Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006-10-17
n _~ #. r ~~~ '~ ~J ,~' CITY OF '~__,~~~ ~_%'1 ~l ~rlG~l~l7 1DAH0 ~~ ~s ~~ e~, ~~ ~. TREgSUpE V NAY s~mc~ ,~ Revised 10-16-06 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: _~ Shaun Wardle _~ Joe Borton ,~ Charlie Rountree ~_ Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by ~•r,wFvr /2t~-sJ /~l~h~ 4. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~~e ~,,... 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve New Beer and Wine License Applications by Christina Braneskv for Divine Wine, LLC, at 2310 E. Overland Road, Suite 105: ~~~c.- B. Water Meter Easement for Town Place Suites (Marriott Hotel) by Eagle Meridian Hospitality, LLC: ~~,,-> ~ C. Agreement for Professional Services with Parametrix for Design of Water and Sewer Improvements in Conjunction wit ACHD Intersection of Linder and McMillan Project: a~j~N'c- /2, or~n, °` D. Agreement for Services with AspireOn: ~,~,,,,` Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -October 17, 2006 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Revised 10-16-06 E. Contract with Cascade Pipeline Corporation for Water and Sewer Improvements in Conjunction with ITD Locust Grove Road Grade Separation: a~j~~- ~ 2l2~ ! 9 8, °'-° 6. Department Reports A. Planning Department -Matt Ellsworth 1. Presentation of COMPASS Request for Preliminary Commitment /Support for the Walkable Communities Initiative: a-'sv~O~J or t/y,~-.ello. inaZrJi B. Public Works Department 1. Tabled from October 10, 2006: Agreement for Hookup to the City of Meridian Sewer /Water System Outside Citv Limits for William J. Walgamott II at 2660 East Franklin Road: ~ y,,,,,~ C. Parks Department -Doug Strong: 1. Kiwanis Park Development, Impact Fee Reimbursement, and Real Property Conveyance Agreement: ~.~~~~ D. Ma or's Office: ~~f w~lG q~r~t~~f Lw~-t-ti..~ y ~~~~~ - ~~t. ~~~~~ 1. Presentation by Mayor's Anti-Drug Coalition: h.¢.~C-~ weeh- 7. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: H.ol~- 8. FP 06-045 Request for Final Plat approval of 61 single-family residential building lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - 1947 and 1923 North Black Cat Road and 5136 West Cheny Lane: rt~~,.,,~..c.. 9. FP 06-044 Request for Final Plat approval of 47 single-family residential building lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -Northeast Comer of Mesa Way and East Victory Road: a~,yrrvv~c. 10. Reauest to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission from Applicant for Reconsideration for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: ~ /~„~ ~ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -October 17, 2006 Page 2 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Revised 10-16-06 11. Tabled from July 25, 2006: Request for Reconsideration of Denial for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: ~ ~~.~,,, ~cc~d _ ~.,~~, ~ ~ ~.~,,..., <~ 12. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast comer of West Franklin Road and South Black Cat Road: ~~-~ 13. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast corner of West Franklin Road and South Black Cat Road: ~~wtv 14. Request for Reconsideration for Denial for Annexation and Zonina, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC: ~~,v,,,~ 15. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: ~~~~ ~ 16. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi-family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Q~~v'~ 17. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Regency at River Va11ey by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: ~-~ Fov~e, 18. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-4.3.27B3 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: ~~ v~c~ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -October 17, 2006 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. C Revised 10-16-06 19. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections for Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: a7'/'''"`'~-- 20. Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Northborouah Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC: ~~~~ 21. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborouah Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: ~~~,,w vac. 22. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborouah Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: ~~~ vie, 23. Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 East Amity Road: ~-~,,~~/h, ~ /p _2¢ Db 24. Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 East Amity Road: ~-~y,,,~,y,~ ~p~~,, ,lo /O -2¢-pd 25. Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 East Amity Road: Cam, y,;~p~w ~4, /o-Z ¢_ v6 26. Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 East Amity Road: ~o~-fi'i~.r~c~ ~o/%- ~a /o-Z~-o6 27. Ordinance No. ®6- ~Z70 AZ 06-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: ~~,~,~.~ ~,,L Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -October 17, 2006 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. .~ i • CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, October 17, 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. fl 1. Roll-call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Glen Olsen with LDS Church: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve New Beer and Wine License Applications by Christina Braneskv for Divine Wine, LLC, at 2310 E. Overland Road, Suite 105: B. Water Meter Easement for Town Place Suites (Marriott Hotel) by Eagle Meridian Hospitality, LLC: C. Agreement for Professional Services with Parametrix for Design of Water and Sewer Improvements in Conjunction with ACHD Intersection of Linder and McMillan Project: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -October 17, 2006 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • 6. Department Reports A. Planning Department -Matt Ellsworth 1. Presentation of COMPASS Request for Preliminary Commitment /Support for the Walkable Communities Initiative: B. Public Works Department 1. Tabled from October 10, 2006: Agreement for Hookup to the Citv of Meridian Sewer /Water System Outside Citv Limits for William J. Walaamott II at 2660 East Franklin Road: C. Parks Department -Doug Strong: 1. Kiwanis Park Development, Impact Fee Reimbursement. and Real Property Conveyance Agreement: D. Mayor's Office: 1. Presentation by Mayor's Anti-Drug Coalition: 7. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: 8. FP 06-045 Request for Final Plat approval of 61 single-family residential building lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - 1947 and 1923 North Black Cat Road and 5136 West Cheny Lane: 9. FP 06-044 Request for Final Plat approval of 47 single-family residential building lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -Northeast Comer of Mesa Way and East Victory Road: 10. Reauest to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission from Applicant for Reconsideration for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: 11. Tabled from July 25, 2006: Reauest for Reconsideration of Denial for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -October 17, 2006 Page 2 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 12. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast comer of West Franklin Road and South Black Cat Road: 13. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast comer of West Franklin Road and South Black Cat Road: 14. Request for Reconsideration for Denial for Annexation and Zoning, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC: 15. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: 16. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi-family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: 17. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: 18. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-4.3.27B3 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit for Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: 19. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections for Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -October 17, 2006 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ ~ 20. Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC: 21. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: 22. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: 23. Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 East Amity Road: 24. Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 East Amity Road: 25. Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 East Amity Road: 26. Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 East Amity Road: 27. Ordinance No. AZ 06-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -October 17, 2006 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • Meridian City Council Meetin4 October 17, 2006 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:08 P.M., Tuesday, October 17, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, John Overton, Bill Johnson, Len Grady, Doug Strong and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Good evening. I'd like to welcome you all here tonight. It is Tuesday, October 17th. It's a few minutes after 7:00. We'd like to welcome you here. We'll start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the pledge of allegiance and tonight we will be led in the pledge by two students from Meridian High School. Jessica, do you want to lead us in the pledge? (Pledge of allegiance recited.) De Weerd: I do have City of Meridian pins for both of you for leading us tonight. Thank you. So, you are the first student of the year that has joined us, so you're extra special. And she's on our youth council, I might add. Item 3: Community Invocation by Bishop John Wheeler with LDS Church: De Weerd: So, Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Bishop John Wheeler. I'm sorry. He's with the LDS church. Is he with us here tonight? Okay. Rather, we will have Senator Russ Fulcher lead us in the pledge -- I mean in the invocation if you would. If you will step forward to this microphone. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Sony to put you on the spot, but -- Fulcher: Not a problem. De Weerd: -- we know you are flexible. Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 2 of 30 Fulcher: I'm flexible. De Weerd: Thank you. Fulcher: Shall we pray. Gracious Heavenly Father, we want to thank you for this time together this evening. We also just want to pray for wisdom and guidance as we go about business. We thank you for the opportunity to be here and for the opportunity for voice and for the opportunity to organize in a way that would honor you. We praise you and thank you for this time and we just ask for wisdom and guidance in all that's said and done, in your precious name we pray, amen. De Weerd: Thank you, Senator Fulcher. And because you have led us tonight, I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin as well. Fulcher: Thank you very much. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We do have a -- we have an ordinance number in the regular agenda, which is Item No. 27 is Ordinance 06-1270. It has also been requested on the regular agenda that Items 23 and 24 be continued to October 24th. And Items 25 and 26 also be continued to October 24th. With that I move that we approved the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as revised. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve New Beer and Wine License Applications by Christina Branesky for Divine Wine. LLC, at 2310 E. Overland Road, Suite 105: B. Water Meter Easement for Town Place Suites (Marriott Hotel) by Eagle Meridian Hospitality, LLC: Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 3 of 30 C. Agreement for Professional Services with Parametrix for Design of Water and Sewer Improvements in Conjunction with ACHD Intersection of Linder and McMillan Project: D. Agreement for Services with AspireOn: E. Contract with Cascade Piaeline Coraoration for Water and Sewer Improvements in Conjunction with ITD Locust Grove Road Grade Separation: De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports A. Planning Department -Matt Ellsworth 1. Presentation of COMPASS Request for Preliminary Commitment /Support for the Walk-able Communities Initiative: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6-A under our planning department, I guess, Anna, tonight you are Matt. Canning: Yes, ma'am. There we go. Madam Mayor, really, I'm just going to introduce Terri to you from COMPASS. Tem Schorzman is going to give us a short presentation or introduction the Walk-able Communities Initiative. De Weerd: Thank you, Terri, for joining us. Meridian City Council • October 17, 2006 Page 4 of 30 Schorzman: Thank you, Mayor, City Council. I will be brief. I just wanted to talk with you about getting a preliminary commitment of your support for the application for COMPASS to move forward on a Walk-able Communities Initiative. What this is is an opportunity for those of us in the region to participate at a national level with Walk-able Communities. It will help Communities In Motion and I think it's a great opportunity there. There are a series of very competitive projects around the country, so if we come in strong as a group with partnerships, that we -- I think we will have a stronger application. What we are looking to do is -- and I don't have all the details yet, but we would come in as a small to mid size metropolitan planning organization with -- that would entitle us to five half day workshops over a course of three days for a cost of 17,000 dollars. The more partners that we have -- we are looking at about a 1,500 to 2,000 dollar commitment from -- from our partners to move forward with this. And the application will be due sometime this fall. They will notify me when they are ready to entertain an application. And the fee includes training for our local people to work with the groups and do the workshop and, then, we run community audit workshops probably by next fall if we are accepted in the program. So, I°m here just asking for preliminary approval if you're interested in participating. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I probably didn't -- you probably said it, but I didn't hear it. Who is the grant through or the program through? Schorzman: The grant is through the National Center for Bicycling and Walking and they are based in Bethesda, Maryland, and they run these workshops all over the country with some national experts in areas of planning and land use and walk-able, bike-able communities. Rountree: Is that like a nonprofit organization? Schorzman: A nonprofit organization. Rountree: Okay. And, excuse me, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Rountree: What kind of dollars are we looking at ultimately? Schorzman: We are looking for -- a total package is 17,000 dollars. We come in under workshop two, under the small to mid size range and so we are talking to the major cities, Valley Ride, Commuteride, COMPASS, obviously, put in, you know, about 2,000 dollars and if I had a nice package with the major jurisdictions, then, I'd like to, you Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 5 of 30 know, address some of their possible funders to help us, such as some of the health agencies, hospitals, and other kinds of organizations that might be interested in partnering with us to help bring us forward. The thing that's really great about it is that it's truly community based. It really is bringing all of your communities together, bringing the residence, really, to understand what their communities are about and how that they can make them more walk-able and bike-able. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? So, the financial commitment you're asking for is -- Schorzman: About 1,500 dollars and we wouldn't really need to talk about the funding until we are approved into the program. I'm just looking for preliminary interest that you guys are interested in participating for me to go forward and to the grant in a month or so and, then, I will have more detail once I really get into it with them. But we thought this was a good first step to talk to you. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would be interested and -- Bird: I would be very interested. Rountree: -- very open at this point. Bird: Very interested. De Weerd: So, is it the consensus of Council? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, certainly I agree. I'm wondering how that can work into our current pathway study and if there are opportunities to help integrate that into the process as well. Schorzman: We would certainly do that and that's the goal of coming to our major jurisdictions that are working on all of these plans, that we would, then, actually help those plans be implemented, so we would work with all of your planning staff to make sure that that's done well. De Weerd: Okay. Well, you have heard from Councilman Bird and Rountree. Is that the consensus of the rest of the Council? Borton: It is. De Weerd: Okay. Well, Tem, you have our support. Schorzman: Great. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. B. Public Works Department Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 6 of 30 1. Tabled from October 10, 2006: Agreement for Hookua to the City of Meridian Sewer /Water Svstem Outside City Limits for William J. Walgamott II at 2660 East Franklin Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6-B we have Public Works Department. Len. Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this item was presented last week and tabled to this week to allow the applicant to come forward and address questions. So, with that I would suggest we call the applicant up. Wardle: Thank you, Len. Is the applicant present? If you will state your name and address for the record. Walgamott: Yes. It's Bill Walgamott. You want the property address or my residential address where I reside? Wardle: Your residence, please. Walgamott: Okay. It's 3919 North 28th Street, Boise, Idaho. 83703. Wardle: Thank you. Len. Walgamott: I apologize, I wasn't here last week, I was just -- just told that he needed to come and answer some questions. Wardle: Okay. