�l , I � m z I i I A A N�y�O G y LJ A V a r H to> a� NC ` z U NZ E5 w m w V 1-4 rD Wrnrn ti 0 z € ar qtr jlr s RIP. $ a gR N IL S� 13 w �..... l n • Memo To: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Karie Glenn CC: File Date: 8/22/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for 8/28/06 City Council Meeting • City of Meridian Public Works Dept. AUG 2 3 2006 City Of Meridian. City Clerk Office The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the 8/28/06 City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: 1) Water Main Easement #1 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #1 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. 2) Water Main Easement #2 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #2 for Commercial Tire by Schwenkfelder Investments LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. 3) Water Main Easement #3 for Commercial Tire by Lea Electric. Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement #3 for Commercial Tire by Lea Electric and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. 0 Page 1 0 WATER MAIN EASEMENT 11 THIS INDENTURE, made this a ( day of August, 2006 between Lea Electric, 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 water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main 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 water main 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 water 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 the Grantee, in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and replacement. However, the Grantee will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring any permanent structures, large trees or brush placed within the area described in this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed Water Main Easement Page 1 C056232 EASMT.WTK 1 081806.doe any permanent structures, large trees or brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. 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. Dave amarq STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this day of August, 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Dave Lamarque, known or identified to me to be the owner, respectively, 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. ••.t••' gIA M000*0 p0'•.,� i �G ®o' ��••� AR �► i * o G % oo ?'B OF 19 •`••' 9 Iti t .•' It• • Water Main Easement Page 2 C056232 EASMT.wTR 1 081806.doc U CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, Mayor wiWam U. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Approved by Council on : STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada, ) U On this day of ,200 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg, Jr., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho and who subscribed their names to 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: My Commission Expires: • 0 A water line easement over, under and across a portion of Lot 7, Block 1, Layne Industrial Park Subdivision as shown on the Official Plat recorded in Book 69 of Plats at pages 7113 and 7114 records of Ada County, Idaho and situated in a portion of the N1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a 1/2 inch rebar marking the SW comer of said Lot 7, thence along the West line of said Lot 7 N00°01'07"E a distance of 61.70 feet to a point; Thence leaving said West line S44°41'13"E a distance of 12.78 feet to a point; Thence S45018 47"W a distance of 7.19 feet to a point; Thence S44°41'13"E a distance of 20.74 feet to a point; Thence S00°19'12"W a distance of 33.14 feet to a point on the South line of said Lot 7; Thence along said South line N88°57'09"W a distance of 18.30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Said easement contains 844 square feet or 0.02 acres more or less and is subject to any easements and or rights -of -ways of record or implied. Attached hereto is "Exhibit B" and by this reference is made a part hereof. C056232 Lot 7 Water Main Easement 0 0 EXHIBIT "B" MERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE A PORTION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE N1/2 OF THE SWI/4 OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006 \\ GENERAL LEGEND - - BOUNDARY LINE —W(10-)— 0 ROAD CENTER LINE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT LINE NEW WATER LINE (PIPE SIZE) NEW FIRE HYDRANT NEW WATER VALVE NEW WATER MANHOLE EXISTING 1/2" PIN � I I I `�S44.41'13"E 12.78' \ O I I 545.18' 47 "W \ �� 11, 7.19' J O R• \ rl� �0\ \. wI �I Z LOT 6 II LOT I� of N88'5w7'09"W - - - 18.30' KNS DATE 08-17-06 DRAWN BY: PAK M ERIDIAN COMMERCIAL TIRE PINNACLE Engineers, Inc. 1z W. c. . w. s B. Ba.., waw Bma (zoe) m�—nBB SCALE: 1.=20, WAT E F2 EA E M E N T R tJOEEN do ASSOCIATES UN PLATTED -----Ab-grE SlSBT'--------- NwC— SE 1/4 Nw 1/4 rL N_LOGUST YE ROAD a%6f �\ SW 1/4 S -U. 0 M OOrI'eT E �- S N 4. ___________ 6628 mz I m I N I I I I N'er I I m `I I I I I � _ N aeefbT I 1 I I it I I I I V N I N OD'00'i4' W ' 86230' I I ■ rrE 2MWI Iw i I I I mn Z I I I I I PFI m 1 I 5rQ� Z � o $ >E ror . I n ■. rarr c sloe: � �—N. "M AVENUE 1 1 I cI 1 I 1 I jl 1 I I I gomvr. I II I I II I i • I � � i I E't I I 1 II I V. s 3werII i II I a �I I 1 I I I I I I N awl'or I I I I I I I I I! I I I I m �I 1 I I I I I I i I N OOM'07' E 2e0. In o I� ��wm I i -- lw1>r I z1fif \ I K W1W�FAVE" � ------------------j g� .mw.•.e. — — tl-S O'M'43r1f sr� E24.67� 6 Bs24.s w BASS OF BEARING mm 3 E O UNPLATIIDg E gm NmIt S� vm$ I I � d Q C a m Z I I I x • o c 0 I I I !J I I ELI Zq �-y�y - z eg u'mNnn =E�i n � • m Q ][ N m ~ a0 • $' A 9 p Cppl 3 m s•� � gczi'>3 S m m S A g v w > O N = m N • N N � Z O a p a v A r4 O {NH V m L a T D o yHD Z T � H �Dvs > (0>0 r o z ` > ��++ CO xZ m _ �� O d A C a m 1 u' Q - z 0 • September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-L REQUEST Water Main Easement Agreement for LDS Church at 5555 North Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: gee atFached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT. CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORD DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 I BOISE IDAHO 09/21106 41 PM DEPUTY V10 Alien RECORDED -REQUEST OF City of Meridian 106151222 WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this day of 20Q�between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -DAY Saints . 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 water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain, service and subsequently connect to 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 into the Grantee the right- of-way ightof-way for an easement for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement of a water main over and across the following described property: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints 5555 N. Locust Grove Meridian, Idaho (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a water line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, additional connection thereto, 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 construction, making repairs, performing other maintenance or making subsequent connection to the water line, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such construction, 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. Water Main Easement EASMT WTR MAIN.doc 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: M7— The Churc esus st of Latter Day Saints Rob Buchanan, Facilities Manager, Eagle FM Group STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada . ) On this --� day of &2� before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally a eared and . known or identified to me to be a Facilities Manager 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. ••0- (3rLE�'••• V. N TARY LIC FOR IDAR lot Residing .f • s 1*7 Commission Expires: � Water Main Easement EASMT WTR MAIN.doc ^^ 1 s GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de W ayor Attest by William G. Berg, Approved By City Council STATE OF IDAHO, ) : 5S. County of Ada 11 It Mil r On thisn day of 20c before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally ppeared 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) Water Main Easement AtA4 M j4v( 41�, NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ID O Residing at: hu-- Commission Expires:.. �DIT-f/ MAIN.doc EASMT WTR a EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT MERIDIAN IDAHO STAKE JULY 28, 2006 A CITY OF MERIDIAN 20' WATER EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30(E. 1/4 CORNER), T. 4N., R. 1 E., B.M.; THENCE S 00000'00" W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30 140.18 FEET TO A PONT; THENCE N 90°00'00" W 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY FOR S LOCUST GROVE ROAD, THE BEGINNING POINTOF THIS EASEMENT; THENCE S 00000'00" E ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY 20.00 FEET TO A POINT,- THENCE OINT;THENCE S 90000'00" W 339.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00000'00" E 86.42 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" E 44.63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00000'00" E 20.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 90000'00" W 44.63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00000'00" E 211.34 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" E 16.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00000'00" E 20.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" W 36.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00000'00" W 357.76 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" E 325.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00000'00" W 15.51 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" E 20.00 FEET TO A POINT; 60503-WATEREASE.doc • THENCE S 00000'00" W 1$ -Sl FEET TO A POINT; 0 THENCE N 90000'00" E 14.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING POINT OF THIS EASEMENT. WAYNE K. BARBER PIS 8444 Pans► � of t /� I ��'•1 N DO'00'00" W 357.76 r— — -- --w S 0900'DO" E 211.34' — — F, �1 S 00'00'00' E I, a� f� 86.42' I I J Q I f II O LLnLn I z $ Goll IN I PRO, C> J g. fml � CD I $ HO m f�1 p o o W CD — . — . — . — ........... —.. — ....... — . — . — • —LOCUST GROVE ROAD. rn s, 00-00.0-0- w 1ac}.ia' REVWN : 9 OF 1 BY. MERIDIAN IDAHO STAKE AdERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT EXHIBIT DRAWING, SHEETION DATE: WC No. SCAIM 80sm-e09eexh.dwa 08/1-6/06 DPM 1 80503 1 N.T,$. BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. BRIGGS ENGINEERS PLMNMS 5URVMRS IWD W. OfcRIAf$} MAD ' mm, IQw am & 1306}314-0 This ft*ing% a &W Portion WW. shop and be un on 7Project or axtenfrons of oris Proleo} except by vm egeaemeni tram &lea Eng/ ~,trn. Inc. Paan to nf ( o Memo To: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Karie Glenn CC: File Date: 8/23/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for 9-5-06 City Council Meeting • City of Meridian Public Works Dept. AUG 2 P 2000 City C►f Meridian City Clerk office The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the 9-5-06 City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: 1) Water Main Easement for LDS Church (5555 N Locust Grove). Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement for LDS Church (5555 N Locust Grove) and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. 0 Page 1 WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this 1 -7day of 20abetween The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints 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 G rantors d esire t o p rovide a w ater m ain r ight-of-way a cross t he p remises a nd property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain, service and subsequently connect to 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 construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement of a water main over and across the following described property. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints 5555 N. Locust Grove Meridian, Idaho (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a water line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, additional connection thereto, 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 construction, making repairs, performing other maintenance or making subsequent connection to the water line, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such construction, 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. Water Main Easement MAIN.doc EASMT WTR 0 • 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: The urc esus st of Latter -Day Saints Rob Buchanan, Facilities Manager, Eagle FM Group STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada , ) On this —�_ day of VQiii , 2 �beforeme.undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and known or identified to me to be a Facilities Manager 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. N TARY LIC FOR ID Residing Commission Expires: Water Main Easement EASMT WTR MAIN.doc 0 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 E On this day of . 20___, 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 instniment, 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: Water Main Easement EASMT WTR MAIN.doc EXIMIT "A" CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT MERIDIAN IDAHO STAKE JULY 28,2006 A CITY OF MERIDIAN 20' WATER EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30(E. 1/4 CORNER), T. 4 N., R. 1 E., B.M.; THENCE S 00000'00" W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30 140.18 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90°00'00" W 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY FOR S LOCUST GROVE ROAD, THE BEGINNING POINTOF THIS EASEMENT; THENCE S 00000'00" E ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY 20.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 90000'00" W 339.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00000'00" E 86.42 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" E 44.63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00000'00" E 20.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 90000'00" W 44.63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00000'00" E 211.34 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00",E 16.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00°00'00" E 20.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" W 36.75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00000'00" W 357.76 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" E 325.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00000'00" W 15.51 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90000'00" E 20.00 FEET TO A POINT; 60503-WATEREASE.doc 0 0 THEN -CE S 00000'00°" W 15-51 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90"00'W' E 14.00 FEET TO THE BEGIN NING POINT OF THIS EASENMNT. 60503-W X57 EREA.',;F-.(icc N W'M* W 357.75= S 01i M'06" E 2,11.34!gS 0700-00- E �t 86,42' :7� Cl C-3 M -71 -TIN I OF I Locuff ID MERIDUN A -H. TA. MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT EX-KIBIT DRAWING: SHEET'NG DAM DWG NO. SCALES 60503--eoseexh.dwo I 00/t-6/06 DPM 1 60505 N.T.S. W 140� IT -39 BkiGtS ENGINEEMNO, INC. I B, R I G*'S- vir�xm% fw�"s sumeyoom, am w- OEM -me , Bw.- aw (200)w- bm draAnqs; or my portion thers4 shaD not be an wW Pmjact or adensrions.,of ft; exceQt written agreement frau 94gq ==ednz lm 4 t I'a (Al Iq Locuff ID MERIDUN A -H. TA. MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT EX-KIBIT DRAWING: SHEET'NG DAM DWG NO. SCALES 60503--eoseexh.dwo I 00/t-6/06 DPM 1 60505 N.T.S. W 140� IT -39 BkiGtS ENGINEEMNO, INC. I B, R I G*'S- vir�xm% fw�"s sumeyoom, am w- OEM -me , Bw.- aw (200)w- bm draAnqs; or my portion thers4 shaD not be an wW Pmjact or adensrions.,of ft; exceQt written agreement frau 94gq ==ednz lm September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-M REQUEST Contract for the Black Cat Trunk Sewer Phase 3 Authorization for Additional Services No. 1 with JUB Engineers, Inc. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: gee attached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeNnga shop become properly of the City of Meridian. • Memo To: William Berg, Jr.; Tara Green From: Clint Dolsby, P.E., Staff Engineer CC: Brad Watson, P.E., Public Works Director Date: 08/30/2006 • AU6 .d L> i City of Meridian City Clerk Office Re: Proposed Agenda Items for September 5, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the September 5 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Black Cat Trunk Sewer — Phase 3 Authorization for Additional Services No. 1. JUB Engineers, Inc. has submitted a task order, scope of work, and budget for the engineering services. They propose to complete the work for $35,912. This is an extension of the agreement between the City of Meridian and JUB Engineers, Inc. approved by City Council on the 2e of January, 2003 for the Black Cat Trunk Sewer and Lift Station Project. This project provides construction support services for the 2006 Trunk Sewer Project which encompasses approximately 16,000 lineal feet from Ten Mile Road to Overland Road and bores under the Railroad and Interstate. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the contract for the Black Cat Trunk Sewer — Phase 3 Authorization for Additional Services No. 1 with JUB Engineers, Inc. for $35,912 and authorize the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. 0 Page 1 rj f J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 • Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 0 Telephone (208) 376-7330 • FAX (208) 323-9336 AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES - NO. 1 CLIENT: CITY OF MERIDIAN PROJECT NAME: Black Cat Phase 3 J -U -B Project Number: 10-05-135 The following additional items of work on the project referenced above have been or will be provided by J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. These additional services are a supplement to the scope of services contained in J -U -B's existing Agreement for Engineering Services for this project approved by City Council on September 9 2005 Additional Services: As described in Attachment A J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. was verbally authorized to provide these services by: n/a n/a Name Date Unless otherwise noted below, J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. will provide these additional services on a time and materials basis, using the Firm's standard billing rates, or if applicable, the billing rates established in the initial Agreement for Engineering Services. Other Basis for Payment: As outlined in Attachments "A" and `B". Dated this day of 2006. _ City of Meridian Print or Type Client Name By: Client or Representative Signature Tammy de Weerd Mayor Print or Type Name and Title Attest: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. By: IL Project R presentative Signature Phillip H. Krichbaum. P.E. — Proved Manaaer Print or Type Name and Title n LJ J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. CITY OF MERIDIAN - BLACK CAT TRUNK SEWER PHASE 3 AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES NO. 1 ATTACHMENT "A" J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc., Project No. 10-05-135 BID, AWARD, AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE SERVICES SECTION 1 - PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Overview Attachment W- 10-05-135 The City intends to amend the original professional services agreement to include bidding and award services, and limited construction assistance services for Phases 2 and 3 of the Black Cat Trunk Sewer. This includes approximately 16,000 lineal feet of trunk sewer from Pine Avenue to Overland Road. SECTION 2 - CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The following additional items are to be provided by the City without cost to J -U -B. • Pay for all legal advertisement for bids. • City will serve as the construction engineer and Resident Project Representative (RPR). Roles of the Engineer and RPR during construction shall be defined in ISPWC Division 100, Standard General Conditions, and City's Standard Supplementary Conditions to the General Conditions. • J -U -B's role in the bidding and construction shall be in accordance with the ISPWC General Conditions as the Engineer's Consultant and J -U -B shall be afforded the same protections as the Engineer under said document. • As Engineer and RPR on the project, the City of Meridian shall perform duties as delineated in the ISPWC General Conditions and shall notify J -U -B prior to any modifications to the design furnished by J -U -B so we may have input on issues required by the modification. SECTION 3 - SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE COMPLETED Services to be Performed by J -U -B: J -U -B shall furnish services specifically limited to the following on a time and materials basis at an assumed level of effort depicted on Attachment B and described herein. Black Cat Trunk Sewer - Ph.3 Authorization for Additional Services No.1 Page 1 0 J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. 0 Attachment W- 10-05-135 meetings, shop drawing reviews, reviewing pay applications, and limited site visits to observe general work progress. D. Record Drawings J -U -B will prepare record drawings from drawings received from the Contractor and City's resident project representative. SECTION 4 - FEE SCHEDULE Basis of Fee and Billing Schedule The CITY shall pay J -U -B for its services and reimbursable expenses as follows: • Bid , Award Services Task 1.A. and 1.B., on a time and materials basis, with an estimated budget .......... $4,766 • Construction Services Task 2.A. through 2.D., on a time and materials basis, with an estimated budget ... $31,146 The basis for calculation of fees is presented in Attachment "B". \\Boisefiles\Public\ProjectManagers\PHK\10-05-135 - Black Cat Phase 3\10-05-135-Admin\Contract_Billing\add 1 attach A.doc Black Cat Trunk Sewer - Ph.3 Authorization for Additional Services No.1 Page 3 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN - BLACK CAT TRUNK SEWER - PHASE 3 AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES NO.1 ATTACHMENT "B" - LABOR AND EQUIPMENT DETAIL Project PE/SE PLS Manager - A rox. Employee Hourly Pa Rate $39.55 $31.81 $34.33 EIT Survey Technician Draftsman Clerical $22.58 $1T14 $18.00 $14.00 2- Man SurveyEquip. $36.40 GPS Task Subtotal J$40.00 w/multi TASK TOTAL T:ASKA'.., BID; AND AWARD SERVICES A I Bid D c!!me2tPublishing and Adminstration Black Cat Pressure Sewer -Phase 1 2 1 1.5 S3,2391— B Attend Bid O ning and Award Black Cat Pressure Sewer- Phase 1 1 0.5 0.5 $1,527 SUBTOTALS 3 01 01 1.5 0 0 2 0 0 $4,766 TASK7' CONSTRUCTION SI EP -W ES nstruction Conference 1 0.25 $1,137 akin 15,826 2 4 8 8 $13,870 kConon ssistance 8 4 1 $11,107 s 0.5 0.5 1 2 0.25 2 2 $5,032 SUBTOTALS 9.51 0 2.5 4 5 2 1.5 10 10 1 $31,146 TOTAL ESTIMATED TASK 1 AND $35,912 September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -IV REQUEST Approve Rejection of All Bids for Water Division Building Project AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT. CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: V' MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings slap become properly of the City of Meridian. Memo Ta Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Brad Watson, P.E. CC: File, City Clerk, City Attorney Date: 8/31/06 Re: September 5 City Council Meeting AUG � d 2006 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the folbvAng item be placed on the September 5 City Council Consent agenda for Council's consideration. Water Division Building Proiect — Rejection Of All Bids Bids for the Water Division Building were received August 16. All bids were higher than our available budget We recommend that City Council reject all bids. Staff is considering other options to proceed with this project Those options include simply re -bidding, postponing the bid several months in hopes of a better bidding environment, cutting portions of the project out, or using a construction manager. Recommended Council Action: Reject all bids for the Water Division Building Project. Thank you for your consideration. 0 Page 1 September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-0 REQUEST Public Works Change Order No. 1 to Upgrade Storm Sewer to Water Class Pipe for Linder PRV with Star Construction AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT. CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Inifials: Materials presented at public meetings shoo become property of the City of Meddan. • Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer ?M CC: File Date: August 29, 2006 RECEIVED Muo City of Meridian City Clerk Office Re: Proposed Agenda Item for September 5, 2005 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the September 5 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Change Order Number 1. Linder PRV: This change order covers upgrading 40 linear feet of 12 -inch storm sewer to water class pipe required over two unforeseen crossings, extending paving and sidewalk restoration limits as needed, and adding reducers, valves and fittings for a 10 -inch main. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves Change Order Number 1 for the Linder PRV with Star Construction, LLC for a cost of $10,897.77, and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. This change order covers upgrading 40 linear feet of 12 -inch storm sewer to water class pipe required over two unforeseen crossings, extending paving and sidewalk restoration limits as needed, and adding reducers, valves and fittings for a 10 -inch main. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item. 0 Page 1 9 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 0 DATE OF ISSUANCE OWNER City of Meridian CONTRACTOR: Star Construciton. LLC. CONTRACT: Linder PRV Description: This change order consists of the following work: EFFECTIVE DATE • Upgrade 40 linear feet of storm sewer to water class pipe and extend paving and sidewalk restoration limits as appropriate. Add 12 x 10 inch reducers. Change valves and fittings as needed. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: Original Contract Price $ 55,872.00 Net Increase (Decrease) from previous Change Orders No. 0 to 0 $ 0.00 Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $ 55,872.00 Net increase (decrease) of this Change Order: $ 10.897.77 Contract Price with all approved Change Orders: $ 66.769.77 RECOMMENDED Kyle Radek, PE Staff Engineer Date: Approved by City Council: APPROVED CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES: Original Contract Times: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) Net change from previous Change Orders No. _ to No. Sub_stantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days) Contract Times prior to this Change Order: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) Net increase (decrease) this Change Order: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days) Contract Times with all approved Change Orders: Substantial Completion: Ready for final payment: (days or dates) Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Date: ATTEST William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Date: No. 1 EJCDC 1910-8-B (1996 Edition) Prepared by the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee and endorsed by The Associated General Contractors of America and the Construction Specifications Institute. 08/29/2006 08:36 20828676 STAR C7NSTRUCTO PAGE 01 `�44 ST -AR CONSTRUCTIONS L*L*C. It!k P.O. Box 157 Star, ID 83669 Bus: (208) 286-91.98 Ancil - Cell: 867-7082 Fax: (208) 2$6-7947 Date: 8-29-A6 FaxNuatber of Pues including cover sheet: ] To:,., City of�Meiri_ 'than Attn: Kyle Radek Phone: -g1.6 Fag: 898x9551 From: _. AncfIr w-IRaer Rt: Ljnd=Gremnhrad_EBX Cb,&na:. CC: REMARKS: Urgent ❑ For Your Revi Reply ,ASAP ❑ Please Co0.M ❑ Kyle, The changes Rom having to extend the paving and sidewalk limits, adding 12 X 10 reducers, changing Waives and fitb'lags, installing 401f of 12 inch water class pipe on storm drain system are as follows_ Materials 2354.3' Sub contractors 1693.30 Star Comet F&i.. 6850.00 Total 10,897.77 Total cost increase mqueWd to contract amond 10,897.77 If you have any prions please gwe me a call. Thank's Ancil irmiuM 0 September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5,2W6 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-P REQUEST Agreement for Professional Services for Construction Staking for Water and Sewer Improvements Associated with Overland, Topaz to Cloverdale Project with Civil Survey Consultants AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See dkiched CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: V-A-, 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 stall become property of the City of Meridian. Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer /�e CC: File Date: 8/24/2006 s-er�-f Re: Proposed Agenda Item foiE9, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the May 23 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Agreement for Professional Services with Civil Survey Consultants Inc. for construction staking for water and sewer improvements associated with Overland, Topaz to Cloverdale pro iect This agreement is for providing the service of construction staking for the water and sewer improvements associated with the Overland, Topaz to Cloverdale project. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the Agreement for Professional Services with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for construction staking for the water and sewer improvements associated with Overland, Topaz to Cloverdale project at a cost not to exceed $6,500 and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item. 0 Page 1 0 • CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Project No. 05015 THIS AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, hereinafter referred to as the "CLIENT" and CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC., an Idaho Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CSC" is made and entered into this day of , 2006. The CLIENT and CSC in consideration of their mutual covenants herein agree as set forth below. The Client intends to construct sanitary sewer mains, potable water mains, service lines and appurtenances in Overland Road from Topaz Avenue to Cloverdale Road as part of ACHD's rebuild of Overland Road, Project No. 504002, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. CLIENT INFORMATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES The CLIENT will provide to CSC a full and complete description of the PROJECT including; all design criteria, information as to CLIENT's requirements for the PROJECT, design objectives and constraints, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility and expandability needs, any budgetary limitations, and copies of all design and construction standards which CLIENT will require to be incorporated in the Drawings and Specifications. The CLIENT will also provide to CSC all associated project information including data prepared by others; soil borings, probings and subsurface explorations; hydrographic surveys; laboratory tests and inspection reports of samples, materials and equipment; studies and interpretations of all environmental assessment and impact statements; surveys of record; property descriptions; zoning, deed and other land use restrictions; title reports; other special data or consultations as may be available; all of which CSC may use and rely upon in performing services under this Agreement. The CLIENT will obtain permission for CSC to enter upon public and private property as required for CSC to perform services under this Agreement. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CSC CSC will provide construction stalling services as necessary to construct the improvements. Construction staking will be coordinated for the project through ACHD by their project inspector. BASIS OF FEE AND BILLING SCHEDULE The Client will pay CSC for services provided under this Agreement on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $6,500.00 without prior approval of the City of Meridian. Notice to Proceed, either verbal or written, shall constitute acceptance of this Agreement by the CLIENT. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE CLIENT AGREES TO SAID TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 BY: NAME: TITLE: ATTEST BY: NAME: TITLE: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. 1400 E. Watertower Street, Suite 100 Meridi o 83642 Glenn K. Bennett, President 0 • CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. TERMS AND CONDITIONS GENERAL - CSC shall provide for CLIENT professional engineering and/or land surveying services for the Project described in this Agreement. These services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the intended use of the project. CSC makes no other warranty either expressed or implied. CSC shall not be responsible for acts or omissions of any party involved in the Project other than their own. CSC shall not be responsible for failure of any contractor or subcontractor to construct any item in accordance with recommendations issued by CSC. CSC has not been retained to supervise, direct or have control over Contractor's work. CSC specifically does not have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction selected by Contractor(s), for safety precautions and programs incident to the work of Contractor(s) or for any failure of Contractor(s) to comply with laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders applicable to Contractor(s) furnishing and performing their work. Accordingly, CSC can neither guarantee the performance of the construction contracts by Contractor(s) nor assume responsibility for Contractor(s) failure to famish and perform their work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The CLIENT understands and agrees that subsurface and soils characteristics may vary greatly between successive test points and sample intervals. CSC will coordinate this work in accordance with generally accepted practice of the professional services being provided and makes no other warranties expressed or implied or as to the professional advice furnished by professionals providing soils testing or geotechnical advice. Resetting of survey and/or construction stakes shall constitute extra work and shall be paid for on a time and material basis in addition to any other payment provided in this Agreement. OPINIONS OF COST - CSC may be asked to provide opinions of construction or PROJECT costs as part of the professional services under this Agreement. The CLIENT understands and agrees that CSC has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor(s)' methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions. The CLIENT understands that CSC opinions of cost are based on CSC experience and represents CSC's judgment based on that experience, but CSC does not guarantee or warranty that either quotes, bids or estimates prepared by contractors, subcontractors or other will not deviate from opinions prepared by CSC. The CLIENT agrees to employ an independent cost estimator if the CLIENT desires additional assurance, warranty or guarantee of PROJECT costs. Should the CLIENT request that CSC modify any PROJECT aspect to reduce construction costs, then those services shall be considered additional and beyond the scope of this Agreement unless specifically stated otherwise in this Agreement. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS - CSC shall retain an ownership interest of all professional products prepared by CSC. The CLIENT agrees that no product will be reused without specific written permission of CSC. The CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold CSC harmless from any claims, damages, losses and expenses arising from unauthorized reuse of all work products prepared by CSC for the PROJECT. GOVERNING LAW - Unless otherwise provided in an addendum, the law of the State of Idaho will govern the validity of this Agreement, its interpretation and performance, and remedies for contract breach or any other claims related to this Agreement. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS - CLIENT and CSC each is hereby bound and the partners, successors, executors, administrators and legal representatives of CLIENT and CSC are likewise bound to the other party to this Agreement, in respect of all covenants, agreements and obligations of this Agreement. Nothing under this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in this Agreement to anyone other than CLIENT and CSC, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of CLIENT and CSC and not for the benefit of any other party. 0 • TIMES OF PAYMENTS - CSC shall submit monthly statements for services rendered and for Reimbursable Expenses incurred. CLIENT shall make prompt monthly payments. If CLIENT fails to make any payment due CSC for services and expenses within thirty (30) days after receipt of CSC's statement therefor, the amounts due CSC will be increased at the rate of 1.5% per month from said tenth day, and in addition, CSC may, after giving ten days' written notice to CLIENT, suspend services under this Agreement until CSC has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges. TERMINATION - The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty days' written notice. Such termination shall be based upon substantial lack of performance by the other party under the terms and conditions of this Agreement when said substantial lack of performance is through no fault of the terminating party. If this Agreement is terminated by either party, CSC shall be paid for services rendered and for reimbursable expenses incurred to the date of such termination. HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ASBESTOS - The CLIENT and CSC agree that the work covered in this Agreement does not anticipate either the presence or remediation of hazardous waste and/or asbestos. Hazardous materials may exist where there is not reason to believe they should be present. CSC and the CLIENT agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials constitutes a changed condition mandating a renegotiation of the scope of work or termination of services. CSC and the CLIENT also agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials may make it necessary. for CSC to take immediate measures to protect human health and safety, and/or the environment. CSC agrees to notify the CLIENT as soon as practically possible should unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials be encountered. The CLIENT encourages CSC to take any and all measures that in CSC's professional opinion are justified to preserve and protect the health and safety of CSC's personnel and the public, and/or the environment, and the CLIENT agrees to compensate CSC for the additional cost of such work. In addition, the CLIENT waives any claim against CSC, and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold CSC harmless from any claim or liability for injury or loss arising from CSC's encountering unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials. The CLIENT also agrees to compensate CSC for any time spent and expenses incurred by CSC in defense of any such claim, with such compensation to be based upon CSC's prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy. DISPUTE RESOLUTION - All claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to the interpretation, application or enforcement of this Agreement shall be decided through non-binding mediation or other mutually agreed alternative dispute resolution technique. The CLIENT and CSC agree non-binding mediation or other mutually acceptable alternative dispute resolution technique shall precede litigation or recourse to other judicial forums. RECOVERY OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION COSTS - In the event that legal action is brought by either party against the other, the prevailing party shall be reimbursed by the other for the prevailing party's legal costs, in addition to whatever other judgments or settlement sums, if any, may be due. Such legal costs shall include, but not be limited to, reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, expert witness fees and other documented expenses, as well as the value of time spent by the prevailing party and those in his or her employ in researching the issues in questions, discussing matters with attorneys and others, preparing for depositions, responding to interrogatories, and so on. The value of time spent and the expenses incurred shall, on CSC's part, be computed based upon CSC's prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy relative to the recovery of direct project costs. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT - This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the CLIENT and CSC and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, written or oral. The Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both CLIENT and CSC. Glenn K. Bennett, P.L.S. President Timothy A. Burgess, P.E. Vice President Labor: 1] Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. 1400 E. Watertower Street Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83642 CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS PREVAILING FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2005 Project Manager Chief of Surveys Project Engineer Land Surveyor Design Engineer 1 Design Engineer 2 Design/Survey Technician 1 Design/Survey Technician 2 Direct Expenses: GPS - $ Vehicle 2 -Wheel Drive - $ Vehicle 4 -Wheel Drive - $ Outside Printing - $ Long Distance Telephone - $ Sub -Consultants - $ - $ 100.00 per hour - $ 100.00 per hour - $ 85.00 per hour - $ 75.00 per hour - $ 75.00 per hour - $ 70.00 per hour - $ 65.00 per hour - $ 60.00 per hour 40.00 per hour No Charge No Charge Cost Cost Cost 0 (208)888-4312 Fax 888-0323 i 0 September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S -Q REQUEST Agreement for Professional Services for Construction Staking for Water and Sewer Improvements Associated with Locust Grove Grade Separation Project with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See alfached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer Xt- CC: File Date: 8/24/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the May 23 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Agreement for Professional Services with Civil Survey Consultants Inc for construction staking for water and sewer improvements associated with the Locust Grove Grade Separation prosect This agreement is for providing the service of construction staking for the water and sewer improvements associated with the Overland, Topaz to Cloverdale project. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the Agreement for Professional Services with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for construction staking for the water and sewer improvements associated with Locust Grove Grade Separation project at a cost not to exceed $7,000 and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item. 0 Page 1 n 1I CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Project No. 030071Phase2 THIS AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, hereinafter referred to as the "CLIENT" and CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC., an Idaho Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CSC" is made and entered into this day of herein agree as set forth below. 2006. The CLIENT and CSC in consideration of their mutual covenants The Client intends to construct sanitary sewer mains, potable water mains, service lines and appurtenances in Locust Grove Road from Central Drive to Overland Road and in proposed access road as part of ITD's Locust Grove Road Grade Separation Project No. IM -STP -84-I(047)45, KEY NO. 8048, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. CLIENT INFORMATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES The CLIENT will provide to CSC a full and complete description of the PROJECT including; all design criteria, information as to CLIENT's requirements for the PROJECT, design objectives and constraints, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility and expandability needs, any budgetary limitations, and copies of all design and construction standards which CLIENT will require to be incorporated in the Drawings and Specifications. The CLIENT will also provide to CSC all associated project information including data prepared by others; soil borings, probings and subsurface explorations; hydrographic surveys; laboratory tests and inspection reports of samples, materials and equipment; studies and interpretations of all environmental assessment and impact statements; surveys of record; property descriptions; zoning, deed and other land use restrictions; title reports; other special data or consultations as may be available; all of which CSC may use and rely upon in performing services under this Agreement. The CLIENT will obtain permission for CSC to enter upon public and private property as required for CSC to perform services under this Agreement. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CSC CSC will provide construction staking services as necessary to construct the improvements. Construction staking will be coordinated for the project through ACHD by their project inspector. BASIS OF FEE AND BILLING SCHEDULE The Client will pay CSC for services provided under this Agreement on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $7,000.00 without prior approval of the City of Meridian. Notice to Proceed, either verbal or written, shall constitute acceptance of this Agreement by the CLIENT. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE CLIENT AGREES TO SAID TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 BY: NAME: TITLE: ATTEST BY: NAME: TITLE: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. 140E' W tertower Street, Suite 100 Me di 0 83642 BY. . Glenn K. Bennett, President i • CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. TERMS AND CONDITIONS GENERAL - CSC shall provide for CLIENT professional engineering and/or land surveying services for the Project described in this Agreement. These services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the intended use of the project. CSC makes no other warranty either expressed or implied. CSC shall not be responsible for acts or omissions of any party involved in the Project other than their own. CSC shall not be responsible for failure of any contractor or subcontractor to construct any item in accordance with recommendations issued by CSC. CSC has not been retained to supervise, direct or have control over Contractor's work. CSC specifically does not have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction selected by Contractor(s), for safety precautions and programs incident to the work of Contractor(s) or for any failure of Contractor(s) to comply with laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders applicable to Contractor(s) furnishing and performing their work. Accordingly, CSC can neither guarantee the performance of the construction contracts by Contractor(s) nor assume responsibility for Contractor(s) failure to furnish and perform their work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The CLIENT understands and agrees that subsurface and soils characteristics may vary greatly between successive test points and sample intervals. CSC will coordinate this work in accordance with generally accepted practice of the professional services being provided and makes no other warranties expressed or implied or as to the professional advice furnished by professionals providing soils testing or geotechnical advice. Resetting of survey and/or construction stakes shall constitute extra work and shall be paid for on a time and material basis in addition to any other payment provided in this Agreement. OPINIONS OF COST - CSC may be asked to provide opinions of construction or PROJECT costs as part of the professional services under this Agreement. The CLIENT understands and agrees that CSC has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor(s)' methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions. The CLIENT understands that CSC opinions of cost are based on CSC experience and represents CSC's judgment based on that experience, but CSC does not guarantee or warranty that either quotes, bids or estimates prepared by contractors, subcontractors or other will not deviate from opinions prepared by CSC. The CLIENT - agrees to employ an independent cost estimator if the CLIENT desires additional assurance, warranty or guarantee of PROJECT costs. Should the CLIENT request that CSC modify any PROJECT aspect to reduce construction costs, then those services shall be considered additional and beyond the scope of this Agreement unless specifically stated otherwise in this Agreement. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS - CSC shall retain an ownership interest of all professional products prepared by CSC. The CLIENT agrees that no product will be reused without specific written permission of CSC. The CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold CSC harmless from any claims, damages, losses and expenses arising from unauthorized reuse of all work products prepared by CSC for the PROJECT. GOVERNING LAW - Unless otherwise provided in an addendum, the law of the State of Idaho will govern the. validity of this Agreement, its interpretation and performance, and remedies for contract breach or any other claims related to this Agreement. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS - CLIENT and CSC each is hereby bound and the partners, successors, executors, administrators and legal representatives of CLIENT and CSC are likewise bound to the other party to this Agreement, in respect of all covenants, agreements and obligations of this Agreement. - Nothing under this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in this Agreement to anyone other than CLIENT and CSC, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of CLIENT and CSC and not for the benefit of any other party. 0 9 TIMES OF PAYMENTS - CSC shall submit monthly statements for services rendered and for Reimbursable Expenses incurred. CLIENT shall make prompt monthly payments. If CLIENT fails to make any payment due CSC for services and expenses within thirty (30) days after receipt of CSC's statement therefor, the amounts due CSC will be increased at the rate of 1.5% per month from said tenth day, and in addition, CSC may, after giving ten days' written notice to CLIENT, suspend services under this Agreement until CSC has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges. TERMINATION - The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty days' written notice. Such termination shall be based upon substantial lack of performance by the other party under the terms and conditions of this Agreement when said substantial lack of performance is through no fault of the terminating party. If this Agreement is terminated by either party, CSC shall be paid for services rendered and for reimbursable expenses incurred to the date of such termination. HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ASBESTOS - The CLIENT and CSC agree that the work covered in this Agreement does not anticipate either the presence or remediation of hazardous waste and/or asbestos. Hazardous materials may exist where there is not reason to believe they should be present. CSC and the CLIENT agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials constitutes a changed condition mandating a renegotiation of the scope of work or termination of services. CSC and the CLIENT also agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials may make it necessary for CSC to take immediate measures to protect human health and safety, and/or the environment. CSC agrees to notify the CLIENT as soon as practically possible should unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials be encountered. The CLIENT encourages CSC to take any and all measures that in CSC's professional opinion are justified to preserve and protect the health and safety of CSC's personnel and the public, and/or the environment, and the CLIENT agrees to compensate CSC for the additional cost of such work. In addition, the CLIENT waives any claim against CSC, and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold CSC harmless from any claim or liability for injury or loss arising from CSC's encountering unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials. The CLIENT also agrees to compensate CSC for any time spent and expenses incurred by CSC in defense of any such claim, with such compensation to be based upon CSC's prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy. DISPUTE RESOLUTION - All claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to the interpretation, application or enforcement of this Agreement shall be decided through non-binding mediation or other mutually agreed alternative dispute resolution technique. The CLIENT and CSC agree non-binding mediation or other mutually acceptable alternative dispute resolution technique shall precede litigation or recourse to other judicial forums. RECOVERY OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION COSTS - In the event that legal action is brought by either party against the other, the prevailing party shall be reimbursed by the other for the prevailing party's legal costs, in addition to whatever other judgments or settlement sums, if any, may be due. Such legal costs shall include, but not be limited to, reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, expert witness fees and other documented expenses, as well as the value of time spent by the prevailing party and those in his or her employ in researching the issues in questions, discussing matters with attorneys and others, preparing for depositions, responding to interrogatories, and so on. The value of time spent and the expenses incurred shall, on CSC's part, be computed based upon CSC's prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy relative to the recovery of direct project costs. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT - This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the CLIENT and CSC and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, written or oral. The Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both CLIENT and CSC. Glenn K. Bennett, P.L.S. President Timothy A. Burgess, P.E. Vice President Labor: E Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. 1400 E. Watertower Street Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83642 CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS PREVAILING FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2005 Project Manager Chief of Surveys Project Engineer Land Surveyor Design Engineer 1 Design Engineer 2 Design/Survey Technician 1 Design/Survey Technician 2 Direct Expenses: - $ 100.00 per hour - $ 100.00 per hour - $ 85.00 per hour - $ 75.00 per hour - $ 75.00 per hour - $ 70.00 per hour - $ 65.00 per hour - $ 60.00 per hour GPS - $ 40.00 per hour Vehicle 2 -Wheel Drive - $ No Charge Vehicle 4 -Wheel Drive - $ No Charge Outside Printing - $ Cost Long Distance Telephone - $ Cost Sub -Consultants - $ Cost (208)888-4312 Fax 888-0323 0 • September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-R REQUEST Award Bid & Contract for the 350 LF Water Main Construction on McMillan Road between Wild Goose and Palatine with Star Construction 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: Y19 CITY PARKS DEPT: Ufl 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 pubHe meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • Memo • ILIAUG 2 4 2006 ci,jy of Mevidiav� "i1V Clem �)fiiclr To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Max Jensen, Engineering Technician CC: Clint Dolsby, P.E., Staff Engineer Date: 8/24/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for August 29, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the August 29 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: McMillan Water Line — Wild Goose to Palatine (construction contract with Star Construction.) Attached are the bid results for the construction of this project. A bid request was sent to four contractors, Star Constructions' bid was the only responsive bid. Attached is a contract With Star Construction, Inc. for the 350LF water main construction on McMillan Road between Wild Goose and Palatine. The contract is for $56,280.80. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the McMillan Water Line — Wild Goose to Palatine construction contract with Star Construction, Inc. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions. From the desk of... Max Jensen Engineering Technician Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 898-5500 Fax (208) 898-9551 jensenm@meddiancity.org 0 Page 1 cm �k 0 0 ggqqqqq 22aaa2] a 2 k ) \k aD @§M§ggCR 77 k5 �kto { S q .0�RR - noo CD , �V3. ?- X: § ; VolCf @q@@ggq . \\4\ �7tee CC-04 k� � . e ®® k) °e8gg88 k7 $■Kki�\ K o�w WI to 613, 88°Sq}gg2k c 2 k \\ fC: --i § c>n- a>)- $. CO Cj � /t 0 ) k 00 kk§cx �J Ne ƒ & 2 k BBQ ««$ a e �EL)A8. « & § 2 ��§■P/e ) o eeeem�� � ggan 0 STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR ON THE BASIS OF A STIPULATED PRICE THIS AGREEMENT is dated the day of in the year 2006 by and between City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (hereinafter called OWNER) and Custom Electric (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: Article 1 WORK. The CONTRACTOR will complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Agreement. The WORK is generally described as follows: The project includes all labor, materials, and permit fees required to construct 350 LF of 12" water main at McMillan Road as detailed in the construction documents. The Project for which the Work under the Agreement is described as follows: McMillan Water Line — Wild Goose to Palatine. All replacement materials and workmanship will meet the City of Meridian Standard Specifications and Drawings. The Contractor should become familiar with the specifications. Article 2 ENGINEER The City of Meridian Public Works Department will be the ENGINEER The City of Meridian Public Works Department is to act as OWNER's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities and have the rights and authority assigned to ENGINEER in the Contract Documents in connection with completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Article 3 CONTRACT TIME. The Work will be completed within three hundred sixty five (365) days (calendar days) from the date when the Contract Time commences to run. Article 4 CONTRACT PRICE. OWNER will pay CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in current funds as follows: Total Contract Price is $56,280.80. Article 5 PAYMENT PROCEDURES. The CONTRACTOR will submit an Application for Payment upon completion of the Work. Applications for Payment must be submitted to the Public Works Department. Payments. The OWNER will make progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR's Application for Payment as recommended by the Public Works Department, on or about the 156' day of each month during construction for Applications submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the 1st day of that month. All progress payments will be on the basis of the progress of the work measured by the schedule of values established in Article 4. The OWNER may retain up to 5% of the amount of the payment until final completion and acceptance of all Work covered by this Agreement. Upon completion and acceptance of the Work, payment will be made in full, including retained percentages, less authorized deductions, within thirty (30) days. 3/31/2004 Page 0 • Article 6 INTEREST. All moneys not paid when due will bear interest at 12% per annum or the maximum rate allowed by law at the place of Project, whichever is less. Article 7 CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS. In order to induce the OWNER to enter into the Agreement, the CONTRACTOR makes the following representations: 7.1 The CONTRACTOR has familiarized itself with the nature and extent of the Work, site, locality, and all local conditions and Laws and Regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of the Work. 7.2 The CONTRACTOR has studied carefully all drawings of physical conditions. 7.3 The CONTRACTOR has given Public Works Department written notice of all conflicts, errors or discrepancies that he has discovered and the written resolution thereof by ENGINEER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR Article 8 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The Contract Documents, which comprise the entire agreement between the OWNER and the CONTRACTOR concerning the Work, consist of the following: 8.1 This Agreement. 8.2 Exhibits to this Agreement — N/A. 8.3 Information For Bidders — N/A. 8.4 Drawings — N/A. 8.5 CONTRACTOR's Quote — 8/23/2006. 8.6 1999 Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, including Division 100, except as superseded by the Information For Bidders, contained herein. 8.7 Revisions to the Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. 8.8 Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR prior to Notice of Award. 8.9 The documents listed in paragraph 8.2 above are attached to this Agreement (except as expressly noted otherwise above). There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above in this Article 8. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented by written Change Order. Article 9 MISCELLANEOUS. 9.1 No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interest in the Contract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound, and specifically but without limitation moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. 3/31/2004 Page 9.2 OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives in respect of all covenants and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. Article 10 OTHER PROVISIONS. None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in triplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER, CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed or identified by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or by ENGINEER on their behalf. The Agreement will be effective on Owner CITY OF MERIDIAN By: By Name: Mayor De Weerd Attest: Name: William Berg. Jr. City Clerk City Council Approval : 3/31/2004 Page • • September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-S REQUEST Joint Powers Agreement Amendment with the Rural Fire District Local #2311 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: U� MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN / MERIDIAN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIREFIGHTING AND LIFE PRESERVATION SERVICE CONTRACT AND JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received, as a donation, certain land commonly known as 2515 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and it presently owns said cbrtain land; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian's sole ownership of the land commonly known :as 2515 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho has been previously acknowledged and memorialized by the parties through an addendum to Exhibit "C" to the "CITY OF MERIDIAN / MERIDIAN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIREFIGHTING AND LIFE PRESERVATION SERVICE CONTRACT AND JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT"; and WHEREAS, the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District paid, utilizing its own funds and financial resources, for the construction of a building on and improvements to that said certain land commonly known as 2515 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho as and for a fire station, which fire station is commonly known, between the parties, as Fire Station #4; and WHEREAS, the "CITY OF MERIDIAN / MERIDIAN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIREFIGHTING AND LIFE PRESERVATION SERVICE CONTRACT AND JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT" does not provide, by exhibit or otherwise, for the identification of the building on and improvements to that said certain land commonly known as 2515 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho as real property solely owned by and vested in the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this addendum to the "CITY OF MERIDIAN / MERIDIAN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIREFIGHTING AND LIFE PRESERVATION SERVICE CONTRACT AND JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT" is for the City of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District to acknowledge and memorialize the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District's sole ownership of the building on and improvements to that said certain land commonly known as 2515 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, exclusive of the City of Meridian's sole ownership of the land. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the City of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District hereby acknowledge and agree as follows. 1. The Meridian Rural Fire Protection District paid, utilizing its own funds and financial resources, for the construction of the building on and all improvements to that said certain land commonly known as 2515 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho as and for a fire station utilized under and pursuant to the "CITY OF MERIDIAN / MERIDIAN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIREFIGHTING AND LIFE PRESERVATION SERVICE CONTRACT AND JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT." ADDENDUM TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT M! 0 • 2. Notwithstanding the City of Meridian's sole ownership of the land commonly known as 2515 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as heretofore memorialized, the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District is fully vested with all right, title, interest and ownership in and to all structures, buildings and improvements constructed and presently existing on the land commonly known as 2515 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. 3. All terms, provisions, covenants and agreements set forth in the "CITY OF MERIDIAN / MERIDIAN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIREFIGHTING :.AND LIFE PRESERVATION SERVICE CONTRACT AND JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT" shall remain and be the same, except for the additions made by the terms and provisions of this addendum and such other duly executed addenda, amendments and modifications heretofore and hereafter made to the "CITY OF MERIDIAN / MERIDIAN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIREFIGHTING AND LIFE PRESERVATION SERVICE CONTRACT AND JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT" by and between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this addendum. DATED AND SIGNED this 5day of _ A --i &-t-, 2006. Attest: By:. City Clerk By Council Resolution No.: DATED AND Attest: By: Secretary By Resolution No.: City of /05, OF or L - [GNE�t1ri$1ofT�I��'`�da� of �l bon y Ci�ij �GYnc�;c� 9-s A6 Meridian Rural Fire Protection District By: Chairman ADDENDUM TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT -2- i 0 September 1, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT IT Department ITEM NO. 6-A-1 REQUEST Update on the Internship Program and Strategic Growth 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 meeHnps shall become properly of the City of Meridian. r IrJventory Manage yen(& Tool Maintenance ' PROJECTS '• Pofltce, Department Lerrel Security System °! ` cn ployrneni Applioa0on Remote Database Access to SCADA urnesheetAopn = ' . .� gym;. r P�nrar�S 'R por ity Council ,Pfent 9Ppb ion iiracking 'i Sys em � D stoned on i Police Or AiJN u � ;ryry qq ii'I+ t a 1 i a t& € S ,..y :. McKay Leaving If be ending his employments ity this month.to prepare fora , hurch mission where he will u-atema(a: I; 111 - ME :mi vroOR Worked for the City for two years�� PROJECTS '• IT Supporu Reduest Foln� � °! ` cn ployrneni Applioa0on urnesheetAopn = ' . Olher projects r P�nrar�S 'R por AA, ,Pfent 9Ppb ion iiracking 'i Sys em � D stoned on i Police Or AiJN u � ;ryry qq ii'I+ t 4 - ` ytl niiPiyareas CO�ecohne more lff& ive and pioac' e r a 110 )V,'RP0QE changes Co swe&money. I a� t t € t September 1, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Public Works Department - Len Grady ITEM NO. 6-B-1 REQUEST Discussion of Requirement for a Common Lot Rather Than an Easeement s 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 public meetings shalt become property of the City of Meridian. • 0 September 1, 2006 FP 06-038 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Landmark Engineering & Planning ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Tabled from August 22, 2006 -- Requst for Final Plat Approval for 5 single-family residential building lots on 1.06 acres in an R-8 zone for Windsong Subdivision No. 2 -- north of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Comments See attached Comments Phone: Emailed: -31ca11 rruncaw. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 September 1, 2006 FP 06-039 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Solitude Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Final Plat approval of 103 single-family residential building lots and 10 common lots on 25.12 acres in an R-8 zone for Solitude Subdivision No. 1 - SEC of McMillan Road and Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SOLITUDE DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 103 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 10 COMMON AREA LOTS ON 25.12 ACRES IN AN R-8 ZONE LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST MCMILLAN ROAD ON NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD IN GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 OF T. 4N., R. 1E., SECTION 31 C/C September 5, 2006 CASE NO. FP -06-039 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 September 5, 2006, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: September 5, 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 SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION NO.1 LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 OF T. 4N., R. lE., SECTION 31, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006, HANDWRITTEN ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP -06-039) Page 1 of 4 N 0 DATE: 07/17/06, SHEET 1 OF 2, ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, LLP", SOLITUDE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: September 5, 2006, listing 19 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 12 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 4 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Engineering Solutions, LLP, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit `B" and consisting of 3 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their September 5, 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 ORDER OF CONDMONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP -06-039) Page 2 of 4 disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: 1. State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP -06-039) Page 3 of 4 C� • Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the -5+L-% day of S--12 Ln 1'V° bcx- 92006. OF\s � ATTEST: A� ' e o ® 8JIL CP WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CLB t'�� . , Copy served upon: ✓ Applicant�`''�rr,, Planning Department Public Works Department City Attorney By: City Clerk's Office Dated: Ct- 19 -OLP ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SOLITUDE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP -06-039) Page 4 of 4 de WEERD CITY OF MERIDIAN PLWING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAOENTS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Hearing Date: September 5, 2006 Transmittal Date: August 31, 2006 Mayor and City Council We have reviewed this These conditions shall Meridian City Council: 4; ylq Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner Il[ V Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator M C Solitude Subdivision No. 1 Request for Final Plat Approval of Solitude Subdivision No. 1 Consisting of 103 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 10 Common Area Lots on 25.12 Acres in an R-8 Zone by Solitude Development, LLC (File# FP -06-039). 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, Solitude Development, LLC, has applied for final plat approval of 103 single-family residential building lots and 10 common area lots on 25.12 acres of land for Solitude Subdivision No. 1. The zoning designation for the proposed subdivision is R-8 (Medium Density Residential). The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 4.1 dwelling units per acre; the net density is 6.53 dwelling units per acre. Solitude Subdivision No. 1 is located on the south side of West McMillan and on the east side of North Meridian Road in the NW 1/a of T. 4N., R. IE., Section 31. This property has not been previously platted. The submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat for this subdivision. Staff recommends approval of Solitude Subdivision No.l with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ -06-007), development agreement (Inst. #106133466), and preliminary plat (PP -06-006) for this subdivision. 2. A pedestrian pathway along Meridian Road that extends the entire length of the western subdivision boundary (including the 5 -acre out parcel) shall be installed prior to occupancy of any new dwelling units on this property. 3. The applicant has not indicated who will own and maintain the pressure irrigation system within this development. If it is to be a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by Public Works during the plan review process. A draft copy of the Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be submitted prior to construction plan approval, with a final draft being submitted prior to signature on the plat of the final phase. If it is to be owned and operated by an irrigation district a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre -construction meeting. Exhibt "A" FP -06-039 Solitude Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PL&ING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAI0ENTS STAFF REPORT 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a single -point connection is used, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the irrigable common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. All fencing installed on the site must be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed at the subdivision boundary where permanent fencing does not exist. Perimeter fencing shall be installed prior to release of building permits for this subdivision. 6. Sanitary sewer and water service to this site is being proposed via extensions of existing mains in N. Meridian Road. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. 7. The applicant shall coordinate with Public Works, prior to plan approval, to ensure the 12 -inch sewer is being routed in a manner that enough depth is preserved to meet the elevation of the lift station in Cobre Basin Subdivision. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, remove all existing structures that do not meet the applicable setback and zoning regulations. 9. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 10. The graphically depicted 8 -foot wide Public Utilities, Drainage and Irrigation easements shown on the interior lot lines do not appear to be consistent with the location of the pressurized irrigation mains, as shown in the construction drawings. The applicant shall confirm this information and dedicate along interior lot lines an 8 -foot wide Public Utilities, Drainage and Irrigation easement along interior lot lines where pressurized irrigation mains are being installed. 11. Graphically depict a 5 -foot wide Public Utilities Drainage and Irrigation easement along the north boundary of Lot 7, Block 2. It will be an interior lot line to a future phase. 12. The bearing called out along the southern boundary of this project does not appear to match the bearing of record. Please include bearing of record in parenthesis on the face of the plat. 13. Include the instrument number of the ACHD sidewalk easement shown on the face of the plat. 14. Revise or add the following note(s) on the face of the plat prepared by Engineering Solutions, LLP., stamped on 07/17/06 by D. Terry Peugh, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer: 10.) Revise to read, " Fencing adjacent to Lot 5, Block 3; Lot 1, Block 4; Lot 7, Block 5 and Lot 3, Block 6 shall be si& ebseufiRg matefW in compliance with the applicable zoning regulations of the City of Meridian at the time of submittal. 11.) Include instrument number. *.) Include ACHD easement instrument number. Exhibt "A" FP -06-039 Solitude Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PAING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAOENTS STAFF REPORT 15. The landscape plan, prepared by Harvest Design and dated 06/23/06 shall be revised as follows: a. Include tree class information in the plant schedule. b. Include detail of Area "A" on the plan. C. Include lawn symbol on the plan. d. Revise scale to be no smaller than 1" = 50' (1" = 40' or larger is preferred). e. A six-foot open vision fence or four -foot solid fence is required adjacent to the micropaths located on Lot 5, Block 3; Lot 1, Block 4; Lot 7, Block 5; and Lot 6, Block 6. f. Include details for fencing on Lot 5, Block 3; Lot 1, Block 4; Lot 7, Block 5; and Lot 6, Block 6 on the plan (picture & description). g. Show proposed landscaping on Lot 1, Block 6 and Lot 7, Block 5. h. UDC 11 -3B -12C2 requires 1 deciduous tree per 35 linear feet along micropaths. Install an additional tree on Lot 5, Block 3, the northern pathway on Lot 1, Block 4, the southern pathway on Lot 1, Block 4, and Lot 6, Block 6. Submit three copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 16. Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's "Final" letter for the street names and lot & block numbering. Make all corrections necessary to comply. 17. 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 ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 18. Complete the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement. 19. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions of the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIItEMENTS 1. Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or he 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. Exhibt "A" FP -06-039 Solitude Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLOWING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAI&ENTS STAFF REPORT 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% shall be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. All development improvements, including but not limited to water, sewer, fencing, micro -paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 5. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The Certificate of Completion shall verify that all landscape improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan. 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. 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. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 10. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. 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. 12. 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 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 Solitude Subdivision No. 1 (FP -06-039) with the above stated comments and conditions. Exhibt "A' FP -06-039 Solitude Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAGE 4 0 GINEERNG Awning N4 engineering commurkes for the future oLUTIONSLLP September 5, 2006 Mayor and City Council City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Solitude Subdivision No. 1 Final Plat File No. FP -06-039 Dear Mayor and Council: E We have reviewed the staff comments prepared for the Meridian City Council meeting of September 5', 2006, and have the following responses SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. The applicant will comply. 2. The applicant will comply. 3. The applicant will comply. The subdivision is sharing in the Copper Basin pump station, which will be upsized to meet irrigation requirements. The system is owned and maintained by Settlers' Irrigation District. 4. The applicant will comply. 5. The applicant will comply. 6. The applicant will comply. 7. The applicant will comply. 8. The applicant will comply. 9. The applicant will comply. 10. The applicant will comply. CADocuments and Settings\vigilk\Local SettingsUemporary Internet I-iles'.OI.KCI3\itecsRcspimse (3).doc Exhibit "B" Mayor and City council September 5, 2006 Page 2 11. The applicant will comply. 12. The applicant will comply. 13. The applicant will comply. 14. The applicant will comply. 15. The applicant will comply. 16. The applicant will comply. 17. The applicant will comply. 18. The applicant will comply. 19. Noted. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The applicant will comply. 2. The applicant will comply. I The applicant will comply. 4. The applicant will comply. 5. The applicant will comply. 6. The applicant will comply. 7. The applicant will comply. 8. The applicant will comply. 9. The applicant will comply. 10. The applicant will comply. 11. The applicant will comply. 12. Noted. We appreciate stmt's favorable recommendation of our request. Thank you. CADocuntents and Scttings\vigilk\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLKCB\RecsResponse (3).doc Exhibit "B" Mayor and City Council September 5, 2006 Page 3 Sincerely, Engineering Solutions, LLP Shari Stiles Project Planner BM:ss cc: Mr. Justin Hubble C\I)ocuments and SettingsWigilk\Local ScttingsCremporary Internet Filcs\OLKCB\RccsRespon,e (3).doe Exhibit "R" r] September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT 0 September 5, 2006 ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing -- Amendments to City of Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance increasing park impact fee imposed on bdng permits for residential const; & adopting new impact fees for fire & police capital improvments to be imposed on bldng permt for residential & non construction AND CPA 06-001 to amend text of the Comp Plan to update the Ten Year CIP for parks, police, and fire capital improvement project AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Memo CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: See attached Memo MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: • September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT • September 5, 2006 ITEM NO. CPA 06-001 REQUEST Resolution No. : CPA 06-001 Comprehensive Pian Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvments Plan for parks, police and fire capital improvement projects: 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 Resoli lon pb' Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubfic meetings sha0 become properly of the City of Meridkn. n U n U CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. ®6 ^ 3-2- $ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR PARKS, POLICE, AND FIRE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-8208(4), each time the City of Meridian amends or modifies its Development Impact Fee Ordinance, it must also update the corresponding capital improvements plans; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-8208(1), such capital improvements plans shall be prepared and adopted according to the requirements contained m the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act and shall be included as an element of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August in 2002 as resolution 02-382; and, WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have deemed it appropriate to amend the text of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan update the ten year capital improvements plans for parks, fire and police capital improvements projects in order to comply with this prerequisite to amending the Meridian Development Impact Fee Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City of Meridian has retained the services of a consultant to prepare a report that identifies and satisfies all of the capital improvements plan requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act; and, WHEREAS, the consultant's final report, dated August 28, 2006, contains a checklist of the capital improvements plan requirements, found at Appendix "C" of said report, attached to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have provided all the requisite notices, held the necessary hearings, and received the required information necessary to make a final decision as required by the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act to amend the adopted comprehensive plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR POLICE, FIRE AND POLICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS Pagel of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6509, the Mayor and City Council hereby amend the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan to add the parks, police and fire capital improvements plans as an addendum to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The elements of the capital improvements plans are contained in the final report of the consultant, dated August 28, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto incorporated herein by reference. A copy of this Resolution and the attached document shall be held on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this J` day of ,e,LG2.2, Z -L, , 2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this S�' day of 2006. APPROVED: Mayor Tamm Weerd ATTEST: OAL William G. Berg, Jr., Citftlert r lslF' ^; B,�i/fdt!I 1"','- ` COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR POLICE, FIRE AND POLICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS Page2 of 2 0 Final Repo August 28, 2006 ImpactICU- Ity of Meridian FeeStudy 1 4 - Capital Improvement o Prepared for City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting Toon Pippin and Laura Doze 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850 Denver, Co 80209-3827 In Assodadon x4j* Spink Butler, LLP JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan 251 E. Front Street, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83702 Galena Consulting Anne Wescott 1214 South Johnson Street Boise, ID 83705 0 BCH CONSULTING &(,)NSLTITjNG Background and Objectives.............................................................. Definition of Impact Fees ................ 1 ........................................................... Land Use and Demographics...................................................... 2 ResidentialData........................................................................... 6 Nonresidential Data ...................................... 6 ............................................................ Impact Fee Calculation Considerations............ 9 Current Assets and Capital Improvements Plans ............................................. Mechanics of Fee Calculations ..................... """"""""""' ' 10 .............................................. City Participation .................. .............................. ........................ ••••••••••• 19 ................................................. Cash Flow Analysis ............................................. 23 ..................................... Other Funding Sources ............. 26 ............................................................................. Implementation Recommendations 27 ..................... ................................ Summary ..............................6.............................. ................... .................6.... 28 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian .................................. Exhibit 2. Current and Projected Nonresidential Development ................. 8 Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 10 13 Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016...............................................................14 Exhibit 5. Current Fire Assets, City of Meridian 2006 . 15 Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 ................. ....................................... ibit 7. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 ............................ '• 16 Exhibit B. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016........................................17 18 Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses 2006 Exhibit 10. Police Impact Fee C '��������� alculation.............. Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee C �������������"""' Calculation ................................ ........................................................ 21 Exhibit 12. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation.............................................................. 22 Exhibit 13. City Participation — Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 .......................... 23 Exhibit 14. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan .......................... :....... Exhibit 15. City Participation — Fire Capital Improvement Pian, 2006 to 2016 .............................. 24 Exhibit 16. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan ..................................... 25 Exhibit 17. City Participation — Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016 ....................................... Exhibit 18. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016 ....................... 2 255 Exhibit 19. Projected Cash Flows — CIP Methodology................................................................... 26 Exhibit 20. Summary of Impact Fees........... Exhibit 21. City P """' Participation Summary, 2006 to 2016................................................................. 31 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT - I Attachments: Appendix A— Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances Appendix B — Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Appendix C— Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist Appendix D — Current Service Standard Approach Appendix E — Detailed Demographic Analysis Appendix F — Communities in Motion Appendix G — Collier's Year -End Real Estate Market Review Appendix H — Meridian FY 2005 Capital Improvement flans BBC RESEARCH by CONSULTING FINAL REPORT — II i • This report regarding impact fees for the City of Meridian (Meridian or City) is organized into the following sections: 11 An overview of the repoit's background and objectives; ® A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; ® An overview of land use and demographics; ® A step-by-step calculation of impact fees under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approach; ® A calculation of the City's monetary participation in those capital improvements defined as requiring repair, replacement or an upgrade, and the City's pro rata share of Partially growth -related capital improvements; ® A cash flow analysis; ® A list of implementation recommendations; and ® A brief summary of conclusions. Each section follows sequentially. We have also attached several appendices with supporting documentation: Appendix A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances; Appendix B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; Appendix C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist; Appendix D. Current Service Standard Approach; Appendix E. Detailed Demographic Analysis; Appendix F. Communities in Motion report; Appendix G. Colliers' Year -End .Real Estate Market Review; and Appendix H. Meridian FY 2005 CIP. Background and Objectives The City of Meridian (City) hired. BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) in April 2006 to calculate impact fees for police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. BBC was assisted by two Idaho -based subcontractors: JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan of Spink Butler, LLP and Anne Wescott of Galena Consulting. Spink Butler interpreted the requirements of the Idaho Code, updated the City's impact fee ordinance and assisted in all phases of the project. Ms. Wescott inventoried Meridian's current police, fare, and parks and recreation assets; established capital improvement replacement costs; helped the City refine their Capital Improvement Plans; and assisted in all phases of the project. This document presents the maximum allowable fees based on the City's demographic data and infrastructure costs before credit adjustment; calculates the City's monetary participation; examines the likely cash flow produced by the recommended fee amount, and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 1 0efifaMon of impart Peas Impact fees are generally defined as one-time assessments used to recover the capital costs borne by local governments due to new -growth and development. Impact fees are governed by principles established in Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Impact Fee Act), attached as Appendix A, which specifically gives cities, towns and counties the authority to levy impact fees. The Idaho Code defines an impact fee as "... a payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve development."' Purpose of impact fees. The Impact Fee Act repeats the legislative finding that "... an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the state of Idaho. "2 Idaho fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on the calculation and use of impact fees, all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law!.Some of those restrictions include: ® Impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than to defray system improvement costs incurred to provide additional public facilities to serve new growth;4 ® Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 8 -year time limit if the governmental entity can provide reasonable cause;' ® Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements needed to serve new growth and development;' ® Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the capital projects fund.' See Section 67-8203(9), Idaho Code. "System improvements" are capital improvements (i.e., improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more) that, in addition to a long life, increase the service capacity of a public facility. Public facilities include: parks, open space and recreation areas, and related capital improvements; and public safety facilities, including law enforcement, fire, emergency medical and rescue facilities. See Sections 67-8203(3), (24) and (28), Idaho Code. 'See Section 67-8202, Idaho Code. 3 As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a defensible impact fee. To meet substantive due process requirements, an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus) between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital improvements. An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests. This relationship must be of "rough proportionality." Adequate consideration of the factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2) ensure that rough proportionality is reached. See Banbury Development Corp. v. South Jordan, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). 'See Sections 67-8202(4) and 67-8203(29), Idaho Code. 'See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. ' See Sections 67-8204(1) and 67-8207, Idaho Code. ' See Section 67-8210(1), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 2 In addition, the Impact Fee Act requires the following; Establishment of and consultation with a development impact fee advisory committee (Advisory Committee);' 0 Identification of all existing public facilities; a Determination of a standardized measure (or service unit) of consumption of public facilities; ® Identification of the current level of service that existing public facilities provide; ® Identifica.tion of the deficiencies in the existing public facilities; ® Forecast of residential and nonresidential growth;' ® Identification of the growth -related portion of City Capital Improvement Plans;` ® Analysis of cash flow stemming from impact fees and other capital improvement funding sources;" ® Implementation of recommendations such as impact fee credits, how impact fee revenues should be accounted for, and how the impact fees should be updated over time; 12 ® Preparation and adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same," and ® Preparation and adoption of an ordinance authorizing impact fees pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same.14 The proposed update to the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance, which is the ordinance that will amend the City's municipal code, is attached as Appendix B. A checklist for ordinance requirements is found in Appendix C. How should fees be calculated? State law requires the City to implement the Capital Improvement Plan methodology to calculate impact fees. The City could implement fees of any amount not exceeding the maximum fees calculated by the CIP approach. This methodology requires the City to describe its service area, forecast the land uses, densities and population that will occur in that service area, over the next 20 years, and identify the capital improvements that will be needed to 'See Section 67-8205, Idaho Code. 'See Section 67-8206(2), Idaho Code. ° See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. " See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. 1 2 See Sections 67-8209 and 67-8210, Idaho Code. 3 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. " See Sections 67-8204 and 67-8206, Idaho Cod, BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 3 serve the forecasted growth at the same level of service found in the existing community. 15 This list and cost of capital improvements, along with a time schedule for commencing and completing the construction of all capital improvements, constitutes the capital improvement element to be adopted as part of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan.i6 Only those items listed on the CIP are eligible to be funded by impact fees. Each governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee must first prepare a capital improvements plan." To ensure that impact fees are adopted and spent for capital improvements in support of the community's needs and planning goals, the Impact Fee Act establishes a link between the authority to charge impact fees and certain planning requirements of Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). The local government must have adopted a comprehensive plan per LLUPA procedures, and that comprehensive plan must be updated to include a current capital improvement element. L8 This study considers the planned capital improvements for the period between 2006 and 2016 that will need to be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Once the essential capital planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a "proportionate share" of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth. "Proportionate share" is defined as ".. , that portion of the cost of system improvements ... which reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project.i19 Practically, this concept requires Meridian to carefitlly project future growth and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and defensible impact fee schedules. The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees: are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital improvements by the development being charged the impact fee; do not exceed the cost of such improvements; and are "earmarked" so as to benefit those that pay the impact fees. " As a comparison and benchmark for the impact fees calculated under the Capital Improvement Plan approach, BBC also calculated the City's current level of service by quantifying the City's current investment in capital improvements for each impact fee category, allocating a portion of these assets to residential and nonresidential development, and dividing the resulting amount by current housing units (residential fees) or current square footage (nonresidential fees). By using current assets to denote the current service standard, this methodology guards against using fees to correct existing deficiencies. The calculation of the City's current level of service is found in Appendix D and this investment in capital improvements for police, fire, and parks and recreation is referenced throughout this report. " See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code. " Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. See Appendix A for a description of the requirements of the Impact Fee Act for the capital improvements plan. See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code. " See Section 67-8203(23), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 4 • There are various approaches to calculating impact fees and to crediting new development for past and future contributions made toward system improvements. The Impact Fee Act does not specify a single type of fee calculation` but it does specify that the formula be "reasonable and fair." Impactfees must take into account the following; ® Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or construction of system improvements; ® Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; ® That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by Meridian to system improvements; and ® All other available sources of funding such system improvements.20 Through data analysis and interviews with City staff, BBC and Galena Consulting identified the share of each capital asset needed to serve growth. The total projected capital improvements needed to serve growth are then allocated to residential and nonresidential development with the resulting amounts divided by growth projections from 2006 to 2016. This is consistent with the Impact Fee Act.21 However, only residential devel households are the primary consuopment is charged parks and recreation impact fees since mers of park services. Among the advantages of the CIP approach is its establishment of a spending plana to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. Other fee calculation considerations. The basic CIP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: ® The allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is "a standard measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit23 of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvement.»24 The service units chosen by the study team are all linked directly to residential dwelling units or nonresidential development square feet. 2° See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. n The impact fee that can be charged to each service unit (in this study, residential dwelling units and nonresidential square feet) cannot exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements for system improvements attributable to new development to provide an adopted service leve development. See Sections 67 l by the total number of service units attributable to new -8204(16), 67-8208(1W and 67-8208(1)0, Idaho Code. An example of a spending plan, Meridian Parks Capital Improvements Plan FY 2005, may be found in Appendix J. a See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. x See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 5 • • EI A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. According to Idaho Code, the CIP must include a "conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to :various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial."zj In this analysis, the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data and, as a result in this study, impact fees are allocated between aggregated residential (i.e., all forms of residential housing) and nonresidential development (all nonresidential uses including retail, office, agricultural and industrial). Laud Use and Demographics In calculating the impact fees, it was necessary to allocate capital improvement costs to bo th residential and nonresidential development. The study team performed this allocation based on the number of projected new households and nonresidential square footage added from 2006 through 2016. Pursuant to Idaho State law, we gathered data on 20 -year land use assumptions in Meridian, including population, households and employment. See Appendix E for the 20 -year forecasts to 2026. However, the impact fee calculations in this report are based on the next 10 years of land use data to maintain consistency with Meridian's CIP planning horizon. Residential data. The primary data, sources for residential unit counts and square footage numbers are the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS); the City of Meridian; the U.S. Census Bureau; and the National Association of Homebuilders. Appendix E provides COMPASS' demographic spreadsheets and details any calculations performed by the study team to arrive at current or projected residential data. n See Section 67-8208(1)(,), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 6 • Current and future households. To estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from COMPASS' 2006 document entitled Community Choices Forecast. Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03/21/06. This document provides detailed data (from 2005 to 2030 in five year increments) on population, households and jobs by three Meridian -specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). However, data are collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and COMPASS states that the demographic area does not "match either city limits or areas of impact boundaries"26 For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at all, and other TAZs are only partially in the area of impact However, it is true that Meridian's area of impact contains many of the same TAZs that are in COMPASS' Meridian demographic area. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the study team has chosen to use COMPASS' data (demographic area) as a reasonable proxy for the area of impact.27 See Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the derivation of the current and future household numbers and COMPASS' Community Choices Forecast spreadsheet. Single family/multifamily distribution. Communities in Motion was the basis for the allocation of future housing units between single fanuly and multifamily units Communities in Motion is e th Regional Long -Range Transportation Plan for the Treasure Valley to 2030. The Communities in Motion working group collaborated with COMPASS to estimate housing units by type in the Treasure Valley. This report forecasts that Treasure Valley will eventually be 55 percent single family and 45 percent multifamily housing units (see Appendix F). After discussing this land use allocation goal with Anna Canning and Steve Siddoway from the City's Planning Department, the study team concluded that this distribution would likely not be achieved within the time frame of the 10 -year CIPs used in the impact fee calculations. Therefore, in the interim, we believe it is appropriate for the allocation of future housing units in Meridian to be based on trend data from the Communities in Motion report in Appendix F (72 percent single family and 28 percent multifamily). This housing type distinction is only necessary for calculating residential square footage, a precursor to fee calculations, as discussed below. The impact fees in this report are equivalent for single family and multifamily units. Current and future square footage. In order to distribute the costs for capital improvements to new residential and nonresidential development, a precursor to the calculation of impact fees, it was necessary to estimate the current and future total square footage of residential and nonresidential units in the City. 26 Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), FrequentyAsked Quesaioru about COMPASS Forecasts. 27 Because the City anticipates negotiations with Ada County for an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for Ada County to collect unPact fees within rhe area of impact (AOI) on behalf of Meridian. An example of an IGA for the collection of park imps fees by Ada County for the benefit of Boise City within Boise's AOI is found in Appendix F. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 7 n 0 In addition, square feet data are used to calculate the growth -related percentage of certain capital improvements that are only partially necessitated by growth. The particular capital improvements referenced in this study that are only partially growth -related are the fire training tower, fire and police command vehicle, ladder fire truck and the firing range. The calculations of the growth -related percentage of these capital improvements is found on page 11. Based on national data, BBC used figures of 2,097 square feet for single family units and 1,063 square feet for multifamily units.28 These estimates reflect the average of national annual median square foot figures from 1999 to 2004 and represent the best available data. Exhibit 1 below presents the number of current (2006) and projected (2016) single family and multifamily units, and respective square footage estimates. Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian Total li Total in Diff0rence 2006 2006 2096 to 2076 Housing Units f1) Single Family 20,053 25,537 5,485 Multifamily 2'282 9,931 7,649 Total Housing Units 22,334 35,469 13,134 Square Feet (2) Single Family (units * 2,097 sq.ft.) 42,040,244 53,539,312 11,499,069 Multifamily (units * 1,063 sq.ft.) 2,426,219 10,559,390 8,133,171 Total Square Feet 44,466,463 64,098,703 19,632,240 Notes: (1) COMPASS for housing units and Communities in Motion for allocation of housing units between single family and multifamily. (2) National Association of Homebuilders 5 -year trailing average for square footage. Source: COMPASS, Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones (Excel worksheet, Updated 3/21/2006), National Association of Homebuilders, Characteristics of New Single family Homes (1987-2004), C of Meridian, Communities in Motion and Impact Fee Study Team.' Currently, there are an estimated 22,334 housing units in the City of Meridian, 20,053 of which are single family units and 2,282 of which are multifamily units. By 2016, the residential housing stock is projected to have increased by 59 percent (13,100 households) for a total of over 35,000 units. xe National Association of Homebuilders, average of median figures from 1999-2004, Characteristics ofNew Single Family Homes 1987-2004. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 8 0 i NalmiresIdentlal data. Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year -End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, tabulates existing office, retail and industrial square footage for cities in the Treasure Valley. The report, located in Appendix G, discusses various submarkets in the Valley, including toe City of Meridian, and lists current nonresidential square footage, vacancy rages, building counts, market rents, etc. The study team totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected nonresidential square footage in the City. Current nonresidential development. As discussed with Colliers, the Year -End Real Estate Market Review square footage count only includes buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. To adjust for this underestimate of nonresidential square feet, the study team obtained City data on the square footage of new commercial development since 2003. The City's data are not a cumulative total of all square footage in the City; rather the data only reflect the square footage of new permitted nonresidential units. The study team calculated the percentage of new units since 2003 that were less than 10,000 square feet in size. As of March 2006, on average, 21 percent of the City's newly permitted nonresidential units were less than 10,000 square feet. Knowing this, Colliers tabulation represents 79 percent of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. By dividing Colliers square footage by 79 percent, the study team arrived ai the current total of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the current nonresidential square feet. Future nonresidential development. No data exist for exact 2016 projections of nonresidential square footage in Meridian. Therefore, BBC developed a defensible method for calculating future nonresidential square footage. COMPASS' document, Community Choices Forecast- Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, provides data on current and future jobs in Meridian. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square footage to 2016. Currently, there are 20,514 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet totals 6,544,830. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs in 2006 produces a ratio of 319 square feet per employee in 2006.29 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2016. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to employee remains constant, the study team usedthis ratio, as described above, to projemated number of jobs in 2016 (31,888) is multiplied ct nonresidential square footage forward. The esti by the square footage per employee (319). This produces a total of 10,173,758 nonresidential square feet in 2016. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the future nonresidential square feet. 29 This ratio per is quare footage per employee may 319 square feeteet pchange over time, and can be adjusted in future impact fee updates. The 3er ethe study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, MAGE 9 Exhibit 2 below shows the current and projected nonresidential development square feet. Exhlbltt 2e Current and Projected �9o�lre�laleru�lsll Development Total in 2006 Total in 2016 Difference (2006 to 2016) ,10"residential Square Feet 6,544,830 10,173, 758 3,628,928 Note: (1) Assumes that nonresidential square footage grows in proportion to employment (319 square feet per employee). Source: COMPASS, Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Areas and TraflicAnalyshs Zones (Excel Employment by Demographhc worksheet, Updated 3/21/2006), Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Using the methodology described above, the increase in nonresidential square footage from 2006 to 2016 is approximately 3.6 million square feet. Impact Fee Calculation Considerations The fees calculated under the CIP approach were based on the following: ® City investments in police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements projected to be built from 2006 through 2016; ® An allocation of investment to residential and nonresidential development, based on new residential dwelling units and nonresidential square footage; and ® A fee calculation that involves dividing the appropriate share of capital improvements by projected residential units and nonresidential square feet. Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CIP approach estimates future capital improvement investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The Impact Fee Act calls for the CIP to "... project demand for system improvements required by new service units ... over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 yeas•s30 The impact fee study team recommends a 10 -year time period based on the City's best available capital planning data. " See Section 67-8208(1)(h). BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 10 The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth over the next 10 years at existing service levels. Equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more is also impact fee eligible under the Impact Fee Act. The total cost of improvements over the 10 years is referred to as the "CIP Value" in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories. Because impact fees are calculated for three impact fee categories in this study (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation), 33 percent of the study's cost is included in all calculations. Additionally, for the parks and recreation CIP (the only fee category with a fund balance), the City's current parks and recreation impact fee fund balance is subtracted from the total CIP value. The existing fund balance will be used to pay for a portion of the future capital improvements and will therefore decrease the amount needed to be collected from future impact fees. In the study team's judgment, the City is obligated to expend this existing fund balance on pre -planned growth -related capital improvements before spending future impact fee receipts on newly identified projects in the following CIPs.32 The forward-looking 10 -year CIPS for the fire, police, and parks and recreation departments each include some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth (e.g., the fire training tower, fire and police command vehicle, fire ladder truck and the.firing range). The study team met with each department to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. The four capital improvements mentioned immediately above are calculated to be 31 percent growth - related. The 3,1 percent ratio is calculated by dividing the accumulated new square footage between 2006 and 2016 (residential and nonresidential) by the total square footage in 2016.33 This percentage is attributed to growth under the philosophy that growth caused the need for such facilities and vehicles, and this growth also necessitates building a proportionately larger facility to accommodate additional personnel (which would otherwise not be necessary with theexisting population). The firing range, fire ladder truck, training tower and command vehicle should be sized according to population and peak period demand. The City needs to size these facilities and vehicles to be able to accommodate the demand created by the current residents and the demand of future residents. It should be understood that growth will be paying only a portion of the cost of these facilities. The City will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of these partially growth -related capital improvements with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent. As discussed later in this report, the value of this City participation investment is approximately $14.7 million over the next ten years, or approximately $1.5 million per year. This investment includes $11.9 million of discretionary funding in connection with purely non -growth - The Advisory Committee has discussed the extent to which "equipment," as opposed to "land and buildings," can be considered capital improvements eligible for impact fee consideration. Some Advisory Committee members expressed discomfort with personal property being impact fee eligible, but the Impact Fee Act allows a broad range of improvements to be considered as "capital" improvements, so long as the improvements have useful life of at least 10 years and also increase the service capacity of public facilities. See Sections 67-8203(28) and 50-1703, Idaho Code. ' "Collected development impact fees must be expended within eight (8) years from the date they were collected, on a first - in, first -out (FIFO) basis ...." See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. Funds collected prior to July 1, 2006, must be expended within five (5) years from the date they were collected, on a first -in, first -out (FIFO) basis. 33 The residential square footage is described in Exhibit 1 and the nonresidential square footage is described in Exhibit 2. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 11 related improvements, and $2.8 million of capital improvements, portions of which are not growth - related and therefore must be funded from the City's General Funds. These £ands could come from City revenues, donations, grants or other partnerships. It should also be noted that certain CIP capital improvements are listed in the following exhibits as zero percent growth -related because City staff relayed that the proposed capital improvements were actually either entirely repair and replacement of existing facilities or represented an upgrade in service levels not triggered by new growth. These non -growth -related capital improvements are listed, nonetheless, in the CIP because municipalities often use the CIP for planning purposes, not just to calculate impact fees. Meridian may find this inclusion in the CIP exhibits useful. Levels ®f service. Levels of service (sometimes referred to in this study as "service level(s)") must be defined in the capital improvement element of the Comprehensive Plan, and is the basis for establishing additional service capacity need in any system that serves new development. "Level of service" is "... a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public facilities."' Service levels need to be stated in quantifiable, specific terms, since they measure the benefit new development receives for payment of impact fees. The capital improvement element must clearly identify existing public facilities and service levels and identify any shortfalls in service levels, if at all. Any such shortfall or "deficiency" that Meridian intends to overcome for both existing and new development cannot be funded with impact fees. Likewise, the cost of raising the service level for existing and future development beyond the current service level is ineligible for impact fee funding. If Meridian desires to use impact fees to achieve a higher service level for new development than existing service levels, Meridian must, outside of impact fees, raise the money to bring the existing community to that higher service level as well. This restriction has a general effect of restraining the setting of unreasonably high standards and fees solely for new development. All of the capital improvement costs in the CIPS on the following pages represent improvements that are needed for growth to maintain the current level of service. The City may be operating at a less than desirable level (i.e., operating with deficiencies). In the future, the City may plan to increase the level of service. If this is the case, any capital improvements that increase the current level of service are not impact fee eligible and have been purposely excluded from the calculations. Specifically, the police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. The police department's targeted level of service, however, is one officer per 3.75 square miles. Therefore, the department is operating at a deficiency of .75 officers per square mile. The department does intend to increase the current level of service to the 3.75 officers per square mile. Because this is an increase in the level of service, any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation. 34 See Section 67-8203(17), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 12 The fire department, on the other hand, is not currently operating at a deficient level of service. The current and targeted level of fire service is to respond to 90 percent of all calls within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710. The fire department plans on continuing this level of service; therefore, all growth -related capital improvements in the CIP represent a continuation of the current level of service and are impact fee eligible. Akin to the fire department, the parks and recreation department is not currently operating at a deficient level of service. The total number of currently developed acres is 183.92, which equates to 2.78 acres per 1,000 population. At 2.78 acres per 1,000 population, and a projected 2016 population of 105,411 (including area of impact), the parks department needs to add 109 acres over 10 years to keep the current service standard (2.78 x 105.4 = 293 acres minus the existing 183.92 acres = 109 acres). Current police assets. As is evident, the provisions of the Impact Fee Act significantly limit the City's use of impact fees. This is particularly true for police service because most costs of serving new development involve adding police officers or patrol vehicles that are not impact fee eligible, even though the demand for added persofinetand vehicles might be a direct result of new development. Exhibit 3 lists the current police assets. The police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. Exhibit 3. Current Police /Assets Source: City of Meridian Police Department. Type of tapiiall Ir►Spruverrrent Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) Animal Shelter Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios) K-9 Training Facility K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) The one officer per 4.5 square mile service standard equates to a current investment of $106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). Police Capital ImProvement Plan. Exhibit 4 on the following page lists the future capital improvements that are necessary to maintain the current level of service (i.e., one officer per 4.5 square mile) for future residential units and nonresidential development. Capital improvements not included in the fee calculation include any investments that assist in the augmentation of the service level to the point of reaching the goal of one officer per 3.75 square miles. The exhibit presents $1.3 Million of future capital improvements that are eligible for inclusion in the police impact fee calculation. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "CIP Value" tunes the "Growth -Related Portion" times the "Shared Facility" percentage. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 13 0 • € NNIOM 4, TYPe of a6nproveinent _ CIP _ Growth -Related Value SharedFacIRtY Amount to dam' Portion 9eej equals Include (n Infrastructure (2006 to 2016) Firing Range - Semi -Enclosed Building Patrol Facility Expansion Animal Shelter Expansion Firing Range Land (25 Acres) (t1 Police Substation in Fire Station #6 (b Police Substation in Fire Station 07 (2) Police Communications Equipment (14 Radios) Police Substation in Fire Station 05 (3) Command Vehicle (4) Totai2006-Z0i6;cip Fee -Related Research Impact Fee Study 832 500 100% Grand Total ' 33% $10,833 $2,000,000 3148 10048 $157,248 10096 10053 8626,374 8157,248 $140,000 10046 100% $140,000 $275,000 31% 100% 81,470,000 100% 886,126 5% 873,500 $1,470,000 100% 5% $63,280 10045 1000,5 $73,500 $1,120,000 100% 863,280 5% $56,000 $200,000 31% 50% $31,319 $1,304347 Note: (1) Cost per acre of land is $i I0,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre at this point in time. (2) Total cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Station #5. Facilities are shared with the fire department (3) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #5; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with fire department (4) Command Vehicle is shared with the fire department Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The police CIP in Exhibit 4 includes five percent of the growth -related costs of three new fire stations. This modest cost allocation is intended to pay for a small police office in each fire station where personnel can write reports and interact with citizens. Similarly, the police CIP includes 50 percent of the growth -related cost of a new command vehicle that will be shared equally with the fire department, and should therefore bare a proportionate share of the cost. Finally, the Impact Fee Act allows the inclusion of equipment in the impact fee calculation, as long as the usefi l life of such equipment is 10 years or more. The police department has quantified the number of additional radios needed from 2006 to 2016 to support new officers required by new growth, and asserts that, based on historic usage, the department uses radios for 10 years or more before retiring these radios. The cost per acre for the firing range ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land that is priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. 35 Most of the capital improvements on the police CIP, as in the other CIPS in this study, are allocated 100 percent to new growth. There was discussion among the Advisory Committee members as to whether these capital improvements, which are in use throughout the service area or in the case of parks, potentially in use by all residents of the service area, should be completely allocated to new growth. There will be incidental benefits to existing development in connection with capita! improvements paid for by new development (and vice versa). These incidental benefits will not undermine the impact fee scheme. See Section 67-8204(23), Idaho Code. The Advisory Committee may want to discuss this issue further and either leave the fee as proposed or recommend that the fee be adjusted downward to accommodate any unknown incidental benefit. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 14 0 0 Current fire assets. The fire department responds to 90 percent of all calls for service within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710, and is the department's current and . future level of service. Exhibit S presents the current fire assets. Exhibit S. Current Fire Assets Type Of Capital improvement Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq. fL Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. fL Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. fL Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077, sq. fL Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 sq. ft. Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) 1986 Pierce Engine (306) 1993 Pierce Engine (304), 2000 Pierce Engine (302) 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 2006 Pierce Engine (301) 2000 International Water Tender (320) 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) 1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342) 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) Equipment Opticorn Traffic Signal Controls 16 Vehicle Radios 4 Base Station Radios Source: City of Meridian Fire Department The current level of service equates to a current investment of $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 15 (0) This Ordinance creates a system under which Impact Fees shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies in Public Facilities, or to replace or rehabilitate existing Public Facilities, or to pay for routine operation or maintenance of those Public Facilities. (p) This Ordinance is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, concerning Impact Fee Ordinances. 10-07-02 — Authority AWli.cabili and Effective Date (a) This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's general police powers pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Title 50, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (b) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all of the territory within the limits of the City and to any unincorporated areas of the City within the City's area of city impact where the City has executed an intergovernmental agreement with .Ada, County for purposes of collection or expenditure of Impact Fees pursuant to Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code, and other applicable laws of the State of Idaho. (c) This Ordinance is effective (the "Effective Date"), which Effective Date is at least thirty (30) days subsequent to the passage, approval and publication, according to law, of Ordinance No. , which adopted the provisions hereof. (d) Applications for Building Permits received by the City prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendments hereto, adopting Impact Fees or amending or adopting any methodology by which Impact Fees are calculated, will be exempt from that portion of this Ordinance, or amendment enacted after such Building Permit application, if a valid Building Permit has been issued or construction has commenced prior to the Effective Date ofthis Ordinance, or amendment. For Building Permits that expire or are revoked after the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the Feepayor shall be entitled to a refund of previously paid Impact Fees as provided further in Section 10-07-07, Meridian Code, provided that in the case of reapplication for Building Permit, the Impact Fee in effect at that time shall be paid. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Development Requirements for System Improvements shall be imposed by the City only byway ofImpact Fees imposed pursuant to and in accordance with Section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, and this Ordinance. 10-07-03 — Intent (a) The intent of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City and its area of city impact. (b) The intent of this Ordinance is to be consistent with those principles for alloca share of the cost of Capital Improvements to Public Facilities to serve new ting a fair in compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. The provisions t Of this Ordinance shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (c) The intent of this Ordinance is that Impact Fees should be charged, collecte for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital d, and expended Improvements to increase the service capacity of such categories ofPublic Facilities, which Capital Improvements are included in approved Capital Improvements Plans that list the Capital Improvements that may be funded with Impact Fees. (d) The intent of this Ordinance is to ensure that: Public Facilities are available to serve new growth and development; new growth and development bears a Proportionate Share of the cost of Police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities; to ensure that such Proportionate Share does not exceed the cost of the Capital Improvements to such Pubic I Facilities required, to serve new growth, and development; and to ensure that the hands collected or Capital Improvements for Public Facilities that from new growth and development are used f benefit new growth and development. (e) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to collect any monies from new growth and development in excess of the actual amount necessary Improvements to Public Facilities created by such new growth and development.et new nds for Capital W It is not the intent of this Ordinance that the Impact Fees be used to remedy any deficiency in police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements existing on the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or ever be used to replace, rehabilitate, maintain and/or operate any Public Facilities. (g) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that any monies collected from an Impact Fee deposited in an Impact Fee fund ever be commingled with monies from a different fund, or ever be used for Capital Improvements that are different from those for which the Impact Fee was paid. (h) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that Impact Fees be used for: (1) Construction, acquisition or expansion of Public Facilities other than Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (2) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements. (3) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to r existing Development in order to meet stricter safseety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. (4) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development to provide better service to existing Development. (5) Administrative and operating costs of the City unless such costs are attributable t development of the Capital Improvements Plans used to determine Impact Fees Fees by o surcharge imposed by ordinance on, the collection of an Impact Fee, which surch not exceed a Development's Proportionate Share of the cost of preparing targe shall he Capital Improvements Plans. (6) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-04 — Definitions (a) "Affordable Housing" means housing affordable to families whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the Service Area. (b) "Building Permit" means an official document or certificate by that name issued by the City authorizing the construction or siting of any building. (c) "Capital Improvements" means improvements with a use life often (10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a Public Facility. (d) "Capital Improvements Element" means a component of a comprehensive plan. (e) "Capital Improvements Plan" means a plan adopted pursuant to this Chapter that identifies Capital Improvements for which Impact Fees may be used as a funding source. M "City" means the City of Meridian;. Idaho. (S) "City Council" means the legislative body of the City of Meridian, Idaho. (h) "Developer" means any person or legal entity undertaking development, including a party that undertakes the subdivision of property pursuant to Sections 50-1301 through 50-1334, Idaho Code and 11-6, Meridian Code. (i) "Development" means any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. 0) "Development Approval" means any written authorization from a Governmental Entity which authorizes the commencement of a Development. (k) "Development Requirement" means a requirement attached to a Development Approval or Other governmental action approving or authorizing a particular Development including, without limitation, a rezoning, which Development Requirement compels the payment, dedication or contribution of goods, services, land and/or money as a condition of approval. (1) "Dwelling Unit,, means a building or portion of a building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy, and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling Unit includes a Multifamily building, a mobile home, a Manufactured Home, a Modular Building and/or a motel/hotel/rooming house. (m) "Extraordinary Costs" means those costs incurred as a result of Extraordinary Impact. (n) "Extraordinary Impact" means an impact which is reasonably determined by the City to: result in the need for police, fire, and parks and/or recreation System Improvements, the cost of APPENDIX A. Minimum Standards *evelorIm-pac't Fees Ordinances 0 . FAFe Capital 19ihlpFmv(@61 ent Man. The fire department is not currently operating with deficiencies. The fire department plans on continuing this level of service, responding to 90 percent of all calls for service within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). Therefore, all growth -related capital improvements in the CIP represent the continuation of the current level of service and are impact fee eligible. Exhibit 6 reflects the future fire capital improvements needed to maintain the current level of fire service. Exhibit 6, Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2 to 2016 Type acapItal Improvement ap value Growth times- Shared Facility Amount to Portion times (06 lei fee) equah Include In Fees Buildings Fire Station #5 (11 $1,120,000 100% 95% $1,064,000 Fire Station #6 (� $1,470,000 100% 950A $1,396,500 Fire Station #7 2) $1,470,000 100% 95% $1,396,500 Training Tower $480,000 31% 100010 $150,330 Vehicles 3 New Engines (One per Station #5 through #7) $1230,000 100% 100% $1,230,000 Ladder Truck $760,000 31% 100% $238,022 Additional Staff Vehicles $67,500 100% 100% $67500 Additional Squad Vehicles $65,000 100% 100% $65,000 Command Vehicle (3) $200,000 31% 50% $31,319 Equipment Additional Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $190,000 100% 100% $190,000 Additional Base Radios $15,900 100% 100% $15,900 Additional Vehicle Radios $12,051 100% 100% $12,051 Additional Vehicle Extrication Equipment $60,000 0% Additional SCBA $57,000 0% 100% 100% S0 $0 Additional Thermal Imaging Cameras $45,000 0% Total $7,242,451 100% $0 $5.857,122 - Fee -Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 � 0 33% $10{833 Grand Total $7,274,951 $3,867,955 Notes: (1) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #5; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with police department (2) Total cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Fire Station #5. Facilities are shared with the police department. (3) Command Vehicle is shared with the police department. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with Fire Chief 4/10/06 and Impact Fee Study Team. The City is expected to purchase $7.3 million dollars in fire capital improvements, $5.9 million of which is impact fee eligible from 2006 to 2016. This amount includes 95 percent of the growth - related costs of three new fire stations (the remaining 5 percent reflects the cost of police offices in the station). Fifty percent of the growth -related cost of a new command vehicle will be shared with the police department, which should thus bare a proportionate share of the Cost.36 w There was some discussion within the Advisory Committee that setting the CIP value, for a Cue truck, for example, at its brand new replacement cost, is not appropriate because the City could buy used trucks. We believe the consensus of the Committee was that the City's policy to purchase new equipment would continue. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 16 0 0 Current Parks and recreation assets. The total number of currently developed park acres is 183.92, which equates to a service standard of 2.78 acres per 1,000 population. Exhibit 7 lists the City's current parks and recreation assets that are responsible for the 2.78 acres per 1,000 population service standard. Exhibit 7. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, Type Of Capital improvement Paths & Trails Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre) Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) Neighborhood & Mini -Parks Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres) Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres) Season's Park (7 Acres) Chateau Park (6.75 Acres) 8th Street Park (4 Acres) Champion Park (6 Acres) Centennial Park (0.5 Acres) Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres) Cox Monument (0.25 Acres) Community Parks Heroes Park (30 Acres) Tully Park (18.5 Acres) Bear Creek Park (18.5 Acres) Storey Park (15 Acres) Urban Parks Meridian Settler's Park Developed (53 Acres) Source: City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. The level of service for parks and recreation equates to a current investment of $1,612 per residential unit (See Appendix D for calculation). BBCESRR EA CR H & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 17 C1 • Parrs and Recreation Capital improvementt Han. Currently, Meridian's 10 -year population growth would justify slightly more than 109 acres of new parks and recreation capital improvements at the current 2.78 developed acres per thousand population level of service, as described on page . 37 13.Any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation. Exhibit 8 below lists the future capital improvements necessary to maintain the current level of parks and recreation service in the future. Exhibit R, Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plane, 2006 t® 201638 Type of Capita( improvement Pathways & Trails Pathway Landscaping and Improvements (FY 2010) Neighborhood ✓k Mint -Parks (1) (2) 4 New Neighborhood Parks (7.5 Acres Each) Community Parks (a) 1 New Community Park (33 Acres) Hero's Park Development (Sherr, Playgrounds, Tennis Courts) Storey Park - Acquisition and Development of 1.44 Acres (4)' Large Urban Parks (s) 1 New Large Urban Park (45 Acres) Meridian SeWw's Pads - Final Phase Development Parks Amenities Community Center Aquatics Center Equipment 2 Mowers (1 Replacement and 1 Addhtonal Mower) Totallintc - F—Related Research Impact Fee study Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2006 Beginning Fund Balance 'Grand Totef S32,500 100% $800,150 100% $3%176,SS6 Arnountto' equals Indade In Fees 100% $o 100% $2,550,000 100% $6,435,000 100% $500,000 100% $277,100 1009b $8,775,000 1009b $425,W0 100% $0 100% $0 10095 $0 $18,962,100 3396 $10,833 1009b $800,150 $t8,172,783. - Note: (1) Land to be donated through development agreement and thus a likely source of impact fee credits. (2) $85,000 per acre in development costs based on recent City construction history. (3) $195,000/acre in land and development costs ($110,000/acre average plus $85,000 in development costs). (4) Addition to existing park - acquired to retain connectivity to future growth/neighborhoods. (5) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with parks and recreation staff and Impact Fee Study team. Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $30.2 million, of which over $18.2 million is impact fee eligible. 37 At the end of fiscal year 2004' the City was at a service level of 1.92 developed acres per thousand population. The increase in the leve! of service in the short time since 2004 is a result of several donations. Although some of the park acres are not developed today, the Finance Department advised the study team that the City has allocated funds to develop these park acres by the end of this year, which will bring the service level to 2.78 developed acres per thousand population. " The CIP breaks down the types of parks facilities (i.e., pathways and trails; neighborhood and mini -parks; community parks; and large urban parks. However, the calculation for impact fees (see page 23) lumps all parks facilities together. There has been some discussion by the members of the Advisory Committee to the effect that the impact fee calculations should also be broken down into four parts, i.e., and the added together for the total parks impact fee. The Advisory Committee should discuss. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 18 crawOt value VMS Portion - mnes $75,000 D% $2,550,000 100% $6,435,000 100% $SW•000 100% $554200 50% $8,775,000 100% $425,000 100% $10,000,000 0% $1,500,000 D% $130,000 0% $30.944,200:: .. S32,500 100% $800,150 100% $3%176,SS6 Arnountto' equals Indade In Fees 100% $o 100% $2,550,000 100% $6,435,000 100% $500,000 100% $277,100 1009b $8,775,000 1009b $425,W0 100% $0 100% $0 10095 $0 $18,962,100 3396 $10,833 1009b $800,150 $t8,172,783. - Note: (1) Land to be donated through development agreement and thus a likely source of impact fee credits. (2) $85,000 per acre in development costs based on recent City construction history. (3) $195,000/acre in land and development costs ($110,000/acre average plus $85,000 in development costs). (4) Addition to existing park - acquired to retain connectivity to future growth/neighborhoods. (5) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with parks and recreation staff and Impact Fee Study team. Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $30.2 million, of which over $18.2 million is impact fee eligible. 37 At the end of fiscal year 2004' the City was at a service level of 1.92 developed acres per thousand population. The increase in the leve! of service in the short time since 2004 is a result of several donations. Although some of the park acres are not developed today, the Finance Department advised the study team that the City has allocated funds to develop these park acres by the end of this year, which will bring the service level to 2.78 developed acres per thousand population. " The CIP breaks down the types of parks facilities (i.e., pathways and trails; neighborhood and mini -parks; community parks; and large urban parks. However, the calculation for impact fees (see page 23) lumps all parks facilities together. There has been some discussion by the members of the Advisory Committee to the effect that the impact fee calculations should also be broken down into four parts, i.e., and the added together for the total parks impact fee. The Advisory Committee should discuss. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 18 0 0 Impact fees are calculated using the costs summarized in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8 and the demographic information from previous exhibits. As required by the Impact Fee Act, prior to fee adoption, the Advisory Committee must consider the following factors: ® the means by which existing system improvements have been financed (for example, if grant money has been consistently used to finance system improvements, it may be reasonable to postulate that this will continue in the future); ® the extent to which new development will contribute to financing system improvements through (past and future) taxes, assessments and contributions; ® the extent to which new development has provided system improvements, without charge, for other properties in the service area; ® extraordinary costs incurred by the City in serving new development; and ® the availability of other sources of funding for system improvements (e.g., local improvement district assessments, general tax levies)." ® Upon consideration of all these factors, the Advisory Committee may recommend that the City Council adjust the maximum allowable impact fee.40 !Future land use assumptions. Exhibit 9 displays the City's incremental increase (from 2006 to 2016) in square footage distributed between residential and nonresidential land uses. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate capital improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses. Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016 Note: (1) May not total due to rounding. Source: City of Meridian and impact Fee Study Team. &ancjuse _"tegc t3+ Feet of Tofa 39 See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code. 40 'These factors are to be considered while the City is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the adoption of an impact fee, credits may be calculated on a project -by -project basis in connection with an individual assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 19 1. 7,63-2,240 Single Family 11,499,069 49% Multifamily 8,133,171 35% Nonresidential ": 31i2$,-9'28 16ae Total (1) 23,261,168 100% 39 See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code. 40 'These factors are to be considered while the City is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the adoption of an impact fee, credits may be calculated on a project -by -project basis in connection with an individual assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 19 In 2016, the City's residential development is expected to increase by 19,632,240 square feet, and the nonresidential development is estimated to increase by 3,628,928 square feet. Therefore, the future allocation of land uses is projected to be 84 percent residential and 16 percent nonresidential. The study team has calculated all impact fees per residential unit, regardless of unit type, and per nonresidential square foot, regardless of type. The study team does not recommend imposing fees at a more detailed level of analysis (i.e., fee differentials for single family and multifamily units and differentials for commercial, agricultural and industrial square footage). In our judgment, such distinctions are unwarranted by empirical evidence. After allocating costs to the appropriate land -uses, impact fees for residential and nonresidential development are calculated by dividing the residential service costs by new residential units, and by dividing nonresidential service costs by new nonresidential square footage. Police Impact fees. Exhibit 10 presents police impact fees of $85 per residential unit and $0.06 per nonresidential square foot. This represents the maximum allowable impact fee under Idaho's Impact Fee Act. Exhibit 10. Police Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan for alist of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Calculation of InlipacC Fees Future Value of Police Capital Improvements (7) $1,318,180 Future Land Use Percentage (2) Residential 84% Nonresidential 16% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $1,112,544 Nonresidential $205,636 Growth to 2016 Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $85 Nonres%cten#al (per squarefoat). $01.06 The study team used the current service standard as a benchmark to double check the forward- looking CIP approach. The team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts are quite similar to Meridian's current investment in police infrastructure ($106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot — see Appendix D). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10 -Year Police CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. One reason that the CIP-based fees are lower than the City's current level of investment is that Meridian's K-9 Facility is not planned for expansion as growth occurs. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 20 0 0 Fire Impact fees. Exhibit 11 calculates the impact fees for fire capital improvements based on the future growth projections and anticipated future capital improvement costs described in earlier exhibits. Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee Calculation. Notes: (1) See Exhibit 6. Fre Capital Improvement Pian for a list of GP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016. Source: City of Meridian and impact Fee Study Team. Iact Files Value of Future Fire Capital Improvements (1) $5,862,455 Future Land Use Percentage i2i Residential 84% Nonresidential 16% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $4,952,554 Nonresidential $915,401 Growth to 2016 Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) ResidenliaE(perciwellir unit) $37 Plontes3drrbai (firstfrefooi) $4,25 The maximum allowable impact fees for fire capital improvements total $377 per new residential unit and $0.25 per new nonresidential square foot. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts are quite similar to Meridian's current investment in fire infrastructure ($362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot). It is to be expected that the maximum allowable fees slightly exceed this current level of investment. Natural cost increases in providing the same level of service and the addition of several new types of infrastructure triggered by growth, but not wholly applicable to growth, increase the fixture investment in fire infrastructure. The anticipated construction of the fire training tower is, in part, responsible for higher fire fees as compared to the current investment in Appendix D. The fire training tower is a large capital improvement unlike any current fire investment. Because growth has triggered the need for this facility, a portion of the cost of the fire training tower is impact fee eligible. Current investment does not reflect any such type of large improvement, which explains why the fees under the CIP approach are higher. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 21 Faplks and recreation impact fees. Parks and recreation impact fees are shown in Exhibit 12, which is based on Exhibit 8 and demographic projections. Parks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential devel2i?ment since households are the primary consumers of park services. Exhibit 12. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016. Source: City of Meridian and impact Fee Study Team. Calculation a Impact fees_ Future Value of Parks & Recreation Capital Improvements (1) $18,172,783 Future Land Use Percentage Residential 100% Nonresidential 0% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $18,172,783 Nonresidential $0 Growth to 2016 Residential (total dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded) Resisleritial (per dw+e- ing unit) $10384 Nonresidential (per- square foot) NIA The maximum allowable impact fee for parks and recreation capital improvements is $1,384 for any new residential unit. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amount is quite similar to Meridian's current investment in parks and recreation infrastructure ($1,612 per residential unit). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10 -Year Parks and Recreation CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. The current parks and recreation impact fee, as of June 1, 2005, totaled $763.16 for a single family unit and $694 per multifamily unit. If the City adopts the new fees at the maximum amount shown in the exhibit above, the fees would increase 81 percent for single family units and 99 percent for multifamily units. An increase in fees of this magnitude is not uncommon and is justifiable if the nexus between the new development and future capital improvements remains intact. It is the study team's belief that the analysis of demographic data and Capital Improvement Plans has been thorough and that the rational nexus required by law has been maintained. It should also be noted that a portion of the fee difference is due to the dramatic increase in the cost of parkland in Meridian. The City's current parks impact fee, for example, is based on an assumed land price and subsequent development cost significantly less than the $110,000 and $85,000 per acre, respectively, reflected in Exhibit 8. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 22 0 city Participation • Because not all the capital improvements listed in the CIPS are 100 percent growth -related, the City would assume the responsibility of paying for the portion of the capital improvements that are not' attributable to new growth. These payments would come from existing funds, donations and/or ongoing revenue sources that are not tied directly to growth. To arrive at the City participation amount, the expected impact fee revenue and any shared facility amount need to be subtracted from the total CIP value. Exhibits 13 through 18 calculate the City's participation between 2006 and 2016. The participation amount includes the cost of purely non - growth -related improvements, and portions of growth -related improvements that are attributable to repair, replacement, or upgrade, and not impact fee eligible. Exhibit 13. City Participation — Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 CiP . Cik ount to- Snared �- Yatiie less finciude in Fees t� dess FaciiityAmount C equals Particrpatlorr $6,928,028 - $1,318,180 - $3,978,667 _ $1,631,181 Note: (1) Directly from Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (2) Calculated from Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount of repair/replacement/upgrade capital improvements and the non -growth amount required by the LIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. If the City adopts the maximum police fees as calculated in this report, the City would potentially be responsible for approximately $1.6 million in police capital improvements. The City's participation would ensure that police service levels in Meridian do not decline. Again, the City's participation amount does not include ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and replacement costs that will also be borne by the City and not paid by impact fees.1 Exhibits 14, 16 and 18 on the following pages further analyze the City's participation amount by separating the City's total participation amount into two categories: the purely non -growth improvements total, and the non -growth improvements total attributed to portions of impact fee eligible improvements. " There was some discussion in the Advisory Committee meetings of phasing -in the amount of the impact fees over a number of months or years. The Advisory Committee may decide to recommend this course. However, the City would be required to fund (using sources other than impact fees) an amount equal to the difference between the total adopted impact fee and the amount of the phased impact fee. The concept of phasing -in the impact fees over time should not be confused with the effective date" of the impact fee ordinance. By law, the ordinance will not be effective for a grace period of thirty (30) days following adoption. Some Committee members have raised the possibility of extending this grace period, this should be discussed by the entire Advisory Committee. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 23 0 • It should be noted that the participation amount associated with purely non -growth improvements is discretionary. The City can choose not to fund these capital improvements (although this could result in a decrease in the level of service if the deferred repairs or replacements were urgent). However, the non -growth -related portion of improvements that are impact fee eligible must be funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program. Exhibit 14. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan Dollar Amount Amount attributable to purely non -growth -related improvements (discretionary) $p Amount attributable to the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $1,631,181 Total $1,631,181 Source: Impact Fee Study Team. To maintain the current level of service, one officer per 4.5 square miles, the City must contribute $1.6 million between 2006 and 2016. The City must contribute this amount since the capital improvements reflect the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. At the time this study was completed, no police capital improvements were purely non -growth. Therefore, the City must fund the entirety of the calculated participation amount. Exhibit 15 presents the City's participation in fire capital improvements, comprised of capital improvements that are repair, replacement or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Exhibit IS. City Participation — Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 20116 Op Ae>liseunt to Shared city, Value ? less ° include Ile Fees t�) less FacilityA[etouret (z) equals Participation (3} $7,274,951 - $5,867,955 - $324,667 = $1,082,329 NOCe: (1) Directlyfrom Exhibit 6. FireCapital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (2) Calculated from Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non -growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Based on the maximum fire impact fees calculated in this report, the City's participation amount could total just over $1 million. BBC RESEARCH lit CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 24 • Exhibit 16 below distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are repair, replacement, or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required finding). Exhibit 16. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan Source: Impact Fee Study Team. In the above analysis, the City has the discretion to contribute $162,000 toward capital improvements that are purely non -growth -related. In order for the impact fee study to maintain its integrity, however, the City must contribute approximately $920,000 to the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. Exhibit 17 outlines the dollar amount that the City should contribute, in addition to impact fee receipts, to parks and recreation capital improvements between 2006 and 2016. Exhibit 17. City Participation — Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 f IP Sr►wunE fia are, ' t(aiue t11 less teidude Ito Fees (t} /mss . ity"mount t2) eayuar/s. Partidpaion (#� $30,176,550 - $18,172,783 - $21,667 $11,982,100 •_•-• s , ..1—, ..o... umn¢ a. rants ana Kecreanon Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (2) Calculated from Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non -growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 25 Exhibit 18 distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are purely non -growth -related (discretionary funding) and improvements that reflect the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvernents (required funding). Exhibit 18. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan Dollar - Amount Amount attributable to purely non -growth -related improvements (discretionary) $11,705,000 Amount attributable to the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $277,100 Total $11,982,100 Source: Impact Fee Study Team. Of the $12 million of calculated City participation, $11.7 million is discretionary because the associated capital improvements have been defined as purely non -growth -related. However, $277,000 of the City's participation is required in order for the impact fee analysis to remain whole. Cash Flow Analysis It is important for the City to assess revenues that would be generated by the maximum allowable impact fees as presented in this study, prior to further consideration by the Advisory Committee. Exhibit 19 below displays the impact fee cash flow from 2006 to 2016, using the fees calculated by the CIP methodology. Exhibit 19. Projected Cash Plows — CIP Methodology Pn•4jected Cash Flow 2007 2011 2016 Projected New Residential Units 1,313 6,567 13,134 Projected New Nonresidential Square Feet 362,893 1,814,464 3,628,928 Cumulative Cash Flow $2,537,077 $12,685,386 $25,370,771 —1— may or menaian and impact Fee Study Team. If impact fees were adopted at the maximum amounts, the City would collect just over $25 million in impact fee revenues from 2006 though 2016. This amount is mathematically designed to finance the entire growth -related portion of Meridian's CIP. RBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 26 Other Funding Sources Impact fees are just one of several funding sources for capital improvements. No one source is likely to fund all of the identified fwblic facility needs. The City must be committed to addressing and alleviating deficiencies in service levels and addressing the expansion of service levels through exploration in connection with the following, without limitation, possible funding sources: General Fund: The City's General Fund takes in revenues and makes expenditures for the ongoing operation of City functions. ® General Obligation Bonds: With these bonds, the City borrows money for public facility development to be repaid with funds generated by an increase in property taxes. These voter -approved (two-thirds of all voters required) bonds establish an increase in property taxes for a period of time (typically 20 — 30 years) necessary to repay the bonds. The money raised can only be used for capital improvements and cannot be used for maintenance. ® Revenue Bonds: Revenue bonds may, be issued based on leasehold values of land, facilities and operating entities that create a specific cash flow used to repay the bonds. Voter approval is required. ® Certificates of Participation: With this option, the City would sell COPs to a lending institution in return for a loan used to make improvements in connection with a public facility. The lender would securitize the loan by taking title to the facility prior to the repayment of the COPS. The loan is repaid from revenue generated by the facility or from the City's general operating budget. This option is subject to judicial approval. ® Grants: Grants are available from a variety of sources, including private foundations and government resources. ® Joint Public/Private Partnership: This approach to funding would entail the City entering into a working agreement with a quasi -public or private entity to help fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 27 Implementation Recommendatlans As the City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Improvement Plans and impact fees, we also offer the following information for your consideration. Please note that this informadbn will be included in the City's impact fee enabling ordinance (Appendix B). Capital Improvements Plan. Should the Advisory Committee recommend this study to the City Council and should the City Council adopt the study, the Finance Department should revise the City's existing Capital Improvement Plans using the information in this study. The existing City Capital Improvement Plans for these departments is attached to the study as Appendix H. A revised capital improvement plan would then be presented to the City for adoption as an element of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the procedures of the Local Land Use Planning Act.42 Impact Fee Ordinance. Following adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City should review the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance (Appendix B) for adoption as reviewed and recommended by the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is in a unique position to work with and advise several departments and the City Council to ensure that the capital improvement plans and impact fees are routinely reviewed and modified as appropriate. Impact fee service area. Some municipalities have fee differentials for various city zones under the assumption that some areas utilize more or less current and future capital improvements. The study team, however, does not recommend the City assess different fees by dividing the City into zones. Police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements.inherently serve a system -wide function. If, for example, a serious accident occurs in one part of the City, the fire department may call on engines and equipment from other stations to assist. Therefore, it is more appropriate not to differentiate fees based on City zones. In practice, all areas of the City have an equal demand on the infrastructure because the parks, fire, and police department function most efficiently on a system- wide basis. Donations. If the City receives donations for capital improvements listed on the CIP, the City must account for the donation in one of two ways. If the donation is for a non- or partially growth -related improvement, the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms, such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If, however, the donation is for a growth -related project in the CIP, the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Grants. If a grant is expected and regular, the grant amount should be reflected upfront in the fee calculations, meaning that the impact fees will be lower in anticipation of the contribution. If the grant is speculative or uncertain, this should not be reflected up -front in the fee calculations since the City cannot count on those dollars as it undergoes capital planning. 42 See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208(1). BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 28 0 • The rational nexus is still maintained because the unexpected higher fund balance, due to the receipt of a grant, is deducted from the calculations as a "down payment on the CIP" when the fee study is updated. Credit/reimbursement. If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of a growth -related project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees, that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category or, at the developer's choice, be reimbursed from impact fees collected in the future.43 This prevents "double dipping" by the City. The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they made the City aware of the construction or contribution. If credit or reimbursement is due, the City must enter into an agreement with the fee payor that specifies the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement." City participation. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City of Meridian may choose not to adopt the CIPs as stated in this report, in which case the City will need to prepare revised capital improvement plans for review and adoption. Impact fee accounting. The City should continue. to maintain an Impact Fee Fund (already established for the existing parks and recreation fees) separate and apart from the General Fund. All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth -related capital improvements. The City's General Fund should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues, grants, user fees and associated interest earnings, and ongoing operational, expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capita( improvements not related to growth. Spending policy. The City should establish and adhere to a written policy governing its expenditure of monies from the Impact Fee Fund. The Fund should be prohibited from paying for City operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitated by growth. In cases when growth -related capital improvements are constructed, impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capital improvements are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth, cost sharing between the General Fund and Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis. Update procedures. The City is expected to grow very rapidly over the 10 -year span of the CIPs. Therefore, the fees calculated in this study should be updated annually as the City invests in additional infrastructure beyond what is listed in this report, and/or as the City's projected development changes significantly. Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. 43 See Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code. 44 See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Cade. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 29 Ej 0 Using the CIP methodology, the state mandated approach, BBC calculated the total (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation) maximum defensible impact fee for residential units at $1,846 and $0.31 per nonresidential square feet as seen in Exhibit 20 below. This maximum fee is being presented to the Advisory Committee for its review and consideration in light of statutorily identified factors. Exhibit 20. Summary of Impact Few Source: Impact Fee Study Team. Impact Fee category Police Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $85 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.06 Fire Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $377 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.25 Darks 6t Recreation Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,384 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A Totat Fc Residential. (per dwelling unit) $1,846 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.-31 'It is the study team's assessment that the City could reasonably charge impact fees of any amount up to the $1,846 per residential unit and $0.31 per nonresidential square foot. This amount is sufficient to pay for the growth -related portions of Meridian's Capital Improvement Plans. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 30 Summ,WY Of Citi Pffirld¢ipatieim. Exhibit 21 below summarizes the total amount the City is required to contribute and the amount the City could contribute discretionarily over the next 10 years to police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. Exhibit 21. City P81 delpation Summary, 2106 to 2016 Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The total amount the City would be required to contribute over 10 years, should the City adopt fees at the maximum amount, will be approximately $2.8 million. The required $2.8 million reflects the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. The amount attributable to capital improvements defined as purely non -growth equals nearly $11.9 million; the City can choose not to fund this total amount, however, service levels could decrease. If the City plans to fund all repair, replacement or upgrade capital improvements in addition to the required amount, the City will need approximately $14.7 million over the next 10 years. This equates to $1.5 million per year that the City will have to finance by drawing from the General Fund, donations or other revenue sources. However, fairness and maintaining the integrity of the impact fee system require the City to fund just over $280,000 per year in non -growth -related capital improvements that are impact fee eligible BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 31 Fee Cate gory Py aitkl�fation Discretionary Amount (Purely Non -Growth Improvements) Police $0 Fire $162,000 Parks & Recreation $11,705,000 Total $11,867,000 Required Amount (Partially Non -Growth Improvements) Police $1,631,181 Fire $920,329 Parks'& Recreation $277,100 Total $2,828,610 `Grand76taE $14,C95,67i The total amount the City would be required to contribute over 10 years, should the City adopt fees at the maximum amount, will be approximately $2.8 million. The required $2.8 million reflects the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. The amount attributable to capital improvements defined as purely non -growth equals nearly $11.9 million; the City can choose not to fund this total amount, however, service levels could decrease. If the City plans to fund all repair, replacement or upgrade capital improvements in addition to the required amount, the City will need approximately $14.7 million over the next 10 years. This equates to $1.5 million per year that the City will have to finance by drawing from the General Fund, donations or other revenue sources. However, fairness and maintaining the integrity of the impact fee system require the City to fund just over $280,000 per year in non -growth -related capital improvements that are impact fee eligible BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 31 which will significantly exceed the sum of the Impact Fees to be generated .from the Project; or result in the need for police, fire, parks and recreation System Improvements that are not identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (o) "Fee Administrator" means the official appointed by the Mayor with the City Council approval to administer this Chapter. (p) "Feepayor" means a person who pays or is required to pay an Impact Fee or the Feepayor's Successor in Interest. (c) "Governmental Entity" means any unit of local government that is empowered by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, to adopt an Impact Fee ordinance. (r) "Impact Fee" means a payment of money imposed as a condition of Development Approval to pay for a Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements needed to serve Development. The term does not include a charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review or inspection costs associated with permits required for Development. (s) "Impact Fee Study"means the document entitled the "City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July 3, 2006, prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the City. (t) "Land Use Assumptions" means a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a twenty (20) year period. (u) "Level of Service" means a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for Public Facilities. (v) "Manufactured home" means a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or is forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of Rousing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq. (w) "Modular Building" means any building or building component, other than a Manufactured Rome, which is constructed according to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. (x) "Multifamily" means a building or portion thereof, containing two (2) or more Dwelling Units, excluding attached single-family townhouse units located on individual lots. (Y) "Owner" means the person holding legal title to real property, including the local, state or federal government or any subdivision thereof. (z) "Person" means an individual, corporation, governmental agency, business trust, .estate, partnership, association, two or more persons having a j oint or common interest, or any other entity. (aa) "Present Value" means the total current monetary value of past, present or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials, construction or money. (bb) "Project" means a particular Development on an identified parcel of land. (cc) "Project Improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a Project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the Project. (dd) "Proportionate Share" means that portion of the cost of System Improvements determined pursuant to Section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and Section 10-07-05, Meridian Code, which reasonably relates to the service demands for Public Facilities of a Project. (ee) "Public Facility(ies)" means: (1) parks open space and recreation areas, and related Capital Improvements; and (2) public safety facilities, including law enforcement and fire facilities. ( 1) "Service Area" means the territory within the limits of the City and the City's area of city impact. (99) "Successor in Interest" means a Person who gains legal title in real property for which an Impact Fee is paid or a credit is approved pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance. (hh) "System Improvements," in contrast to Project Improvements, means Capital Improvements to Public Facilities that are designed to provide service to a Service Area including, without limitation, the type of improvements the City has the authority to make as described in Section 50- 1703, Idaho Code. "System improvement costs" means costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of system improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs attributable thereto, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in Section 50-1702(h) Idaho Code, to provide additional public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. For clarification, system improvement costs do not include: (i) Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities other than capital improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans; (ii) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements; (iii) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; i • (iv) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to provide better service to existing development; (v) Administrative acid operating costs of the governmental entity unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans, as provided in Section 67-8208, Idaho Code; or (vi) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the governmental entity to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-05— osition and Commitation of Impact Fees (a) Any application for a Building Permit enabling the construction, and in the case of construction that does not require a Building Permit, any building that takes place on or after the Effective Date of this Chapter shall be subject to the imposition of Impact Fees in the manner and amount set forth in this Chapter. The methodology adopted for the purpose of determining police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees shall be based upon the assumptions set forth in the Impact Fee Study. (b) Impact Fees shall be required as a condition of approval of all residential and nonresidential Development in the Service Area for which a Building permit is required and shall be payable prior to the issuance of any Building Permit (or installation permit in the case of a Manufactured Home) for a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential building. Except as otherwise provided herein, after the Effective Date of this Chapter, no Building Permit shall be issued until the Impact Fees described in this Chapter have been paid, unless the Development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Section 10-07-08 or approved credits are used to cover the Impact Fee, as set forth in Section 10-07- 09. The Fee Administrator shall have the authority to withhold a Building Permit or stop construction, as the case may be, until the appropriate Impact Fee has been collected. (c) A Feepayor required by this Chapter to pay an Impact Fee may choose to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to either the Fee Schedule or subsections (d) through (f) below. If the Feepayor chooses to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to subsections (d) through (f) below, such Impact Fee shall be subject to the adjustment described in Section 10-07-09, if applicable. If the Proj ect is a mix of those uses listed on the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fees shall be determined by adding up the Impact Fees that would be payable for each use as if it were a freestanding use pursuant to the Fee Schedule. (d) Individual assessment of Impact Fees is permitted in situations where the Feepayor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the established Impact Fee is inappropriate for the Proj ect. Written application for individual assessment shall be made to the Fee Administrator at any time prior to receiving Building Permit(s). Late applications for individual assessment of Impact Fees may be considered for a period of sixty (60) days after the receipt of a Building Permit only if the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable prior to receipt of a Building Permit and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. Such independent impact Fee calculation study for the Feepayor's Development shall be prepared at the Feepayor's cost by a qualified professional and contain 0 i studies, data and other relevant information and be submitted to the Fee Administrator for review. Any such study shall be based on the same methodology and the same bevel of Service standards, improvements and costs used in the Impact Fee Study, and must document the methodologies and assumptions used. The City mayhire a professional consultant to review any independent Impact Fee calculation study on behalf of the City, and may charge the reasonable costs of such review to the Feepayor. (e) Any independent Impact Fee calculation study submitted by a Feepayor may be accepted, rejected or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating Impact Fees. The City shall not be required to accept any study or documentation the City reasonably deems to be inaccurate or unreliable, and shall have the authority to request that the Feepayor submit additional or different documentation for consideration in connection with review of any independent Impact Fee calculation. If such additional or different documentation is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the Impact Fees due in connection with Feepayor's proposed Development than the applicable Impact Fees set forth in subsection the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fee due under this Chapter shall be calculated according to such documentation. M The Fee Administrator shall render a written decision establishing the Impact Fees in connection with the individual assessment within thirty (3 0) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The decision shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fees, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fees are intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the following factors considered: (1) The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; (2) The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; (3) The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; (4) The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; (5) The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; (5) Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; (7) The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and (3) The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (g) Certification of the Impact Fee for a Project may be applied for in the following manner: (1) Written application may be made to the Fee Administrator not later than sixty (60) days after Development Approval by the City Council. Late applications for certification of the Impact Fee will not be considered unless the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable until after the time had run and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. (2) The Fee Administrator shall provide the Feepayor with a written Impact Fee certification for the Project within. thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The certification provided by the Fee Administrator shall establish the Impact Fee for the Project in question, so long as there is no material change to the Project as identified in the certification application or the Impact Fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of factors considered, and shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used, The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fee, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the factors considered, which factors are identified in subsection (f) above. (h) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination of an individual assessment or certification shall be made to the City as provided further in this Chapter. (i) The City recognizes that there maybe circumstances where the anticipated fiscal impacts of a proposed Development are of such magnitude that the City may be unable to accommodate the Development without excessive or unscheduled public expenditures that exceed the amount of the anticipated Impact Fees from such Development. If the City determines that a proposed Development would create such an Extraordinary Impact on the City's police, fire, and/or parks and recreation Public Facilities, the City may refuse to approve the proposed Development. In the alternative, the City may calculate a pro rata share per Dwelling Unit, or square feet of nonresidential buildings, of the Extraordinary Impact and charge a reasonable Extraordinary Impact Fee that is greater than would ordinarily be charged. 0) If the City discovers an error in its Impact Fee formula that results in assessment or payment of more than a Proportionate Share, City shall, at the time of assessment on a case by case basis, adjust the Impact Fee to collect no more than a proportionate Share or discontinue the collection of any Impact Fees until the error is corrected by ordinance. 10-07-06— Paymen_ t of Ixnnact Fees (a) After the Effective Date of this Chapter all Feepayors shall pay the Impact Fees as provided by this Chapter to the Fee Administrator following application for a Building Permit and prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for a Dwelling Unit, or nonresidential building. (b) All Impact Fees paid by a Feepayor pursuant to this Chapter shall be promptly deposited in the Impact Fee Fund described in Section 10-07-07. 10-07-07 —Ina act Fee Funds refunds of Imt�act Fees Paid (a) There is hereby established a police Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all police Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring police Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of police Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the lippact Fee. (b) There is hereby established a fire Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all fire Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring fire Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of fire Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (c) There is hereby established a parks and recreation Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all parks and recreation Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring parks and recreation Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of parks and recreation Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (d) Each fund shall be an interest-bearing,account which shall be accounted for separately from other Impact Fee funds and from other City funds. Any interest or other income earned on monies deposited in a fivad shall be credited to such fund. Expenditures of Impact Fees shall be made only for the category of System Improvements for which the Impact Fees were collected and as identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (e) Except as otherwise provided herein, monies from each fund, including any accrued interest, shall be limited to the financing of acquisition, expansion, and/or improvement of Capital Improvements, or for principal and interest payments on bonds or other borrowed revenues used to acquire, expand or improve such Capital Improvements, necessary to serve new growth and development. Impact Fees in each fund shall be spent within eight (8) years from the date such Impact Fees were collected on a first-in/first-out (FIFO) basis. The City may hold the Impact Fees longer than the prescribed time period if the City identifies, in writing: (1) a reasonable cause why the Impact Fees should be held longer; and (2) an anticipated date by which the Impact Fees will be expended but in no event longer than eleven (11) years from the date the Impact Fees were collected. W The Fee Administrator shall prepare quarterly and annual reports to be provided to the Advisory Committee and the City Council, which reports shall: (1) Describe the amount of all Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility; and (2) Describe the percentage of tax and revenues other than Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility. (g) Funds shall be deemed expended when payment of such funds has been approved by the City. The Feepayor or Successor in Interest shall be entitled to a refund of the Impact Fee if - (1) service is available but never provided; (2) a Building Permit or permit for installation of a manufactured home is revoked or abandoned; (3) the City, after collecting the Impact Fee when service is not available, has failed to appropriate and expend the collected Impact Fees; or (4) the Feepayor pays an Impact Fee under protest and a subsequent review of the Impact Fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the Impact Fee paid exceeded the Proportionate Share to which the City was entitled to receive. (h) When the right to a refund exists, within ninety (90) days after the City determines -that a refund is due, the City shall provide written notice of entitlement to a refund, to the Owner of record and the Feepayor who paid the Impact Fees at the address shown on the application for Development Approval, or to a Successor in Interest who has notified the City of a transfer of the right or entitlement to a refund and who has provided to the City a mailing address. When the right to a refund exists, the City shall also publish the notice of entitlement to a refund within. thirty (3 0) days after the expiration of the eight (8) year period after the date that the Impact Fees were collected. Such published notice shall contain the heading "Notice of Entitlement to Impact Fee Refund." (i) A refund shall include interest at one-half (1/2) the legal rate provided for in Section 28-22-104, Idaho Code, from the date on which the Impact Fee was originally paid. 0) In order to be eligible for a refund, a Feepayor, Successor in Interest or Owner of record shall file a written application for a refuhd`with the Fee Administrator within six (6) months of the time such refund becomes payable under subsection (e) above, or within six (6) months of publication of the notice of entitlement to a refund, whichever is later. If a Successor in Interest claims a refund of Impact Fees, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been transferred to the claimant prior to issuing the requested refund. Refunds shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the date on which the Fee Administrator determines that a sufficient proof of claim for a refund has been made. (k) Any person entitled to a refund shall have standing to sue for a refund under the provisions of this Chapter if there has not been a timely payment of a refund as provided herein. 10-07-08 — Exemptions from Impact Fees (a) The following types of land Development shall be exempted from payment of the Impact Fees imposed by this Chapter: (1) Rebuilding or replacing a Dwelling Unit or the same amount of square feet of a nonresidential structure on the same lot and existing on the Effective Date of this Chapter provided that the rebuilt or replaced Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure does not increase the need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. If such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure was destroyed, such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure must be rebuilt or replaced and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of destruction. (2) Construction of an unoccupied, detached accessory structure, or addition of uses related to a Dwelling Unit unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of System Improvements. (3) Remodeling or repairing a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential structure in a manner that does not increase the need for police or fire or parks and recreation Public Facilities. �7 0 • (4) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot. (b) An Impact Fee will be assessed for installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home unless the Feepayor can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (1) that a Modular Building or Manufactured Home was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the Effective Date of this Chapter; or (2) that an Impact Fee has been paid previously for the installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home on that same lot or space. (c) Developments determined by the City Council that provide Affordable Housing may be exempt from the Impact Fee requirement, provided that the exempt Development's Proportionate Share of System Improvements is funded through a revenue source other than Impact Fees. (1) Current housing affordability guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (',HUD'') shall be used to determine whether Dwelling Units in the Development qualify as Affordable Housing. (2) Affordable Housing Projects are required to demonstrate that they will provide Dwelling Units to eligible families based on HUD income and family size guidelines. (3) Providers of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units must demonstrate a long-term commitment to provide Affordable Housing for a period of not less than twenty (20) years. (d) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination shall be made as provided further in this Chapter. 10-07-09 — Credits; Reimbursements (a) No Feepayor shall be required to construct, fund or contribute any Capital Improvement to meet the same need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed. All System Improvements constructed, fimded or contributed for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed, over and above those required by the City in connection with new development, shall result in either a credit on future Impact Fees or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) for such excess to be paid by future Development that benefits from such System Improvements. However, no credit or reimbursement shall be provided for: (1) Project Improvements; (2) any construction, funding or contribution not agreed to in writing by the City prior to commencement of such construction, funding or contribution; and (3) any construction, funding or contribution of a type of Capital Improvements not included in the calculation of the applicable Impact Fee. (b) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project pursuant to Section 10-07-05 (d) through (f) credit shall be given for the Present Value of all tax and user fee revenue generated by the Feepayor within the Service Area and used by the City for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected. If the amount of such credit exceeds the Impact Fee for a Proj ect, the Feepayor shall receive a credit on future Impact Fees. (c) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project, credit or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) shall be given for the Present Value of any construction of System Improvements or is contribution of land or money required by the City from the Feepayor for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected, including System Improvements paid for through local improvement district assessments. (d) If credit or reimbursement is due to the Feepayor, the City and Feepayor shall enter into a written agreement, negotiated in good faith, prior to the construction, funding or contribution. The written agreement shall include, without limitation: a description of the construction, funding or contribution of System Improvements including, in the case of real property, a legal description of the real property; description as to how the System Improvements are to be valued; the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement; instructions as to how the Capital Improvements should be provided to the City to ensure full transfer of ownership; and the circumstances under which the credit or reimbursement is deemed effective. To assist in such reimbursement, the City shall continue to collect Impact Fees from other Developers whose proposed Developments will benefit from such construction, funding or contribution, and will promptly transfer such funds to the Feepayor. If a Successor in Interest claims a reimbursement or credit, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been conveyed to the claimant prior to issuing the requested reimbursement or credit. (e) Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of Impact Fees of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected in connection with any new growth and development until the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use approved credits is presented to the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the applicable Impact Fee otherwise due from the Feepayor and shall note in the City records the amount of credit remaining, if any. Upon request of the Feepayor, the City shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. If the credit has not been exhausted within, eight (S) years of the date of issuance of the first Building Permit for which an Impact Fee was due and payable, or within such other time period as may be designated in writing by the City, such credit shall lapse, unless a refund of the remaining credit is applied for as set forth in Section 10-07-076) above. M Approved credits or reimbursement shall only be used to reduce the amount of the Impact Fee of the category for which the Impact Fee is otherwise due, and shall not be paid to the Feepayor in cash or in credits against any other monies due from the Feepayor to the City. (g) Credit for land dedications shall, at the Feepayor's option, be valued at: (1) one hundred (100) percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the Ada County Assessor; or (2) that fair market value established by an MAI appraiser reasonably acceptable to the City in an appraisal paid for by the Feepayor. Credit for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall be valued by the City based on complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates submitted by the Feepayor to the City, which estimates shall be revised as actual costs become available. The City shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if the City determines that such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs reasonably acceptable to the City as a more accurate measure of the value of the offered System Improvements to the City. (h) Approved credits for land dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the City in a form reasonably acceptable to the City at no cost to the City, and has been 0 0 accepted by the City. Approved credits for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall generally become effective when: (1) all required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the City; and (2) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been, completed in compliance with all applicable requirements of the City. Approved credits for the construction of System Improvements may become effective at an earlier date if the Feepayor posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit or escrow agreement in the amount and under terms reasonably acceptable to the City. (i) Credit may only be transferred by a Feepayor that has received credit to such Feepayor's Successor in Interest. The credit may be used only to offset Impact Fees for the same category for which the credit was issued. Credits shall be transferred by any written instrument clearly identifying which credits are being transferred, the dollar amount of the credit being transferred, and the System Improvements for which the credit was issued. The instrument of transfer shall be signed by both the transferor and transferee, and a copy of the document shall be delivered to the Fee Administrator for documentation of the transfer before the transfer shall be deemed effective. 10-07-10 — Appeals The decisions of the Fee Administrator may be appealed as provided below: (a) Any Feepayor who is or may be obligated to pay an Impact Fee, may appeal a decision made by the Fee Administrator in applying this Ordinance to the City Council's designee. Such decisions that may be appealed include: (1) The applicability of an Impact Fee to the Development. (2) The amount of an Impact Fee to be paid for the Development. (3) The availability, amount or application of any credit. (4) The amount of any refund, reimbursement or credit. A Feepayor may pay an Impact Fee under protest in order to obtain a Development Approval or Building Penni.t(s) and, by paying such Impact Fee, shall not be estopped from exercising the right of appeal provided herein, nor shall the Feepayor be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deemed to have been illegally collected. Upon final disposition of an appeal, the Impact Fee shall be adjusted in accordance with the decision rendered and, if necessary, a refund paid. (b) In order to pursue an appeal, the Feepayor shall file a written notice of appeal with the City Council's designee within fifteen (15) days after the date of the decision being appealed, or the date on which the Feepayor submitted a payment of Impact Fees under protest, whichever is later. Such written application shall include a statement describing why the appellant believes that the decision was in error, together with copies of any documents that the appellant believes supports the claim. (C) The City Council's designee shall notify the Feepayor of the hearing date on the appeal, which notice shall be given no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall hear the appeal within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written notice of appeal. The appellant shall have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The Fee Administrator who made the decision under appeal shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of the decision. The burden of proof in any such hearing shall be on the Feepayor to demonstrate that the Mount of the Impact Fee, credit, reimbursement or refund was not properly calculated by the City. (d) The criteria to be used by the City Council's designee shall be whether: (1) the decision or interpretation made by the Fee Administrator; or (2) the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the appellant, more accurately reflects the intent of this Ordinance that new growth and development in the City pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System Improvements for Public Facilities necessary to serve new development. The City Council's designee may affirm, reject or revise the decision of the Fee Administrator, providing written findings of fact and conclusions, within. fifteen (15) days after hearing the appeal. The City Council's designee shall modify the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, refund or reimbursement only if there is substantial evidence in the record that the Fee Administrator erred, based upon the methodologies contained in the Impact Fee Study, this Ordinance and/or the Capital Improvements Plans. The decision of the City Council's designee shall be final. (e) A Feepayor may request that the City enter into mediation by a qualified independent party to address a disagreement related to the Impact Fee for new growth and development. If both parties agree to mediation, costs for the independent mediation service shall be shared equally by the Feepayor and the City. Mediation may take place at anytime during an appeals process and any time limitation relevant to an appeal shall be tolled. 10-07-11— Impact Fee Advisory C= The City has established an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall continue to be composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by the City Council. Two (2) or more members of the Advisory Committee shall be active in the business of development, building or real estate, and two (2) members shall be appointed to the Advisory Committee who are not employees or officials of the City. The Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council and is established to: (1) Assist the City in adopting Land Use Assumptions; (2) Review the Capital Improvements Plans, and proposed amendments, and file written comments; (3) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plans; (4) File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the Capital Improvements Plans and report to the City any perceived inequities in implementing the Capital Improvements Plans or imposing the Impact Fees; and (5) Advise the City of the need to update or revise Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans and Impact Fees. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee, upon request, all financial and accounting information, professional reports in relation to other development and implementation of Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements flans and periodic updates of the Capital Improvements Flans. 10-07-12 — Miscellaneous Provisions (a) Els used in this Chapter, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates; the word shall, will or must is always mandatory, the word may is permissive; and the word should indicates that which is recommended, but not required. (b) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any Development for which a lawful Building Permit was issued prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance. (c) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from requiring a Developer to construct reasonable Project Improvements in conjunction with a Project. (d) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the ability of the City to enter into intergovernmental agreements as provided in Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code. (e) The Impact Fees described in this Chapter, and the administrative procedures of this Chapter shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years to ensure that: (1)Ahe demand and cost assumptions and other assumptions underlying such Impact Fees are still valid; (2) the resulting Impact Fees do not exceed the actual costs of providing police, fire, and/or parks and recreation System Improvements required to serve new growth and development; (3) the monies collected in any Impact Fee fund have been and are expected to be spent for System Improvements of the type for which such Impact Fees were paid; and (4) such System Improvements will benefit those Developments for which the Impact Fees were paid. (fl Violation of this Chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in the Meridian City Code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the City charged with the administration of this Chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this Chapter including, without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed Development, shall be a violation of this Chapter. (g) The captions used in this Chapter are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this Chapter. (h) If any paragraph, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho Impact Fee Act, Sections 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, unconstitutional and/or unenforceable, such provisions shall be deemed to be separate, distinct and independent and the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect. E E W This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (3 0) days subsequent to this Ordinance's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon Title 10, Chapter 7, existing on the date hereof, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be repealed. 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 TAMMY de V-MERD ATTEST: WILLL4M G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK • 0 IDAHO TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHAPTER 82 Minimum Standards Requirements Development 67-8204. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCES. Governmental entities which comply with the requirements of this chapter may impose by ordinance development impact fees as a condition of development approval on all developments. (1) A development impact fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements determined in accordance with section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Development impact fees shall be based on actual system improvement costs or reasonable estimates of such costs. (2) A development impact fee shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities adopted in the development impact fee ordinance of the governmental entity that are applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development. The construction, improvement, expansion or enlargement of new or existing public facilities for which a development impact fee is imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new development. (3) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify the point in the development process at which the development impact fee shall be collected. The development impact fee may be collected no earlier than the commencement of construction of the development, or the issuance of a building permit or a manufactured home installation permit, or as may be agreed by the developer and the governmental entity. (4) A development impact fee ordinance shall be adopted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 67-8206, Idaho Code. (5) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process whereby the governmental agency shall allow the developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment of the proportionate share of development impact fees under the guidelines established by this chapter which shall be set forth in the ordinance. The individual assessment process shall permit consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of the fee. The decision by the governmental agency on an application for an individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee, including an explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and shall specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 1 0 (6) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide a process whereby a developer shall receive, upon request, a written certification of the development impact fee schedule or individual assessment for a particular project, which shall establish the development impact fee so long as there is no material change to the particular project as identified in the individual assessment application, or the impact fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee including an explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code. The certification shall also specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. (7) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision for credits in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8209, Idaho Code. (8) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision prohibiting the expenditure of development impact fees except in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8210, Idaho Code. (9) A development impact fee ordinance may provide for the imposition of a development impact fee for system improvement costs interred subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the system improvements. (10) A development impact fee ordinance may exempt all or part of a particular development project from development impact fees provided that such project is determined to create affordable housing, provided that the public policy which supports the exemption is contained in the governmental entity's comprehensive plan and provided that the exempt development's proportionate share of system improvements is funded through a revenue source other than development impact fees. (11) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide that development impact fees shall only be spent for the category of system improvements for which the fees were collected and either within or for the benefit of the service area in which the project is located. (12) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for a refund of development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8211, Idaho Code. (13) A development impact fee ordinance shall establish for a procedure for timely processing of applications for determination by the governmental entity regarding development impact fees applicable to a project, individual assessment of development impact fees, credits or reimbursements to be allowed or paid under section 67-8209, Idaho Code, and extraordinary impact. (14) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify when an application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted to be made by a developer or fee payer. An application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted sufficiently in advance of the time that the developer or fee payer may seek a building permit or related permits so that the issuance of a building permit or related permits will not be delayed. (15) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for appeals regarding development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8212, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 2 0 0 (16) A development impact fee ordinance must provide a detailed description of the methodology by which costs per service unit are determined. The development impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements described in section. 67-8208(1)(0, Idaho Code, by the total number of projected service units described in section 67- 8208(1)(g), Idaho Code. If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to the projected new service units described in section 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code, by the total projected new service units described in that section. (17) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of development impact fees for various land uses per unit of development. The ordinance shall provide that a developer shall have the right to elect to pay a projects proportionate share of system improvement costs by payment of development impact fees according to the fee schedule as full and complete payment of the development projects proportionate share of system improvement costs, except as provided in section 67-8214(3), Idaho Code. (18) After payment of the development impact fees or execution of an agreement for payment of development impact fees, additional development impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed unless the number of service units increases or the scope or schedule of the development changes. In the event of an increase in the number of service units or schedule of the development changes, the additional development impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units or change in scope of the development. (19) No system for the calculation of development impact fees shall be adopted which subjects any development to double payment of impact fees. (20) A development impact fee ordinance shall exempt from development impact fees the following activities: (a) Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which was destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of its destruction; (b) Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of service units; (c) Replacing a residential unit, including a manufactured home, with another residential unit on the same lot, provided that the number of service units does not increase; (d) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; (e) Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of service units; and BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 3 0 • (0 Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts or clubhouse, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of system improvements. (21) A development impact fee will be assessed for installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle unless the fee payer can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (a) That a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date of the development impact fee ordinance; or (b) That a development impact fee has been paid previously for the installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle on that same lot or space. (22) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process for dealing with a project which has extraordinary impacts. (23) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for the calculation of a development impact fee in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A development impact fee shall not be deemed invalid because payment of the fee may result in an incidental benefit to owners or developers within the service area other than the person paying the fee. (24) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a description of acceptable levels of service for system improvements. (25) Any provision of a development impact fee ordinance that is inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void and that provision shall have no legal effect. A partial invalidity of a development impact fee ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance that are consistent with the requirements of this chapter. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 4 Cl Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance 51 ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the City of Meridian ("the City) may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the City retained BBC Research and Consulting, Galena Consulting and Spink Butler, LLP (collectively, "Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development Projections for the period 2006 to 2026 in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, Prepared by BBC Research and Consulting, dated July_, 2006 (the "Impact Fee Stude impacts ofy"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and uan • types of new residential and nonresidential Development n the City's poli e fire, and parkvarious s and recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact ofnew growth and development on the System Improvements addressed therein; determines the costs necessary to meet demands created by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees as set forth in this Chapter that are at a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The City hereby establishes as the City standards the assumptions and Level of Service standards referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the Police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts Of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities, including review and reliance on that certain City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, July 2002 (Resolution 02-382), as amended by Resolution loos.: 03-401 and 03-409 (Parks and Recreation 0 0 System Plan -Action Plan); 04-454; and 06-505 (forth Meridian Area) and that certain amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City on , 2006 (Resolution No. (collectively, the "Comprehensive Plan"), the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements that will increase the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. WHEREAS, in preparing the Impact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans prepared by Consultant and adopted by the City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would generate demand for additional police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements addressed therein; and WHEREAS, all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study, which are to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and WHEREAS, an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of Public Facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and City's area of City impact. Such protection requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city impact. WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the reasonable impacts of new growth and development on existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements, and the reasonable costs of Capital Improvements necessary to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to accommodate the additional demands and impacts of new growth and development; and WHEREAS, based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at public hearing and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment ofthe City Council, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and nonresidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS, in adopting the police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, 0 • which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Capital Improvements Plans have been adopted as part ofthe Comprehensive Plan, and in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans have been presented to and reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss, review and hear public comments on the proposed Impact Fees set forth herein; and AREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council. The existing Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby repealed and a new Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby adopted as follows: TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SECTION 10-07-01 Legislative Findings 10-07-02 Authority, Applicability, and Effective Date 10-07-03 Intent 10-07-04 Definitions 10-07-05 Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees 10-07-06 Payment of Impact Fees 10-07-07 Impact Fee Fund; Refunds of Impact Fees Paid 10-07-08 Exemptions From Impact Fees 10-07-09 Credits; reimbursements 10-07-10 Appeals 10-07-11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee 10-07-12 Miscellaneous Provisions 10-07-01— Legislative Findin s The City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho finds that: (a) Eased on the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including but not limited to the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general governmental goal ofprotecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, and its area of City impact, it is necessary that the City's Public Facilities for: (1) park and recreation Public Facilities; and (2) public safety Public Facilities for law enforcement and fire to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and its area of City impact. (b) New residential and nonresidential growth and development imposes and will impose increasing and demands upon the Public Facilities. (c) The revenues generated from new residential and nonresidential growth and development often do not generate sufficient general hands to provide the necessary improvements of these Public Facilities to accommodate new growth and development. (d) New growth and development are expected to continue, and will place ever-increasing demands on the City to provide and expand the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. (e) The City has planned for the improvement of the Public Facilities in the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. (fl The creation of an equitable Impact Fee system would enable the City to impose a Proportionate Share of the costs of needed improvements to the Public Facilities to accommodate new growth and development, and would assist the City in implementing the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (g) In order to implement an equitable Impact Fee system for the Public Facilities, the City retained BBC research & Consulting to prepare an Impact Fee Study for these types of facilities. The resulting document titled "The City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July _, 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), recommended for approval by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, is on file in the office of the city clerk of the City of Meridian. (h) The Impact Fee Study is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian. Comprehensive Plan, and uses the bevels of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for these Public Facilities. (i) The Impact Fee Study sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of new growth and development on the Public Facilities, and determines the cost of acquiring or constructing the improvements necessary to meet the demands for such Public Facilities created by new growth and development. 0 0 0) The Impact Fee Study uses a calculation methodology in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that is net of credits for the Present Value of revenues that will be generated by new growth and development based on historical funding patterns and that are anticipated to be available to pay for System improvements, including taxes, assessments, user fees, and intergovernmental transfers, and included consideration of the following factors: 1. The cost of existing System Improvements within. the Service Area; 2. The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; 3. The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; 4. The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; 5. The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for Providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; 6. Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; 7. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and 8. The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (k) The maximum allowable Impact Fees described in this Ordinance are based on the Impact Fee Study, and do not exceed the costs of System Improvements for the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development that will pay the Impact Fees. (1) The police, fire, and parrs and recreation Public Facilities included in the calculation of Impact Fees in the Impact Fee Study will benefit all new growth and development throughout the City, and it is therefore appropriate to treat all areas of the City and the area of city impact as a single Service Area for purposes of calculating, collecting and spending the Impact Fees collected. (m) There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts created by each type of development covered by this Ordinance and the Impact Fees that such development will be required to pay. (n) This Ordinance creates a system by which Impact Fees paid by new growth and development will be used to finance, defray or to provide Capital Improvements for the Public Facilities in ways that benefit the development for which Impact Fees were paid. u Except for such Impact Fee as may be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to an independent Impact Fee calculation study, the amount of each Impact Fee shall be as follows: Police Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Fire Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Parks Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Total Fees: Residential Non -Residential $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot $377.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.25 per square foot $1,384.00 per Dwelling Unit $ N/A per square foot $1,846.00 $ 0.31 $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot $300.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.20 per square foot $1,215.00 per Dwelling Unit $ N/A per square foot $1,600.00 $ 0.26 This Fee Schedule shall be in effect between _ , 2006, and December 31, 2007. On January 1, 2008 and on January 1st of each year thereafter in which an Impact Fee is in effect, the amount of the Impact Fee shall be automatically adjusted to account for inflation increases in the cost of providing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to serve new growth and development utilizing an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from electing to maintain a then -existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fee or from electing to waive the inflation adjustment for any given fiscal year, or years. Any such action to determine an inflation factor shall be by the City Council resolution. 0 Impact Fee Ordinance i • 0 cu o N LLw ..q .0 v w � v 0 u y '!7 b o. 44 �v O py qq R � �,� j G -� v � � ..1N• C U v s 44 O O a v Tom" cd a+ ❑ -MAN O " C dJ cu ZZ ® W y O u v �q v ON 9� N 0 ',LyG O p +v-' W g' .� �? u a •� .� v v C wn b H n oo ISI o a v o 0 OO ppN O o cpvy Qj C aC+ v v u O v�qu� N • a,�J3 „ u cl v 0 n, N�i b to- AN ❑v U o • � 0 cu o 0.4 a 0 loa C J9 O � ® ® -00; N o U eo H C cs yN 75 0 -O N N "'d a, '•'� "R " N C 7N� N• V d u t 4y a R+ caL w w y p y i3 '°� �• O� o W O O v '4JG v v O PyyO O W U W cn cu o N LLw ..q .0 v w � v 0 u y '!7 b o. 44 �v O py qq R � �,� j G -� v � � ..1N• C U v s 44 O O a v Tom" cd a+ ❑ -MAN O " C dJ cu ZZ ® W y O u v �q v ON 9� N 0 ',LyG O p +v-' W g' .� �? u a •� .� v v C wn b H n oo ISI o a v o 0 OO ppN O o cpvy Qj C aC+ v v u O v�qu� N • a,�J3 „ u cl v 0 n, N�i b to- AN ❑v U o • � 0 cu o 0.4 a 0 loa C J9 O � ® ® -00; Current Service Standard Approach • The Current Service Standard approach was used to calculate the City's current investment in capital improvement. This approach is only shown for comparison purposes and serves as a double check against the CIP approach in the main report. If the current investment in improvements were considerably lower than the calculated fees in the body of the main report, then the City would need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. If this were the case, it is likely projects were attributed to growth at an inaccurately high percentage, or, alternatively, some of the growth projects have elements of repair, replacement or upgrade that have not been identified. On the other hand, if the current investment in improvements were considerably higher than the fees calculated under the CIP approach, the City would also need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. In this case, it is likely the City would need morefuture improvements to maintain current levels of service, or the City did not allocate enough of the capital improvements to growth. The Current Service Standard methodology utilizes the current distribution of residential and nonresidential square footage in the City as a basis for allocating improvement costs. This conservative allocation is based upon thetheory that current investment reflects the current level of service provided by the City, and this current level of service should be maintained in future growth. In order to evaluate the City's current capital improvements, BBC and Galena Consulting met with City staff to review the replacement costs and equity percentages (portion owned) of current capital improvements. If the equity percentage for any project is less than 100 percent, this indicates that the project is debt financed and the loan has not yet been retired. For the portion of current improvements that is not yet owned in its entirety, taxes are used to pay the debt service payments. This prevents "double dipping" so that growth would not pay twice for improvements with taxes and impact fees. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth at existing service levels. The cost of the fee study is also eligible for inclusion into the calculation for all fee categories. All current capital improvement exhibits include 33 percent of the fee study cost since the total cost is shared between three impact fee categories (police, fire, and parks and recreation). BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 1 0 0 Exhibit 3 below presents the total replacement value of current police assets. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "Replacement Value" times the "Equity Percentage" times the "Shared Facility" percentage. Exhibit 3« Gement deolke Assets, ZOOS Type of Capita( hn wmtant R'�facet»esaklu(tY Valete braes Percentage (1j @rues shared fac8ity N in fee) equals Amount to Include in fees ; Infrastructure Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) $4,000,000 45% 100% $1,800,000 Animal Shelter $140,000 100^/0 100% $140,000 Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios) $99,440 100% 100% $99,440 K-9 Training Facility K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) (2) Total cture $400,000 $275,000 54;914,446 10040 100% 100% 100% $400,000 $275,000 $2,714,440 Fee -Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 1000/a 33o/a $10,833 Grand Total $4,946.940 $2,725,273 dote: (1) Eauity oercentaae reflect. d„hr —i— «. k......_� .... .: -. -. -- - - -- ===y=1 y peg —ge u i uu percent, the C owns the capital improvement outright.P (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The cost per acre for the K-9 Training Facility ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. Exhibit 3 lists approximately $4.9 million in replacement costs for the City's police improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more. Under the Current Service Standard approach (not allowed as the fee calculation methodology in Idaho), $2.7 million would be impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING — ®= /APPENDIX D, PAGE 2 0 --0 Exhibit 4 presents the current capital improvements identified by City staff for the fire department. Exhibit 4. Curvent Fire Assets, 2006 Type OfaPi6 '-pravemen4 Rw-- -ment Ec$trity �i+ared acirrEy Amot�riffo _ fFinas: i+eYtEnYac�e t;) -t7orres ("-.f:iir#eea e4arp/s 'Include in Fees Fadlitles Fire Station # 1 (540 6 Fran(din Rd) 11,700 sq. ft (al $1,851,642 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. ft. (2) $1,114,150 100% 100°.n $1,851,642 Fire Station If 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. ft (2) $1,071,420 100%1QD,o w $1,114,150 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft (2) $1,120,017100'0 100% w 100% $1,071,420 Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) 100% $1,120,017 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfieid Dr) 1,744 sq. ft (2) $357,000 1 DO%100.0 o, $357,000 Vehicles $167,000 100% 100% 8167,000 1982 Pierce Engine (311) $410,000 100% 1986 Pierce Engine (306) $410,000 1°70 $410,000 1993 Pierce Engine (304) $410,000 100% 100% 8470,000 2000 Pierce Engine (302) $470,000 100% 100% $470,000 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 700A 100% $410,000 2004 Pierce Engine (303) .$410,000 $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2006 Pierce Engine (307) $410,000 100% 1GOOA $410,000 2000 International Water Tender (320) $240,000 100% 100% $410,000 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) $65,000 100% 100% $,000 1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342) $65,000 700% 700% $ $6565,000 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) $65,000 100% 100% $65,000 Equipment 100% 100% $65,000 Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $200,000 100% 16 Vehicle Radios $64,272 1009'0 $200,000 4 Base Station Radios $21,200 100% 100% $64,272 Totatfhiraskgreture $9,271,7QT 100% 100% $21,200 Fee -Related Research $9,2711j704, Impact Fee Study GriiidTotal $32,500 700% 33% $10,833 59;304,201 $9.283,33.4 Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage Is 100 percent, the City owns the capital improvement outright (2) Cost per ave of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The City has approximately $9.3 million invested in fire improvement. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly all of the current investment would be impact fee eligible. The cost per acre for fire facilities ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 3 _ Exhibit 5 shows the City's current parks and recreation assets. Exhibit S. CUIFIrent Parks and ufIY SN" Faclffty Amoun is ra9att� *ne (%in%e);. ei7rtals- fntltic in Fees 100% Repiacem�tt Typeo#Capltatlmproverc�er,t value ,L Paths Sr Trails (2) $220,000 Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) $233,200 Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Anes) $220,000 Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) $165,000 Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) $121,000 Fotherg6l Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) $27,500 Neighborhood & Mini -Parks (a) 100% Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres) $2,184,000 Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres) $1,462,500 Season's Park (7 Acres) $1,365,000 Chateau Park (6.75 Acres) $1,316,250 8th Street Park (4 Acres) $780,000, Champion Park (6 Acres) $570,'000 Centennial Park (0.5 Acres) $97,500 Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres) $48,750 Cox Monument (0.25 Acres) $48,750 Community Park (s) $97,500 Heroes Park (30 Acres) $5,850,000 Tully Park (18.5 Acres) $3,607,500 Bear Creek Park (18.5 Acres) $3,607,500 Storey Park (15 Acres) 82,925,000 Urban Parks (a) Meridlan Setter's Park Developed (53 Acres) $10,335,000 Total ktbasbuctuee $35,184,450 Fee -Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 Impact Fee Fund Balance (4) FY 2006 B ufIY SN" Faclffty Amoun is ra9att� *ne (%in%e);. ei7rtals- fntltic in Fees 100% 100-A $233,200 100% 100% $220,000 100% 100% S165,000 100% 100% $121,000 10046 100-A $110,000 100% 100% $110,000 100% 100% $27,500 100% 100% $2,184,000 10026 10045 $1,462,500 100% 10025 $1,365,000 100% 100% $1,316,250 100% 10046 $780,000 1 W 100% $570,000 1006 100% $97,500 1 06.5 100% $48,750 100,b 100% $48,750 100'6 100% 101.6 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10090 33% $5,850,000 $3,607,500 $3,607,500 $2,925,000 $10,335,000 $35,164,4$0 810,833 eginnim,) Fund Balance $800,150 1111 Total 100% 100% 8800,150 $36,017,100 $35,995,433 Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital improvement outright (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. (3) $195,000/acre in land and development costs. (4) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The City's replacement cost for the current parks and recreation improvements totals approximately $36 million. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly the entire current amount of investment would be impact fee eligible. The cost per acre ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 4 0 0 Exhibit 6 displays the City's current distribution of square footage between residential and nonresidential land uses, based on the demographic exhibits in the main report. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses.. Exhibit 6. Residential 87% ®iQtMbutlon of Land 13% ware Pec Uses, 2006 -Land lt�at�ry eef of Total Note: (1) May not total due to rounding. I2eslder¢fBa- , 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) Single Family 42,040,244 82% Source: City of Meridian, Colliers International Boise Multifamily 2,426,219 5% and Sun Valley, Year -End Real Estate market 146nre$�ffe99 WI 63J44,�3� 1 � Review, 2005 and Impact Fee Study Team. ®tai (1) - - - 51,011,293 100% Currently, 87 percent of total square footage in Meridian is comprised of residential development and the balance (13 percent) is nonresidential development. Impact fee calculation. Exhibits 7 through 9 present the impact fee calculation based on the improvement costs in Exhibits 3 through 5. Fees are calculated by dividing the appropriate portion of service costs by total residential units and nonresidential square feet. Again, since Idaho law mandates the use of the Capital Improvement Plan approach, fees calculated under the Current Service Standard approach serve only as a conservative double-check to validate the fee levels calculated under the CIP approach. Exhibit 7. Calculation of Police Impact Fees Note: (1) See Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets. (2) See Exhibit 6. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. [alcuiation of h0pact Fees Current Value for Police infrastructure $2,725,273 Current Land Use Percentage (2) Residential 87% Nonresidential 13% Costs by Land Use Category Residential $2,376,438 Nonresidential $348,835 Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) 6,544,830 Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded) Residential1(pecdweliiitg unit} $105' I'eslcTent� (per squame (oat) , �� 0� Under the Current Service Standard approach, the City has a current investment in police improvements of $106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 5 CJ Exhibit 8 below calculates the current investment in fire improvements under the Current Service Standard approach. fl;xtivM 8. Calculation of Fife impact Fees Note: (1) See Exhibit 4. Current Fire Assets. (2) See Exhibit 6. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team Calculation of Inpaltt Fees Current Value for Fire Infrastructure (f) $9,282,534 Current Land Use Percentage (2) Residential 87% Nonresidential 13% Costs by Land Use Category Residential $8,094,370 Nonresidential $1,188,164 Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) 6,544,830 Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded) Residentlal(per dwe"Irtg unit) $362 Nonresidential (per square foot) $018 As of 2006, the City has $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot invested in fire improvements. Exhibit 9 below displays the current parks and recreation investment per residential unit. Parks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Exhibit 9. Calculation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Note: (1) See Exhibit S. Current Parks and Recreation Assets. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. lrr�fee Caidmon Current Value for Parks & Recreation ��) $35,995,433 Current Land Use Percentage Residential 1000/0 Nonresidential 096 Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $35,995,433 Nonresidential $0 Current Land Use Residential (total dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) N/A Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residenfil�.(pet tfnitj Noru�scle€i#aal (per squarefoot} WA The City's current investment in parks and recreation improvement is $1,612 per residential unit. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 6 0 Detailed Demographic • The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act defines "Land Use Assumptions" as a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 20 -year period. The 2006 and 2016 current and forecasted residential land uses for the City of Meridian are based on COMPASS' demographic area as calculated in the Community Choices Forecast. Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03/21/06. The basis for the City's nonresidential square footage was Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year -End Real Estate Market Review, 2005. This report is located in Appendix G. This appendix details the calculations and assumptions used to arrive at current and fixture residential units and current and future nonresidential square footage. This appendix should be read in conjunction with the main report text, which summarizes the study team's approach to the demographic data analysis. Residential Data COMPASS produces two types of demographic estimates/forecasts: Trend Forecasts and the Community Choices Forecast. COMPASS explains that "the goal of [the Trend] forecast was to allocate future growth based on prevailing residential patterns and densities... Since Trend is based on current development (everything built to date) and on-going development (approved and preliminary development proposals), Trend will be adjusted each year to reflect changing pattern." The second forecast, the Community Choices Forecast, "does not reflect the way the region has been growing, instead it incorporates a vision for how we would like to grow. "2 In other words, this forecast allows for changes in the Trend forecast reflecting the way in which the community desires to grow. This forecast takes into account denser growth within existing areas of impact, higher density development around transit corridors, and open space between communities. The study team has chosen to use the Community Choices Forecast data because we believe it provides a more accurate vision of the future and it has been adopted by COMPASS as the preferred growth forecast used in the regional long-range transportation plan. The COMPASS document is entitled Community Choices Forecast. Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, last updated on March 21, 2006. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequentl Asked Questions about COMPASS Forecasts. 2 Ibid. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 1 0 The document cited on the previous page provides detailed data on population, households and jobs by three Meridian -specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). The Community Choices forecast was updated this year and, as opposed to the Trend forecast that is updated annually, the Community Choices forecast is slated for its next update in July 2010. Current and future households. As stated in the main report text, to estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from the aforementioned COMPASS document. Because data are collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), COMPASS states that the demographic area does not "match either city limits or areas of impact boundaries"3 For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at all, and other TAZs are only partially in the area of impact. However, it is true that Meridian's area of impact contains many of the same TAZs that are in COMPASS' Meridian demographic area. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the study team has chosen to use COMPASS' data (demographic area) as a reasonable proxy for the area of impact. The maps on the following pages portray the current City limits and COMPASS' demographic areas. 3 Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), FreguentlyAsked Que ons about COMPASS Forecasts. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIx E, PAGE 2 t —.j City . � a City of Meridian Futuree- Land Use Map ON r Is f f � �' acw.«fyn NOTES mwm.-.fi-...a y •44 AJuLan9RW�RB.M.A' . . •".'• f +'H: .., tYdryf HaaiCprAmwraesf OM1g+fr2irl .. i.^.Y .w . - tikTrREhtw.b Pt I�fid BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3 a w Ada County Deo faphtc Areas — county line 4108 gaggggy � — RnadFrahaes „ L-' WetaFeaGuxs BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 4 The data below reflect the aggregated Traffic Analysis Zones that create the COMPASS -defined demographic areas in the report Community Choices Forecast'. Households, Popuktion end Employment by Demographic Aseas and Tri-OS Analysis Zones. These data were the basis for current and fixture residential estimates/forecasts. cos�et3sa�omr�yck ou�d ay �z�t +1+nattst�t.9 �. According to COMPASS' Community Choices report, the population in Meridian in 2005 was 62,997, households totaled 21,330 and there were 19,498 jobs in the demographic area. The data presented above are all 2005 numbers. Data are only provided for 5 -year increments beginning in 2005. Therefore, the study team calculated the annual percent change between 2005 and 2010 to estimate residential data in 2006. The study team used the same approach to calculate data for 2016 (necessary for the Capital Improvement Plan approach). 4 Annual percent change = ((!n(nea, population)-in(old population)ynumber of years BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 5 0 0 The final table portrays how the study team arrived at 2006 and 2016 residential data. Residential Caic"HatlOn for ZOOS and 2016 Annual Annual Percent change Percent C6range_ 200§ 200 (2003 2®3®? 24x0 2015 p16 _ '(2013-202 } 2020 Population 62,997 66,029 4.8% 80,136 103,285 127,102 23.1% 114,479 Households 21,330 22,334 4.7% 26,992 34,747 35,469 2.1% 38,552 jobs 19,498 20,514 5.2% 25,299 30,818 31,888 3.5% 36,660 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. Twenty-year projection data. The table on the following page lists COMPASS' forecasts to 2030 for all the demographic areas in Ada. and Canyon Counties. Twenty -yeas forecasts are necessary to include in this report to meet the requirements of the State Statutes. However, these data are not used in the calculation of impact fees, since the timeline of the CIP is only 10 years. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6 The table below presents the annual percent change between 2025 and 2030, which is used to estimate residential data in 2026. Residentiall CE111(cullaiHon fog 2025 20262 Population 127,163 128,772 Households 42,761 43,329 Jobs 42,814 43,647 JI ,ht. ch -ZS3�► 2030 1.3% 135,466 1.3% 45,701 1.9% 47,187 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. The demographic data in 2026 are as follows: 128,772 persons, 43,329 households and 43,647 jobs. Nonresidential ®ate Colliers' International Boise and Sun Malley, Year -End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, was the basis for calculating current and future nonresidential square footage. The study team totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected square footage in the City. Current nonresidentlall devei®pment. As discussed in the main report text, Colliers report only tabulated buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. In order to adjust the square footage upwards to include smaller buildings, the study team calculated the percentage of new commercial units since 2003 that were less than 10,000 square feet in size. As of March 2006, on average, 21 percent of the City's newly permitted commercial units were less than 10,000 square feet. The following exhibit shows the City data that were used to quantify the proportion of units less than 10,000 square feet. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 8 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 9 In the spreadsheet on the previous page, the method to calculate the percentage of units less than 10,000 square feet is as follows: 1) Calculate the average squa;efootage of built units to determine if, in that particular month, the units built were, on average, 10,000 square feet or less. > New SQF column/New Commercial column = Average SQF per Unit column 2) Use an Excel formula to quickly identify the months that "qualified" as having units with an average square footage of 10,000 or less. > 1 = "yes" (the average of all units was 10,000 square feet or less); 0 = "no" (the average of all units was not less than 10,000 square feet). 3) Tabulate the total square footage of the "qualifying" months with unit averages of 10,000 square feet or less. > Total square footage of "qualifying" months = 898,780 4) Determine the proportion of total square footage that can be attributed to buildings that are 10,000 square feet or less. > 898,780 total square feet of "qualifying" months / 4,186,186 total square feet of all commercial buildings = 21. percent. Knowing that 21 percent of the City's new commercial square footage was less than 10,000 square feet, the study team deduced that Colliers tabulation thus represents 79 percent (100 percent —21 percent) of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. The study team arrived at the final (2006) nonresidential square footage in Meridian by dividing Colliers number (5,170,416 square feet) by 79 percent. This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006. Future nonresidential development. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square footage in 2016. Currently, there are 20,514 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet totals 6,544,830. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs produces a ratio of 319 square feet per employee in 2006 (6,544,830 / 20,514).5 5 This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time. The 319 square feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 10 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2016. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to workers remains consistent, the study team used this ratio to project nonresidential square footage forward. The estimated number of jobsJu 2016 (31,888) is multiplied by the square footage per employee calculated on the previous page (319). This produces a total of 10,173,758 nonresidential square feet in 2016. See the spreadsheet below for details on the calculation of current and future nonresidential square footage. Current Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation Current Square Footage Calculation Total SFT' per Colliers lReport (all buildings greater than 10,000 SFT) 5,170,416 Total SFT Including units over 10,000 SF7' (see below for calculation) 6,544,830 Calculation of Total Current SFT 5,170,416 (Colliers) + x (SFT total of units less than 10,000) = y (total SFT) x = .21 y (21 percent of total square footage is less than 10,000 - see City data spreadsheet) Substitute y for x 5,170,416 + .21 y = y 5,170,416 = y-.21 y 5,170,416 =.79y 5,170,416/.79 = y y = 6,544,830 6,544,830 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005 and City of Meridian. Future Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation — - Future Square Footage Calculation 2006 'total SFT per Employee Employment 2006 SFT (2006 Employment/ 2006 SFT) 20,514 6,544,830 319 2016 2016 SFT Employment (2016 Employment * SFT per Employee) 31,888 10,173,758 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 11 0 0 0 APPENDIX Communities in Motion 9 0 9 _ 0 RFC -'I'D N f"I 1_0m, K C.t F. 7 Ti fd"srq Communities In Motion Executive Summary VISION We envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities are connected by an innovative, effective, multi -modal transportation system. GOALS Connections — Provide options for safe access and mobility in a cost-effective manner in the region. Coordination — Achieve better inter -jurisdictional coordination of transportation and land use planning. Environment — Minimize transportation impacts to people, cultural resources, and the environment. Information — Coordinate data gathering and dispense better information. The Pressure of Growth The COmmunities in Motion: Regional Long - Range Transportation Plan considers future transportation needs for Ada, Canyon, Gem, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties — a diverse region with cities ranging in size from less than 100 residents to more than 200,000. Commuting from Gem, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties into Ada and Canyon counties has increased over the past 20 years. In 2000, more than half of Boise County's working population commuted into Ada or Canyon County. For Gem County, that percentage was 37 percent. Other travel pressures exist. Recreational travel is affecting Boise County, while Payette County faces heavy truck traffic along U.S. 95. But the traffic problems of today will pale in comparison to the problems in 2030. Why? In part, because of population growth. The six -county region had slightly over 500,000 residents in 2000 according to the United States Census. By 2030, the population may swell to nearly 1 million or more. Jobs will increase as well and the location of these jobs will be critical. Many of the new Gem County residents make the commute into Treasure Valley via S.H. 16. Imagine that commute in 2030, when Gem County's population could double. Growth and what it means for our region's future is the reason for Communities in Motion. Growth Scenarios This section relates to Question #1 on the comment form COMPASS and the Communities in Motion planning process made an extensive effort to look at how our region might develop. Using input from the public, agencies, elected officials and others, COMPASS developed two growth scenarios: Trend and Community Choices. The Trend scenario reflects our future if we keep developing as we have over the past 40 years. Under Trend, much of the residential growth is at three units or so per acre. Growth will continue at current densities and will occur at the urban fringe, eventually consuming most of the land between the current cities. Community Choices, the preferred alternative in the draft plan, is a growth alternative that consumes less land, leaves more open space, offers housing choices and fosters the use of alternative transportation. Community Choices clusters growth inside the areas of impact, and emphasizes higher densities and mixed -uses with jobs, shopping and services closer to homes. rend ornmun' Choices 125,400 acres 42,200 acres 72% single family 55% single family 20% new homes at 52% new homes at transit density transit density 20.7 Million Daily 19.6 Million Daily Vehicle Miles of Vehicle Miles of Travel Travel I his table compares these two scenarios. Both scenarios provide for the same amount of growth. Community Choices: Provides a greater diversity of housing choices, such as patio homes, town homes, and apartments Increases the number of new homes at transit density, encouraging effective alternatives to driving Cuts 1 million daily vehicle miles of travel, easing traffic congestion and reducing fuel consumption Transportation Systems Proposed Communities in Motion focuses on two broad areas of investment: Transit and Roadways. Transit This section relates to Question #2 on the comment form The Community Choices scenario is much more likely to support transit, walking and biking. Two basic services could be feasible: 1) Fixed -guideways that could be light rail, commuter rail or bus rapid transit services. Fixed -guideways offer higher - speed transportation on separate travel 0 ways — a real benefit when the streets are congested. 2) Scheduled fixed -route services (buses operating on specific streets) that tie into the guideway systems. For most of the region covered by COMMunitier in Motion, there is no bus service for the general population. Community Choices would increase transit services more than 10 fold. It would increase peak hour frequency to 15 minutes, expand Saturday services and add Sunday services. Commuter bus services would be implemented to Elmore, Payette, Gem and Boise counties. A rail or other fixed - guideway service would be implemented between Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and Boise with a bus rapid transit service between Eagle and Boise. Since most of the growth under Trend would be at densities that could not effectively support scheduled bus services it was not practical to propose a major expansion of services. Under Trend, there would be less than 400 hours of scheduled bus service per day, within the Treasure Valley area. Service would not exist on Sundays and would be greatly reduced on Saturdays. Even on weekdays, the service only would operate 12 hours per day, with a 30 - minute interval in peak hour (6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m.) service. Roadways This section relates to Question #3 on the comment form Roadway improvements will take place on regional corridors. These corridors are described in Chapter 4. Highlights: 0 ® S.H. 16 will be a major north - south expressway by 2030, connecting Gem County and I-84. S.H. 44 will be improved to five lanes, including a bypass south of Middleton and frontage and backage roads ■ State Street will be a major transit corridor connecting Eagle into downtown Boise ® U.S. 20/26 (Chinden) will be widened and have enhanced access management. It could be an expressway from Caldwell to McDermott Road or further east. ■ I-84 between Caldwell and Gowen Road will be at least three to four lanes in each direction ■ Greenhurst-Lake Hazel will be a five -lane arterial connecting Middleton Road and I-84 Interchanges, overpasses and rail crossings are part of the corridor plan. With investment in roads and transit, the future network will be 23 percent over capacity by 2030, instead of 43 percent if Trend continues. About 5 percent of the major roads are over capacity today. Financial Reality This section relates to Questions #2 and #3 on the comment form A realistic plan acknowledges financial realities. The federal government requires that the long-range plan include investments that reasonably close to our estimated revenues. Furthermore, we can't claim the entire pot for new projects. At least half the transportation funding will go into operations and maintenance. So when you look at the corridors in Chapter 4, you are going to see projects that can be funded with our available resources as well as those that cannot. Funding for transportation comes from three general sources: federal funds, state highway distribution account and local funds. Chapter 5 describes the source of funds used for transportation. The bottom line is that whether federal, state or local funds are involved, most of the dollars come from some kind of tax. Funding is not equally available, either. In some counties, there are very few resources in place to build new major roads. Our region is $629 million short of funding all the roads. For transit, we are $1.1 billion short. We started with a pot of $350 million, and most of the future costs of service will be for operations and maintenance. What do these large numbers mean for a resident of our region? The total shortfall could be met with additional revenues of less than $200 per household per year. Another way of looking at it would be by tax or fee effort. Such sources could raise the entire $1.7 billion needed for roads and transit. More information can be found in Chapter 5. Funds Needed Final Thoughts A plan is not a solution. It is a guidebook. Where do we want to be? How might we get there? What are the opportunities and costs? Implementing the plan is essential so it doesn't end up as another dusty document on a shelf. Between now and the next update in 2010, we will need to focus our efforts on putting our vision and goals into effect. The Trend scenario is already occurring. If we don't move forward with Communities in Motion it means we are willing to accept Trend. U1 • %PPENDIX 0 0 olliers International is pleased to present our 2005 year-end Market Report. 2005 was a very active and productive year for commercial real estate across the —1 Valley. It was the first full year since the 2001 downturn in which the market was in full economic recovery. With a very strong population growth rate through- out the valley and continued historic low unemployment, the market is not only showing strength, but the growth is healthy and sustainable. The office market has remained strong in downtown Boise. Class A vacancies were under 7% throughout 2005. The strong office market is positioned to finish absorbing new condominium space in the mixed-use Bo®o development and the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, which is presently over 35% leased, and will be completed mid -year. The retail market can be described as strong and stable, with vacancies staying around 11 % overthe lasttwo years. While unanchored shopping centers have experienced some difficulties during 2005, activity remains strong around anchored centers. The Treasure Valley Marketplace at the Karcher interchange in Nampa will continue to be the big retail project in the valley during 2006 and 2007, with major tenants Costco,Target,and Kohl's already committed. The past year was an incredible year for multi -family real estate investment transactions, with over one million square feet and $69 million dollars in consideration. Cap rates for multi -family investment transactions inched down to 6.8% as Boise approached national rates. The investment market demand for industrial, retail, and office properties will continue to be high in 2006, as itwas last yearwith local cap rates still above national rates, but this margin is rapidly shrinking. [a One ofthe most dramatic changes from 2008 to 2005 occurred in the industrial market, with vacancies tightening and prices starting to rise in the fourth quarter aftertwo years of stagnant growth. One of the biggest harbingers of 2006 was the announcement of the sale of one of the former Zilog buildings in Nampa to Micron, a 160,000 squarefoot building which will even furthertighten the marketvacancy. 