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. President, the point I made last week on this particular application was that the applicant was not hear and it was going along the lines of if we were to approve this there are certain conditions and whatnot as it relates to being annexed into the city of Meridian and the point I wanted to make sure is if the applicant knew of those conditions, understood those conditions, so it's not a case of us doing it to them, but them knowing full well what they were getting into. So, I would like to hear from the applicant. I think I got a head shake, but -- Walgamott: Yes. And I apologize, I didn't know I was supposed to be here last week or -- Rountree: That's all right. Walgamott: -- I would have been here. And, yes, I'm full aware of all of the implications that come with this, so -- Rountree: Thank you. Meridian City Council ~ • October 17, 2006 Page 7 of 30 Bird: That's the only question I had, too. De Weerd: Well, any other questions from Council? Len, any outstanding issues that should be discussed? Wardle: None that I'm aware of. Brad said it was good to go. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we appreciate you joining us here tonight and being available to answer that critical question, do you or don't you. So, thank you so much. Walgamott: Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: If I could just verify with Mr. Walgamott, does the agreement have -- is the current property owner's name Mary Wale? Walgamott: Yes. Nary: Has the transaction been completed or are you still in the process of purchasing the property? Is she still the current owner? Walgamott: She owns the property. We actually own it together. We are partners. We are in the process of getting all of our ducks in a row. We'd like to put a day care center at that particular property. Nary: So, will she still remain as the owner or she will be signing the agreement, too, I guess is what I'm asking. Walgamott: Yes. We will both be -- she remains as the current owner until we get all of our approvals and, then, we will be going into an LLC and the LLC will own the actual property. Nary: Okay. All right. Thank you. Walgamott: Uh-huh. De Weerd: Okay. Thanks again. Walgamott: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I believe that staff needs direction on this item. Meridian City Council ~ • October 17, 2006 Page 8 of 30 Rountree: Madam Mayor, I understand they need direction. Other than a motion for one way or the other, is there a resolution that needs to be prepared or an ordinance or Nary: No. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, if you want to -- if the Council moves to approve this agreement, then, you can simply do that, we don't need a resolution. Rountree: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mr. Nary, is there -- that last question seemed a bit odd. Who is the owner of property? Is it Mary Wales? Does she need to come and make this request? Nary: Well, Members of the Council -- or Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, Mary Wales has signed this agreement. She is the current property owner and I didn't know, since he said they were buying it, if that transaction had been completed, so that they should be the appropriate party, but since she currently owns it, we have recorded that document, it applies to all successor parties, so it would be binding on their LLC or if he buys it outright or however that goes. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the agreement for the hook up to the city sewer and water for the property at 2660 East Franklin Road. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request in front of you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Parks Department -Doug Strong: Meridian City Council • October 17, 2006 Page 9 of 30 1. Kiwanis Park Development, Impact Fee Reimbursement, and Real Property Conveyance Agreement: De Weerd: Thank you. Item C is our Parks Department. Mr. Strong. Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As you may recall, several months ago we brought forward to your proposal to enter into an agreement with Kenai Development, Park Point Development, to develop Kiwanis Park and for a donation of a little over two acres to the park be a part of that project and participation by the developer in the green up phase of the park. So, in that period of time since we have been working on the agreement, which you have I think a very near final copy of before you tonight. It's -- we are still working on getting things clarified in it clear after 5:00 o'clock tonight. So, I think we are very close to a final agreement. We wanted to give you the opportunity to take a look at that and discuss any questions that you have tonight and bring it back next week for approval. There is a couple of elements in it that are important, certainly the transfer of property that would add the two acres to the existing property and, then, our agreement with the developer to develop the park and the pathway connection out to Eagle Road that we discussed earlier that was not on the table earlier for development, but with this opportunity to partner with the developer is now going to provide us with, essentially, a completed park and a pathway connection to Eagle Road. So, the last two pages of the exhibit show you the contractor's bid for completing that work and, then, the next page is the budget that goes along with what extra things we need to do to finance the completion of the project, which would include installation of a restroom and a playground. The Kiwanis club still wants to build a shelter on the site, but at the completion of this work everything would be, essentially, done, with the exception of the shelter and a basketball court, tennis court, we are still discussing whether we want to look at maybe a little bit different design for a basketball court that might be a tennis court with basketball on the end. Looking at some design opportunity there. So, maybe the first thing would be to discuss the transfer of the property and the deed and what is involved with that and, then, Ican -- and I will ask Bill Nary to talk about that part of the agreement and, then, talk about the other part. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have in front of you a proposed agreement for both park development impact reimbursement and real property conveyance. Mr. Baird from my office has been working with counsel for the developer in this case Richard Andrus from the law firm of Butler & Spink. I think we have got some -- I think we have got this into its final stages. I have gotten a couple of e-mails from Mr. Baird this evening. He has been corresponding with Mr. Andrus on a couple of very minor changes. I think the most significant change that we have reached in this resolution is not having the restrictions on potential transfer in the future and after 30 years they have agreed to allowing of that to be in the city's control in the future. Most of the other things are fairly minor things. Mr. Baird was anticipating getting the last of it cleaned up and have an actual final copy for your approval for next week on their consent agenda and, then, I think we can complete the transaction and there is Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 10 of 30 some issues on the deed and make sure all the language is correct and the property descriptions are correct and we can get all that done after this agreement is signed. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Doug, anything you need to add to that? Strong: Excuse me. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the only thing that I know that Mr. Baird and I discussed today was to bring back to you acopy -- a signed copy of the deed from the other party next week. That's typically the way I think you want to receive agreements -- or a signed copy of the agreement, not the deed, so that you will be reviewing and signing a signed copy by the other party. And if there is no more questions about De Weerd: Well, Mr. Strong, I guess my question is -- this is something they came and requested of Council a number of months ago; is that correct? Strong: That's correct. De Weerd: And I guess this is a great segway into the next piece I anticipate you covering, is this additional cost. It was my impression that when they came and suggested this donation, it would be green and a lot of this work was included in that donation; is that not correct? Strong: That's partially correct. And maybe I will just dive right into -- De Weerd: Okay. Strong: -- that segment of -- the discussion at the time was the developer would participate in the green up of the park and when you look at the breakdown of the cost for the contractor, the parking lot, the pond, pond liner, we already had the irrigation pump installed, there were other costs outside of what was determined to be green up cost, so that the set donation of 275,000 dollars that's identified in the agreement is to pay for the items that, essentially, define the green up, the irrigation system, seeding the grass, the tree planting. those elements and, then, the additional work along -- green up along the pathway connection; which when we earlier budgeted for the green up of the park it did not include the pathway connection to Eagle Road or to the segment of the pathway that comes in from Eagle Road. So, we have actually had an added benefit that we are able to connect that in the first phase. So, the other elements that are left out are other -- concrete for where the restroom and shelter and play equipment will be, the parking lot, the connection to the pump station, the pond and pond liner, those elements, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council • October 17, 2006 Page 11 of 30 Bird: On your list of expenses I got a question to ask. You're saying 500 dollars for a punch list and final walk through of 400 dollars and O&M's and manuals and stuff -- isn't that done by the -- by the architect or engineers and why would we be putting money out for a punch list and walk throughs? Strong: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, this -- this contract was negotiated by the developer. The developer is our construction manager on this project. I have a representative from the developer here tonight that maybe can answer those questions. Bird: I'd like an answer. I have never been paid in my life for a punch list that I was called back on. Strong: This is Joe Atalla from Park Point Development. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us, Joe. Atalla: Thank you. Joe Atalla, 6223 North Discovery Way in Boise. 83713. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, and Councilmember Bird, to answer your question about the punch list items and the final work through, this Exhibit C here is the proposal that we received from the contractor. We put the project out to bid and this contractor won the proposal based on a lump sum originally and their lump sum number was considerably lower than the next contractor. After that we had them break it down further, so we saw where all the money was going and how much specific items of green up were and these items showed up afterwards. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Doug, the 275,000 donated work to be completed, that has already been completed; is that right? Strong: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, that work -- I'm sure that the work that's progressed at the site they have gone beyond the 275,000 dollars that is currently identified to be donated by the developer. When we did our park tour back in August and we looked at Kiwanis Park it didn't look like much had happened there. If you go out there today it looks dramatically different and especially since the development to the north and the earth moving work that's being done there is all the way down to Overland Road it's a dramatically different look today than back in August. So, there Meridian City Council S October 17, 2006 Page 12 of 30 has been a tremendous amount of work accomplished at the site already and it continues uninterrupted as per the commitment from the developer. There has been no stoppage because they have gone over 275,000. So, their commitment has been very true to our earlier verbal agreement. Until the written agreement's in place they -- and they knew at the time, they are committed beyond what they are offering financially to the project. We are very pleased with what we see there to this point. The work has been very well done, even to the point of making extra effort to get the paved pathway connection to the high school in the week that school opened and that was -- that was their first priority, they got right in and got it done and there was only I think two days that there wasn't pavement, but that the pathway connection never was obstructed to distract from students getting to the high school. De Weerd: Thank you, Doug. Any other questions from Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. You do have a request for a budget amendment in front of you. Strong: Madam Mayor, I would need to bring that back next week. I have not prepared that and brought it to you and finance yet. This just -- De Weerd: I know. I was going to say I don't remember seeing a form. Strong: No. It's not -- it's not come through yet. So, what I guess I want is guidance from -- if we bring it back and discuss it or we can bring it back on a Consent Agenda for next week, if you have no other questions or any need for any changes there. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Regardless of the form, I mean if it's going to be brought back, I don't know if we -- to determine the particular meetings if it's on an agenda or not. Mr. Nary, is that - Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think if you want to have it as a discussion item you can certainly direct that we have it as another report for next week. Otherwise, our normal course would be to put it on the Consent Agenda and you can always pull it off for discussion if you needed to. I think all that Mr. Strong was trying to do was just, I guess, give you all the opportunity to have some time to look at this agreement, since you have just seen it today. Again, I think we will have some final tweaks to it, but this is generally the document that you will see next week and if there isn't anything else, we can certainly just put it on for Consent and if you have questions Mr. Strong could be here to answer them. Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council • October 17, 2006 Page 13 of 30 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess my preference would be for the agreement portion to bring that forward on the Consent, with the budget amendment in a department report for next week. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate your time and thank you, Joe, for joining us. We look forward to seeing this as a completed project next week. D. Mayor's Office: 1. Presentation by Mayor's Anti-Drug Coalition: De Weerd: And now that I have challenged staff, they have been diligently trying to see if we can play this DVD on my computer. And I apologize, Council, I have been at meetings all day and so wasn't around to follow up with staff to make sure that this was set up and it's not -- and I appreciate your effort over there. So, we will go ahead and put it on our agenda for next meeting and I ask your forgiveness for not having that set up. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: FP 06-045 Request for Final Plat approval of 61 single-family residential building lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - 1947 and 1923 North Black Cat Road and 5136 West Cherry Lane: De Weerd: So, we will move to Item No. 8, which is FP 06-045. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we don't have the computer reconfigured -- put back together yet, but staff is recommending approval of this final plat application and there was -- the applicant has provided a written agreement with the conditions. They did ask for clarification on condition number 13 and staff agrees with their clarification. It's for Incline Village Subdivision. There we go. Sorry. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 8, FP 06-045 final plat. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 14 of 30 Rountree: With clarification of item 13. Bird: Sony. Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item No. 8 with the change. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: FP 06-044 Request for Final Plat approval of 47 single-family residential building lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -Northeast Comer of Mesa Way and East Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 9 is FP 06-044. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Cabella Creek final plat and, again, we do have a -- staff is recommending approval of the final plat and the applicant has provided a written statement saying they agree with the conditions. Similarly, they have proposed a mitigation plan and condition in response to one of the conditions of approval and the staff is supportive of the mitigation plan they have proposed in their response letter. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council for staff? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 9, FP 06-044, with the inclusion of the applicant's commitment to the mitigation proposal. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9 with changes as noted. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council • October 17, 2006 Page 15 of 30 Item 10: Request to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission from AQplicant for Reconsideration for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: De Weerd: Item No. 10 is a request to remand back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and for a reconsideration. I will open this discussion with comments from our planning director. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have -- you had continued the Findings for this matter until we could have the Ten Mile Charrette. We had the Charrette and the applicant worked diligently with the Charrette team to come to a compromise on what would be appropriate for this area and he is asking tonight for you to remand the application back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, so that he can make it consistent with the Ten Mile Charrette recommendation as it currently stands. De Weerd: I guess, Anna, my question is it's gone through the Charrette process, it hasn't come in front of Council for any comments prior to going through the public process. Is this premature or would it be best to continue this until it's more finalized? And I guess that would be the comfort level of Council at this point, too. Canning: With regard to the timing, we are proposing that -- the earliest cutoff that the applicant could submit for would be a January 4th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, if -- which would probably be about a month before the Charrette gets to you with the application submitted in December. So, there is some lag there, but it would give them an opportunity to work with the Planning Commission and work forward. They are still a little bit in this predicament, but I -- I think that overall it could be accommodated with the -- staffs initial concern was that we may come up with land uses in the area that were totally inconsistent with what was being proposed, particularly if this whole block went office or something like that in the Charrette process. But we -- the area is generally shown as residential, so I think that even if the Ten Mile Charrette results were tweaked or -- that if they are not changed completely, then, he should be fairly consistent with what's being proposed. But there is going to be a gap there. De Weerd: Council, any comments? Canning: Also Mr. Hood did provide a memo to you just regarding the fees. This has gone all the way through the process, so we -- our staff felt that if Council were -- did want to remand this back, we would like to get some additional fees for the preliminary plat, just to review the new application and that's what's detailed in that memo. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Anna? Would you like to hear from the applicant? Rountree: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 16 of 30 Schultz: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. My name is Matt Schultz at 2127 South Alaska, Meridian, representing RMR Consulting on this Baraya Subdivision that was before you back in August. The biggest reason for denial that I can think of was the fact that there was impending Ten Mile area planning effort that we had not participated in and immediately after the denial we -- going into the hearing there was an 18 month -- you know, there was a discussion that it might take 18 months to get through the Ten Mile planning area process, but immediately after that we found out from Anna that we could get through as soon as three months, so when we asked for reconsideration we asked for a three month continuance of the Findings and the request for reconsideration, so you have both of those here in front of you tonight. So, having gone through that process, which we looked at the whole 2,800 acre area, which ours is 90 acres, under a microscope with your consultant HGR, the major stakeholders in the area, the highway district, the school district, all the land owners -- having worked through that process and made all the changes and modifications, we felt that we should ask for you to approve the reconsideration based on the fact that we have worked through that process and that we believe what we have conforms not only with your current Comp Plan, but with what is proposed in the new area plan that would be brought before you later on. As Anna said, we won't be able to get on until January with Planning Commission, probably February, maybe March with City Council. We feel that there is plenty of time to get through the Charrette and, even so, we feel like we do conform with the current Comp Plan, as well as the new one, in that it is residential, there is some difference -- this is a very old layout there. That has nothing to do with what we are proposing. The school district has stepped up to the plate and said they'd like an elementary school site. I think he came to and said, whoa, we are going to have a lot of residential out here. I don't think he realized that before. Which is fine. I mean that's something we need to do is -- but that's just one aspect of how this thing has changed and so, therefore, we'd ask for -- respectfully ask for your approval of our request for reconsideration, for you to remand this back to the Planning Commission to the January 4th, 2007, date, if we get our things in on time with Anna. We are willing to take the chance in revising our preliminary plat, our traffic study, our landscape plan, about 7,500 dollars in fees, that we go back in front of Planning Commission and come back in front of you and you still reserve the right to approve or deny. So, we'd just like a fresh start and ask for your approval. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Schultz: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you, Matt. Schultz: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council • October 17, 2006 Page 17 of 30 Wardle: Madam Mayor, I guess I have two concems with remanding this to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the first would be we have heard some tentative timelines, we have had the Charrette, we are turning that into a document that can come before the Council and be considered. My comfort level with remanding this without that document in place -- it's not a real high level of comfort. My second concern is staff has looked at trying to find out what sort of an impact a remand would be and charging an additional fee, which is outside the scope of what we currently have. So, that concems me as well. I would be more comfortable remanding this application after we have been -- after we have approved the Charrette and the Ten Mile study. De Weerd: Okay. Other comments from Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I understand where Councilman Wardle is coming from and I think I just heard from the applicant that they are willing to -- and understand where they tread in their particular request. So, yes, I would like to have the Charrette summarized and brought before us and us actually act on that. I believe in this particular case, given the applicant's comments, they are still at risk of what might come out of the approval process for the land use activities out there. So, I would be inclined to support the idea of remanding it back to Planning and Zoning, particularly if I what hear is correct and they have a new plat, they have worked with the school district, with the school site, and those sorts of things. Bird: Was that a motion? Rountree: No. It was just my comment, the other side of the issue. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Councilman Rountree, as long as -- as I understood the applicant, they are willing for the extra fee cost and they are taking that extra step and they understand that it's no guarantee if they are remanded that it's going to come back and go through. So, I'm in favor of allowing the request. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I don't know -- excuse me -- how common this is. I don't know if it's a good policy to have, but that if a particular application comes forward and is denied for Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 18 of 30 whatever reason, that there is a request to reconsider and a myriad of changes and asked to go back and -- to P&Z and do it again. I don't know if we invite some sort of slippery slope or that becomes the norm to request if you have got problems or application is denied, to go this particular route. Be concerned for our P&Z Commission and staff, it creates a problem and extra work and doesn't quite cover their fees and expenses. I agree with Councilman Bird and Rountree, I don't have a problem in this case. The applicant's readily acknowledged that there is no remarks by this Council one way or another as to what's going to come of that, but I am unsure -- looking down the road as far as other applications that might be denied in further months and years, that a lot of that -- at least right now that sort of do over process for reconsideration. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't know if this will help address any of those questions. All the -- if the Council were to grant this reconsideration, all you have done -- and I think Councilmember Rountree and Bird have hit on that, that's it -- all you have done is put this -- put this particular applicant back in the cue to come back after the plan has had an opportunity to be discussed with you for the south area, for your folks to provide comment, they are going to comply with that. If you have other applications in this area and the taking this position as a Council that you're not going to approve anything -- any request until this plan is completed, this wouldn't be doing that, this would simply be putting them in back of the stage to come back through the process. As to your other question in regards to I guess creating a potential problem in allowing this reconsideration, if you look at it beyond the fact that this is an annexation request and because that's the unique nature of this type of request for the City of Meridian at this time, it is consistent with the Idaho Code, because normally if this wasn't an annexation request, but merely a preliminary plat, you're required to, then, give the applicant information and recommendations as to what they can do to be approved. If they can meet those recommendations, then, they could ask for reconsideration and an opportunity to bring that back in front of you. So, the code sort of anticipates that that's an action that Council would consider. Because this is an annexation, you don't necessarily have to give those specific recommendations, because if you choose not to annex, you're not obligated to annex, but since part of the concern the Council raised at the time was the specifics of the Ten Mile area plan and they are willing to meet those -- in fact, have begun their process of doing it, you're not creating something that the Idaho Code hasn't anticipated you would be doing anyway. So, I don't -- I don't think the concern you raised is probably something you're going to have to wrestle with each time anyway and isn't something that the code already contemplates you doing, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Yes, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr: Rountree. Meridian City Council • October 17, 2006 Page 19 of 30 Rountree: I just wanted to make sure that the students understood that. Bird: Did you get all that? Nary: And I'm sure if Councilmember Rountree got it wrong, Mrs. Wildwood will correct me when it's her tum, so -- Bird: He talks different now than he did when he sat three chairs down. Rountree: Thank you. Nary: We will have a short lesson after the meeting. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Not to do this thing any longer, I move that we approve the request to remand -- to remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission the RMR project and to include the additional fees as agreed upon by staff and applicant. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request in front of you. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Tabled from July 25, 2006: Request for Reconsideration of Denial for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc.: Item 12: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for Barava Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast comer of West Franklin Road and South Black Cat Road: Item 13: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 06-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other/common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 20 of 30 L-O zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. -- southeast comer of West Franklin Road and South Black Cat Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 is tabled from July 25th, a request for reconsideration for a denial. I will ask Mr. Nary what we need do with that. Nary: Madam Mayor, you don't need to take any action, since the prior action on Item 10 took care of that. On items 12 and 13 you can simply move to vacate those Findings, since they will go back to Planning and Zoning, you will get new Findings when that eventually comes back to you. De Weerd: Okay. We can do that in one motion. Nary: You can do that in one motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we vacate the Findings in Items 12 and 13. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion in front of you is regarding 12 and 13. Do I need a roll call, Bill? Nary: No. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Rectuest for Reconsideration for Denial for Annexation and Zoning, Conditional Use Permit. and Variance for Regencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC: De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 is a request for reconsideration. I will tum this over to Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a request for a reconsideration by Regency at River Valley. The applicant in this case had submitted annexation and zoning, Conditional Use Permit, and three varuance requests. Their letter asked for a new hearing before Council and the applicant is here to provide additional info. De Weerd: Okay. Council, would you like to hear from the applicant? Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 21 of 30 Bird: Madam Mayor, I would. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Rindlisbacher: Yeah. My name is Greg Rindlisbacher with the Bach Team, located at 11650 South State Street in Draper, Utah. De Weerd: Thank you. Rindlisbacher: Thank you. Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, we'd like to ask if our project, the Regency at River Valley, could be -- would be reconsidered and have another opportunity to present that to you in a Public Hearing. What we would like to know, if we could -- between now and the next Public Hearing, get some feedback from the Mayor and the City Council members on their concems with the project, get some input on what they would like to see there that would be something that you would feel comfortable with, that is something that can be approved through the city. We would also be willing that we would be working with the planning staff on implementing these changes on our plan and present these changes and these revisions in the next Public Hearing. We would also address all the concems that were brought in the previous Public Hearing. So, we would like to ask for that reconsideration tonight. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't think we can -- nor do we want to, if we were to have that request, do we want to discuss this at all with anybody -- nor have we discussed it with anybody. Hope none of us have. I have -- I have no problem bringing them back. I feel they -- through the Public Hearing and through the motion and our discussion, they have got to have some kind of idea what we were concerned about. They can do, you know, what they want. I have no problem -- we have always, most of the time, have let people, if they wanted to change something. If they are not going to change something, I don't want them coming back. You know what we didn't like. At least look at changing some stuff. De Weerd: Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Caleb Hood and I spoke with the applicant earlier today and I think he perhaps misunderstood what could happen between now and the next hearing. What we were struggling with was -- well, I wasn't there, so I wasn't -- couldn't provide any help and I think Mr. Hood didn't quite understand what your concems were either. So, that is what I think the applicant was trying to ask is can we have anew -- another hearing, so that he could understand what your concems were. Does that make sense? I'm seeing a perplexed look from some of the Council members, so -- Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 22 of 30 De Weerd: So, Anna, as I understand it, this request is made to open it up to get feedback from Council on what would need to be done to gain approval? Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, is that the appropriate protocol for this? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, like I said before, in an annexation request -- I mean there is a lot of discussion at that particular Public Hearing from the Council and the minutes are available. I don't know if the applicant has reviewed those as to what the Council concern were and whether to annex the property at this time, where the variances that were being requested was too challenging for that site and too big a stretch for this Council to approve those various exceptions to the code that they were seeking. There was quite a bit of discussion regarding the tiling of the drain and whether to the it or not. There was a lot of discussion over the amenities and the variance in regards to that and the parking. So, I mean there was certainly a lot of information. If the Council wants to have another hearing, you are certainly free to do that if you wish, but it isn't necessarily appropriate to have another hearing just to have another discussion, but you're welcome to do it if you want to. But, again, I don't know if they have reviewed it. I have reviewed their letter of request and Mr. Bird was correct, the Council can't provide them further input outside of a Public Hearing, but there was quite a bit of input that was provided when they originally heard it. So, the Council is free to grant a reconsideration or not. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any information you need or do you have -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody has anymore discussion, I would move -- I might not get a second, but I'd move that we consider the request for reconsideration for the denial of annexation and zoning for River Valley by the Regency at River Valley, LLC. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request for reconsideration. Do I have a second? Okay. Council, that motion denies for lack of a second. So, that would -- I don't think you need to have a motion to deny, but I would need a motion on Items 15 through 18 to approve the Findings of Fact. And that includes 19 as well. Is that correct, Mr. Nary? Nary: Madam Mayor, we have in the past, if the Council does not wish to grant the reconsideration, the Council has moved to deny it -- De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 23 of 30 Nary: -- deny the request, so it has been the normal protocol. And, then, the other ones they would have to moved to be approved. Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny the request for Item No. 14, request for reconsideration for the Regency at River Valley. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny the request for reconsideration. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Just for the purposes of discussion -- and it's been made reference to with regard to a request like -- and it goes to the applicant and anyone else that makes a request like this, when you make calls to Council members to discuss it -- I know there was -- I could tell you there was a call to me, which I didn't return. It's not to be rude, but it's for that specific purpose that you can't even invite the opportunity to have a dialogue about that outside a public meeting like that. So, if you got a bunch of non- retum phone calls, that's why. There is a reason for it, so -- and I just wanted the applicant to know that. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 15: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 16: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi-family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for ReQencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 24 of 30 Item 17: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Regencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 18: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-4.3.27B3 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 19: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Items 15 through 19 are all to approve the Findings of Fact for Denial. I would need a motion to approve those Findings. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Items 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the Findings of Facts on Items 15 through 19. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 20: Reauest for Reconsideration of Denial of Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 20. It's a night for reconsiderations. I will start this item with staff comments. Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 25 of 30 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Northborough Subdivision project and you have a letter from the applicant -- from Mrs. Wildwood regarding this reconsideration and, again, they are requesting a new hearing before Council. De Weerd: Okay. Council, would you like to here from the applicant's representative? Bird: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Susan. Wildwood: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Appreciate the opportunity to come here and ask for reconsideration of this matter. I provided you a letter. I did go through the minutes trying to be sure that I understood what your concems were. I was not available the night of the hearing, so I got a copy of that just from staff and I went through it, so I think that I distilled out what your major concems were -- Nary: Name and address, please. Wildwood: I'm tembly sorry. Thank you for reminding me. Susan Wildwood. Business address is P.O. Box 6502, Boise. 83707. Thank you, Mr. Nary. In any event -- De Weerd: That's why he's here. It's not just window dressing. Wildwood: You know what, I liked his opinion. I have been reading that and I'm going to -- you know, I'm going to go I want that. I have to be able to say that. I'll remind him about it the next time. So, we're talking about piping or tiling the White Drain. The issue on that one was when we went back and I had the surveyor go in and verify that we only owned to the center of the White Drain and, then, looking at what other amenity questions you had if we were not going to the it, what did your ordinance actually allow us to do, have it as a water amenity, a lineal amenity, I think the bigger issue was safety of the kids, which was one of my concems about leaving it open. Could we fence it off, what about a pathway? You had concems with Mr. Lloyd having access immediately to the north, so we spoke with him and have a letter of intent. We weren't exactly sure how we would create an easement at this date, but we have a letter guaranteeing access. And, then, the last question was master planning for the vicinity. De Weerd: I guess, Susan, Ihave -- I have to interrupt you for a moment. Mr. Nary, can we take this kind of detail in a reconsideration request? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was listening, in case you didn't think I was. Mrs. Wildwood is only addressing what's already in a letter that's part of the public record. In this -- what she's done differently than your prior applicant is she has looked at the minutes and tried to address those concems as the basis for hearing it again, not the basis to approve it, but simply as the basis to meet at least a standard which, again, is up to the Council's discretion, but the standard of bringing forth information that ! ~ Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 26 of 30 maybe wasn't available at the prior hearing or wasn't made clear at the prior hearing. So, she's not bringing it to the merits, but simply to just support the opportunity to be heard again in a Public Hearing. De Weerd: And to give that during a Public Hearing process. Nary: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Wildwood: Thank you, Madam Mayor. That is correct. It's my understanding that the standard is, in part, to say that this information was not available to the Council or was not presented in this particular form and we would like the opportunity to bring it back to you with a more detailed presentation with the maps and that other planning to show you that we could address those concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. You may continue. Wildwood: That's all I had to say, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Well, Council, you know the process, since we have already done it a couple times already this evening. So, what would you like to do? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: The concerns that Ihave -- or had at the last hearing haven't particularly changed with the reconsideration. I'm not in support of reconsidering the denial, at least my concerns with regards to the various parcels at stake in this particular region. My concern over -- I think the terms was piecemeal development. Again, through no fault of the developers, but this particular region doesn't -- nothing's changed since the denial forme in my basis, which would support reconsidering it. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any other discussion? If not, I would need a motion. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 27 of 30 Borton: I move that we deny Item 20, the request for reconsideration -- or, excuse me. Yes. I have got some double negatives. Move that we deny the request for reconsideration of the denial in Item 20. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny the request for reconsideration on Item 20. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 21: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborouah Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Item 22: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborouah Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 21 and 22 are Findings on the Northborough Subdivision. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we approve Items 21 and -- can we -- do we do them separate? Both together? Nary: You can do them together. De Weerd: You can do them -- Borton: That we approve Items 21 and 22 on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for denial of the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. There is a motion in place to approve Items 21 and 22. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 28 of 30 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 23: Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 East Amity Road: Item 24: Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 East Amity Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 23 and 24 have been requested to continue. I will open these two public hearings on AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044 and entertain a motion to continue these two items. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we continue Items 23 and 24 until October 24th, 2006. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Items 23 and 24. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 25: Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 East Amity Road: Item 26: Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 East Amity Road: De Weerd: Item 25 and 26 are public hearings AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046. These both have also been requested for a continuation to the 24th. These two public hearings are open and I would consider a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council ~ o October 17, 2006 Page 29 of 30 Rountree: I move that we continue Items 25 and 26 uni:il October 25th, 2006. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion in front of you is to continue Items 25 and 26 until next week. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 27: Ordinance No. 06-1270 AZ II6-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LL_C - 1255 West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 27 is Ordinance 06-1270. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 06-1270, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the Government Lot 4 of Section 1, 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 thie 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 this ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in it entirety? I appreciate you snot saying yes. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve 06-1270, with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 27. IVIr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. • Meridian City Council October 17, 2006 Page 30 of 30 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. That is the end of our agenda and I think you all win a City of Meridian pin, since that is something that we do when you last to the end of our meeting. Berg: Madam Mayor, you may point out that this is a very unusual situation, because you'll miss all your favor television shows by the time you get home. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: So moved. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. \\\\\~1110t1111///,/, °eJ `~ T~> ~ O ATE, ~s ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~/////ll!lo lll~,\1\\\ ~~ ~ l~~ G DATE APPROVED r: October 13, 2006 CJ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, :?006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-A REQUEST Approve New Beer 8~ Wine License Applications by Christina Branesky for Divine Wine, LLC at 2310 East Overland Road, SuitE~ 105 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS See aftaiched Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the C(ty of Mer(dtan. October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ~- ~j REQUEST Water Meter Easement for Town Place Suites (Marriott Hotelj by Eagle Meridian Hospitality, 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: OTWER: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shop become property of the CNy of Meridian. • ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. ~ NAItARRO AMOUNT .OU 5 ~J BOISE IDAH011102106 01:42 PM DEPUTY usa Irby _ RECDRDED-REQUEST OF ~IIII~I'~IIIIII~III~II~I~IIII'llll I~ City of Meridian 1 ~~ 1 ~'t~~ WATER METER EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this ~~ day oif ~~06 between Eagle Meridian I~ospitality 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 meter right~of--way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the meter is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said meter 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 Granteetheright-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance ofthe meter over and across the following described property: {SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) (Only easement #2 applies to this easement docuIInent) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a water meter and its allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such faciliries at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of--way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY' UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. C:\Documents and Settings\DAVER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\~LK3C5\Water meter easement (2).doc ,, ~ ,~ 5.. • ~ THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of--way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. Dewey F. Weaver~ir.'=~ylanaging Partner STATE OF ss Parish of Ouachita ) On this ~ day of {20 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Dewey F. Weaver Jr., known or identified to me to be the Managing Partner of the LLC that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. NOTARY PUBLIC F Ou~c~~~,d~Z_ S~/ ~ ~~~~r~a Residing at• /ylrnu~c~" , GA ~ ~ - ~ . . Commission ~es~:--- ~ r~ L~ ~~ _ -.. -.. GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN ~. C:\Documents and Settings\DAVER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3C5\Water meta easement Attest by William G. Approved By City Council On: STATE OF IDAHO, ) . ss. County of Ada ) ~~`~~~~~ni~~ n On this ~ q '~ day of _ 'LJ~--~%~'~ , 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 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) .~~ ~,r~ ~'~,. NOTARY FUBLIC FOR IDAHO ~ {- ~ Residing at: l''Yl~ C h~_ ~~~~ Commission Expires: ~ Q ~ [ ~ ~ . - = ~ C:\Doctunants and Settings\DAVirR\Loca1 SettinSs\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3C5\Water meter easement (2).doc ' ~ ~..-p~: ~._. • • EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION FOR WATER LINE FACILITIES EASEMENTS AT DORADO SUBDIVISION SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 TWO EASEMENTS LOCATED IN DORADO SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN BOOK 95 OF PLATS AT PAGES 11647 AND 11648, ADA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, SAID SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EASEMENT N0.1 COMMENCING AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., THENCE N 41°27'33" W 465.91 FEET TO A POINT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF AN EXISTING CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT, INSTRUMENT NO. 106042307, THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THiS DESCRIPTION; THENCE N 00°00'00" E 15.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 90°00'00" E 13.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00°00'00" W 15.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90°00'00" W 13.00 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; EASEMENT N0. 2 COMMENCING AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., 6.M., THENCE N 34°16'22" W 87$.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF AN EXISTING GITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT, INSTRUMENT NO. 106042307, THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE S 00°00'00" W 12.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENGE N 90°00'00" W 27.50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00°00'00" E 12.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 90°00'00" E 27.50 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; 19412-WATER-EASE ~, ... _~ ~ r EXH~IB11~ "B" INTERSTATE-84 1/4 CORNER17~16 EASTBOUND OFF RAMP ,P-~ ~. ~ w~~ ® ~ N 0 E I N JS ~ i-_``--Le ---- L-_ N.g N. I I J L_6 ~, . I I I EASEMENT 2 i ~ M I o I I I o w ~ ~~ I I ~ I I EXISTING ~ I Ala W z.W ~ I MERIDIAN ~ o f in I I I I EASEMENT I ~ I ~ I I I I INSTRUMENT N0 ~• W . m ~ ~ I I 106042307 I ~ II I ~ II ~ I I I I I z I I ~ ~ ~ EASEMENT 1 I ~ ° C I I 1 ~ J I I I ~~~~ U ~ ~. I ~ - - - C---- I ~ ~ ~ I I p '~~. ~ ~~r. W I I 9, ~ I i © II 1 o I I I ~ __ ~_._I I - ,. ....... + _~ 1 ~_ ~_ ..~ - - ._..~ ...~. - ~ 281.90' - 20 SECTfON LINES 89'46'18°W 2656.73' OVERLAND ROAD 1 4 CORN / ER 1 ~~{ ~ REVISIONS W Q O ~ I v~ '~~~ y~~ ~Q ~a yf ~,,~~^ ,.. .~M~~ LINE TABL E LINE LENGTH BEARING L-1 15.00 N 00'00'00"E L-2 13.00 5 90'00'00°E L-3 15.00 S 00'00'DO"W L-4 13.00 N 90'00'00"W L-5 12.00 S 00'00'00"W L-6 27.50 N 90'0000"W L-7 12.00 N 00'00'00"E L-8 27.50 S 90'0000"E MERIDIAN WATER LINE EASEMENTS AT DORADO SUBDIVISION IN SE 1/4 SECTION 17, T.3 N., R.1 E.,B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO I s2' I I Stanley Consultants ~. 1940 S. BONITO WAY SUITE 140 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 208-288--0573 . o a 0 -w d W 16 21 ~~RAWN: MEM DATE: 09/01 /O6 ~ SCALE: NTS ~ JOB N0. 19412 _. of C~ City of Meridian Public Works Dept. Memo To: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Karie Glenn RECEIVE CCT 0 6 200 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office CC: File Date: 10/6/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for 10/17/06 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the 10/17/06 City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: 1) Water Meter Easement for Towne Place Suites (Marriott Hote, by Eagle Meridian Hospitality LLC. Water Meter Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Meter Easement for Towne Place Suites (Marriott Hotel) by Eagle Meridian Hospitality LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 WATER METER EASEMENT i THIS IlvDENTURE, madethis - day of , 2006 between Eagle Meridian Hospitality 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; WITNESSETI~: WHEREAS, the Grantors- desire to provide a water meter right-of--way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the meter is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it-will be necessary to maintain and service said meter 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 tlieright-of--way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of the meter over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) (Only easement #2 applies to this easement document) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a water meter and its allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of--way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. C:\Documents and Settings\DAVER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3C5\Water meter easement (2).doc - " THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of--way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-~~ay 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 laird, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will w~urant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of ~~11 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. Dewey F. Weaver~.r!