4 The residential housing market was front and center in the Treasure Valley economy during 2005. Fears of a housing bubble burst in the valley have largely been dismissed, due to the continued population growth that is i' driving demand for new housing and the current lack of a buildable lot inventory. Last year was definitely the best for commercial and residential real estate in recent memory. As we start 2006,all signs point to an equally good if not even better year. We at Colliers lookforward to working with you again this year to provide you with superior real estate services. The Boise market experienced declines in office vacancies and constant absorption throughout 2005. Vacancies in downtown Boise have finally dropped below the ten percent (8.1% Downtown and 9.5% Downtown Periphery) barrier that it has been flirting with for the last year and a half, and class A direct vacancies have tightened to 6.7%. Leasing activity has been solid in the downtown area and is expected to remain strong in the downtown and selected suburban areas during the first quarter of 2006. The West Bench and Meridian submarkets, which includes the area around the Boise Towne Square Mall, have seen the most leasing activity outside of the downtown area. One anomaly in the Boise market is the lack of upward pressure on rents. Rents have been increasing at rates lower than would be expected in an environment where there are both declining vacancies and rising construction costs. Lack of upward pressure on rents has also made it more difficult to get new office building projects off of the ground. _4 RAP 0 t k 3 9 Vacancies have tightened up dramatically in both downtown and suburban markets around Boise. The downtown central business district is currently at 8.1% with downtown class A vacancy now at 6.7%. The vacancy rate across all submarkets is 11.5%. Eagle continues to have one of the highest office vacancy rates among non -downtown submarkets at 25.1%, in part because of high rents and the low level of new construction as a percentage of the total in that submarket. Over the last year and a half it has been apparent that class A space downtown has been decreasing due to tenants seeking better quality space and the underlying strong economics of the valley. The only significant recent office projects have been office space in BoDo that was completed in the 4th quarter of 2005 and the 180,000 Banner Bank building which will be coming on-line in mid -2006. The market's ability to absorb the Banner Bank building will test whether the declining vacancies are due mostly to a lag in new space coming online, or if the market is really ready to absorb the new space. In either case, the downtown vacancy will more than likely stay the same or lower slightly over current levels as the new space is absorbed in 2006, but vacancies will remain low from a relative standpoint. �181Cr,ill C Y rlftrJ elr�(-'11,J`1('Y JR' rJ r�511(fi - �i rjs Maes elle ata?y by subruaTiKet ® Sol 9% 0 Northwest 1% E3 Central Bench 13% 35% 30% 25% v 20% R 15% 10% 5% 0% $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 0 Southwest 13 West Bench 4% [3 Eagle Kkf e! 2% 13 Merldi. ® Downtow Periphery 16% n, Dow 29% e VacanCY by Sub roiavket AvIlvage Office AsIdng Rates % ctws .110 o°� i 0 Market asking rates for available office listings are analyzed to get afeel for what the market will tolerate. While vacancies � have been tightening across the valley, quoted rental rates have only inched upslightly. Current annual full service rents average $l5.52 per square foot across all submarkets,while Eagle continues to have the highest average asking prices at$JU.74.Class Aspace in downtown Boise isaveraging $l8.67which isonly upslightly from July 2005's average rate of $18.44. Office spaces in the Central Bench and Northwest submarketshave the lowest asking prices at$ll5gand $i3.]Vrespectively. All these figures are effectively higher by gl to g] because of inadequate tenant improvement allowances |nmost new buildings. |fatenant wants adeal, they must look to second generation space so as to avoid these tenant improvement custs. Increasingly, the market is seeing full service rents to potential tenants inwhich janitorial service bexcluded. [nNeo International monitored the gap between full service rents with those excluding janitorial service and found the over- all marketdUferencetube$l.1b($1S.5Jvenesgl43f). Akey indicator cfthe depth inthe Boise office market in2OOd will bethe rate ofabsorption ofanew 100,O00square foot Banner Bank building inthe heart ofdowntown. The successful leasing of this new space may signal other significant downtown building projects tomove forward during 3OOb One main growth feature of Boise is the rapid population expansion tosmaller cities west ofBoise. |nthese areas, several newer large suburban office and business parks will continue tn see strong leasing activity, and construction inwestern suburban locations may lag behind demand. Demand will continue tobe high in2Un6insuburban markets for businesses looking tnown smaller buildings inthe 2,5VO'7,5OOsquare foot range. "AN Downtown Downtown Peripher—y Central Bench Southeast Southwest West Bench Eaqle Meridian 3,351,714 —1,93-1,440 1,501,206 433,063 2,131,175 262005 956,962 777777777� 263,044 15,971 171,564 12,075 155,142 63,002 171,917 65770 139,865 162,974 4,962 or buDmarW 279,015 55 183,639 '50 155,142 57 COLI 8.3% EE9.5% 30,629 5 19.5% 63,002 19 14.5% 311,782 —81 14.6% 167,936 �30��� 7 4o --~^^~`~^v^"t�vrA""""e"uwenSexnoce)~mxnw �"K(-=COmERSmTERNAMoNAL Fulg SODVICG Asking Rates by Build!" claw AD cbss OneTbuilding vacancy listed at $22.00 SOUiZCE- COLI 00BRS INTERNATIONAL Office Services r;Cs6it�..t �:�t•^.;c rl i � r '� � �i`J� .r-�-�, '� With ongoing residential growth expecteain the southwest and western Treasure Valley through 2006, retail -oriented commercial real estate will remain active and growing through 2006. Fears of a housing bubble in the Boise residential market have been largely ameliorated and that should secure a certain amount of retail growth over the next several years. 2005 saw the beginning phases of a full overpass and interchange at Karcher Road in the city of Nampa and the development of the 65 -acre Treasure Valley Marketplace northeast of the interchange. 2005 saw the opening of a new Edward's Cinema, P.F. Chang's, Ann Taylor Loft, Joseph A. Banks, and numerous other new tenants as part of the BoDo redevelopment in downtown Boise. 2005 also saw the explosion of unanchored strip centers throughout the Treasure Valley. While most have been successful to date, there are warning signs that this segment of the market could encounter some setbacks In 2006. Colliers currently tracks 10.3 million square feet in retail centers, 10,000 square feet or larger throughout ten individual markets that include the cities of Boise, Meridian, Eagle, and Nampa. The West Bench of Boise, which includes the area around the mall, represents 25% or over 2.5 million square feet of the inventory that Colliers monitors. This area remains a center of retail activity. Vacancy rates within the Treasure Valley retail centers 10,000 square feet or larger have been very stable over the past six months, moving from 10.9% in July to 11.1% at the years end. Over the past year, vacancies have shown some upward trend, increasing from 10.1% at the end of 2004. Vacancies have remained the highest in the northwest portion of Boise over the last six months, with current vacancy at 22.4%. The next highest vacancy is in Garden City at 16.8%. Eagle vacancy has increased slightly to 6.5% compared with 2.4% vacancy measured in July of 2005. Asking rates overall have only increased slightly since July and have been stable over the year. Retail market asking rates averaged $13.49 in July and currently average $13.70. This is just slightly higher than 2004 year-end estimates of $13.61. Top average asking rents are being seen in the North End of Boise ($18.25) and Southeast Boise ($17.45). Nampa continues to see the highest single asking rates with a $28 rent seen near the end of 2005. The lowest retail asking rates are currently being seen in the Central Bench area of Boise, which includes the area between 1-84 and 1-184. 40 RrUg 8 lnvemwy by subm-sly'ke£zz 13 Gar ElEagle 50/0 4% West Bench/mail 25%F ® south 11% ►6vi [I Nampa 8% „ ElCentral Ben 10% _ North End CVH d'tt yob 2% 13 Northeast _ 4% El southeast 13% g Metall Vacancy Rafts & MkIng F3ej Vacancy Rate r? Average Rent 20.0% 15.0% C, 0.. 5.0% o d I 0.0%_ r `��4 C.ec0.sa s'c hmption RanIdng by subrfla*et 0.00 S Or, CVH d'tt yob dPa _ oPt g �d'C 0sp Pft Cty 44, 4 0 0 9 7����`�sz�sa�r�s��,^,+ It is no surprise that the most active areasfor nyaUduring 20O5were the West Bench area inBoise, which includes the area around Boise Towne Square and Meridian. The West Bench mall area had a net absorption of over 100'000 square feet and Meridian followed closely behind with 90,00Osquare feet Activity will be the strongest in Canyon County, atthe Treasure Valley Marketplace and the Wb/'/Nart/6am'sClub developments. Including the anchor retailers, over 800,0VVsquare feet oyretail will be under construction by year's end. With the success of BnDuindowntown Boise, look for more mixed-use projects to be announced with retail office and residential components. Meridian will have at least two wo nexv projects with Kohl's anchoring one cfthe developments. ' 1«.0% INVENTORY HIGH AVERAGE LOW .4i 26 _P00.00 2 8.07-0 _�J 2 4-5 15 40 Ir 50.111PTRAN] Expanded Decembev aooS Retail StatWes RENTS HIGH AVERAGE .4i 26 _P00.00 2 8.07-0 _�J 2 4-5 15 Percentage kfacaul, 12.8% 10'2Y6 ^ - 11_646 10.996 � 7OL1Y6 � - ` ' ` ^ ' 10.8% 9.9% 01 COLLIBRSINTE8NA110NAL Retail Services 208.472.2835 -708.4722866 208.472.2847 0 0 ,':r.,ffif�-r,. $- ,t'.•ir:i'r :. i.f ,� �� ��� '..� ft" �' "� k,x:.G �--c ' �� 1 Boise is still experiencing rapid residential and retail growth and, as well, the industrial market continued to expand during 2005. After a couple of stable years, the industrial market has experienced tightening vacancies with upward pressure on prices starting to be felt. Industries such as flooring, glass, roofing, and other construction -related businesses were active seekers of industrial space in the Boise market during 2005. Asking rates are on the rise, land availability is diminishing, and overall, the Boise Industrial market is healthy. Colliers International tracks nearly 23 million square feet of industrial properties in buildings 10,000 square feet or larger. a; Nampa, with 4.5 million square feet, and the West Bench area of Boise, with 4.3 million square feet, are the largest submarkets that a Colliers monitors. 0 Eagle 0 Garden City 0.7W6 3.67% El Meridian ®Caldwell —\ ", Il West Bench o �'�; .. 0 Nampa 18.89% ==x� Fs•-' T9.79°k 1q -O ®3.58%west 13 Airpor F 11.3401 ® Southeast 9.54036 I3 Central Bench 0 Northwest 7.9040 0.16% Downtown 2.61 % Il North End 0 Downtown 0,22% Periphery ,'% .S Meridian and Nampa have the highest industrial vacancy rates in the Valley,due primarily to three large vacant manufacturing plants. Meridian is currently at 17.8% vacancy. Key vacancies in Meridian include the former Jabil building at 357,000 square feet and 29,000 square feet in the Taylor West building. Nampa's industrial vacancy is currently at 13.8%. Vacancies include the 268,000 square feet in the former Zilog buildings; however, Micron's purchase of one of these buildings is imminent. The lowest industrial vacancy 4 is currently in the Garden City submarket with vacancy at 1.9%. Garden City was one of the most active areas of the Valley in 2005, even though its inventory is small at 800,000 square feet. ?1P4D' IgPl,k7 j i� &I` i 1(1AN@Nf_a,_a1 e:l ! 1,i sa!-1r I• 2.94% Average Indo Mal Asking Rates by Submairket Industrial Vacancy Rate by Submaaet r 0 0 Average triple net asking rates on available industr al properties began to show an upturn toward the latter part of 2005, due to a reduction of supply, as well as increases in construction and land costs on new projects. Average asking rates for quality warehouse distribution space are presently in the $0.42 - $0.45 N.N.N. per square foot range. These rates should remain constant throughout the first half of 2006. With tightening vacancies and a limited variety of available industrial lease space, speculative building and build -to -suit �J projects may be more prevalent in 2006 than in 2005. Boise is also expected to see an increase in industrial condominiums to fit the needs of an increasing number of tenants seeking medium to smaller industrial spaces in the 2,000 to 5,000 square foot range that they can own. Vacancies will tighten in 2006, due to increased interest in large spaces such as the former labil, Zilog, and Aluma Glass buildings that have been on the market for some time. Meridian has continued to be a center of industrial leasing activity because of the decreasing supply and limited space variety in Boise. However, as Meridian's limited vacant space becomes absorbed, Nampa will see more and more activity. Further west of Boise, industrial leasing activity is also expected to experience more activity and interest during 2006. 7,77 INVENTORY SIF eira be it 2005 industrial Statis ics At A Glance Jai AVERAGE =� RENTS' (FINN MONTHLY) Airport 2,607,843 313,700 12.0% 11.0% $0.43 Central Bench 1,816,896 113,756 6.3% -5.9% $0.53 Downtown 600,141 61,412 10.2% 2.5% $0.20 Downtown Periphery 675,810 77,775 11.5% 3.0% $0.36 North End 50,186 15,000 29.9% 29.9% $0.32 Northwest 37,801 0 0.0% 0.0% n/a Southeast 2,193,491 107,707 4.9% 3.0% $0,49 Southwest 823,906 84,048 10.2% -9.2% $0,43 West Bench 4,343,351 283,792 6.5% -0.80/6 $0.48 $0.17 Caldwell 1,927,555 117,900 6.1% -1.2% Eagle Garden City Meridian Nampa �Anrents quotedasmonthly Ople-net 182,740 843,200 2,335,668 4,550,688 22,989,276` 21,064 11.5% -3.0% 16,400 1.9% -13.3% 415,469 17.8% -15.5% 625,879 13.8% 4.7% SOURCE COLLIERS $0.57 $0.35 $0.55 $0.35 $0.42 INTERNA-nONAL COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Industrial Services Steve Foster DevinPlerce leremywolf 208.4.72.2834 208.472.2862 208.472.2829 0 r iIJ 0 17' - U tra Total Boise MSA (Ada and Canyon counties) investment transaction volume in 2005 maintained a similar level of activity as was witnessed in 2004. Forty-six transactions totaling $169,716,465 in consideration were tracked in 2005, compared with forty-nine and $153,497,710 changing hands during 2004. While overall volume stayed reasonably constant between 2005 and 2004, there was a significant shift in the distribution of investment transactions, with multi -family transaction volume increasing by 72% from 2004 levels. These dramatic gains in multi- family transactions were offset by 22% and 20% declines in transaction dollars among office and retail respectively. Capitalization rates were also level, with rates averaging 8.0% during 2005 compared with rates at 8.1% in 2004. Data gathered by Colliers International from the sale of forty-six investment properties in the Boise MSA during 2005, above $500,000 in consideration, was used to compile the following statistics. Properties that sold with no income stream were excluded from this analysis. _ _ The office leasing market stayed on track during 2005 with slowly declining vacancy rates. Vacancy rates have gone down in closely monitored areas of downtown with vacancies at 8.3%. New space downtown, the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, will be a good test to see if the market can absorb new premium space and continue with low vacancy rates. For 2005, Colliers tracked thirteen office investment transactions with total consideration of $53,275,495. Capitalization rates ranged from a high of 12.7% to a low of 7.0%, with a group average of 8.9% compared with 8.4% in 2004. Boise office capitalization rates are higher than the national estimate of 7.4% and Western United States of 7.2%. Property sizes ranged from 3,017 square feet to 106,000 square feet with a total of 408,922 square feet changing hands. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $52 to $239 with a median price per square foot of $140 and a weighted average price per square foot for the entire group of $130. Positives- Even with decreasing vacancy rates and increased down- town absorption, there is still room for a decline in vacancy rates 13 Office 408,922 __ __ 31,456 13 Retail 227,241 17,480 4 Industrial 213,007 53,252 16 Multi -Family 1,033,638 55,532 in 2006. In 2005, new construction costs were outpacing rent growth, but little new supply should help keep vacancy and absorption at or slightly below 2004 and 2005 levels. Negatives - Movement of office space to western parts of the Treasure Valley may have a negative effect on the downtown office market during 2006. If new class A building space coming to market in 2006 absorbs slowly, it may send negative signals to investors and lending institutions. Colliers tracked thirteen retail investment sales during 2005, totaling $35,653,000 in consideration. Capitalization rates ranged from a high of 9.7% to a low of 5.7%, with a group average rate of 7.9%. Boise capitalization rates for retail properties are in line with the national estimate of 7.2%. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $79 to $387, with a group average price per square foot of $190 and a weighted average price per square foot of $157. Retail investment transactions occurred primarily during the first six months of 2005 with only three monitored investment transactions meeting our analysis criteria since July first. Retail average pricing per square foot is currently higher in Boise ($190) than in Denver ($157) and Salt Lake City ($170). I Oi7f14")R L'{,: Positives -Unemployment in the Boise MSA has stabilized and remained at 3.5%, and the population continues to grow, which will keep up demand for service and retail businesses. Properties located near major traffic generators such as Wal-Mart and other big box centers will be the most attractive to investors. Negatives - Unanchored centers continue to be carefully scrutinized by tenants, lenders and prospective investors. The Treasure Valley market could see a slowdown in prospective building and retail transaction volume while owners work to lease new or currently under construction retail developments. One signal that investors will be watching for is if new retail developments are scaled back or put on hold. 2005 Year -End Investment Su manj 53,275,495 4,098,115 $156 8.8% 35,653,000 2,7 12,538 $190 7.9% 11,339,970 2,834,992 $53 8.8% 69,448,000 3,612,188 $76 6.40/6 - - ---- —rv"N T N & ASSOCIATES. MOUNTAIN- STATES 0 0 Meridian FY 200S Capital Improvement Flans GENERALFUND J 2t—RVIEW The City's goal is a park system that features large multi -use community parks located so that no resident will be further than a chile from a park. These parks will provide a wide variety of both passive and structured (spinets fields) activities for their immediate neighborhoods. The ultimate objective is to have these parks linked together with a system of off-street trails. This concept is called "the String of Pearls" with the parks as pearls and the trail system the string. Supplementing this system will be neighborhood parks and mini parks maintained by private homeowner groups. PLA I KING BAC ',c:&QLjM The City's Parks Department is relatively new. In the last four years there have been several studies that influenced the development and direction of the parks departmcnt. July 2000 – Comprehensive Parks & Recreation System Plan – This was the original planning document that established a design for the City's Park system and established objectives for land acquisition, park development and management and Operations. ® July 2002 – City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan - This document provides policies and direction on how the City should grow and develop. June 2003 – Park Impact Fee Ordinance -- Revised based on Title 67, Chapter 82 of the Idaho Code which authorizes the imposition of park development impact fees as an equitable program for planning and financing park improvements needed to serve new growth and devclopment. August 2003 -- Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Action Plan - Supplement to the original 2000 Comprehensive Plan, provides specific recommendations on a layout plan for parks, open space, trails and other recreation facilities and a strategy for funding the Plan. - ^ xs+nmtum 20,000 square Peet Ouartar-m NO $mall one lot parka dastned to provide a small Playground and open space Within a sun mm on. Uevelopmamt and maintenance is generally the responsibility of the land developer and hnm noauner associations. eorhood !park Gaven to fifteen acres One -halt mile 3ma11 perks designed for noon -supervised, non -organized receeatisn activiles. They have a cmmbinstkm of playground and park acuvmw. Generally developed by land developer and maintained by homeovmer associations. WOO parka Fifteen to thirty acnes One to taro miles La !ger parka that provide active and structured recreation opportunities. They have parking. restroom, and picnic fa4dif es. Urban Parks Minimum fifty acres Entero City Large parks that have space for ptaygrountle,mportes fiofdns, Picnic areas. restrooms, pathways, and specialized facilities such as skate parks, aquatic facilities, tennis courts or Indoor recreation tao"Ities. WA 13 9A�II�ARKS Generalcor� P � 25 ages SmaN daeamt own plaza with sealing and Centennial Park .5 awes water feature Downtown next to Boys & Gids Club, has a basketball court, picnic space, open grass area and also provides additional downtown padc&tg Cox Monument Total .25 acres Small shelter loWed at City Hap on Idaho & Meridian i acs® WlEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Chateau Park 6.75 arras Developed in 2002, grass areas and 4 playground equoment 8th Street Park 4 acres Grass areas and playgroundu eq poen t Total 103/4 acres COMMUNITY PARKS Storey Pant 1 b acres Estabsshed park mature landscaping, bag fields, Picnic facies, and playground equipment Tully Park 18.5 acres Menu park with skate park, playroLUd bait fields, and plc facilites®nt, Boar Creek 18.5 acres New park with playground oquipment, tennis courts, ToM�I ball fief and picnic facilities .rig acres URBAN PARKS Meridian Settlers Park 26 acres d Newrk with Pa Playground, ball fields and fad6ties picnic 32 acres undevlp Park with be 58 acres, currently half is devetoped Total26 acres ark I.arrd Grand Toesal w.soa Fuser Pant Settler's Park 25 acres Park land owned and Operated by Use W m Ada Storey Parc SvWmming Pool 1/2 acre 1 acre Recreation Mtrlct located within Storey Park Private Neighborhood Parks City Golf Courso11 50+ acres Small parks owned & operated by homeowners, assns s sores The City awns the golf course but has entered into a long term lease with a private contractor for the s operation and maintenance. This lease is for $6,000 Per Year. 13 0 E PROJECTS Im PRBC �hllLJA°IT�L IP�l®�l[MENT pL.�l based on historical data and calculation done to based on those amounts. I�rojects are budgeted the park impact fee amoutgt-it costs the On a three �rzaY start tc� finish timeline, .�csn�cionS City $25,000 to purchase park land and $70,000 of bine and lar ware included in t'D develolx park land. Exptvc;ted costs to finish shown later in this report hosts and on-going projects and new projects are budgeted art as revenue. ss�,rs ram NFitm�Fg telae Saw CMA Pik ON-,vm Fork POWsWIM Puk auwmn ftre Leamil FORS 'cenWMd P� Lie Pao $40M7 PWk 40_4awe rreea 7,5 —pg k WI ft.W ed Auk iI Prema8e FI O -10P Per's LWW as Mamt BulGmg Yes FILUNA119 Yea $76.0 yes Va.= Y% $11444 Yss Yp $11,400 Yes $147.Qoi Y" $4$3.444 $368.885 YWB Yes Yes Yes $1"Ima x.000 $01.040 S1491W aw $10.4x20 800,M S11133=1 $268.04o $510.000 fti.440 SI sm"D $30,44$ WWO 5187.842. A00 snooty C:1-=TII $178900 3681.m X70040 MOM $250,400 $7o%wo $500m0 85,814M The parkland purchase fund i4 to accumulate money to purchase park land as it comes available. The $250.400 equates to about 10 acrd. Starting in iascal year 2408 $700,000 per year is budgeted to develop 10 acres of park land per year. E PARt[$ r acres$296,003 w- Located kt Autumn Faire su developer. Tho park is sch mot t� ecucels by Kivsanis Parte 9 awes $630 -OW Close to Mt View H' Sean � nk completed in partnership with D f4icruanis. The City will provide on-going maintenance and develop the park irrigation lace and motion system and green up the Park. The Kkmis Club Will gild the reatromn and shelter buildings. Champion Park 6 acres $423:1W Located in the Park Stone su �^ 10n near Rd and East Usttdc Road. Completion is scheduled for 2(105. Police Station Park 5 acres $353,3oo Located west of the Merid" Police Station on Welertowar Ave. Stated for dog tretntng facility and remote oar redo Ua1�d CPUMUNITY PARKS Lochsa Fab Park 30 acres 52,100,000 Located along Teal Mile Road betmsegn McMillian Road and Ba�evard. Scheduled for completion McDerCamden C4mry Ln Park 30 acres In 2310 $2,100.000 Located now the northeastcomer Of Ct" Lane and (Borup rorty) fit Wermott Rom.h Ti G IVs tmPaCt area rather then In the City. City sewer and water are not currently available eo developrnaM h- not otartod. The park Is stated to be the site of the Meridian Lim Rodeo Grounds Settlers Park 58 acresand an �e,tfttlng rink. $5,5to,000 5B acre parts located at thecoiner w/ Mteridian Road and Ute. The park development has been divided 4W 7 two phases. Tim ars-1 phase is conpiele, ftie second one Is schaduW to be comPMed in 2005. The secoind pike Will be 0 --plated by Meridian Youth Adventure Island at Settlers Parc $1,000,000 Handir�ped ac ibte playground located in Seltlers Park phase f of tfte pfaygrotlrki is comI final completion [a ss�,rs ram NFitm�Fg telae Saw CMA Pik ON-,vm Fork POWsWIM Puk auwmn ftre Leamil FORS 'cenWMd P� Lie Pao $40M7 PWk 40_4awe rreea 7,5 —pg k WI ft.W ed Auk iI Prema8e FI O -10P Per's LWW as Mamt BulGmg Yes FILUNA119 Yea $76.0 yes Va.= Y% $11444 Yss Yp $11,400 Yes $147.Qoi Y" $4$3.444 $368.885 YWB Yes Yes Yes $1"Ima x.000 $01.040 S1491W aw $10.4x20 800,M S11133=1 $268.04o $510.000 fti.440 SI sm"D $30,44$ WWO 5187.842. A00 snooty C:1-=TII $178900 3681.m X70040 MOM $250,400 $7o%wo $500m0 85,814M The parkland purchase fund i4 to accumulate money to purchase park land as it comes available. The $250.400 equates to about 10 acrd. Starting in iascal year 2408 $700,000 per year is budgeted to develop 10 acres of park land per year. E ELIDING Where are three sourees of funding available for park capital development. general revenue from the governmental activities, park impact fees, and prdrtnerships and donatiooYs. Dark impact fees are collected when a residential building permit is sold. These fees can be used only to develop new parks based on the underlying theory that new residents should help to pay for new parks built to serve therm. The Idaho law governing the calculation of impact fees changed recently. The fee calculation factors in several variables; the amount of new park cost to be picked up by the general fund (proportionate share), the desired park acres per resident, the cost to purchase park land and the cost to develop it, the average cast of a mouse in Meridian, and number of persons per dwelling. Impact fees have become more and more important as the resource that has allowed Meridian to purchase and develop park land. The current impact fee is $667 per residential building permit. Due to the growth in building permits the City collected over $1.2 million in impact fees and fiscal year 2004, and will most likely do the same in fiscal yeir 2005. The calculation of the fee will be addressed annually or at a minimum every other year and the amount may be changed. General fund revenue has to come from the general tax funds used to operate Fire, police, and other general government activities. From 1995 to 2004 the City spent several million dollars to purchase and develop 58 acres for a large urban parr. Development is on-going and the park is not completed. From fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2004 the City has spent $10,402,175 on purchases of park land and park development. Of this amount 38% has been funded by the general fund, 42% by impact fees, and 20% by donations. Donations come from developers, partnerships with community organizations, or volunteer fund raising efforts. - .`.. 01190.UW $27,851 $347,315 $481090 $773,554DONAX6,564 742,443 TK $60>000 $82,862 $911,810 $3231108 $5671000 $228.391 $399,500 $1,i7 771 Based on projections for sales of residential housing permits and the parer impact fee staying the same the City will generate $7,926,464 from 2005 through 2010 from impact fee revenue for new park development. Donations of $4,084,000 are expected for the same time period. This includes; $800,000 for Adventureland Playground, $1,200,000 for Settlers park youth baseball fields, $435,700 for Kiwanis Park, $860.000 for Lochsa Falls PAL soccer fields, $260,800 for Champion Park, $187,500 donation of 7.5 acre parcel, and $340,000 for the dog faci lity and remote car racing trach near the police station. The capital improvement plan for the same time period is $1-x.201,431. This means the City will need to appropriate $4,081,748 from the general fund or other sources if all projects in the capital improvement plan are completed. R 0 0 Nor PACT FM SEW SW7 2E2 DOUATIOM .000 6370, -,ENBRALRMwra =711 1 9A M4 PRIORITIES The Parks and Recreation Department's goal is 4 developed acres of parkland per 1000 population, At the end of fiscal year 20W, the City wti.s at 1.92 developed acres per 1000 population.. Assuming that at the same time period the City population was 50,000 the City would need 200 acres of parkland to meet the 4 acres per 1000 mark. The City has about a hundred acres of land scheduled to be developed in the next 'one - to two years. At that time the City's population is projected to be up around 60,000. The City would be about 40 acres short of acre per capita goal. CRA ENGES In addition to purchasing and developing park, land the City has to maintain parks. Impact fees cannot be used to maintain developed park land and donations are typical ly for one-time purchases, not on-going operating expenses. Q PAW TOTA St 2ffi1,�iYD �fi This means the entire cost of maintenance comes from general tax dollars. In fiscal year 2004 the City spent approximately $4,900 per acre to maintain its parks. Since the City had about 107 acres of developed Park land & other City properties budgeted dollars for maintenance were $524,300. If the City were at its goal acreage of 4 per 1000, assuming the City had a population of 50,000 the cost of maintenance would be $960,000. These maintenance figures include only personnel and operating -expense. In addition there are capital costs for equipment and vehicles. The City plans to vi-101"Ot9SlY pursue donations and partnership agreement,,; as well any grant funding that might he available. it i.% almost imperative that donations and impact fees pay for park development while general fund dollars are reserved for the on-going maintenance and Operations of the developed parks. W1. E FIRE DEPARTMENT OLERVIEW The City of Meridian hired its first full-time employee in 1977. By the end of 2005 the Meridian Fire Department will have 47 full time employees. In the 1950's a rural. district was formed to serve the area outside the city limits. The rural district and the City combined forces to serve a .54 square mile jurisdiction that stretches from the south channel of the Boise River to the north, Lake Hazel to the south, Cloverdale Road to the cast and McDermott Road to the west. The rural fire district taxes pay for approximately 25% of dic departmunt's expense with city taxes paying for 75%. As the city limits expand the proportion paid for by the city is increasing.' The rest of the funding comes from general fund tax revenue. Currently the City has three fire stations with a fourth one planned to come on line in the fall of 2005. Fire Station #1 is a three bay fire station and includes the administrative offices. Fire Stations #2, #3, and #4 are two bay stations. Fire Station # I is staffed with 12 firefighters, stations #2 and #3 have 9 firefighters while plans for station #4 call for a staff of 12. The increase in staff for station #4 is due to the City's plan to start adding a paramedic to each shift. Current COSL to build a new fire station is over $1,000,000. If the City has tobuy the land, versus having the land donated the cost can increase by up to $150,000. Land for Fire Station #4 was donated by the developers of Thousand Springs. The cost of a fire engine is around $500.000. Stalion #2 Station # a 1982 Pierce Engine 1986 Pierce Engine 1993 Pierce Engine 2000 Pierce Engine 2002 Pie rec Ermine 640 E Franklin — 2401 N. Ten Mile Road 3545 N Locust Road 17 - ,utin ru� 2006 w mland verwe RePlace Wehide $45,000 2007 Engine #4 2008 Stattan 5 Engine #5 2009 SO&n #6 Lane Engine #S R act E n. 2010 Station #6 Replace Engini 2012 Ladder Truck 2014 Training Tower 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 • --I-- —IMI. IQ .11 535,0(10.. °: r $425,001} $435,000: x�$.4q.�60�,,01/0g�0 As the City population increases rapidly the demand for safety services also increases. The cost of building a fire station is small compared to cost to staff a fire station. Starting in fiscal year 2005 the City made the decision to staff the fire stations with paramedics. The majority of fire calls are medical and the City felt that as fire is the first on scene it would be beneficial to have medical treatment administered immediately. This means the cost to staff a fire station and include paramedics is edging toward a $1,00(},000. As the table below show the cost of providing fire and first response medical services has increased steadily every year, between 25 to 30 percent not including the capital cost. The general fund revenue for the same time period has increased at half that rate. It will become increasingly challenging to find the dollars to keep up with the cost. The cost of building Fire Station #4 is being picked up by the rural fire department which has allowed the City to build it faster then would have been possible otherwise. However, down the road the City might be required to repay the rural fire district for the cost of the fire stations. Note: Only two weeks of staffing cost for Station #4 were budgeted in fiscal year 2oo5. However a full year of personnel cost has been added to the table above to illustrate what the actual cost will be. O PEORUES Decisions to add stations are based on an area's Population. number of calls. and res se time_ The goal is to keep response time under four to five minutes. CHALLENGES Sincc rapid growth is occurring simultaneously in many parts of Meridian it has been challenging to fund and build stations fast enough to serve everyone. Provision of paramedic services has became a challenge for the City and Ada County. The County has traditionally provided paramedic and ambulance services. The City made the decision to add paramedics to fire shifts due to concern with ambulance response times, It will still be necessary to transport patients in an ambulance which means that an ambulance service will have to respond in addition to the Meridian Eire Department. With the lowering of Medicare/Medicaid rates and escalating medical costs operating an ambulance/paramedic service at a breakeven has become very difficult. it will be important in the future that government agencies work together to find the most cost effective approach to provide the service. 19 u POLICE DEpAT'Av ENT Yi/IFW In June of 2002 the Meridian Police Department moved from their tiny, cramped building and mobile office trailer into a $4,000,000 30, square foot station located at 1401 E Watertower. Currently the Police Department has 69 full time and 3 part time employees, 56 of those positions are police officers. The building n was designed for growth and no additional construction is planned. Fi.1Fi 1RiDING Like the Fire Department the Police Department has experienced growth although the percent increaSe,S have not been as steep. r-u€ure capital .needs will be vehicles and technology rather then construction. The station was funded through judicial review/confirmation. This is a process where the City is allowed to take on debt based on approval from the court system. Normally city's can only hake on debt for capital construction beyond a one year period through a public vote with a super majority voting for approval. however, if the need for the new facility is compelling enough it may be allowed by judicial confirmation. Recently in Idaho this process has been challenged by private individuals and will probably become obsolete. The City went through a trustee and released a bond issuance. In addition to principal and interest payments the City paid bund closing costs of over $100,000, furniture and fixture costs of $400,00(} and annual property tax of The following is the lease schedule. The trustee is Wells Fargo, ChALLEN ES In addition to a citizen's challenges of the judicial review process the tax exempt status of the station was challenged resulting in Ada County charging the City property tau. The City maintains that they own the land and have a capital lease purchase agreement with Wells Fargo and essentially have ownership and control of the building. This would make the building tax exempt as in the case wish all public buildings. The City has modified the wording in the trust agreement and hopes to be relieved of the tax assessment in the future. KII 0 10 CRTYY OF NERrDIAK IDAHO CER'H WICATU OF' PARTICEPATION, SERIES 200, (LAW ENFORCEMNT Dated: August 1, 2011 Serial Maturides: 2UW-2010 Term Maturities: Y�ayment Date Prine' al Interest 'total Balance Outstanding Due Interest iaeincipa MIS !tate Amount I -Feb 2002 SO 582362.50 59256250 $4,000,010 $4,(ut0.01(i 7002 I -Aug 1 -Feta 2002 2003 $335.000 $82.562.50 5417.562.50 $3,665.0 2042 3.5()()% 5335.000 $0 576.700.00 $76.700.00 $3.665,000 2003 1 -Aug ITeb 2003 2004 $345.000 576.700.00 5421.700.00 $3.320,000 2003 4.000% 5345,000 $o $69.800.00 $69.800.00 $3.320,000 20()4 1 -Aug 1 -Feb 2004 2005 $360,000 $69,800.00 $429,800.00 $2,960,000 2004 4,000% $360.000 $0 $62,600.00 $02,600.00 7,960.000 2005 1 -Aug 1 2005 $375.000 $62,601.00 $437.601.00 $2,585.000 2015 4.000 $375,000 -Feb 2006 so 555.100.00 $55,100.00 $2,585,004 2006 I -Aug I -Feb 2006 2007 $390.000 555.100.00 5445,100.00 $2,195.{x} 2006 4.000% 5390.000 $0 $117,300.00 :I4'/,3W-UU $2,195.003 2W7 I -Aug I -rob 2007 2008 $405,000 547,300.00 $452,3((0,.00 $1,790,000 20()7 4.000% $405,0 $0 $39.200.00 $39,260.00 $1,790,0(* 2008 1 -Aug I -Feb 2008 2009 $420.000 $39.20(}.00 $459,260.00 $1.370.{Ip0 2018 4.25Wc 5420,0W $0 $30.275.00 $30,275.00 51,370,081 2019 1 -Aug I -Feb 2009 2010 $440,000 $30,275.00 $470.275.00 $0.30-000 2019 4,250% 5440,000 5o $20.925.00 520.925.00 $930NO 2010 I -Aug I -Feb 2010 2011 $455.000 $20.925.01 $475,925,()p $475.010 2010 4,500% 5455,000 $0 510.687.50 510,687.50 5475,000 2011 1 -Aug 2011 $475.00(1 510.687.50 $485.687 50 $0 2011 4.500% $475,000 .. _- --- $0.00 $0.00 $0 0 QVERVIEW The City has several administrative and support Positions. These include Planning and Zoning, Public; Works and the Building Department, Finance, Billing, Information Technology, the !'Mayor's Office, the City Cleric, City Attorney's Office, Human Resources and the City Council. Currently the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Forks and the Building Department rent office space and the rest of the departments are housed in City Hall bated a 33 E Idaho. The current City Hall was built in 1987 and is 8,000 square feet. The City's priority now is to build a new City Hall with space for all of the service departments. Space needs are estimated to be around 48,000 square feet. The City's goal is to In terest $5.86230 $0.00 $6.900.00 30.00 $7.200.01 $0.00 $7.500.00 $0,00 $7.804.00 SO.00 $8.10o.(10 $0.00 $8,925.00 $0.00 $9.350.(0 $0.01 $10.237.50 $0.00 $10.687.50 $0.00 keep the City Hall in the downtown core to be a cornerstone of the downtown revitalization movement. FUNDING Building costs are estimated to be approximately $9 million. The cost will be split between the Cities general fund and the enterprise fund as space will be split equally between employees of the two funds. Each fund) as adequate cash balances to pay for their portion outright, it will not be necessary to seek outside funding or debt. CHALLENGES The biggest challenge has been finding adequate space in the downtown core for the building and the necessary parking. 21 September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Ordinance No. 06-1255: Third and Final Reading of Amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance increasing the park impact fee imposed on building permits for residential construction; and adopting new impact fees for fire and police capital improvements to be 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 Aftached Ordinance Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. OU " BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, BY REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, AND BY ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION, COMPUTATION AND PAYMENT OF A POLICE IMPACT FEE, A FIRE IMPACT FEE, AND A PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING AUTHORITY, INTENT AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR EACH OF SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS, REFUNDS, CREDITS AND WAIVERS RESPECTING SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, APPLICABILITY AND APPEALS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the City of Meridian ("the City") may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the City retained BBC Research and Consulting, Galena Consulting and Spink Butler, LLP (collectively, "Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections for the period 2006 to 2026 in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by BBC Research and Consulting, dated August ZB , 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts of various types of new residential and nonresidential Development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact of new growth and development on the System Improvements addressed therein; determines the costs necessary to meet demands created by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees as set forth in this Chapter that are at a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The City hereby establishes as the City standards the assumptions and Level of Service standards referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 1 of 23 WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities, including review and reliance on that certain City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, July 2002 (Resolution 02-382), as amended by Resolution Nos.: 03- 401 and 03-409 (Parks and Recreation System Plan -Action Plan); 04-454; and 06-505 (North Meridian Area) and that certain amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City on 2006 (Resolution No. 06 — 3-Z 6 ) (collectively, the "Comprehensive Plan"), the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements that will increase the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. WHEREAS, in preparing the Irnpact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans prepared by Consultant and adopted by the City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would generate demand for additional police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements addressed therein; and WHEREAS, all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study, which are to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and WHEREAS, an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of Public Facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare ofthe citizens of the City and City's area of City impact. Such protection requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city impact. WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the reasonable impacts of new growth and development on existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements, and the reasonable costs of Capital Improvements necessary to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to accommodate the additional demands and impacts of new growth and development; and WHEREAS, based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at public hearing and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 2 of 23 0 0 the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and nonresidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS, in adopting the police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Capital Improvements Plans have been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans have been presented to and reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss, review and hear public comments on the proposed Impact Fees set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council. The existing Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby repealed and a new Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby adopted as follows: IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 3 of 23 TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SECTION 10-07-01 Legislative Findings 10-07-02 Authority, Applicability, and Effective Date 10-07-03 Intent 10-07-04 Definitions 10-07-05 Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees 10-07-06 Payment of Impact Fees 10-07-07 Impact Fee Fund; Refunds of Impact Fees Paid 10-07-08 Exemptions From Impact Fees 10-07-09 Credits; Reimbursements 10-07-10 Appeals 10-07-11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee 10-07-12 Miscellaneous Provisions 10-07-01— Legislative Findings The City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho finds that: (a) Based on the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City pursuant to. Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including but not limited to the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general governmental goal of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, and its area of City impact, it is necessary that the City's Public Facilities for: (1) park and recreation Public Facilities; and (2) public safety Public Facilities for law enforcement and fire to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and its area of City impact. (b) New residential and nonresidential growth and development imposes and will impose increasing and demands upon the Public Facilities. (c) The revenues generated from new residential and nonresidential growth and development often do not generate sufficient general funds to provide the necessary improvements of these Public Facilities to accommodate new growth and development. (d) New growth and development are expected to continue, and will place ever- increasing demands on the City to provide and expand the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. (e) The City has planned for the improvement of the Public Facilities in the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. (f) The creation of an equitable Impact Fee system would enable the City to impose a Proportionate Share of the costs of needed improvements to the Public Facilities to IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 4 of 23 accommodate new growth and development, and would assist the City in implementing the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (g) In order to implement an equitable Impact Fee system for the Public Facilities, the City retained BBC Research & Consulting to prepare an Impact Fee Study for these types of facilities. The resulting document titled "The City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated August 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), recommended for approval by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, is on file in the office of the city clerk - of the City of Meridian. (h) The Impact Fee Study is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and uses the Levels of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for these Public Facilities. (i) The Impact Fee Study sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of new growth and development on the Public Facilities, and determines the cost of acquiring or constructing the improvements necessary to meet the demands for such Public Facilities created by new growth and development. 0) The Impact Fee Study uses a calculation methodology in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that is net of credits for the Present Value of revenues that will be generated by new growth and development based on historical funding patterns and that are anticipated to be available to pay for System Improvements, including taxes, assessments, user fees, and intergovernmental transfers, and included consideration of the following factors: 1. The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; 2. The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; 3. The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; 4. The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; 5. The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; 6. Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 5 of 23 • 7. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and 8. The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (k) The maximum allowable Impact Fees described in this Ordinance are based on the Impact Fee Study, and do not exceed the costs of System Improvements for the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development that will pay the Impact Fees. (1) The police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities included in the calculation of Impact Fees in the Impact Fee Study will benefit all new growth and development throughout the City, and it is therefore appropriate to treat all areas of the City and the area of city impact as a single Service Area for purposes of calculating, collecting and spending the Impact Fees collected. (m) There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts created by each type of development covered by this Ordinance and the Impact Fees that such development will be required to pay. (n) This Ordinance creates a system by which Impact Fees paid by new growth and development will be used to finance, defray or to provide Capital Improvements for the Public Facilities in ways that benefit the development for which Impact Fees were paid. (o) This Ordinance creates a system under which Impact Fees shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies in Public Facilities, or to replace or rehabilitate existing Public Facilities, or to pay for routine operation or maintenance of those Public Facilities. (p) This Ordinance is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, concerning Impact Fee Ordinances. 10-07-02 — Authority, Applicability, and Effective Date (a) This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's general police powers pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Title 50, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (b) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all of the territory within the limits of the City and to any unincorporated areas of the City within the City's area of city impact where the City has executed an intergovernmental agreement with Ada County for purposes of collection or expenditure of Impact Fees pursuant to Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code, and other applicable laws of the State of Idaho. (c) This Ordinance is effective l,ecens -Clz- f , 2006 (the "Effective Date"), which Effective Date is at least thirty (30) days subsequent to the passage, approval and IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 6 of 23 publication, according to law, of Ordinance No. �%�i �Z SS , which adopted the provisions hereof. (d) Applications for Building Permits received by the City prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendments hereto, adopting Impact Fees or amending or adopting any methodology by which Impact Fees are calculated, will be exempt from that portion of this Ordinance, or amendment enacted after such Building Permit application, if a valid Building Permit has been issued or construction has commenced prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendment. For Building Permits that expire or are revoked after the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the Feepayor shall be entitled to a refund of previously paid Impact Fees as provided further in Section 10-07-07, Meridian Code, provided that in the case of reapplication for Building Permit, the Impact Fee in effect at that time shall be paid. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Development Requirements for System Improvements shall be imposed by the City only by way of Impact Fees imposed pursuant to and in accordance with Section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, and this Ordinance. 10-07-03 — Intent (a) The intent of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City and its area of city impact. (b) The intent of this Ordinance is to be consistent with those principles for allocating a fair share of the cost of Capital Improvements to Public Facilities to serve new growth and development in compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (c) The intent of this Ordinance is that Impact Fees should be charged, collected, and expended for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of such categories of Public Facilities, which Capital Improvements are included in approved Capital Improvements Plans that list the Capital Improvements that may be funded with Impact Fees. (d) The intent of this Ordinance is to ensure that: Public Facilities are available to serve new growth and development; new growth and development bears a Proportionate Share of the cost of police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities; to ensure that such Proportionate Share does not exceed the cost of the Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities required to serve new growth and development; and to ensure that the funds collected from new growth and development are used for Capital Improvements for Public Facilities that benefit new growth and development. (e) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to collect any monies from new growth and development in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for Capital Improvements to Public Facilities created by such new growth and development. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 7 of 23 0 • (f) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that the Impact Fees be used to remedy any deficiency in police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements existing on the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or ever be used to replace, rehabilitate, maintain and/or operate any Public Facilities. (g) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that any monies collected from an Impact Fee deposited in an Impact Fee fund ever be commingled with monies from a different fund, or ever be used for Capital Improvements that are different from those for which the Impact Fee was paid. (h) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that Impact Fees be used for: (1) Construction, acquisition or expansion of Public Facilities other than Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (2) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements. (3) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. (4) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development to provide better service to existing Development. (5) Administrative and operating costs of the City unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans used to determine Impact Fees by a surcharge imposed by ordinance on the collection of an Impact Fee, which surcharge shall not exceed a Development's Proportionate Share of the cost of preparing the Capital Improvements Plans. (6) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-04 — Definitions (a) "Affordable Housing" means housing affordable to families whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the Service Area. (b) "Building Permit" means an official document or certificate by that name issued by the City authorizing the construction or siting of any building. (c) "Capital Improvements" means improvements with a useful life of ten (10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a Public Facility. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 8 of 23 • 0 (d) "Capital Improvements Element" means a component of a comprehensive plan. (e) "Capital Improvements Plan" means a plan adopted pursuant to this Chapter that identifies Capital Improvements for which Impact Fees may be used as a funding source. (fl "City" means the City of Meridian, Idaho. (g) "City Council" means the legislative body of the City of Meridian, Idaho. (h) "Developer" means any person or legal entity undertaking development, including a parry that undertakes the subdivision of property pursuant to Sections 50-1301 through 50- 1334, Idaho Code and 11-6, Meridian Code. (i) "Development" means any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. 0) "Development Approval" means any written authorization from a Governmental Entity which authorizes the commencement of a Development. (k) "Development Requirement" means a requirement attached to a Development Approval or other governmental action approving or authorizing a particular Development including, without limitation, a rezoning, which Development Requirement compels the payment, dedication or contribution of goods, services, land and/or money as a condition of approval. (1) "Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion of a building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy, and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling Unit includes a Multifamily building, a mobile home, a Manufactured Home, a Modular Building and/or a motel/hotel/rooming house. (m) "Extraordinary Costs" means those costs incurred as a result of Extraordinary Impact. (n) "Extraordinary Impact" means an impact which is reasonably determined by the City to: result in the need for police, fire, and parks and/or recreation System Improvements, the cost of which will significantly exceed the sum of the Impact Fees to be generated from the Project; or result in the need for police, fire, parks and recreation System Improvements that are not identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (o) "Fee Administrator" means the official appointed by the Mayor with the City Council approval to administer this Chapter. (p) "Feepayor" means a person who pays or is required to pay an Impact Fee or the Feepayor's Successor in Interest. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 9 of 23 0 • (c) "Governmental Entity" means any unit of local government that is empowered by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, to adopt an Impact Fee ordinance. (r) "Impact Fee" means a payment of money imposed as a condition of Development Approval to pay for a Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements needed to serve Development. The term does not include a charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review or inspection costs associated with permits required for Development. (s) "Impact Fee Study" means the document entitled the "City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July 3, 2006, prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the City. (t) "Land Use Assumptions" means a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a twenty (20) year period. (u) "Level of Service" means a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for Public Facilities. (v) "Manufactured Home" means a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or is forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq. (w) "Modular Building" means any building or building component, other than a Manufactured Home, which is constructed according to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. (x) "Multifamily" means a building or portion thereof, containing two (2) or more Dwelling Units, excluding attached single-family townhouse units located on individual lots. (y) "Owner" means the person holding legal title to real property, including the local, state or federal government or any subdivision thereof. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 10 of 23 W "Person" means an individual, corporation, governmental agency, business trust, estate, partnership, association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other entity. (aa) "Present Value" means the total current monetary value of past, present or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials, construction or money. (bb) "Project" means a particular Development on an identified parcel of land. (cc) "Project Improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a Project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the Project. (dd) "Proportionate Share" means that portion of the cost of System Improvements determined pursuant to Section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and Section 10-07-05, Meridian Code, which reasonably relates to the service demands for Public Facilities of a Project. (ee) "Public Facility(ies)" means: (1) parks open space and recreation areas, and related Capital Improvements; and (2) public safety facilities, including law enforcement and fire facilities. (f 1) "Service Area" means the territory within the limits of the City and the City's area of city impact. (99) "Successor in Interest" means a Person who gains legal title in real property for which an Impact Fee is paid or a credit is approved pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance. (hh) "System Improvements," in contrast to Project Improvements, means Capital Improvements to Public Facilities that are designed to provide service to a Service Area including, without limitation, the type of improvements the City has the authority to make as described in Section 50-1703, Idaho Code. (ii) "System improvement costs" means costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of system improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs attributable thereto, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in Section 50-1702(h), Idaho Code, to provide additional public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. For clarification, system improvement costs do not include: (i) Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities other than capital improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans; Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements; (iii) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 11 of 23 0 0 (iv) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to provide better service to existing development; (v) Administrative and operating costs of the governmental entity unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans, as provided in Section 67-8208, Idaho Code; or (vi) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the governmental entity to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-05 — Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees (a) Any application for a Building Permit enabling the construction, and in the case of construction that does not require a Building Permit, any building that takes place on or after the Effective Date of this Chapter shall be subject to the imposition of Impact Fees in the manner and amount set forth in this Chapter. The methodology adopted for the purpose of determining police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees shall be based upon the assumptions set forth in the Impact Fee Study. (b) Impact Fees shall be required as a condition of approval of all residential and nonresidential Development in the Service Area for which a Building Permit is required and shall be payable prior to the issuance of any Building Permit (or installation permit in the case of a Manufactured Home) for a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential building. Except as otherwise provided herein, after the Effective Date of this Chapter, no Building Permit shall be issued until the Impact Fees described in this Chapter have been paid, unless the Development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Section 10-07-08 or approved credits are used to cover the Impact Fee, as set forth in Section 10-07-09. The Fee Administrator shall have the authority to withhold a Building Permit or stop construction, as the case may be, until the appropriate Impact Fee has been collected. (c) A Feepayor required by this Chapter to pay an Impact Fee may choose to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to either the Fee Schedule or subsections (d) through (f) below. If the Feepayor chooses to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to subsections (d) through (f) below, such Impact Fee shall be subject to the adjustment described in Section 10-07-09, if applicable. If the Project is a mix of those uses listed on the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fees shall be determined by adding up the Impact Fees that would be payable for each use as if it were a freestanding use pursuant to the Fee Schedule. (d) Individual assessment of Impact Fees is permitted in situations where the Feepayor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the established Impact Fee is inappropriate for the Project. Written application for individual assessment shall be made to the Fee Administrator at any time prior to receiving Building Permit(s). Late applications for individual assessment of Impact Fees may be considered for a period of sixty (60) days after IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 12 of 23 the receipt of a Building Permit only if the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable prior to receipt of a Building Permit and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. Such independent hnpact Fee calculation study for the Feepayor's Development shall be prepared at the Feepayor's cost by a qualified professional and contain studies, data and other relevant information and be submitted to the Fee Administrator for review. Any such study shall be based on the same methodology and the same Level of Service standards, improvements and costs used in the hnpact Fee Study, and must document the methodologies and assumptions used. The City may hire a professional consultant to review any independent hnpact Fee calculation study on behalf of the City, and may charge the reasonable costs of such review to the Feepayor. (e) Any independent Impact Fee calculation study submitted by a Feepayor may be accepted, rejected or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating Impact Fees. The City shall not be required to accept any study or documentation the City reasonably deems to be inaccurate or unreliable, and shall have the authority to request that the Feepayor submit additional or different documentation for consideration in connection with review of any independent Impact Fee calculation. If such additional or different documentation is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the Impact Fees due in connection with Feepayor's proposed Development than the applicable Impact Fees set forth in subsection the Fee Schedule, then the hnpact Fee due under this Chapter shall be calculated according to such documentation. (fl The Fee Administrator shall render a written decision establishing the hnpact Fees in connection with the individual assessment within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The decision shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fees, shall specify the System hnprovement(s) for which the Impact Fees are intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the following factors considered: (1) The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; (2) The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; (3) The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; (4) The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; (5) The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 13 of 23 (6) Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; (7) The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and (8) The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (g) Certification of the Impact Fee for a Project may be applied for in the following manner: (1) Written application may be made to the Fee Administrator not later than sixty (60) days after Development Approval by the City Council. Late applications for certification of the Impact Fee will not be considered unless the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable until after the time had run and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. (2) The Fee Administrator shall provide the Feepayor with a written Impact Fee certification for the Project within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The certification provided by the Fee Administrator shall establish the Impact Fee for the Project in question, so long as there is no material change to the Project as identified in the certification application or the Impact Fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of factors considered, and shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fee, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the factors considered, which factors are identified in subsection (f) above. (h) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination of an individual assessment or certification shall be made to the City as provided further in this Chapter. (i) The City recognizes that there may be circumstances where the anticipated fiscal impacts of a proposed Development are of such magnitude that the City may be unable to accommodate the Development without excessive or unscheduled public expenditures that exceed the amount of the anticipated Impact Fees from such Development. If the City determines that a proposed Development would create such an Extraordinary Impact on the City's police, fire, and/or parks and recreation Public Facilities, the City may refuse to approve the proposed Development. In the alternative, the City may calculate a pro rata share per Dwelling Unit, or square feet of nonresidential buildings, of the Extraordinary Impact and charge a reasonable Extraordinary Impact Fee that is greater than would ordinarily be charged. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 14 of 23 • 0 0) If the City discovers an error in its Impact Fee formula that results in assessment or payment of more than a Proportionate Share, City shall, at the time of assessment on a case by case basis, adjust the Impact Fee to collect no more than a Proportionate Share or discontinue the collection of any Impact Fees until the error is corrected by ordinance. 10-07-06 — Payment of Impact Fees (a) After the Effective Date of this Chapter all Feepayors shall pay the Impact Fees as provided by this Chapter to the Fee Administrator following application for a Building Permit and prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for a Dwelling Unit, or nonresidential building. (b) All Impact Fees paid by a Feepayor pursuant to this Chapter shall be promptly deposited in the Impact Fee Fund described in Section 10-07-07. 10-07-07 — Impact Fee Funds; Refunds of Impact Fees Paid (a) There is hereby established a police Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all police Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring police Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of police Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (b) There is hereby established a fire Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all fire Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring fire Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of fire Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (c) There is hereby established a parks and recreation Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all parks and recreation Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring parks and recreation Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of parks and recreation Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (d) Each fund shall be an interest-bearing account which shall be accounted for separately from other Impact Fee funds and from other City funds. Any interest or other income earned on monies deposited in a fund shall be credited to such fund. Expenditures of Impact Fees shall be made only for the category of System Improvements for which the Impact Fees were collected and as identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (e) Except as otherwise provided herein, monies from each fund, including any accrued interest, shall be limited to the financing of acquisition, expansion, and/or improvement of Capital Improvements, or for principal and interest payments on bonds or other borrowed revenues used to acquire, expand or improve such Capital Improvements, necessary to serve new growth and development. Impact Fees in each fund shall be spent within eight (8) years from the date such Impact Fees were collected on a first-in/first-out (FIFO) basis. The City IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 15 of 23 may hold the Impact Fees longer than the prescribed time period if the City identifies, in writing: (1) a reasonable cause why the Impact Fees should be held longer; and (2) an anticipated date by which the Impact Fees will be expended but in no event longer than eleven (11) years from the date the Impact Fees were collected. W The Fee Administrator shall prepare quarterly and annual reports to be provided to the Advisory Committee and the City Council, which reports shall: (1) Describe the amount of all Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility; and (2) Describe the percentage of tax and revenues other than Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility. (g) Funds shall be deemed expended when payment of such funds has been approved by the City. The Feepayor or Successor in Interest shall be entitled to a refund of the Impact Fee if. (1) service is available but never provided; (2) a Building Permit or permit for installation of a manufactured home is revoked or abandoned; (3) the City, after collecting the Impact Fee when service is not available, has failed to appropriate and expend the collected Impact Fees; or (4) the Feepayor pays an Impact Fee under protest and a subsequent review of the Impact Fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the Impact Fee paid exceeded the Proportionate Share to which the City was entitled to receive. (h) When the right to a refund exists, within ninety (90) days after the City determines that a refund is due, the City shall provide written notice of entitlement to a refund, to the Owner of record and the Feepayor who paid the Impact Fees at the address shown on the application for Development Approval, or to a Successor in Interest who has notified the City of a transfer of the right or entitlement to a refund and who has provided to the City a mailing address. When the right to a refund exists, the City shall also publish the notice of entitlement to a refund within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the eight (8) year period after the date that the Impact Fees were collected. Such published notice shall contain the heading "Notice of Entitlement to Impact Fee Refund." (i) A refund shall include interest at one-half (1/2) the legal rate provided for in Section 28-22-104, Idaho Code, from the date on which the Impact Fee was originally paid. 6) In order to be eligible for a refund, a Feepayor, Successor in Interest or Owner of record shall file a written application for a refund with the Fee Administrator within six (6) months of the time such refund becomes payable under subsection (e) above, or within six (6) months of publication of the notice of entitlement to a refund, whichever is later. If a Successor in Interest claims a refund of Impact Fees, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been transferred to the claimant prior to issuing the requested refund. Refunds shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the date on which the Fee Administrator determines that a sufficient proof of claim for a refund has been made. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 16 of 23 0 0 (k) Any person entitled to a refund shall have standing to sue for a refund under the provisions of this Chapter if there has not been a timely payment of a refund as provided herein. 10-07-08 — Exemptions from Impact Fees (a) The following types of land Development shall be exempted from payment of the Impact Fees imposed by this Chapter: (1) Rebuilding or replacing a Dwelling Unit or the same amount of square feet of a nonresidential structure on the same lot and existing on the Effective Date of this Chapter provided that the rebuilt or replaced Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure does not increase the need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. If such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure was destroyed, such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure must be rebuilt or replaced and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of destruction. (2) Construction of an unoccupied, detached accessory structure, or addition of uses related to a Dwelling Unit unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of System Improvements. (3) Remodeling or repairing a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential structure in a manner that does not increase the need for police or fire or parks and recreation Public Facilities. (4) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot. (b) An Impact Fee will be assessed for installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home unless the Feepayor can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (1) that a Modular Building or Manufactured Home was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the Effective Date of this Chapter; or (2) that an Impact Fee has been paid previously for the installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home on that same lot or space. (c) Developments determined by the City Council that provide Affordable Housing may be exempt from the Impact Fee requirement, provided that the exempt Development's Proportionate Share of System Improvements is funded through a revenue source other than Impact Fees. (1) Current housing affordability guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") shall be used to determine whether Dwelling Units in the Development qualify as Affordable Housing. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 17 of 23 0 (2) Affordable Housing Projects are required to demonstrate that they will provide Dwelling Units to eligible families based on HUD income and family size guidelines. (3) Providers of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units must demonstrate a long- term commitment to provide Affordable Housing for a period of not less than twenty (20) years. (d) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination shall be made as provided further in this Chapter. 10-07-09 — Credits; Reimbursements (a) No Feepayor shall be required to construct, fund or contribute any Capital Improvement to meet the same need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed. All System Improvements constructed, funded or contributed for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed, over and above those required by the City in connection with new development, shall result in either a credit on future Impact Fees or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) for such excess to be paid by future Development that benefits from such System Improvements. However, no credit or reimbursement shall be provided for: (1) Project Improvements; (2) any construction, funding or contribution not agreed to in writing by the City prior to commencement of such construction, funding or contribution; and (3) any construction, funding or contribution of a type of Capital Improvements not included in the calculation of the applicable Impact Fee. (b) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project pursuant to Section 10-07-05 (d) through (f), credit shall be given for the Present Value of all tax and user fee revenue generated by the Feepayor within the Service Area and used by the City for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected. If the amount of such credit exceeds the Impact Fee for a Project, the Feepayor shall receive a credit on future Impact Fees. (c) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project, credit or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) shall be given for the Present Value of any construction of System Improvements or contribution of land or money required by the City from the Feepayor for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected, including System Improvements paid for through local improvement district assessments. (d) If credit or reimbursement is due to the Feepayor, the City and Feepayor shall enter into a written agreement, negotiated in good faith, prior to the construction, funding or contribution. The written agreement shall include, without limitation: a description of the construction, funding or contribution of System Improvements including, in the case of real property, a legal description of the real property; description as to how the System Improvements are to be valued; the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of EMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 18 of 23 0 0 reimbursement; instructions as to how the Capital Improvements should be provided to the City to ensure full transfer of ownership; and the circumstances under which the credit or reimbursement is deemed effective. To assist in such reimbursement, the City shall continue to collect Impact Fees from other Developers whose proposed Developments will benefit from such construction, funding or contribution, and will promptly transfer such funds to the Feepayor. If a Successor in Interest claims a reimbursement or credit, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been conveyed to the claimant prior to issuing the requested reimbursement or credit. (e) Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of Impact Fees of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected in connection with any new growth and development until the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use approved credits is presented to the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the applicable Impact Fee otherwise due from the Feepayor and shall note in the City records the amount of credit remaining, if any. Upon request of the Feepayor, the City shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. If the credit has not been exhausted within eight (8) years of the date of issuance of the first Building Permit for which an Impact Fee was due and payable, or within such other time period as may be designated in writing by the City, such credit shall lapse, unless a refimd of the remaining credit is applied for as set forth in Section 10-07-070) above. W Approved credits or reimbursement shall only be used to reduce the amount of the Impact Fee of the category for which the Impact Fee is otherwise due, and shall not be paid to the Feepayor in cash or in credits against any other monies due from the Feepayor to the City. (g) Credit for land dedications shall, at the Feepayor's option, be valued at: (1) one hundred (100) percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the Ada County Assessor; or (2) that fair market value established by an MAI appraiser reasonably acceptable to the City in an appraisal paid for by the Feepayor. Credit for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall be valued by the City based on complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates submitted by the Feepayor to the City, which estimates shall be revised as actual costs become available. The City shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if the City determines that such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs reasonably acceptable to the City as a more accurate. measure of the value of the offered System Improvements to the City. (h) Approved credits for land dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the City in a form reasonably acceptable to the City at no cost to the City, and has been accepted by the City. Approved credits for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall generally become effective when: (1) all required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the City; and (2) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been completed in compliance with all applicable requirements of the City. Approved credits for the construction of System IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 19 of 23 Improvements may become effective at an earlier date if the Feepayor posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit or escrow agreement in the amount and under terms reasonably acceptable to the City. (i) Credit may only be transferred by a Feepayor that has received credit to such Feepayor's Successor in Interest. The credit may be used only to offset Impact Fees for the same category for which the credit was issued. Credits shall be transferred by any written instrument clearly identifying which credits are being transferred, the dollar amount of the credit being transferred, and the System Improvements for which the credit was issued. The instrument of transfer shall be signed by both the transferor and transferee, and a copy of the document shall be delivered to the Fee Administrator for documentation of the transfer before the transfer shall be deemed effective. 10-07-10 — Appeals The decisions of the Fee Administrator may be appealed as provided below: (a) Any Feepayor who is or may be obligated to pay an Impact Fee, may appeal a decision made by the Fee Administrator in applying this Ordinance to the City Council's designee. Such decisions that may be appealed include: (1) The applicability of an Impact Fee to the Development. (2) The amount of an Impact Fee to be paid for the Development. (3) The availability, amount or application of any credit. (4) The amount of any refund, reimbursement or credit. A Feepayor may pay an Impact Fee under protest in order to obtain a Development Approval or Building Permit(s) and, by paying such Impact Fee, shall not be estopped from exercising the right of appeal provided herein, nor shall the Feepayor be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deemed to have been illegally collected. Upon final disposition of an appeal, the Impact Fee shall be adjusted in accordance with the decision rendered and, if necessary, a refund paid. (b) In order to pursue an appeal, the Feepayor shall file a written notice of appeal with the City Council's designee within fifteen (15) days after the date of the decision being appealed, or the date on which the Feepayor submitted a payment of Impact Fees under protest, whichever is later. Such written application shall include a statement describing why the appellant believes that the decision was in error, together with copies of any documents that the appellant believes supports the claim. (c) The City Council's designee shall notify the Feepayor of the hearing date on the appeal, which notice shall be given no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall hear the appeal within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written notice of IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 20 of 23 0 appeal. The appellant shall have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The Fee Administrator who made the decision under appeal shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of the decision. The burden of proof in any such hearing shall be on the Feepayor to demonstrate that the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, reimbursement or refund was not properly calculated by the City. (d) The criteria to be used by the City Council's designee shall be whether: (1) the decision or interpretation made by the Fee Administrator; or (2) the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the appellant, more accurately reflects the intent of this Ordinance that new growth and development in the City pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System Improvements for Public Facilities necessary to serve new development. The City Council's designee may affirm, reject or revise the decision of the Fee Administrator, providing written findings of fact and conclusions, within fifteen (15) days after hearing the appeal. The City Council's designee shall modify the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, refund or reimbursement only if there is substantial evidence in the record that the Fee Administrator erred, based upon the methodologies contained in the Impact Fee Study, this Ordinance and/or the Capital Improvements Plans. The decision of the City Council's designee shall be final. (e) A Feepayor may request that the City enter into mediation by a qualified independent party to address a disagreement related to the Impact Fee for new growth and development. If both parties agree to mediation, costs for the independent mediation service shall be shared equally by the Feepayor and the City. Mediation may take place at any time during an appeals process and any time limitation relevant to an appeal shall be tolled. 10-07-11— Impact Fee Advisory Committee The City has established an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall continue to be composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by the City Council. Two (2) or more members of the Advisory Committee shall be active in the business of development, building or real estate, and two (2) members shall be appointed to the Advisory Committee who are not employees or officials of the City. The Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council and is established to: (1) Assist the City in adopting Land Use Assumptions; (2) Review the Capital Improvements Plans, and proposed amendments, and file written comments; (3) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plans; (4) File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the Capital Improvements Plans and report to the City any perceived inequities in implementing the Capital Improvements Plans or imposing the Impact Fees; and IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 21 of 23 0 0 (5) Advise the City of the need to update or revise Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans and Impact Fees. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee, upon request, all financial and accounting information, professional reports in relation to other development and implementation of Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements Plans and periodic updates of the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-12 — Miscellaneous Provisions (a) As used in this Chapter, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates; the word shall, will or must is always mandatory; the word may is permissive; and the word should indicates that which is recommended, but not required. (b) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any Development for which a lawful Building Permit was issued prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance. (c) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from requiring a Developer to construct reasonable Project Improvements in conjunction with a Project. (d) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the ability of the City to enter into intergovernmental agreements as provided in Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code. (e) The Impact Fees described in this Chapter, and the administrative procedures of this Chapter shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years to ensure that: (1) the demand and cost assumptions and other assumptions underlying such Impact Fees are still valid; (2) the resulting Impact Fees do not exceed the actual costs of providing police, fire, and/or parks and recreation System Improvements required to serve new growth and development; (3) the monies collected in any Impact Fee fund have been and are expected to be spent for System Improvements of the type for which such Impact Fees were paid; and (4) such System Improvements will benefit those Developments for which the Impact Fees were paid. M Violation of this Chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in the Meridian City Code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the City charged with the administration of this Chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this Chapter including, without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed Development, shall be a violation of this Chapter. (g) The captions used in this Chapter are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this Chapter. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 22 of 23 0 0 (h) If any paragraph, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho Impact Fee Act, Sections 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, unconstitutional and/or unenforceable, such provisions shall be deemed to be separate, distinct and independent and the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect. (i) This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days subsequent to this Ordinance's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon Title 10, Chapter 7, existing on the date hereof, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be repealed. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 5S day of 'A in 2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2006. ATTEST: / 5z 1 WILLIAM G. BERG, IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 23 of 23 EXHIBIT A FEESCHEDULE Except for such Impact Fee as may be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to an independent Impact Fee calculation study, the amount of each Impact Fee shall be as follows: Police Impact Fee Au Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Fire Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Parks Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Total Fees: Residential Non -Residential $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot , 06 $ 0.06 per square foot $377.00 per Dwelling Unit 377. t $300.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.25 per square foot , Zr $ 0.20 per square foot $1,384.00 per Dwelling Unit •: $1,215.00 per Dwelling Unit $ N/A per square foot ff/4 $ N/A per square foot $1,846.00 per Dwelling Unit 1600 °-= $1,600.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.31 per square foot . It $ 0.26 per square foot This Fee Schedule shall be in effect between Z C-e!n i� / , 2006, and December 31, 2007. On January 1, 2008 and on January 1St of each year thereafter in which an Impact Fee is in effect, the amount of the Impact Fee shall be automatically adjusted to account for inflation increases in the cost of providing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to serve new growth and development utilizing an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from electing to maintain a then -existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fee or from electing to waive the inflation adjustment for any given fiscal year, or years. Any such action to determine an inflation factor shall be by the City Council resolution. RvfPACT FEE EXHIBIT SCHEDULE Page 1 of 1 0 0 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06-1255 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, BY REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, AND BY ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE; SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS: TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION, COMPUTATION AND PAYMENT OF A POLICE IMPACT FEE, A FIRE IMPACT FEE, AND A PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING AUTHORITY, INTENT AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR EACH OF SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS, REFUNDS, CREDITS AND WAIVERS RESPECTING SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, APPLICABILITY AND APPEALS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE FEES ARE TO BE ENACTED AS FOLLOWS: Police Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Fire Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Parks Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non -Residential Total Fees: Residential Non -Residential $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $0.06 per Square Foot $377.00 per Dwelling Unit $0.25 per Square Foot $1138.00 per Dwelling Unit $ N/A $1600.00 per Dwelling Unit $0.31 per Square Foot The effective date of this Ordinance is the 1st day of December, 2006. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SUMMARY Page 1 of 2 ! 0 `s R4 ti f Mayor and City Council of tKe City of Meridian R _ By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk _ First Reading: - f'Z® e)4 Adoptea** , suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902 *..' 0 X Second Reading: � �� -�� Thadr��td�t+�'{� :� STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- 1Z- S 5 - 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- 1255 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 I L day of 12006. William. L.M. Nary, C' omey IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SUMMARY Page 2 of 2 0 September 1, 2006 VAC 06-008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Conger Management Group ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 8, 2006 — Request for a Vacation of a Pressure Sewer Easement within The Reserve Subdivision — southwest corner of North Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Comments MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See affached Email from Dave McKinnon Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • 0 September 1, 2006 VAC 06-004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Dave Evans Construction ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 15, 2006 -- Request for a Vacation of the existing utility easements on the interior lot lines for Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26, Block 7 Sundance Subdivision No. 3 Sundance Subdivisiono No. 5 - nec of Ustick & Meridian 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: 6 NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Comments MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See attached Partial Release of Easement Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 . September 1, 2006 MI 06-005 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Brian Holleran ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2006 - Miscellaneous application to amend the previously approved DA (AZ 03-038, PFP 03-007 & CUP 03-071) by removing a provision requiring all future uses to be approved thru the CUP process for Mussell Corner Subdivision - NEC of Vi 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: IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPT: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Minutes No Comment OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 . September 1, 2006 AZ 06-013 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Public Hearing - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision — South of Pine Avenue and East of Ten Mile Rd AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS See attached Minutes See attached Recommendations OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 September 1, 2006 PP 06-011 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. 17 REQUEST Public Hearing - 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 — S. of Pine Avenue, E. of Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached Recommendations 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. • 0 September 1, 2006 CUP 06-006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT America West Homes, LLC ITEM NO. 1$ REQUEST Public Hearing - Request for a CUP to construct a multi -family development consisting of 200 4-plex units on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a pro- posed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision -- S. of Pine Avenue, E. of Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Recommendations 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. 0 i AP 06-001 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Vacation Village Villas, LLC ITEM NO. 19 REQUEST Public Hearing - Appeal of the Planning Director's determination that the submitted development applications for Waverly Place Subdivision are incomplete - 2510 Magic View Drive 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: See attached Comments ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See attached Comments from Citizens / Email from Engineering Solutions Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 • September 1, 2006 AZ 06-026 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Paramount Development ITEM NO. 20 REQUEST Ordinance No. — Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision — northeast comer of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Af ached Ordinance CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: / CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: o!' 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: 3 %G --_5--c Emailed: q Sy�c� anw, CO l Staffinitials: Materials presented at public meolings stmq become properly of fhe City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORDEI' AVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 BOISE IDAHO 09/21/06 OW PM RDEPUTY VicW Allen ECORDED -REQUEST OF III I'II'llllllll'II'II'lllllllllll'II City of Meridian 106151224 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE (AZ -06-026 PARAMOUNT SOUTH SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTH OF THE SW % OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 4 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-8 (MEDIUM 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: Paramount, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re- zoned from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 (Medium 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 -06-027 PARAMOUNT SOUTH 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, .� — day of kW 6Z-, 2006. IF APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of.. 2006. WILLIAM G. BERG, ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-027 P. Page 2 of 3 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 5'�' 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. ®s,sess,s •• j,NRA. (SEAL) ® ; • ''I3 ®T•y`��� • s s s i i�■ 0 : e s Vp sees N TARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Najd (,(-w . ) P MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: -A -11 ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-027 PARAMOUNT SOUTH SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 Legal Description 9 *g North West, LLC N. Anecator Place, Suite 1 So Project No. 05-044-01 Idaho 83704 (208) Date: April 05.2006 PARAMOUNT SOUTH ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the South 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25. T. 4 N.. R. 1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the section comer common to Sections 25, 26, 35 and 36 of said T. 4 N., R. 1 W.; Thence South 89024'05" East, 670.46 feet on the section line common to said Sections 25 and 36 to the southwest corner of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 25, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said section line, North 00°26'58" East. 1319.17 feet on the westerly boundary tine of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 25 to the northwest comer of said East 1/2; Thence South 89025'33" East, 2013.32 feet on the northerly boundary line of said East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the northerly boundary line of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 25 to the northeast comer nfsaid SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence South 00°32'05" West, 1320.01 feet on the easterly boundary line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 to the 1/4 section enrner common to said Sections 25 and 36; Thence North 89°24'05" West, 2011.36 feet on the section line common to said Sections 25 and 36 to the real point of beginning. Said pamel contains 60.96 acres more or less. PREPARED BY: Engineering NorthWesy LLC 80 REVIEW APPROVAL 7 ;1 - 1L-- MERCIAN PUBLIC James R Washburn, PLS WORKS DEPT Paramount South Anneanion Oese.dce Pare 1 of I 0 9 a3 NaISIAlaanbLNnaNYavd 3SYNd 3anln! r-------------------yNTOLfI L o , W; <a I xm I 6y I < 1 1 1 9 'ONNOISIA I 0 n3 I 1Nn0Avav4 I I 1 �i 1 1 I --------- LCSISI 194�9aN _� a311Y 1dNn a 311 Y I 14n a; a3Q1a7 U CO4LU a 2 u� ax na ws 2 S 8 9 a3 NaISIAlaanbLNnaNYavd 3SYNd 3anln! r-------------------yNTOLfI L o , W; <a I xm I 6y I < 1 1 1 9 'ONNOISIA I 0 n3 I 1Nn0Avav4 I I 1 �i 1 1 I --------- LCSISI 194�9aN _� a311Y 1dNn a 311 Y I 14n a; a3Q1a7 U CO4LU a 2 u� ax na ws 2 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06- 12,5-,6 PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land located in the South % of the Southwest 1/ of Section 25, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Attachment "A» This parcel contains 60.96 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, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the day of R6 ,m, CF ayor and City Council ofthe City o?M 'dian By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk= j ]First 6 Reading: S" O g � �d " , first by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code "6 S �` NO Second Reading i,'!