~lanaging Partner STATE OF ss Parish of Ouachita ) On this ~ day of ~ ~, 2006, befo:-e me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Dewey F. Weaver Jr., known or identified to me to be the Managing Partner of the LLC that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN t NOTARY PUBLIC :FC) DU~~~Ij?/+,~'fJ/c.ls~/, L~us.~i~va, Residing at: f?2r~ua~'-6~ , G11 Commission ~,:~,C.,~ ~~ C:\Documents and Settings\DAVER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\GLK3C5\Water meter easement (2).doc 5~ Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Attest by William G. Berg, City Clerk Approved By City Council On; STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of 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 instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: C:\Documents and SettingslDAVER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3C5\Water meter easement (2).doc EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION FOR WATER LINE FACILITIES EASEMENTS AT DORADO SUBDIVISION SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 TWO EASEMENTS LOCATED IN DORADO SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN BOOK 95 OF PLATS AT PAGES 11647 AND 11648, ADA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, SAID SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EASEMENT NO: 1 COMMENCING AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., THENCE N 41°27'33" W 465.91 FEET TO A POINT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF AN EXISTING CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT, INSTRUMENT NO. 106042307, THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE N 00°00'00" E 15.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 90°00'00" E 13.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 00°00'00" W 15.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90°00'00" W 13.00 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; EASEMENT N0.2 COMMENCING AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 17, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M., THENCE N 34°16'22" W 878.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF AN EXISTING CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT, INSTRUMENT NO. 106042307, THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE S 00°00'00" W 12.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 90°00'00" W 27.50 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 00°00'00" E 12.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 90°00'00° E 27.50 FEET TO THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; a ~ , ~_ _ ~ 66 19412-WATER-EASE ~~ .~ ,~ . ~~ EXHIBIT 9999 INTERSTATE-84 1/4 CORNER17~16 EASTBOUND OFF RAMP 3 N O M p~ p,j ~ O ~ -------1 L-8 -- - ~ N.O N i I I---~--~- ---, 31 z . -' L-6 -' 1 1 1 EASEM EN T 2 I g. II I I I ~ J ~L ~~ I I ~ I ~ I EXISTING 1 w w Z.w Z o I MERIDIAN I I z N I I I EASEMENT I 0 1 1 1 I I INSTRUMENT N0. j 1 1 1 i i 106042307 N II I a II ~ I I I I I o I I I ^ L.2 1 1 J ~ EASEMENT 1 J 1 I I I ~ 1 1 1 J _ ~~ s I I o ~2 ~ w I I ~. ~ ~ C I ~ -----I I I A,~ I R6s'~ ~ I I ~ I i 9,. ~ o I I I ~ I I I I 1 ~ ~- - - - - - 2s~.so'- 20 SECTION LINES 89'46'18"W 2656.73' OVERLAND ROAD 1/4 CORNER .} ~~ Z H Z 0 " REVISIONS Q ~°'+ b '~ ~ ~ ~ r h~ x LINE TABL E LINE LENGTH BEARING L-1 15.00 N 00'00'00"E L-2 13.00 S 90'00'00"E L-3 15.00 S 00°00'00"W L-4 13.00 N 90'00'00"W L-5 12.00 S 00'00'00"W L-6 27.50 N 90'00'00"W L~7 12.00 N 00'00'00"E L-8 27.50 S 90°00'00"E MERIDIAN WATER LINE EASEMENTS AT DORADO SUBDIVISION IN SE 1 /4 SECTION 17, T.3 N.,' R.1 E.,B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO I 1 s2' I~ I Stanley Consultants LNG 1940 S. BONITO WAY SUITE 140 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 208-288-0573 0 Q 0 w c~ w 16 21 DRAWN: MEM I DATE: 09/01 /06 I SCALE: NTS I JOB N0. 19412 I October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 n APPLICANT ITEM NO. ~ v ~, REQUEST Agreement for Professional Services with Parametrix for Design of Water and sewer Improvements in conjunction with ACHD Intersection of Linder and McMillan 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: C7 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ,{t ~ 7/ d ` 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 shop become properly of the City of Meridian. tart6lNRt~RINIi .PLANNING , ENVIRONlIIt2NTAL SC16NC6S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Summary of Terms A. ClIENT NAME: Clty of Merldlan Address: 660 E. Watertower Lane, Sulfite 200, Meridian, Idaho 83642 B. PROJECT NAME: McMillan RoadlLlnder Water and Sewer Improvements G. PARAMETRIX: Office Address: 5561 N. Glenwood Street, Suite B, Boise, Idaho 83714 Project Number: 3163184-001 D. EXECUTION DATE: October 16, 2006 {date of latest signature by pertles) E. TERM: December 18, 2006 (time far completion; see F~hibft B Tor work schedule) ~. COMPENSI~-TION (check one): [See Sectlon 2.1 of the Terms end Conditions for Description; See Exhibft C for Compen~tion Schedule.] ^ Lump Sum Lump Sum Amount: $ ® Negotiated Billing Rates Total Compensation $ 12.000.00 Amount: ^ Salary Multiplier Total Compensation $ Amount: ^ Other: Total Compensation $ Amount: G. NOTICES: If to Client: Address: 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Attention: Kyl® Rad®k, PE {name of designated diem repr~entatlve) Phone: 208-898-5500 Fax: 208-898-9551 E-mail: radekkQmeridiancity.org If to Parametrlx: Address: 5561 N. Glenwood St., Suite B Boise, Idaho 83714 Attention: Doug Camenisch, PE (name of Peremetdx signatory Phone: 208-898-0012 Fax: 208-947-1655 E-mail: dcamenisch(c~parametrix.com Form 03-CT-1-114/Rev. 03/DB/04 Page 1 of 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Terms and Candltlans This Professional Services Agreement (this °Agreement' is entered into by and betwean Parametroc, Inc. (°Parametrix"j and CiN of AAeridian (°Client") as of the Execution Date referred to in the Summary of Terms (page 1 of this Agreement). (Parametrix and Client are each referred to herein as a °Party" and collectiv®ly as the "Partles.'~ The Summary of Terms shall be incorporated wkh thLa Agreement by reference. Authorization to Proceed Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, executlon of this Agreement by Client will be authorizaflon for Parametr)x to proceed with the services outlined in the Scope of Work attached as F~chibit A (the "Servlces'~. Client adtnowledges end agrees that Parametrix will be providing the Services and the Work Deliverables {as defined in Sectlon 12) speGflcatly for and solely with respect to the Project and that attempts to reuse the Work Deliverables outside the context of the Project may cause substantial damage. Therefore, Client covenants and agrees that it shall not use the Work DelNerebles, and shall not permit the Work Deliverables to be used, other than with reaped to the Project, unless it has received the spedflc written approval of ParameMx. Z. Gompensatlon 2.1 Parametrix's compensaton under this Agreement shall be as sat forth in the Summary of Terrns and may be based on any one of the following: (a) m u .Under this compensation structure, Parametrix charges Client a fixed lump sum amount for the Services to be performed for the Project; Paramelrix shall be responsible for all wages or salary of its employees and cysts of subconsultants. The lump sum amount shall Include all Direct Labor casts and Expenses, Intlirect costs (overhead), and Profit. 4• (b) Neootlated Biiiing Rate. Under this compensation structure, Parametrbc charges Client on the basis of negoflated (hourly, daily, etc.) rates for work performed on Client's Project by Parametrbc employees of the indicated classifications. These rates are subject to annual calendar year adjustments and inGude all allowances for salary, overhead, and profit. Total Compensation is the maximum amount payable for the defined servitxrs, including indirect costs as identified under paragraph 2.2. (c} S ulti li r. Under th)s c~mpensatlon structure, Parametrix charges Client rates equal to the direct wages or salaries Parametrix pays to its employees for work performed directly on the Project, multiplied by a nagoUated multlplier as shown in Section F of the Summary of Terms to cover payroll-related taxes, payments, premiums, benefits, and other indirect casts, plus overhead and profit. Total Compensation is the maximum amount payable for the defined services, including indirect costs as identified under paragraph 2.2. 2.2 In addition to any of the fee structures set forth above in 2.1(b} and (c), Parametrix may charge Client for Form 03-CT-1-114/Rav. 03/08/04 Direct Expenses. Direct Expenses inducts those costs Incurred on or directly for the Project, including, but not limited to, necessary transportation costh, inctuding current rates far Parametrix vehicles; meals and Imaging; laboratory tests and analyses; computer services; word processing services: telephone; printing, binding, and reproduction charges; all costs assodated with outside consultants, and other outside servioes and faalfties: and other similar costa. Reimbursement for Direct Expenses will be on the basis of actual charges when furnished by corn- merGal sources and on the hosts of current rates when furnished by Parametrlx. In either case, a services prac~sing charge of 15 percent will be added to Direct Expenses. Payment to Pararretrix Parametrbc will issue monthly Invoices for the compensation due as a result of services provided under this Agreement th that time, less services previously billed. Invoices are due and payable on receipt. In the event that any portion of an invoice is disputed, payment will be made for the non-dispu#ed amounts. ParameMx will charge interest at the rate of 1'/ percent per month, or the maximum permitted bylaw if lass, on all past-due amounts starting 30 days after date of invoice. ParameMx will credit payments first to Interest and then to prindpal. Standard of Care ParameMx shall perfom~ the SeMoes In a manner consistent with the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practlc~ng under similar circumstances. Paremetrlx makes no warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with the Services. S. Term and Termination 5.1 ~'erm. The term of the Agreement shall be as set forth in the Summary of Terms. If a term Is not specified in the Summary of Terms, Parametrix's obligatlon to render the Services under this Agreement will be far a period that may reasonably be required for the completion of the Services. 5.2 Termination For Cau~. This Agreement may be terminated by (a) either Party ff 1) the other Party fails to perform substantially in acxordance with this Agreement through no fault of the other Party and does not cornmenos correctlan of such iallure within ten (10) days after written notloa thereof and diligently completes the correctlon promptly thereafter, or 2) the performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement are delayed or suspended for more than ninety (90) days for reasons beyond Parametrix's control; (b) Parametrbc, upon seven (7) days' written notice ff ParameMx believes that Client is requesting Page 2 Of 7 it to famish or pertorm servir:es cattrary to Para- metrbc's responsibilities as a licensed professional. 5.3 For Convenience. Either Party may terminate this Agreement for any reason, or for no reason, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the non-terminating Party. 5.4 Payment Urn Termination. On termination, Client shall pay ParameWx for aA authorized work per- fo-med up to the termination date plus termination expanses, induding, but not limited to, cxzsts related to the reassignment of personnel, sutscontrad termination cats, and related closeout costs. 8. Cost Opinions Any cwt opinions or ~anomic evaluations provided by Parametrix will tie an a basis Of experiences and judgment, but, since Parametrix has no c~ontrot over market cortditlons, induding cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services famished by others, or bidding procedures, Parametrix does not wartant that bids, ultimate construdton cost, or Project eoonomlc~ will not vary from these opinions. Client waives any claim for the accuracy or inaccuracy of such opinions. limitation of LlalNllty Except as otherwise provided in Section 9 of this Agreement and except with respect to breaches by Client of Its covenants in Secton 1 of this Agreement, but notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, each Party's cumulative liability to the other Party for all claims, losses, damages, and expenses resulting in any way from the performance of this Agreement will not exceed the compensation rec~hred by Parametrtx under this Agreement. 8. Indemnlfloatian 8.1 By Parametdx. 5ubjed to Section 7, Parametrix shall indemnify and hold harmless Client, CUent's offlc~rs, directors, partners, and employees from and against any and all cysts, losses, and damages pnduding, but not limited to, all fees and charges of engineers, archftects, attorneys, and oti7er professionals, and all court or arbitration or other dispute resolution tests) caused by bread-es of this Agreement by Parametrix or Its officers, directors, employees, and consultants. t3.2 By Client Sutsject to Sadion 7, Client shall indemnify and hold hamtiess Parametrix, Parametrix's officers, directors, partrrens, employees, and any individuals or entltlea that have a contract with Parametrix to famish services with respect to the Project from and against any and all cxasts, losses, and damages (induding, but not limited to, all fees and charges of engineers, archlteds, attorneys, and other professionals, and all court or arbUratian ar other dispute resolution costs) caused by breaches of this Agreement by Cflsnt ~ its officers, directors, employees, and consultants. 9. Hazardous Subs~nces 9.1 Client has d~closed to Parametrix all data available #a Client concerning the known or suspected presence of chemicals and/or chemical categories, as defined by the mast current listing, 40 CFR 372 Subpart D - Speclflc Toxic Chemical Listings, at the Project site, Including radioactive materials (a "Hazardous Substance's in ~nnedion with the Services or has represented to Parametrbc that, to the best of Client's knowledge after duo inquiry, Forth 03-CT-1-11MRev. 03/08/04 Haaardous Substances do not exist at or near the Project site. 9.2 Notwithstanding any other provision contained In this Agreement and to the maximum extent permitted by law, Client shall indemnify and defend Parametrix and its officers, employees, subconsultants, and agents from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including, but not limited to, direct, indirect, or consequential damages and ettomeys' fees arising out of or relating to the presence, discharge, release, or escape of Hazardous Substances on or Tram the Project site. 70. Insurance ParameMtc sha10 maintain public liability and property damage insurances that shall protect Parametrbc from personal injury or property damage claims arising from its negligent ads or omissions in the per- formance of the Services under this Agreement. The limits of liability for such Insurance shall be at least $1,000,000 combined single limit 11. Conflderttlality 11.1 Defjnitlon of Confidential Information. °Confldentlal Inforrnatlon° means all nonpublic information, in whatever form {induding without limitation orally disclosed information), that either Party to this Agreement {each a "Disclosing Party's designates as oonfidental at the tlme of dfscl~ure to the Party that receives such information (each a °Receiving Party's or that, based on the nature of the information or circurrretances surrounding Its disclosure by or on behalf of Disclosing Party, Receiving Party should in good faith treat as confidential. Confidential Information includes without limitation, pradioes, procedures, specifications, drawings, sketches, models, samples, data, plans, computer programs, recxxds, documentation, or other technical or business information. Except as otherwise Indicated, the term °Receiving Party" also includes all affiliates of the Receiving Party. If information is disclosed in intangible form without being designated as c~nfldentlal, Disclosing Party may still designate It as c~nfldential by providing Receiving Party with written notice stating that designation and providing Receiving Party with a written summary of the confidential information, within twenty (20) days of Initial disclosure. 11.2 Facclusion. ConfldenUa) Information des not Include information that Receiving Party can document: (a) was generally known to the public at the Ume it was disclosed by Disclosing Party; (b) became generally known to the public other than through a breach of this Agreement by Receiving Party after the Ume of disclosure to Recehing Party by Disclosing Party; or (c) was independently developed by Receiving Party witirout reference to or use of Confidential Information. 11.3 Rec~ivino Party ObIlaaUons. Receiving Party will not use or disclose any Confidential Information except in furtherance of the parties' mutually agreed business relationship. Receiving Party will not disclose, give access to, or distribute any Confidential Information to any third party, except upon Disclosing Party's poor, written authorization. Receiving Party will take reasonable security precautions to keep Confldentiai Information confidental, which precautions shall be at least as protective as the precautions Receiving Party Page 3 of 7 takes to preserve Its own Confidential Information of a similar nature. 12. Ownership 12.1 Work Deliverables. "Work Deliverables" shall mean the final plans, designs, reports, and/ar other documents prepared by Parametrbc for delivery or presentation to Client as called for in l.xhibit A (the Scope of Work). All Work Deliverables producsrd by Parametrix for or at the direction of Client hereunder shall be the property of Client and, to the extent subject to copyright protection, shall be deemed 'iarork far hire° as such term is defined under U.S. copyright law; provided, however that (a) Parametrix may retain copies of all such Work Deliverables in accordance with Ssdion 14 of this Agreement, and (b) Client irrevocably grants Parametrix a world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, create derivative works from, and distribute or have distributed !o ar by third parties, the Work Deliverables. 12.2 Proied Documents. All Projed Documenth shad be the sole property of Paremetrix. °Projed Documents° shall mean all studies, reports, evacuations, designs, drawings, procedures, field data, notes, spedflcations, plans, and all other documentation, including all documenth on electrrortic media that are praduoed or acquired by Parametrbt for or at the direction of Client pursuant to this Agreement, other than Work Deliverables. 13. ~lectranic Files and Dam Subject to the provisions of Section 11, Parametrix will provide certain information, including drawings and other eledraric format data files, to Client for Client's use and reference. However, Parametrbc is neither accountable nor responsible for the validity of data contained on electronic files any surrendered to Client. Parametrix does not warrant the accuracy of the content as contained in the electronic file(s) against ocrnputer viruses, unauthorized revisions to the tiles, or any other alterations or data destruction to the file(s). Parametrix shall not have any liability for Client use of any electronic form file(s) or its content, Including without limitation, any transmittal of bugs, viruses, or other destructive or harmful Programs, scripts, appleb, or files to the computers or networks of Client. Parametruc's preparation of a transfer copy a# electronic data will be made or completed through reproduction from the file retained and archived at the offices of Parametrbc. Client acknowledges that the content of the transfer spy may not be an axed and v(nis-free copy of the master file. Client acknowledges and agrees that Client shalt be solely resporazibla for lnspectian and testing of the electronic file(s) provided by Parametrix to verify the r~ntent is free from bugs, viruses, or other destructive or harmful programs, scripts, applets, or flies, before accessing or using. The original files containing the iMorrrratian and data maintained at Parametrix shall be considered Confidential Information ender the terms of Section 11. 14. Document Retention 14.1 Work Dellverabl .Work Deliverables are the properly of Client and will be delivered to Client at Client's request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Client acknowledges and agrees that unless Client apedflcally requests that such documents ba delivered, all Work Deliverables left in Paramatrix's possession after ten (10) years following the canpletian of the Project, regardless of whether this Agreement may still be In effect, may be retained or destroyed by Parametrix in its sole discretion. 14.2 Proiect Documents. All Projed Documents may be retained or destroyed by Parametrix in its sole discr'eflon. 15. Compliance with laws Paremetrix will: (a) comply with federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders as in stied as of the 1=xecution Date with reaped to its performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement, (b) file all required reports and pay a!I filing fees and federal, state, and local taxes applicable to Parametrix's business as the same shall becx~me due, and (c) pay all amounts required under local, state, and federal workers' compensation ads, disability benefit ads, unemployment Insurance ads, and other employee benefit acts when due. 16. Notice of Lien 16.1 If Client is the Ownrer. If Client is the owner of the Property on which the Services are to be performed, by signing this Agreement, Client is on notice and acknowledges Parametrix's right to claim a lien against the improvement called for by this Agreement for the oost of the Services ff Client fails to pay all sums owed to ParameMx under this Agreement 16.2 If Client is not the Owner. If Client is not the owner of the property on which the Servioes are th be per- fom~ed, Client shall put the owner on notice of Parametrbc's tight to claim a lien against the improve- ment called for by this Agreement for the oost of the Servioss. 17. Independent Contractor Parametrbc shall be deemed to bean independent ~ntractor in the pertormance of this Agreement and shall not be considered or permitted to be an agent, ~rvant, joint venturer, or partrrer of Client, its parent or affiliates, if any. All persons famished, used, retained, or hired by or on behalf of ParameMx shall be considered to be solely the employees, personnel, or contractors of Parametrix, and Parametrix at ail times shall maintain such supervision and control over its employees, personnel, and contractors as is necs~ary to preserve its independent contractor status. Parametrbt shall he responsible for payment of any and all unemployment, social security, with- holding, and other payroll taxes for its employees, as applicable, Including any related assessments or conMbutions required by law. farm 03-CT-1-114JRev. 03/09/04 Page 4 of 7 18. Dispute Resolution other Party, which consent shall not tie unreasonably withheld, except that either Party may assign this All disputes arising between the Parses relating to the Agreement to an Affiliate without the other Party's making or performance of the Services shall be prior written ~nsent If such an attempted resolved in the following order of preference: assignment ooaurs, the nonassigning Party will have (A) By good faith negotlation between repro- the right to terminate this Agreement upon written notice ~ the assigning Party. This Agreement will be sentatives of Parametrix and Client who have authority to resolve the dispute fully and binding upon, enforceable by, and Inure to the benefit finally. The existence and substance of any of the parries and their respective successors and negotlatlons pursuant to this Section shall be assignees to the extent permitted by this Section. with respect to any legally Affiliate° means considered Confidential information under this Agreement, shall be treated as , rec~nizable entity, any other such entity directly or compromise and settement negotiations far indirectly coMrolting, controlled by, or under c~nmon purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 408 control with such entity. and any carnparable provision and shall not 15.4 Third Party Beneftciaries. This Agreement gives no be used by any Party in any court, agency, or rghth or benefits to arryone other than Client and tribunal in any country for any reason. Parametrbt and has no third party benefldaries. {B) In the event that the negotiations provided by 19.5 Survival. All express representations, covenants, Section 18(A) fail to resolve the dispute, the indemniflcstlans, or limitations of liability included in Partles shall endeavor to resolve the dispute this Agreement will survive Its completion or by nonbinding mediatan under the Cam- termination (for any reason) for a period of three (3) merdal M~tatian rules of the American years, provided, however, that the cronfidentlaltty Arbitration Association (°AAA°) using a provisions of Section 11 shall survive indefinitely. neutral mediator mutuaAy acceptab{e to the Parties and with the costs therefore shared 19.8 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this equally. All procx3edings pursuant to this Agreement will be effective unless it Is in writing Section 18(B) shall ba considered Con- signed by an authorized executlve of the waiving ftdential Information under this Agreement. Party and labeled as a 'iiYatver,° and no such waiver shall be treated as compromise and will consttute a waiver of any other provialon(s} or of settlement negotlations for purposes of the same provision on another occasion. Non- Federal Rule of Pvidence 408 and any enforcement of any provision of this Agreement by comparable provision, and shalt not be used either Party shall not constitute a waiver of that by any Party in any court, agency, or tribunal provision nor shall tt affect the enforceability of that In any country for any reason. provision or of tl~e remainder of this Agreement (C) In the event that the mediation provided by 19.7 Severabllity. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds 5ectlan 18{B) fails to resolve the dispute, the any tens, covenant, or resMdion of this Agreement to disput®shail be resolved pursuant to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or In Section 19.1. part, the remaining terms, covenants, and provisions will remain in full forte and effect and will in noway {U) Notwithstanding anything to the cattrary lye a~~d, impaired, or invalidated. If any provision confined in this Section, the Partles reserve in this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable the right to seek equitable remedies with in equity, then the court making that determination will rasped to the enforcement of any provision have the power M reduce or Iimtt such provision, and of th~ Agreement such provision will be then enforceable in equity in Its reduced ar limited form. 19. General Provisions 19.8 He n . me headings used in this Agreement are Law: Venue: Attomevs' Fees. This 19.1 Govegning inserted for conventenc~ only and shall not be used in , Agreement will be governed by the laws of the state the interpretatlon or construdian of the terms hereof. of Washington, exduding conflict of laws provisions. F~cdusive jurisdictlon and venue will lie with the state 19.9 Counteroarts. This Agreement may be executed in and federal Hurts sitting in Pierce County, any number of counterparts, each of whidt, when shall be deemed to be an original, and all executed Washington, and each of the parties hereby irrevocably consents to such jurisdiction. In any , of whidt together shah be deemed to be one and the action or suit to enforce any right ~ remedy under same instrument this Agreement or to interpret any provision of this 19.10 Entlre Agreement This Agreement constitutes the Agreement, the primarily prevaiNng Party will be entlre agreement befinreen the parties with rasped to entitled to recover its oosffi, inducting reasonable the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior attorneys' fees. and contemporaneous agreements or commu- 18.2 jyotices. Any notice required under this Agreement ni~tlvns with reaped to that subject matter. shall be in writing, addressed to the appropriate Party Zp. Exhibits and Schedules at its address on the Summary of Terms, and given personally, or by registered or cerdfted mail, postage The following exhibits and schedules are hereby prepaid, or by a commerdal courier service. All made a part of this Agreement: notices shall be effective upon the data of receipt The addresses, phone numbers, tac~imile numbers, Exhibit A -Scope of Work and small addresses for the Parties provided to the Exhibit B -Schedule for Work Completion Summary of Temts may be changed by means of a written notice given to the other Party. Exhibit C -Schedule of Compensation 19.3 Assignment. Neither Party may assign this Agreement or any of its rights and obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Form 03-CT-1-114/Rev. 03J09104 Page 6 of 7 Signature Pag®-Professional Services Agreement The Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the F_xecution Date referred to in the Summary of Terms. CLIE=NT ~y: Name: Temmv deWeerd (Please Printj Title: Mayor Date: ___ PARAM IX, INC. By: Name: ou Ca nis PE (Please Print) Title: Office Princi alb, ~~ Date: t o `ll f ~+~+ $Y= Name: Tammy deWeerd. Mayor Approved by City Council: ~}-- ~ ~[ ~ k' [CORPORATE SEAL] ;;: ~ ~~ ~, ?. Attest ~~_.~ lG'~11~ i~ ~~1,~.`-izt--~ ~. ~ ~~.., ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~.. ~ ~ .~ William G. Berg, Jr. City Cle~k~ -~• r /~ ~~ ,~ ,•. Form o3-CT-1-114/Rev. 03/08/04 Page 8 of 7 Exhibit A -Scope of work Please see Exhibit A, Scope of Work, attached. Exhibit 8 -Schedule for Work Completion 3coped tasks for Design Services to be completed by December 18, 2006. Exhibit C -Schedule of Compensation Parametrix shall be compensated an a Time and Materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $12,000.00 without prior approval from Client. Please see Exhibit C, Cost Summary, attached. Form 03-CT-1-114JRev. 03J09/04 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A 9 $361 N. QENWOOD SIRFEi; SU1T'E B BOISE, IDAHO 83714 T. 208.898.0012 E 208.947.1635 www.pazametriS.com Kyle Radek, P.E. Staff Engineer City of Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 Meridian, ID 83642 . PLANNINp . BNVIRONM8N7AL BCIBNI Re: McMillan Road / Linder Road -Water and Sewer Improvements In Conjuction with the Brighton Corporation's McMillan / Linder Intersection Improvements Project Deaz Kyle: The following is a detailed scope of work to provide professional services for design of water and sewer improvements to be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvements for the Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project. The professional services required are to prepaze plans, bid schedule, special provisions and cost estimate to construct potable water and sanitary sewer improvements on Linder Road and McMillan Road as part of Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project. The anticipated design elements include the following: A. WATER SYSTEM IlVIPR4VEMENTS Contact property owners of approximately 5 to 7 parcels to determine whether they would like the City to install water service lines to service their property. Determine size and location of water lizae service stubs for approximately 8 pazcels and show on plans as needed. 2. Secure contracts with approximately 5 to 7 property owners to pay for service stubs prior to construction. 3. Adjust approximately 20 existing valves. 4. Adjust water mains and water services or upgrade crossing pipes where conflicts exist with new storm drain or irrigation pipes. 5. Design and provide plans to install approximately 800 LF of new 12"0 water main in McMillan Road. The water main installation will begin with . - a connection to the existing 12" ~ main in the McMillan Road / Linder Road intersection east approximately 800 LF to the existing main located within McMillan Road. 6. Assist in developing a Joint Effort Agreement between the City of Meridian and the Developer which will allow the City to pay for the water and sewer improvements portion of the project. 7. Prepare special provisions, opinion of probable construction cost and a bid schedule. B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS l . Contact property owners of approximately 5 to 7 parcels to determine whether they would like the City to install sewer service lines to service their property. Determine size and location of sewer line service stubs for approximately 8 parcels and show on plans as needed. 2. Secure contracts with approximately 5 to 7 property owners to pay for service stubs prior to construction. Parametrix will send a letter to each property owner with ground adjacent to the project that is not currently served by city services. The letter will advise them of floe project, advise them the City will install a service stub to their property at their request, and advise them of the estimated costs that will be charged to them before construction of the stub. A copy of the letter will be sent to the City for approval of the content and wording prior to being issued. The City will provide a mailing list for all property owners within the project limits. All proposed utility improvements will be designed within the proposed right-of--way limits or existing utility easements granted to the Ada County Highway District (ACRD). All proposed utility service stubs will be designed to end one foot short of the proposed right-of-way line so that the service extends outside the roadway prism for future connection. Plans will be prepared in conjunction with the $righton Corporation's Linder Road 1 McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project and will be submitted along with the final design plans. Parametrix will submit the plans to the City of Meridian, ACRD, L7EQ and the Developer for review and approval prior to construction. Each property owner that is impacted by the project will receive a mailed copy of the project plans along with any required easement forms for execution. It is assumed that the installation of tine sewer and water main improvements will fall within the limits of the Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Projects, It is assumed that no additional topographic survey will be required to complete this scope of work. 40-scale plans on 11 "x17" sheets will be provided to the City during the Final Design review and will match the Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project plans. We will also submit all design and construction plans in electronic format to the City. The water and sewer improvements will be included in the plan set for this work which will include a cover sheet, general note sheet, up to nineteen (19) plan and pxofile sheets, and three (3) city standazd detail sheets. The total set is anticipated to include 24 sheets. We propose to provide floe Design Services as outlined above on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $12,000.00 without prior approval of the City of Meridian. We have enclosed a copy of our man-hour and fee estimates for your reference. Construction services aze not included under this scope of services. t r, r ~O a •~ ~' oa ~~ a d C ~ N Ir d C ~~ i ~ ;ice ~ ~ Q ~ •- 4 ~U ~w .~ 0 0 N d' 0 O M '~ I- ~_ ~ N N G a Y cs W a W a 0. ca ~ ,,, U °D~~a e d 0 N .~ Fa- O 0 Y F- C~ ~ jN tC o0 4' M (fl tfJ ~ N r o O N N ~ ' c0 N ~ ' ~t ~ O t0 t "d' N N tt r N r N O N ~' d' ~ 0 O N J H O v 0 N Y N F ,.. d o w ~ U m ~ c o m ~ m ~ m ~ ~ i o ~ ~ u, m e E ~ o .~ ~ ~ v~ °t Q m ~ a .N . 0 ~ ° ~ rarw E ~ s N L a ~ . ~ ~ .r C M ~ O ~ a`~" 'nc i t~ m O a`i i D V EXHIBIT ~ U c7 O a Q o O o O o Q o 0 ~ m o ~ o ° N er ~ e- a o ly e~ ~j tp ~ ~ O! 