/ado{'{►{von sia�ao+°���ti� Third Reading: d� STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- I2-5(0 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- 12 Su 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 `1 day of 14"-i '2006. William. L.M. Nary, City Attor)y ORDINANCE SUMMARY - AZ -06-026 PARAMOUNT SOUTH SUB Page 1 of 1 September 1, 2006 AZ 06-018 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Incline Village, LLC ITEM NO. 21 REQUEST Ordinance No. - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 for Incline Village Subdivision - north side of Cherry Lane and west of Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Attached Ordinance CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: v MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: (� V 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: `l Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings slmU become properly of the Cffy of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORDER OVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 BOISE IDAHO 09/21/06 01.WF 1 DEPUTY Vicki Allen III I'IIIIIIII'll'II'll'IIIIIIII I II �II RECORDED -REQUEST OF 106151226Cik of Meridian CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. t96 — /2- �7 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE (AZ -06-018 INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE SW 1/ OF SECTION 4, 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 ERIDIAN,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: Bob L. Kell, Shannon Smith and Phillip Smith. SECTION Z. 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 -06-018 INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 3 0 • 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, thisJ ' day of �Gr-�i 2006. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of ��.� 2006. ATTEST: f `�' `-V % EEL = WILLIAM G. BER , JR., CITY CL ,r,,K Cbul ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-018 INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3 Ll STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ) ss. County of Ada ) • On this Q'h day of i r-�Ioe/ , 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. 0086®,,• (SEALj••®•FARO s e OUA ° •°®�'' •■IDAY1Qe®® •6..e ja-�'O� NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO .RESIDING AT: CQid, uXj-, , t>D MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-018 INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 0 Project: 10-05-125 Date: February 9, 2006 INCLINE VILLAGE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY That portion of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 4; thence along the Southerly boundary of the Southeast 1/4, North 89 ° 1710" West, 990.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said boundary, North 89`17'10" West, 334.35 feet to the East 1/16 comer of Section 4; thence along the Westerly boundary of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said section, North 00°41'26" East, 1,475.33 feet; thence South 89"1847" East, 793.86 feet; thence South 00°3743" West, 822.68 feet; thence North 89 ° 22'30" West, 461.44 feet; thence South 00°36'00" West, 652.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 20.006 acres, more or less. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc. Ronald M. Hodge, P.L.S. REV W APP VA By MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. RMH/tlk:lhc PAGAU10-05-125 - Incline Village\10-05-125 - Admin\Descriptions\10-05-125-Annex.doc SWI W4rE 79&BW 1 ° I f { 1 1 1 I ° IN �t t It I f 1 1 ° 481.44` I o I 1 ° f � RBy E W APPR VAL I M A R 0 12006 f I MERIDIAN PUBLIC t WORKS RKS DEPT. %STE�,�'A�� a � f 0, ,a= ` 8515 N88'1it Q'W 334.3�i' ism i7 0 9@Q a W. CHWRY LANE NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06- ZZ :!�7 PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land located in the SE '/ of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Attachment "A". This parcel contains 20.006 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, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the day of o'""" Mayor and City Council o e City of Miridi By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk - First Reading: !7— 6--67 Adob�4 st reay suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50=�R�1V0 Second Reading: l/PP%PPV it tittJ%kk � STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- 1 a5-1 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- L d S 7 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. 01 6,A-ki 11 William. L.M. Nary, City Atto ORDINANCE SUMMARY — AZ -06-018 INCLINE VILLAGE SUB Page 1 of 1 9 • September 1, 2006 AZ 05-064 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Tuscany Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 22 REQUEST Ordinance No. — Request for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision — south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST. INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See Attached Ordinance Contacted: f� , p Date: Ofd Phone: Emailed: .,t? Initials:_ Materials presented at public meetings stall become property of the City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORDERVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 i BOISE IDAHO 09121/06 01'A DEPUTY Vicld Allen II I I I II II I II I I III I I I II I II II I I IIIII III RECORDED -REQUEST OF City of Meridian 106151231 CITY OF MERIDIAN* ORDINANCE NO. 06 — l�- Scq BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE (AZ -05-064 BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE WEST % OF SECTION 24, 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-8 (MEDIUM 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: Tuscany Development; Kenai Partners, LLC; Richard C. and Rebecca Groves; and Nick and Zhana Hansen. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re- zoned from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 (Medium 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 -05-064 BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 3 E L] 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 .✓'� day of �-�� , 2006. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 5" day of , 2006. de WEERD ATTBAIL E WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY C ANNEXATION OF AZ -05-064 BE 9 i'`SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3 fR�ta►rrsrai tasee9{o�°n STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 15*1 day of pi em6e r , 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) • ®" ••• ®• • ✓�N® • i � rV �►Zr ••••O� ` c JaA NU, J NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: _Cdiduti A , ID MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 1d -1-t I ANNEXATION OF AZ -05-064 BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 R ■ W SURVEY Project No. 04-268 DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION 1450 East Watertower St. Suite 150 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone (208) 846-8570 Fax (208) 884-5399 July 6, 2006 A parcel of land located in the W 1/2 of Section 24, T.3N., R.1W.; B.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap monument marking the C 1/4 corner of said Section 24 from which a 5/8" iron pin marking the N 1/4 corner of said Section 24 bears North 00°51'53" East, 2634.95 feet; thence along the North-South centerline of said Section 24 South 00°51'53" West, 170.09 feet to a 5/8" iron pin marking the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said North-South centerline South 00°51'53" West, 827.30 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving said North-South centerline North 89°24'36" West, 661.27 feet to a 5/8" iron pin on the East boundary line of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 24; thence along said East boundary line South 00°49'26" West, 331.46 feet to a 5/8" iron pin on the South boundary line of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of said Section 24; thence along said South boundary line North 89°21'42" West, 518.26 feet to a point on the northerly boundary line of Eggers Subdivision as filed in Book 29 of Plats at Page 1804, records of Ada County, Idaho, said point also being on the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal and on a curve to the left; thence along said northerly boundary line and said centerline the following 14 courses: along said curve 295.77 feet, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 67°47'06" and a long chord of 278.82 feet which bears North 29°54'34" West to a point of compound curve; thence along said compound curve 287.11 feet, said curve having a radius of 700.00 feet, a central angle of 23°30'00" and a long chord of 285.10 feet which bears North 75°33'07" West to the point of tangency; thence North 87°18'07" West, 76.22 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; ProfessionalSurveyors thence along said curve 100.36 feet, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 23°00'00" and a long chord of 99.68 feet which bears North 75°48'07" West to the point of tangency; thence North 64°18'07" West, 164.62 feet; thence North 53°38'07" West, 183.05 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; thence along said curve 104.72 feet, said curve having a radius of 225.00 feet, a central angle of 26°40'00" and a long chord of 103.78 feet which bears North 66°58'07" West to a point of compound curve; thence along said compound curve 128.72 feet, said curve having a radius of 125.00 feet, a central angle of 59000'00" and a long chord of 123.11 feet which bears South 70°11'53" West to the point of tangency; thence South 40041153" West. 127.21 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; thence along said curve 98.03 feet, said curve having a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle of 112020'00" and a long chord of 83.07 feet which bears North 83°08'07" West to a point of compound curve; thence along said compound curve 99.48 feet, said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a central angle of 19°00'00" and a long chord of 99.03 feet which bears North 17°28'07" West to the point of tangency; thence North 07058'07" West, 234.45 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; thence along said curve 32.34 feet, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a central angle of 07024'45" and a long chord of 32.32 feet which bears North 11'40'30" West; thence North 89018'07" West, 126.06 feet to a point on the West boundary line of said Section 24; thence along said West boundary line North 00041'53" East, 548.41 feet to a 5/8" iron pin marking the W 1/4 corner of said Section 24; thence continuing along said West boundary line North 00°41'54" East, 2108.21 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving said West boundary line South 52041'34" East, 201.43 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 69°16'34" East, 277.88 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 64°55'34" East, 315.97 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 60034'34" East, 351.89 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 77018'34" East, 313.83 feet to a 5/8" iron pin on the North-South centerline of the NW 1/4 of said Section 24; thence along said North-South centerline South 00°46'51" West, 789.08 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving said North-South centerline South 30037'41" East, 510.19 feet to a 5/8" iron pin marking the beginning of a curve to the left; thence along said curve 990.51 feet, said curve having a radius of 970.00 feet, a central angle of 58°30'26" and a long chord of 948.03 feet which bears South 59°52'54" East to a 5/8" iron pin marking the point of tangency; thence South 89°08'07" East, 231.37 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING containing 117.47 acres, more or less. Prepared By: Idaho Sury P.C. r29 6`k oV Gregory G. Carter, PLS RE gY ALL p 7 2006 s� BARKS DEp'C.0 M d' r f mm Alp Ommm ..e j wm AWO my vwlwl'1fB `kl'tl 'TS1 al o S az Nous as z/l w 8 31Ii15 'Li9iIS 41a0V 3 U z Hd enS��►1117O ` NOLLVX3NMd 03SOdOkid 0 S Gi nsW 9iN►H�� idi-3 1s3M N33HO nW38 I g Q Y M d' r f mm Alp Ommm ..e j � U N �a Gi 2 p ® Q Y O j w� —r—r-7=r—ie------ ta I I '/ I I I ♦ / / ' I I I I ♦ / I I I I ♦ �/ - y ___1___1_—_1__.i' U ♦`_— i y 6� w 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 i 3 to Z Z Z Z N 2 2 2 Z H0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 g 9800999 'm (04 aw-=(Wid•u=ba 11 wo We'NJmlml'R8 '71'tl 'NC1 Stew S 3VN* 6Z NOIIo35 !o L/( J53,! 3XL M LLalYJ01 �+ e al9 Yens s AI a mi N0LM0NNb'03SOd0Ud a z SNoumo NoISIAidenS Q 9NI8��Nlnxll 1I ISM >1338:0 W3e I I s � O --------------------------------------- I II I I I i i U i \ / I 0 0 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06- 1Z,5e PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land located in the West V2 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Attachment "A". This parcel contains 117.47 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, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the day of C,,� Mayor and City Council of e Ci oflVl than By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk - 0NA L _ First Reading:—,�-'!D J!� Adopt fter first ing 11�y suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Cod' 'rS NO Second Reading: STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- o�SY 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- 1 Q% 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 l( day of '2006. William. L.M. Nary, City AftQwe ORDINANCE SUMMARY — AZ -05-064 BEAR CREEK WEST SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 1 September 1, 2006 AZ 06-015 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Farwest, LLC ITEM NO. 23 REQUEST Ordinance No. -- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8, TN -R, and C -N zones for Tanana Valley Subdivision — southeast comer of Meridian Road and Victory 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 DEFT: 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 Afhached Ordinance Contacted: Date:f If q11 IaCpPhone: Emailed: q s teff nitials: Materials pr at pubG eetings shaiec=properfy of the CRY of Meridian. • ADA COUNTY RECORD11211E DAVID NAYARRO AMOUNT 00 11 BOISE IDAHO 09/21/06 PM DEPUTY Patti Thompso III II II III IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II III RECORDED -REQUEST OF 106151213 City of Meridian CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. f% 6/� 5"9 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE (AZ -06-015 TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY BEING PORTIONS OF THE NORTHWEST 1/ AND THE NORTHWEST % OF THE NORTHEAST % OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, 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-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), TN -R (TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL), AND C -N (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) 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: Marty Goldsmith. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re- zoned from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 (Medium Density Residential District), TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential District), and C -N (Neighborhood Business District) in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-015 TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 3 0 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. 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 5_14- day of JPVy(Piy, 4e-,_, , 2006. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 5, '� day of 2006. , 2006. ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-015 TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3 0 ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JI., CITY STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 5A*% day of bfJ, , 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. 0,00096800 VA Af P e ■ CAL NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: (h. I ri t Lrj i, in MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ►d' i,'i l Ic ,QtrDA-9.Lok6* 88006 ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-015 TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY OF MERIDIAN PROPOSED TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION ZONE R-8 May 31, 2006 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE -MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OFSECTION 30, T. 3N., R. 1 E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE ALONG THE. NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30 N 8904245" E 1594.25 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S 00017'15"E 707.60 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 126.91 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 682.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°39'14", TANGENTS OF 63.64 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 52023'51"E 126.72 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 57043'28" E 50.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 321.47 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 317.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 58°00'43", TANGENTS OF 176.04 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 28°43'07" E 307.91 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 00017'15" W 335.00 FEET TO A. POINT ON THE NORTH UNE OF SAID NW 1/4; THENCE N 8904245" E 165.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00017'15" E 733.00 FEET TOA POINT;. THENCE N 8904245" E 619.12 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 0001715" W447.99 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 74028'57'E 118.76 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 61014'00" E 30.91 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 48052'34" E 97:71 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 1003229" E 178.38 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SAID NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4; THENCE -ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N 89042'32" E 600.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 01°48'40" E 490.17 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 89042'32" E 214.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00003'33"W 30.00 FEET TO A POINT; 50823-Amiex-3-R-8.doc r 0 THENCE CONTINUING N 85°5921" E 89.71 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING N 89025'19" E 430.98 FEET TO- A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY N 00017'15" W 32.00 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 177.90 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND INCLUDES SOME PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG E. VICTORY ROAD. WAYNE K. BARBER atm/ _1 �,_ PLS 8444 RE EW APP�j 011t�• �� BY BL ME RtD1At`l D�PitC wQRY.S , DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY OF MERIDIAN PROPOSED LOOKOUT RIDGE SUBDIVISION ZONE C -N February 9, 2006 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ,COMMENCING AT THE .NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 30, T. 3N., R. 1 E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30 N 89°4245" E 1594.25 FEET TO THE REAL. POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE CONTINUING N 89°42'45" E 292.50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00017'15" E 335.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT 321.47 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 317.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 58°00'43", TANGENTS OF.176.04 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 28"43'07" W 307.91 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE S 57043'28"W 50.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 126.91 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 682.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10039'14", TANGENTS OF 63.64 FEET, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 52°23'51" W 126.72 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00017'15"W.707.60 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 3.94 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. WAYNE K. BARBER -S8444 BYEV W APPROY 'v2 WAY 2 a 2006 MERIDIAN PUBLfC WORKS DEPT. DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY OF MERIDIAN PROPOSED TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION ZONE TN -R May 3, 2006 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PORTIONS OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 30, T. 3N., R 1 E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30 N 89042'45" E 2051.75 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30 N 89042'45" E 398.97 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30;. THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30 N 8904232" E 220.13 FEET THENCE CONTIN[JING S 00017'28" E 285.02 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 0001 T15" E 447.99 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 89042'45" W 619.12 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 0001715" W 733.00 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 10.42 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. WAYNE K. BARBER 4 , PLS 8444 "V 9yN� K. BP►�� REV eW APPROV L BY V MERIDIANI. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 50823-ANNEX-2-TN-R.doc m 0 a a _I' d z 8 oN�M LOCUST GROVE ROAD ,8 =l A ,8lti4L.00 S .99ZZ£L A .601.00 S �---- ° °._._._._._._._._i �._._._._._._._._._._. M rc W z$ oz d.4 d S 01'48'40' E 490.1\\ \ \ \ ' - NN \\\\\.\ \�\•\\\\\N, .\ \\\ p \\ .d '\\. \\�\`\ \,\.\ \. 4 \ W, ` \ \\\\\ \ \\ \ \\\i \ \ ij\ ppW\`' \\\\ \ \\ \ ' 'N. 3 W N. \n\SO W`. . N, \ - \\\♦ C \\�\T 1�1p\ '\. \\ \ ' \\\\ ♦ m^ ��. \ \ \ N, \ \\y ' SX17315'E' \. \\ N,N\',NN 0011 2 EE 44799 r \ \ \�\\ '\\. N, \\"\\� I� (ONPIV38 JO SISV9) 'Scsd I I �I W ^I CI, mpm I o A ,££,£GAO S ma g 4 an dY I NW'� �p i C�Iy z I I IDI maI O i Z' tr U I zZI IL 1 m I ,lSZZ£l A ,££,£0.00 S � m dO O6► 'd \ \ ,9EZ08. ♦ \ ♦♦\N, - . _ . _ . £4ZLEt 3 \I d N ,r '\ \\\ ,\ rc W z$ oz d.4 d S 01'48'40' E 490.1\\ \ \ \ ' - NN \\\\\.\ \�\•\\\\\N, .\ \\\ p \\ .d '\\. \\�\`\ \,\.\ \. 4 \ W, ` \ \\\\\ \ \\ \ \\\i \ \ ij\ ppW\`' \\\\ \ \\ \ ' 'N. 3 W N. \n\SO W`. . N, \ - \\\♦ C \\�\T 1�1p\ '\. \\ \ ' \\\\ ♦ m^ ��. \ \ \ N, \ \\y ' SX17315'E' \. \\ N,N\',NN 0011 2 EE 44799 r \ \ \�\\ '\\. N, \\"\\� rLWLI 5Q s LN,N, \'- E 132200 ` \ ' ♦ S E 137E \ \ • "4 aX -IN,. \\\\ \ \\\ � . N, N, \\\\\ �\\\\\\ \\\\,: Ud 3g, -,-N. 00'1 15 b N,\`W�\ 'N- \ N,\\ \`N, N\\\\ N, N, ,\ \\ \\ NN, \ao N, `� �\ �\\\\ \\\ N, N, \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\ 300 \\\\\ \ \\N NN \\ \\\\\ N, NN NN \ \\\\\ N, NN N, \\\\\ \\:0m � Cmc \\�\�\ \�\\\ �\\�\ N, - N% \ \ \N\ � \\\N, \�\N `\od \dam\\\\\\\ \\ N, N, \\ \ \\\\\•\\ \\ \ \ \\\\•N, \:\ d \ q NN \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ ••0\\ \ \\ \\ \\\\\ \\\\ \\ \ \\\ \ \\\\\ \ \\\ \ \\\\ 1 \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ N, \ \ \ \ N, NN \ \ \ \I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \' \ \ ;�` \ \\\\\ \\\\\ \ \\\ \\\\\\\ \\'Na. NN Z \ ZS 9B8 ,£L 9T\00\N. \. \'.\\ 3 \t4 0258'03 w 880.19' \ \�� Allis a \oc m� �•.I ,SO'£69Z 3 .£L,9i.00 N W I� (ONPIV38 JO SISV9) 'Scsd I I �I W ^I CI, mpm I o i ma g 4 an i 34 I 0 rLWLI 5Q s LN,N, \'- E 132200 ` \ ' ♦ S E 137E \ \ • "4 aX -IN,. \\\\ \ \\\ � . N, N, \\\\\ �\\\\\\ \\\\,: Ud 3g, -,-N. 00'1 15 b N,\`W�\ 'N- \ N,\\ \`N, N\\\\ N, N, ,\ \\ \\ NN, \ao N, `� �\ �\\\\ \\\ N, N, \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\ 300 \\\\\ \ \\N NN \\ \\\\\ N, NN NN \ \\\\\ N, NN N, \\\\\ \\:0m � Cmc \\�\�\ \�\\\ �\\�\ N, - N% \ \ \N\ � \\\N, \�\N `\od \dam\\\\\\\ \\ N, N, \\ \ \\\\\•\\ \\ \ \ \\\\•N, \:\ d \ q NN \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ ••0\\ \ \\ \\ \\\\\ \\\\ \\ \ \\\ \ \\\\\ \ \\\ \ \\\\ 1 \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ N, \ \ \ \ N, NN \ \ \ \I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \' \ \ ;�` \ \\\\\ \\\\\ \ \\\ \\\\\\\ \\'Na. NN Z \ ZS 9B8 ,£L 9T\00\N. \. \'.\\ 3 \t4 0258'03 w 880.19' \ \�� Allis a \oc m� �•.I ,SO'£69Z 3 .£L,9i.00 N W (ONPIV38 JO SISV9) 'Scsd OOVM NVIONH3W W Wma Zm °a° \4{ d ....._._..._._._._._._.. r a V FF 4 p Q E5 m WO 0 0 ,`'L OIS D HO 081260 Oi 31 p�D NAYAflflD AMOUNT 9,� DEPUTY Imale Obetb' n� rflECDADED-REDUESrtlf QIIltllllllllllpilillllllillllllU! f(Q h S 66 61/ �)Aa Title one 1061+42556 WARRANTY DEED FOR VALUE RECEIV F,D, Justin G. Martin, a married men dealing in his sole and separate property ("Grantor"), does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto Marty Goldsmith, a single man, whose current address;s 4487 N. Dresden PI„ Ste. 102, Boise, Idaho 83714 (the "Grantee"), the following described premises, to -wit: PARCELI The Northwest quarter and the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, in Ada County, Idaho. EXCEPT portions heretofore conveyed for road right-of-way, including, but not limited to that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho, by Warranty Deed recorded July 23, 1997, as Instrument No. 8742734, and ALSO EXCEPT tracts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 more particularly described as follows: TRACT NO. 1: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter Northeast quarter of said Section 30; thence West 250 feet along the North section line; thence South 490 feet; thence East 234 feet to the But Use of said Northwest quarter Northeast quarter; thence North 490 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Beginning at the Northeast comer of the said Northwest quarter Northeast quarter, thence South along the East line of said Northwest quartcrNortheast quarter, 490 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence West 20 feet; thence South 30 feet parallel to the East line of said Northwest quarter Northeast quarter, thence East 20 feet to the East line; thence North 30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. TRACT NO. 3: A tract of land in Lot 2, Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the West quarter comer of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range I East, Boise Meridian; thence North 0°04' East, a distance of 873.75 feet along the center line of the Kuna-Moridian Road, also the West boundary line of Section A to a point; thence North 89'26 East, a distance of 30.0 fact to the East right -or -way line of the Kuna-Meridian Highway, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 0104' But, a distance of 45 feet along the Hast right-of-way line of the Kuna-Meridian Highway to a steel piu; thence South 85'52' East, a distance of 484.8 feet to a metal pin on the East side of the corral; thence South 14135' West, a distance of425.0 feet to an iron pin on the Northerly right-of-way line of the Farr Lateral; thence North 56°25' West, a distance of 160 feet along the Northerly right-of-way line of the Farr Lateral to a metal pin; thence North 34°35' West, a distance of 142.0 feet along the Northerly right-of-way line of Farr Lateral to a metal pin; thence North 39145' West, a distance of 256 feet, more or less, along the Northerly right-of-way line of the Farr Lateral to the POINT OF BEGINNING, TRACT NO. 4: Beginning at the West quarter comer ofsaid Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian; thence East a distance of 800.0 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North a distance of470.0 feet; thence East a distance of 470.0 feel; thence South a distance of470.0 feet; thence Pest a distance of470.0 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING A parcel of land in the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range I East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest comer of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 30; thence North 89"2470!" East along the North line of said Section 30, a distance of 220.13 feet to a P.K. Nail; thence South 0'36'00" East, a distance of 25 fcct to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 0°36'00" East, a distance of 260.02 feet; thence North 741 I0'25" East, a distance of 118.76 feet; thence North 60°55 28" East, a distance of 3091 feet; thence North 48134'02" East, a distance of 97.71 feet; thence North 10113'57" East, a distance of 15293 feet; thenen South 89"24'00" West, a distance of 244.43 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL II A portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range i East, Boise Meridian, tit Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the West quarter comer of said Section 30; thence East a distance of 800.0 ket to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North a distance of 470.0 feet; thence East a distance of 470.0 feet; thence South a distance of470.0 feet; thence West a distance of470.0 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGR3NING. Subject to the lien of that certain Mortgage executed by Grantor to Idaho Independent Bank, as Lender, dated October 20, 2005, and recorded as Instrument No. 105158534, records Ada County, Idahoan October 21, 2005. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor does hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee, shut he is the owner in tee simple ofsaid premises; that said premises are Free from all encumbrances, EXCEP'I' those to which this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made, suffered, or dune by the Grantee; and subject to reservations, restrictions, dedications, casements, rights-of-way of record or visible on the premises and general taxes and assessments for The current year, and that it will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. DATED this 21' day of October, 2005. 4 Justin G. Martin STATE OF IDAHO, ) : as. County of Ada. ) On this 21 a day of October, 2005, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said Slate, personally appeared Justin G. Martin, known orldentifted tome to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he 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. w�nm ¢OTA4p * Notary Public for Idaho. (SEAL) t ""'" G Residing at — � &A.4 C Idaho �i?I16t Commission expim:1 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06- 12- �� PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land being portions of the NW % and the NW 1/ of the NE 1/ of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Attachment "A". This parcel contains 177.90, 3.94, and 10.42 acres for a total of 192.26 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, Idaho. Tbis ordinance shall become effective on the $-� da of � ��<<,J' /® C Mayor and City Council the City of peri 'an By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk �- First Reading: V -5--v6 Ac Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code Second Reading: �oy suspension of the NO STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- 12 Sl 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- ( aCiPa of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be hue and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A (3). DATED this day of 12006. William. L.M. Nary, City Attorne ORDINANCE SUMMARY – AZ -06-015 TANANA VALLEY SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 1 • September 1, 2006 AZ 06-027 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT Rallis Tapestry, LLC ITEM NO. 24 REQUEST Ordinance No. — Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision — 635 and 675 South Linder Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS See Attached Ordkmce OTHER: Contacted. Date: Phone:O Emailed: toff nitials: Matedals presented at pubec meefinjs stomp become properly of fhe City of Meddian. ADA COUNTY RECOROgP1AVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 BOISE IDAHO 09/21106 PM DEPUTY Vicld Allen RECORDED -REQUEST OF III I' II I"'I I' II' I I I I II' I) I I I SII City of Meridian 106151225 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ®V7 — �Z�IV BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE (AZ -06-027 TAPESTRY SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY BEING ALL OF LOTS 14 THROUGH 17, VAN HEES SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 12 OF PLATS AT PAGE 688, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY RECORDER, BOISE, IDAHO AND A PORTION OF THE SE 1/ OF THE NE % OF SECTION 14, 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-8 (MEDIUM 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: Casey Emmons and Mel Lacy. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re- zoned from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 (Medium 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. ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-027 TAPESTRY SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 3 0 0 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. 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 day of cko 2006. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this Al day of J� MAYOR TANEWY de WEERD ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-027 TAPESTRY SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3 0 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 514" day of }sm��, , 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. ::%� AA -UJ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ►©-) t-1 1 ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-027 TAPESTRY SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 >>\ cis, ATTES o WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLQ g�� iF .�2. e STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 514" day of }sm��, , 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. ::%� AA -UJ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ►©-) t-1 1 ANNEXATION OF AZ -06-027 TAPESTRY SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 0 Legal Description 0 M RO ; IANd Colleen Marks, L.8.7045 - 6405 U8110k Road - Bulge.! Idaho 83704 NG,\ Phone: (208) 378-7703 a Fax: (208) 376-7759 • Email: marksis@veloeitumnet ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR TAPESTRY SUBDIVISION A parcel of land being all of Lots 14 through 17, Van Hees Subdivision, as;recorded in Book 12 of Plats at Page 688, records of the Ada County Recorder, Bolsejdaho, and a portion of the SE1A NEI/4 of Section 14, TAN, 'RAW., Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point marking the Section Corner common to Sections 1.1, 12, 13, and 14, T.3N., R.1W„ Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence S.0013'05"W. 2053,54 feet along the east line of said Section 14 and the centerline of S. Linder Road to a point, said point bears*N.00'33'08"E. 603.85 feet from a point marking the Et /4 Corner of said Section 14, said point also being the REAL. POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing S.00'33'08"W. 263.93 feet along the said east line of Section 14 and the said centerline of S. Linder Road to a point; thence N.89' 12'31 "W. 664.85 feet along the south line of said Lot 17, Van Nees Subdivision to a point marking the SW Corner of said Lot 17, Van Hees Subdivision; thence N.00*33'44"E. 263.92 feet along die west line of said Lots 14 through 17, Van Hees Subdivision to a point marking the NW corner of said Lot 14, Van Hees Subdivision; thence 5.89'12'37"E. 664.81 feet along the north line of said Lot 14, Van Hees Subdivision to the REAL. POINT OF BEGINNING, said parcel Containing 4.03 ',acres, more or less, SUBJECT TO: Any easements or rights of way of record or in use Record of Survey No: 6940 was utilized In the preparation of the above described parcel, and no field survey was done. *=41�- APR 1120 --•.•- our,a.Yncnu��a�uwr RCIIR,RRn7. WV4 OQ'LL a0071101V0 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06- /Z f9 PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land being all of Lots 14 through 17, Van Hees Subdivision, as recorded in Book 12 of Plats at Page 688, records of the Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, and a portion of the SE '/ of the NE I/ of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Attachment "A". This parcel contains 4.03 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, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the _ O day of r,�✓�G�. , 2,QQ6�'is si �i,���i,,,. m, Mayor and City Council of th ity 6f Midi 0L".� � -. _ By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk First Reading: �� �— ®,6 Adopeei Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50 - Second Reading: Thin( NO of the STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- JAUQ 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- 1a l.0 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 I( day of iLlat 12006. IN William. L.M. Nary, City AtOrney ORDINANCE SUMMARY — AZ -06-027 TAPESTRY SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 1 0 i September 1, 2006 RZ 06-005 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT John Homan ITEM NO. 25 REQUEST Ordinance No. — Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres fromR-4 to L -O zones for Meridian Professional Office -- 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Attached Ordinance CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: (n CITY WATER DEPT: / 2 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: ! -h Dater //�16 Phone: �Ae,Q f�[�{���pS Staff Initials: ,Gf� Materials presented at pubUc meetbW shall become properly of fhe City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN ADA UUM Y MORK J. UAVIU NAVAKnU MUM oU BOISE IDAHO 09121106 OPM DEPUTY PaN Thompson III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III RECORDED -REQUEST OF 106151215 City of Meridian ORDINANCE NO. 06 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT JOHN HOMAN, THE OWNER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HAS MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION (RZ-06-005 — MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) FOR REAL PROPERTY BEING LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 1 OF SALISBURY LAND SUBDIVISION, AND PORTIONS OF W. SEDGEWICK DRIVE AND N. MERIDIAN ROAD IN SECTION 1, 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 LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND RE -ZONING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM R-4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO L -O (LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE;•PROV1DING 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 said property, to -wit: John Homan. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re -zoned from R-4 (Low Density Residential) to L -O (Limited Office District) in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re -zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian re- zone said property. RE -ZONE OF MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE— RZ-06-005 Page 1 of 3 0 0 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 �day of _�wAr 2006. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of ,T&W 4'C'1 , 2006. ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, RE -ZONE OF MERIDIAN de WEERD 0 6C O FSSIONA 'brP'L"E-RZ-06-005 Page 2 of 3 STATE OF IDAHO, ) . ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 51" day of mlc*A.- , 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? '�� ,�i NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO ' ' °Z• RESIDING AT: 1.d ua� ` to ® D • MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 10-11-11 Ic s ••®F,IDAIi•Q. • RE -ZONE OF MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE— RZ-06-005 Page 3 of 3 Mar 16 06 03:28 Firrow Land 2 939-7321 P.2 GPS, BOUNDARY, ARR- E TOPOGRAPHIC AND A.L.T.A. s SURVEYS Land Surveying,. Inc. CONS DSCANNINSNTAKIlVG 1121 E. State Street - Suite 105 - Eagle, Idaho 83616 - office: 1-208-939-7373 - fax: 1-208-939-7321 Job No_ 06135 2-22-06 D.R.L. REZONE DESCRIPTION FOR LKV ARCHITECTS Lots 1-3, Block 1 of Salisbury Lane Subdivision, and portions of W. Sedgewick Drive and N. Meridian Road in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and running thence S00017'24"W 1023.45 feet along the East line of said Section to the centerline intersection of N. Meridian Road and W. Sedgewick Drive (said point being the. POINT OF BEGINNING); thence N89°4236"W 234.64 feet along the centerline of said W. Sedgewick Drive to a point of curve with a radius of 200.00 feet, a central angle of 12900'02" and a chord that bears S84'1 7'23"W 41.81 feet; thence to the left along said centerline curve 41.89 feet; thence S15°27'04"E 170.41 feet along the West line of said Lot 3 to the Northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence S00'17'24"W 118.01 feetalong the West line of said Lot 2 to the.Southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence S89'27'04"E 200.00 feet along the South line of said Salisbury Lane Subdivision; thence S89142'36"E 30.00 feet along said South line to the centerline of said N. Meridian Road; thence N00017'24"E 287.30 feet along said centerline to the point of beginning. Area contains 1.6 acres RLMEN "-ApPRft BY MAY 0 8 2006 M WORKS DEPT. 0 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06- 12,6 f PROVIDING FOR RE -ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting re -zoning for land being Lots 1-3, Block 1 of Salisbury Lane Subdivision, and portions of W. Sedgewick Drive and N. Meridian Road in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Attachment "A". This parcel contains 1.6 acres more or less. Also, this parcel is SUBJECT TO all easements and rights-of-way of record or implied. As surveyed as attached as 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, Idaho. Tls ordinance shall become effective on the _ day ofY��.G—.J .��►�� �ftaeitf��d, .tee f Mayor and City Council of t1fe i of 14eri an By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk - FMAM - T First Reading: 6 A&b> p firs by- suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 5 awe` NO 4 Second Reading:.o— �tdddf649i 4914814 STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- ►AL" 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- 1 ;1 W1 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. L William. L.M. Nary, City Attorney ORDINANCE SUMMARY — RZ-06-005 MERIDIAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE Page 1 of 1 September 1, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 5, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 26 REQUEST Ordinance No. : 2006 12007 Fiscal Year Budget AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT. CITY FIRE DEPT: COMMENTS See attached ordinance CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ( r V CITY SEWER DEPT: I V CITY PARKS DEPT: f„ 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 pubUc meetings shall become property of the C ty of Me*kft CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 06-l26�- BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE 50-1002 AND 50-1003, PROVIDING FOR A TITLE AND FINDINGS, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF A BUDGET AND THE APPROPRIATION OF $95,835,010.00 TO DERAY THE NECESSARY EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT AND PURPOSES AND IN THE CERTAIN AMOUNTS HEREIN SPECIFIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2006 AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2007; TO LEVY ALL SUCH APPROPRIATE TAXES AND LEVIES AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW UPON TAXABLE PROPERTY; AND TO COLLECT ALL AUTHORIZED REVENUE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE WAIVING OF THE 2ND AND 3RD READINGS PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE 50-902; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND THE FILING OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. TITLE: This Ordinance shall be entitled and cited as the "2006-2007 Fiscal Year Annual Appropriation Ordinance of the City of Meridian". Section 2. FINDINGS: The City Council finds: A. That it has duly Noticed and held a Public Hearing on the 29th day of August, 2006 for a Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (FY2007) City of Meridian, Idaho; B. That the total revenue anticipated to be available to the City of Meridian during Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is correctly stated in the Adopted Budget which is herein set forth in Section No. 3; and C. The appropriations and sums of money as are hereinafter set forth in Section No. 3 are deemed necessary to defray all the necessary expenses and liabilities of the City of Meridian for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Section 3. ADOPTION OF BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION OF EXPENDITURE: The City Council does hereby adopt as and for the budget and the appropriation of expenditure for the City of Meridian for Fiscal Year commencing October 1, 2006 and ending on September 30, 2007 the following: ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2007 Page 1 of 4 • CITY OF MERIDIAN FY 2007 BUDGET FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2007 Page 2 of 4 ACTUAL BUDGET PROPOSED REVENUES Revenues Revenues Revenues GENERAL FUND Property Tax revenue 8,567,301 10,258,303 12,656,900 Other Sources 6,151,526 5,103,608 5,705,988 Special Services - Community Planning & Developmen 6,153,199 4,380,793 6,137,000 Park Impact revenues 2,112,065 1,264,400 2,085,000 FireTruck Fund revenue 1 106,443- 8,000 - GENERAL FUND REVENUES 23,090,534 21,007,104 26,584,888 use of Park Impact Fund Balance - 2,311,622 2,369,388 use of FireTruck Fund balance - 337,600 - use of Special Service Fund Balance - 31,000 - use of General Fund balance - 11619,035 1043472 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 23,090,534 25,306,361 29,997,748 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 16,654 180,866 163,070 Interest Revenue 121,673 107,000 90,000 use of Capital Improvement Fund Balance 323,732 4,460,500 9,357,500 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 121,673 4,567,500 9,447,500 ENTERPRISE FUND 53,500 - Water & Wastewater revenues 23,677,643 24,032,500 25,880,000 use of Enterprise Fund balance 35,409,010 30,509,762 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUND 23,677,643 59,441,510 56,389,762 TOTAL REVENUES 46,889,850 89,315,371 95,835,010 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2007 Page 2 of 4 ACTUAL BUDGET PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures GENERAL FUND Personnel & Operating Administrative Offices 1,448,038 1,439,256 1,705,687 Admin carry -forward appropriation 332,075 1,319,619 901,620 Police Department 5,690,116 7,194,928 8,617,154 Police cavy -forward appropriation 8,000 5,852 Fire Department 3,358,382 4,715,785 5,192,722 Parks Department 841,015 1,242,016 1,398,890 Special Services - Community Planning & Developmen 3,288,266 3,347,108 4,288,154 Special Service carry -forward appropriation 31,000 200,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND OPERATIONS 14,957,892 19,297,712 22,310,079 Capital Outlay Administrative Offices 16,654 180,866 163,070 Admin carry -forward appropriation 36,000 Police Department 323,732 403,360 396,205 Fire Department 71,179 526,700 209,600 Fire carry -forward appropriation 53,500 - Parks Department 878,807 1,006,850 1,504,820 Parks cant' -forward appropriation 2,803,688 3,186,288 Special Services - Community Planning & Developmen 49,393 26,835 162,700 Special Svc carry -forward appropriation 16,000 addition to Spec Svc reserved fund balance 1,006,850 1,470,146 addition to unreserved fund balance 542,840 TOTAL GENERAL FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,339,765 6,008,649 7,687,669 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 16,297,656 25,306,361 29,997,748 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2007 Page 2 of 4 0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Personnel & Operating Administrative Offices 5,912 7,500 7,500 Capital Outlay Administrative & Parks 9,488 4,560,000 7,340,000 Carry -forward appropriation from FY2006 2,100,000 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES 15,400 4,567,500 9,447,500 ENTERPRISE FUND Personnel & Operating Water & Sewer 12,215,243 12,202,861 13,461,902 carry -forward appropriation 230,000 360,000 Capital Outlay Water & Sewer 11,259,508 25,577,710 6,466,270 carry -forward appropriation 21,430,939 36,101,590 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUND EXPENDITURES 23,474,751 59,441,510 56,389,762 TOTAL CITY of MERIDIAN EXPENDITURES 39,787,807 89,315,371 95,835,010 Section 4. That the general tax levy and all appropriate taxes and levies be imposed as authorized by law and all authorized revenue is collected. Section 5. That the 2nd and 3rd readings of this ordinance are waived by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code §50-902. Section 6. The City Clerk is directed to forthwith publish this Ordinance and file a certified copy of the same with the office of the Secretary of State of Idaho as provided in Idaho Code 50-1003 and the same shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho this ,� day of September, 2006. ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, APPROVED: ME CID , MAYOR ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2007 Page 3 of 4 N A O ' fe :1 V "C v � �gj 's eu b ha ,aps CL PC b PC a b Q� v i7 as as A � � 1 ni bt a� „ � O id � H _ 1 9Ne A ci � ® O I I M M w Imma x" Ilk QJ rA a d a o: V � � U a � U U � O U �.5 f � s° a 1 S .8 as U a O V A N A O ' fe :1 V "C v � �gj 's eu b ha ,aps CL PC b PC a b Q� v i7 as as A � � 1 ni bt a� „ � O id � H _ 1 9Ne A ci ® I I M M Imma Ilk QJ rA d N i 9Ne A ci ® I I M M Ilk QJ d V � N i A ci ® I I October 18, 2006 The Honorable Dave Navarro Ada County Clerk 250 Front Street Boise, Id. 83702 Re: Budget and Levy Request Dear 1W Navarro: T 2 1 201.6 City of Meridian City Clerk Office The review of your 2006 budget and levy request is complete. Your L-1 form, "Certification of County Levies" and your L-2 form, "Dollar Certification of Budget Request to Board of County Commissioners," were submitted to the State Tax Commission on 9-15-2006. The State Tax Commission approves the budget and levies for the 2006 property tax collection. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (208) 334-7541. Sincerely, f Gary F. Houde Senior Research Analyst County Support Bureau. Equal Opportunity Employer Hearing Impaired Callers TDD 1-800-377-3529 Q co N O co N. N r" 11"O M N N N O d Cp a� j o Cl 0 0 0 ' rn N �p M N c`i N a`vo N 00 j W N of N:ap c� O N CA O V- c' N co O M O O 00 O ch O N O co coC L(ON lj CO � 6s 6% n C',c 6s (09, 6% *%t (.q MWz sg N � c Q> o o M M Cl) o M o M M M M > a M O "-R .� Z > > > > > > > > a > M M a 5 QCtsQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ] Q > > Co ui 2 g o Z Z Z Z 2 Z 2 U Z m m a m � 0 Z O y69 _ V cF 0 O Co ch Z co O CV) 110. O co N O O N O N O O f� O O M O O M O aj c0 O M O N 10, ch N V N M m N C to 'd' 0 N P cr cD 2 cF O cF 0 O cF c VO 06 114'c0 -t L M M 4) a 601). 6s 6%6% 6% 6%6% c1= cF N N 61). W a� � o J O N O CO ^NL Cq CVN j 0 � rn IV 2 o o � ci o V- o do a V- CD N V— O MM O co O cfl O ch Cl CO ch N II) cF M N M N ch co M co CO C N �I O O O M O N O M O M O O M O M O M O M O M O N O N V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M co O c> U ,o co f� O 0 O O O ch O M O N O O O O m CA Co C) I" CA z O O m ch O Cl k co Z O N \ N \ N N N N N N V- V- V- V- V- V- N I c V \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N. \ \ \ \ ] Q V y � z O O O O O ch O O M O O N O O O O O O O O O m CO O m 1" O CA cfl m O O O O ch O O M CA m I ZQ M N N N N N N N 0 First Reading: �— S' o 45, Adopted after first reading by suspension of the rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-902 Second Reading: Third Reading: _ STATE OF IDAHO ) : ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 6 O day of SCHCM6C-r' , 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, seal the day and year first above written. 0 T• (SEi) I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official N ARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: did t 1 1 , Its MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:8-{1 I-1 I ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FY2007 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF xy � IDAHO Vj tiF. f c ��` TREISURE V N��Y 8 , 1903 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joseph W. Borton Charles. M. Rountree Shaun: Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS City Attorney/HR 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HR) Fax 884-8723 Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234 / fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 / fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533/fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678 / fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500 / fax 895-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211/fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191/fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242 / fax 884-1159 Certificate of Authenticity I, William G. Berg, Jr., certify that I am the custodian of records for the City Clerk's Office of the City of Meridian, Idaho. I further certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original and official records on file with the City of Meridian. Dated this 1 lth day of September, 2006. William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk City of Meridian CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING- FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE- FAX 8848119 Printed on recycled paper