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ . cu g o o o c~ a r~ a o N y ~ v' ca ~ ao Q ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ V N ~ N pp tO © N W ^ 7 T V o 2 ~ ~~ b F- ~- a 0 x a w `o .a ~ ~ E _ ~ ~ , a a a a ~ a ~ ~ T' N M' ~ M V 0 t- a • ~~~~~~~ oc~ , ?zoos ~:;ii~~ Of l~Ycg~idi~ City Clerk ~~ce Memo To: III Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer ~~~ CC: File ~ !tea C~ Date: 10/12/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for October 17 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the October 17 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Agreement for Professional Servces with Parametrix for design of water and sewer improvements in conjunction with ACHD Intersection of Linder and McMillan Project This agreement is for providing the service of design of approximately 800 feet of water main, adjustment of valve boxes to new grades coordination with property owners for new services and design of new services. The services will be provided on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $12,000: Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the Agreement for Professional Services with Parametrix.for design of water and sewer improvements in conjunction with ACHD Intersection of Linder and McMillan Project for a cost not to exceed $12,000. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item. • Page 1 . • EXHIBIT A 5561 N. GLENWOOD STREET; SUTI'E B BOISE, IDAHO 83714 T. 208.896.0012 F. 208.947.1655 www paramettix.com Kyle Radek, P.E. Staff Engineer City of Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Waterlower Lane Suite 200 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: McMillan Road / Linder Road -Water and Sewer Improvements In Conjuction with the Brighton Corporation's McMillan / Linder Intersection Improvements Project Dear Kyle: The following is a detailed scope of work to provide professional services for design of water and sewer improvements to be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvements for the Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project. The professional services required are to prepare plans, bid schedule, special provisions and cost estimate to construct potable water and sanitary sewer improvements on Linder Road and McMillan Road as part of Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project. The anticipated design elements include the following: A. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 1. Contact property owners of approximately 5 to 7 parcels to determine whether they would like the City to install water service lines to service their property. Determine size and location of water line service stubs for approximately 8 parcels and show on plans as needed. 2. Secure contracts with approximately 5 to 7 properly owners to pay for service stubs prior to construction. Adjust approximately 20 existing valves. 4. Adjust water mains and water services or upgrade crossing pipes where conflicts exist with new storm drain or irrigation pipes. ENGINEERING ,PLANNING , ENVIRONMEN're. 8CIENCE8 5. Design and provide plans to install approximately 800 LF of new 12"P~ water main in McMillan Road. The water main installation will begin with i • a connection to the existing 12" Q~ main in the McMillan Road / Linder Road intersection east approximately 800 LF to the existing main located within McMillan Road. 6, Assist in developing a Joint Effort Agreement between the City of Meridian and the Developer which will allow the City to pay for the water and sewer improvements portion of the prof ect. 7. Prepare special provisions, opinion of probable construction cost and a bid schedule. B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Contact property owners of approximately 5 to 7 parcels to determine whether they would like the City to install sewer service lines to service their property. Determine size and location of sewer line service stubs for approximately 8 parcels and show on plans as needed. 2. Secure contracts with approximately 5 to 7 property owners to pay for service stubs prior to construction. Parametrix will send a letter to each property owner with ground adjacent to the project that is not currently served by city services. The letter will advise them of the project, advise them the City will install a service stub to their property at their request, and advise them of the estimated costs that will be charged to them before construction of the stub. A copy of the letter will be sent to the City for approval of the content and wording prior to being issued. The City will provide a mailing list for all property owners within the project limits. All proposed utility improvements will be designed within the proposed right-of--way limits or existing utility easements granted to the Ada County Highway District (ACRD). All proposed utility service stubs will be designed to end one foot short of the proposed right-of--way line so that the service extends outside the roadway prism for future connection. Plans will be prepared in conjunction with the Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project and will be submitted along with the final design plans. Parametrix will submit the plans to the City of Meridian, ACRD, DEQ and the Developer for review and approval prior to construction. Each property owner that is impacted by the project will receive a mailed copy of the project plans along with any required easement forms for execution. It is assumed that the installation of the sewer and water main improvements will fall within the limits of the Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Projects. It is assumed that no additional topographic survey will be required to complete this scope of work. 40-scale plans on 11"x17" sheets will be provided to the City during the Final Design review and will match the Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project plans. We will also submit all design and construction plans in electronic format to the City. The water and sewer improvements will be included in the plan set for this work which will include a cover sheet, general note sheet, up to nineteen (19) plan and profile sheets, and three (3) city standard detail sheets. The total set is anticipated to include 24 sheets. We propose to provide the Design Services as outlined above on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $12,000.00 without prior approval of the City of Meridian. We have enclosed a copy of our man-hour and fee estimates for your reference. Construction services are not included under this scope of services. ~ i ENGINEERING .PLANNING ^ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Summary of Terms A. CLIENT NAME: City of Meridian Address: 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200, Meridian, Idaho 83642 B. PROJECT NAME: McMillan Road/Cinder Water and Sewer Improvements C. PARAMETRIX: Office Address: 5561 N, Glenwood Street, Suite B, Boise, Idaho 83714 Project Number: 316-3184-001 D, EXECUTION DATE: October 16, 2006 (date of latest signature by parties) E, TERM: December 18, 2006 (time for completion; see F~chibit B for work schedule) F. COMPENSATION (check one): [See Section 2.1 of the Terms and Conditions for Description; see Exhibit C for Compensation Schedule.] ^ Lump Sum Lump Sum Amount: ~~~ $ _...~...-..~.~-~_ ® Negotiated Billing Rates Total Compensation $ 12,000.00 ~. ~~ Amount: ^ Salary Multiplier Total Compensation $ Amoun#: ^ Other: Total Compensation $ Amount: G. NOTICES: If to Client: Address: 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Attention: Kyle Radek, PE (name of designated client representative) Phone: 208-898-5500 Fax: 208-898-9551 E-mail: radekk@meridiancity.org If to Parametrix: Address: 5561 N. Glenwood St., Suite B Boise, Idaho 83714 Attention: Doug Camenisch, PE (name of Parametrix signator) Phone: 208-898-0012 Fax: E-mail: 208-947-1655 dcamenisch @parametrix.com Form 03-CT-1-114/Rev. 03/09/04 Page 1 of 7 • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Telrms and Conditions This Professional Services Agreement (this °Agreement' is entered into by and between Parametrix, Inc. ("Parametrix'~ and Citv of Meridian ("Client°) as of the Execution Date referred to in the Summary of Terms (page 1 of this Agreement). (Parametrix and Client are each referred to herein as a °Party" and collectively as the "Parties.") The Summary of Terms shall be incorporated with this Agreement by reference. Authorization to Proceed Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, execution of this Agreement by Client will be authorization for Parametrix to proceed with the services outlined in the Scope of Work attached as F~chibit A (the `Services'. Client acknowledges and agrees that Parametrix will be providing the Services and the Work Deliverables (as defined in Section 12) specifically for and solely with respect to the Project and that attempts to reuse the Work Deliverables outside the context of the Project may cause substantial damage. Therefore, Client covenants and agrees that it shall not use the Work Deliverables, and shall not permit the Work Deliverables to be used, other than with respect to the Project, unless it has received the speafic written approval of Parametrix. Direct Expenses. Direct Expenses include those costs incurred on or directly for the Project; including, but not limited to, necessary transportation costs, including current rates for Parametrix vehicles; meals and lodging; laboratory tests and analyses; computer services; word processing services; telephone; printing, binding, and reproduction charges; all costs associated with outside consultants, and other outside services and facilities; and other similar costs. Reimbursement for Direct F~cpenses will be on the basis of actual charges when furnished by com- mercial sources and on the basis of current rates when furnished by Parametrix. In either case, a service processing charge of 15 percent will be added to Direct Expenses. Payment to Parametrix 2. Compensation Parametrix will issue monthly invoices for the 2.1 Parametrix's compensation under this Agreement compensation due as a result of services provided under this Agreement to that time, less services shall be as set forth in the Summary of Terms and previously billed. Invoices are due and payable on may be based on any one of the following: receipt. In the event that any portion of an invoice is (a) Luma Sum. Under this c:ompensafion disputed, payment will be made for the non-disputed structure, Parametrix charges Client a fixed amounts. Parametrix will charge interest at the rate lump sum amount for the Services to be of 1'/ percent per month, or the maximum permitted performed for the Project; Parametrix shall be by law if less, on all past-due amounts starting 30 responsible for all wages or salaries of its days after date of invoice. Parametrix will credit employees and costs of subconsultants. The payments first to interest and then to principal. lump sum amount shall include all Direct Labor cysts and Expenses, Indirect costs (overhead), and Profit 4. Standard of Care (b} Negotiated Billing Rates. Under this Parametrix shall perform the Services in a manner compensation structure, Parametrix charges consistent with the degree of can: and skill ordinarily Client on the basis of negotiated (hourly, exercised by members of the same profession daily, etc.) rates for work performed on currently practicing under similar dreumstances. Client's Project by Parametrix employees of Parametrix makes no warranties, express or implied, the indicated Gassifications. These rates are under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with subject to annual calendar year adjustments the Services. and incude all allowances for salary, overhead, and profit. Total Compensation is Tenn and Termination 5 the maximum amount payable for the defined . services, including indirect costs as identified 5.1 Term. The term of the Agreement shall be as set under paragraph 2.2. forth in the Summary of Terms. If a terrn is not (c) Salary Multiplier. Under this compensation specked in the Summary of Terms, Parametrix's structure, Parametrix charges Client rates obligation to render the Services under this equal to the direct wages or salaries Agreement will be for a period that may reasonably Parametrix pays to its employees for work be required for the completion of the Services. performed directly on the Project, multiplied by a negotiated multiplier as shown in 5.2 Termination For Cause. This Agreement may be Section F of the Summary of Terms to cover terminated by (a) either Party if 1) the other Party fails payroll-related taxes, payments, premiums, to perform substantially in acx;ordance with this benefits, and other indirect costs, plus Agreement through no fault of the other Party and overhead and profit. Total Compensation is does not commence correction of such failure within the maximum amount payable for the defined ten (10) days after written notice thereof and diligently services, including indirect costs as identified completes the correction promptly thereafter, or 2) the under paragraph 2.2. performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement are delayed or suspended for more than 2.2 In addition to any of the fee structures set forth above ninety (90) days for reasons beyond Parametrix's ' in 2.1(b) and (c), Parametrix may charge Client for written control; (b) Parametrix, upon seven (7) days notice if Parametrix believes that Client is requesting Form 03-CT-1-114lRev. 03/09/04 Page 2 of 7 it to furnish or perform services contrary to Para- metrix's responsibilities as a licensed professional. 5.3 For Convenience. Either Party may terminate this Agreement for any reason, or for no reason, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the non-terminating Patty. 5.4 Payment Uoon Termination. On termination, Client shall pay Parametrix for all authorized work per- formed up to the termination date plus termination expenses, including, but not limited to, cysts related to the reassignment of personnel, subcontract termination costs, and related closeout costs. Cost Opinions Any cost opinions or economic evaluations provided by Parameirix will be on a basis of experience and judgment, but, since Parametrix has no control over market conditions, including cx~st of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or bidding procedures, Parametrix does not warrant that bids, ultimate construction cost, or Project economics will not vary from these opinions. Client waives any claim for the accuracy or inaccuracy of such opinions. Limitation of Liability Except as otherwise provided in Section 9 of this Agreement and except with respect to breaches by Client of its covenants in Section 1 of this Agreement, but notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, each Party's cumulative liability to the other Party for all claims, losses, damages, and expenses resulting in anyway from the performance of this Agreement will not exceed the compensation received by Parametrix under this Agreement. 8. Indemnification 8.1 By Parametrix. Subject to Section 7, Parametrix shall indemnify and hold harmless Client, Client's officers, directors, partners, and employees from and against any and all costs, losses, and damages (including, but not limited to, all fees and charges of engineers, architects, attomeys, and other professionals, and all court or arbitration or other dispute resolution costs) caused by breaches of this Agreement by Parametrix or its officers, directors, employees,-and consultants: 8.2 By Client. Subject to Section 7, Client shall indemnify and hold harmless Parametrix, Parametrix's officers, directors, partners, employees, and any individuals or entities that have a contract with Parametrix to furnish services with respect to the Project from and against any and all costs, losses, and damages (including, but not limited to, all fees and charges of engineers, architects, attomeys, and other professionals, and all court or arbitration or other dispute resolution costs) caused by breaches of this Agreement by Client or its officers, directors, employees, and consultants. 9. Hazardous Substances 9.1 Client has disclosed to Parametrix all data available to Client concerning the known or suspected presence of chemicals and/or chemical categories, as defined by the most current listing, 40 CFR 372 Subpart D - Speclfic Toxic Chemical Listings, at the Project site, including radioactive materials (a "Hazardous Substance") in connection with the Services or has represented to Parametrix that, to the best of Client's knowledge after due inquiry, Forrn 03-CT-1-114/Rev. 03/09/04 Hazardous Substances do not exist at or near the Project site. 9.2 Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement and to the maximum extent permitted by law, Client shall indemnify and defend Parametrix and its officers, employees, subconsultants, and agents from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including, but not limited to, direct, indirect, or consequential damages and attomeys' fees arising out of or relating to the presence, discharge, release, or escape of Hazardous Substances on or ftom the Project site. 10. Insurance Parametrix shall maintain public liability and property damage insurance that shall protect Parametrix from personal injury or property damage claims arising from its negligent ads or omissions in the per- formance of the Services under this Agreement. The limits of liability for such insurance shall be at least $1,000,000 combined single limit. 11. Confidentiality 11.1 Definition of Confidential Information. "Confidential Information° means all nonpublic information, in whatever form (including without limitation orally disclosed information), that either Party to this Agreement (each a "Disclosing Party") designates as confidential at the time of disclosure to the Party that receives such information (each a "Receiving Party) or that, based on the nature of the information or circumstances surrounding its disclosure by or on behalf of Disclosing Party, Receiving Party should in good faith treat as confidential. Confidential Information includes without limitation, practices, procedures, specifications, drawings, sketches, models, samples, data, plans, computer programs, records, documentation, or other technical or business information. F~ccept as otherwise indicated, the term "Receiving Party also includes all affiliates of the Receiving Party. If information is disclosed in intangible form without being designated as confidential, Disclosing Party may still designate it as cohfidental by providing Receiving Party with written notice stating that designation and providing Receiving Party with a written summary of the confidential information, within twenty (20) days of initial disclosure. 11.2 Exclusion. Confidential Information does not include information that Receiving Party can document: (a) was generally known to the public at the time it was disclosed by Disclosing Party; (b) became generally known to the public other than through a breach of this Agreement by Receiving Party after the time of disclosure to Receiving Party by Disclosing Party; or (c) was independently developed by Receiving Party without reference to or use of Confidential Information. 11.3 Receiving Party Obligations. Receiving Party will not use or disclose any Confidential Information except in furtherance of the parties' mutually agreed business relationship. Receiving Party will not disclose, give access to, or distribute any Confidential Information to any third party, except upon Disclosing Party's prior, written authorization. Receiving Party will take reasonable security precautions to keep Confidential Information confidential, which precautions shall be at least as protective as the precautions Receiving Patty Page 3 of 7 takes to preserve its own Confidential Information of a similar nature. 1 Z. Ownership 12.1 Work Deliverables. "Work Deliverables" shall mean the final plans, designs, reports, and/or other documents prepared by Parametrix for delivery or presentation to Client as called for in F~chibit A (the Scope of Work). All Work Deliverables produced by Parametrix for or at the direction of Client hereunder shall be the property of Client and, to the extent subject to copyright protection, shall be deemed "work for hire° as such term is defined under U.S. copyright law; provided, however that (a) Parametrix may retain copies of all such Work Deliverables in accordance with Section 14 of this Agreement, and (b) Client irrevocably grants Parametrix a world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, create derivative works from, and distribute or have distributed to or by third parties, the Work Deliverables. 12.2 Project Documents. All Project Documents shall be the sole property of Parametrix. °Project Documents° shall mean all studies, reports, evaluations, designs, drawings, procedures, field data, notes, spedfications, plans, and all other documentation, induding all documents on electronic media that are produced or acquired by Parametrix for or at the direction of Client pursuant to this Agreement, other than Work Deliverables. 13. Electronic Files and Data Subject to the provisions of Section 11, Parametrix will provide certain information, induding drawings .and other electronic format data files, to Client for Client's use and reference. However, Parametrix is neither accountable nor responsible for the validity of data contained on electronic files once surrendered to Client. Parametrix does not warrant the accuracy of the content as contained in the electronic file(s) against computer viruses, unauthorized revisions to the files, or any other alterations or data destruction to the file(s). Parametrix shall not have any liability for Client use of any electronic form file(s) or its content, induding without limitation, any transmittal of bugs, viruses, or other destructive or harmful programs, scripts, applets, or files to the computers or networks of Client. Parametrix's preparation of a transfer copy of electronic data will be made or completed through reproduction from the file retained and archived at the offices of Parametrix. Client acknowledges that the content of the transfer copy may not be an exact and virus-free copy of the master file. Client acknowledges and agrees that Client shall be solely responsible for inspection and testing of the electronic file(s) provided by Parametrix to verify the content is free from bugs, viruses, or other destructive or harmful programs, scripts, applets, or files, before accessing or using. The original files containing the information ahd data maintained at Parametrix shall be considered Confidential Information under the terms of Section 11. 14. Document Retention 14.1 Work Deliverables. Work Deliverables are the property of Client and will be delivered to Client at Client's request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Client acknowledges and agrees that unless Client specifically requests that such documents be delivered, all Work Deliverables left in Parametrix's possession after ten (10) years. following the completion of the Project, regardless of whether this Agreement may still be in effect, may be retained or destroyed by Parametrix in its sole discretion.. 14.2 Project Documents. All Project Documents may be retained or destroyed by Parametrix in its sole discretion. 15. Compliance with Laws Parametrix will: (a) comply with federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders as in effect as of the Execution Date with respect to its performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement, (b) file ail required reports and pay all filing fees and federal, state, and local taxes applicable to Parametrix's business as the same shall become due, and (c) pay all amounts required under local, state, and federal workers' cempensation acts, disability benefit acts, unemployment insurance acts, and other employee benefd acts when due. 16. Notice of Lien 16.1 If Client is the Owner. If Client is the owner of the property on which the Serutces are to be performed, by signing this Agreement, Client is on notice and acknowledges Parametrix's right to claim a lien against the improvement called for by this Agreement for the cost of the Services if Client fails to pay all sums owed to Parametrix under this Agreement. 16.2 If Client is not the Owner. If Client is not the owner of the property on which the Services are to be per- formed, Client shall put the owner on notice of Parametrix's right to daim a lien against the improve- ment called for by this Agreement for the cost of the Services. 17. Independent Contractor Parametrix shall be deemed to be an independent contractor in the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered or permitted to be an agent, servant, joint venturer, or partner of Client, its parent or affiliates, if any. All persons famished, used, retained, or hired by or on behalf of Parametrix shall be considered to be solely the employees, personnel, or contractors of Parametrix, and Parametrix at all times shall maintain such supervision and control over its employees, personnel, and contractors as is necessary to preserve its independent contractor status. Parametrix shall be responsible for payment of any and all unemployment, sodal security, with- holding, and other payroll taxes for its employees, as applicable, induding any related assessments or contributions required bylaw. Form 03-CT-1-114/Rev. 03/09/04 Page 4 of 7 18. Dispute Resolution other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, except that either Party may assign this All disputes arising between the Parties relating to the Agreement to an Affiliate without the other Party's making or performance of the Services shall be prior written consent. If such an attempted resolved in the following order of preference: assignment occurs, the nonassigning Party will have (A) By good faith negotiation between repre- the right to terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the assigning Party. This Agreement will be sentatives of Parametrix and Client who have binding upon, enforceable by, and inure to the benefit authority to resolve the dispute fully and The e~astence and substance of any finally of the parties and their respective successors and . negotiations pursuant to this Section shall be assignees to the extent permitted by this Section. with respect to any legally Affiliate" means considered Confidential Information under , recognizable entity, any other such entity directly or this Agreement, shall be treated as compromise and settlement negotiations for indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 408 control with such entity. and any comparable provision and shall not 19.4 Third Pafir Benefiaaries. This Agreement gives no be used by any Party in any court, agency, or rights or benefits to anyone other than Client and tribunal in any country for any reason. Parametrix and has no third party beneficiaries. (B) In the event that the negotiations provided by 19.5 Survival. All express representations, covenants, Section 18(A) fail to resolve the dispute, the indemnifications, or limitations of liability included in Parties shall endeavor to resolve the dispute this Agreement will survive its completion or bynon-binding mediation under the Com- termination (for any reason) for a period of three (3) meroial Mediation rules of the American years, provided. however, that the confidentiality Arbitration Association ("AAA") using a provisions of Section 11 shall survive indefinitely. neutral mediator mutually acceptable to the Parties and with the costs therefore shared 19.6 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this equally. All proceedings pursuant to this Agreement will be effective unless it is in writing Section 18(B) shall be considered Con- signed by an authorized executive of the waiving fidential Information under this Agreement, Party and labeled as a "Waiver," and no such waiver shall be treated as compromise and will constitute a waiver of any other provision(s) or of settlement negotiations for purposes of the same provision on another occasion. Non- Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any enforcement of any provision of this Agreement by comparable provision, and shall not be used either Party shall not constitute a waiver of that by any Party in any court, agency, or tribunal provision nor shall it affect the enforceability of that in any country for any reason. provision or of the remainder of this Agreement. (C) In the event that the mediation provided by 19.7 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds Section 18(B) fails to resolve the dispute, the any term, coveriant, or restriction of this Agreement to dispute shall be resolved pursuant to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in Section 19.1. part, the remaining terms, covenants, and provisions will remain in full force and effect and will in no Wray (D) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary be affected, impaired, or invalidated. If any provision contained in this Section, the Parties reserve in this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable the right to seek equitable remedies with in equity, then the court making that determination will respect to the enforcement of any provision have the power to reduce or limit such provision, and of this Agreement such provision will be then enforceable in equity in its reduced or limited form. 19. General Provisions 19.8 Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are 1 Governing Law: Venue: Attomevs' Fees. This 19 inserted for convenience only and shall not be used in . Agreement will be governed by the laws of the state the interpretation or construction of the terms hereof. of Washington, excluding conflict of laws provisions. ExGusive jurisdiction and venue will lie with the state 19.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in and federal courts sitting in Pierce County any number of counterparts, each of which, when shall be deemed to be an original, and all executed Washington, and each of the parties hereby , of which together shall be deemed to be one and the irrevocably consents to such jurisdiction. In any same instrument. action or suit to enforce any right or remedy under this Agreement or to interpret any provision of this 19.10 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the Agreement, the primarily prevailing Party will be entire agreement between the parties with respect to entitled to recover its costs, including reasonable the subject matter hereof and supersedes ail prior attorneys' fees. and contemporaneous agreements or commu- 19.2 Notices. Any notice required under this Agreement nications with respect to that subject matter. shall be in writing, addressed to the appropriate Party 20. Exhibits and Schedules at its address on the Summary of Terms, and given personally, or by registered or certified mail, postage The following exhibits and schedules are hereby prepaid, or by a commercial courier service. All made a part of this Agreement: notices shall be effective upon the date of receipt Exhibit A -Scope of Work The addresses, phone numbers, facsimile numbers, and email addresses for the Parties provided in the Exhibit B -Schedule for Work Completion Summary of Terms may be changed by means of a written notice given to the other Party. Exhibit C -Schedule of Compensation 19.3 Assignment. Neither Party may assign this Agreement or any of its rights and obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Form 03-CT-1-1141Rev. 03/09/04 Page 5 of 7 Signature Page -Professional Services Agreement The Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Execution Date referred to in the Summary of Terms. CLIENT F By: B Name: Tammv deWeerd N (Please Print) Title: Mayor Date: Title: Office Principal Date: la ~ tl ~©tr. By: Name: Tammv deWeerd Mayor Approved by City Council: [CORPORATE SEAL] Attest William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk Form 03-CT-1-1'14/Rev. 03/09/04 Page 6 of 7 Exhibit A -Scope of Work Please see Exhibit A, Scope of Work, attached. Exhibit B -Schedule for Work Completion Scoped tasks for Design Services to be completed by December 18, 2006. Exhibit C -Schedule of Compensation Parametrix shall be compensated on a Time and Materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $12,000.00 without prior approval from Client. Please see Exhibit C, Cost Summary, attached. Form 03-CT-1-114/Rev. 03/09/04 Page 7 of 7 • EXHIBIT A ENGINEERING .PLANNING ,ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 5561 N. GLINWOOD STREET, SUITE B BOISE, IDAHO 83714 T. 208.898.0012 F. 208.947.1655 www.parametmc.com Kyle Radek, P.E. Staff Engineer City of Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: McMillan Road / Linder Road -Water and Sewer Improvements In Conjuction with the Brighton Corporation's McMillan / Linder Intersection Improvements Project Dear Kyle: The following is a detailed scope of work to provide professional services for design of water and sewer improvements to be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvements for the Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project. The professional services required are to prepare plans, bid schedule, special provisions and cost estimate to construct potable water and sanitary sewer improvements on Linder Road and McMillan Road as part of Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project. The anticipated design elements include the following: A. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Contact property owners of approximately 5 to 7 parcels to determine whether they would like the City to install water service lines to service their property. Determine size and location of water line service stubs for approximately 8 parcels and show on plans as needed.. 2. Secure contracts with approximately 5 to 7 property owners to pay for service stubs prior to construction. 3. Adjust approximately 20 existing valves. 4. Adjust water mains and water services or upgrade crossing pipes where conflicts exist with new storm drain or irrigation pipes. 5. Design and provide plans to install approximately 800 LF of new 12"Q~ water main in McMillan Road. The water main installation will begin with :~ a connection to the existing 12" Q~ main in the McMillan Road / Linder Road intersection east approximately 800 LF to the existing main located within McMillan Road. 6. Assist in developing a Joint Effort Agreement between the City of Meridian and the Developer which will allow the City to pay for the water and sewer improvements portion of the project. 7. Prepare special provisions, opinion of probable construction cost and a bid schedule. B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 1. Contact property owners of approximately 5 to 7 parcels to determine whether they would like the City to install sewer service lines to service their property. Determine size and location of sewer line service stubs for approximately 8 parcels and show on plans as needed. 2. Secure contracts with approximately 5 to 7 property owners to pay for service stubs prior to construction. Parametrix will send a letter to each property owner with ground adjacent to the project that is not currently served by city services. The letter will advise them of the project, advise them the City will install a service stub to their property at their request, and advise them of the estimated costs that will be charged to them before construction of the stub. A copy of the letter will be sent to the City for approval of the content and wording prior to being issued. The City will provide a mailing list for all property owners within the project limits. All proposed utility improvements will be designed within the proposed right-of--way limits or existing utility easements granted to the Ada County Highway District (ACRD). All proposed utility service stubs will be designed to end one foot short of the proposed right-of--way line so that the service extends outside the roadway prism for future connection. Plans will be prepared in conjunction with the Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project and will be submitted along with the final design plans. Parametrix will submit the plans to the City of Meridian, ACRD, DEQ and the Developer for review and approval prior to construction. Each property owner that is impacted by the project will receive a mailed copy of the prof ect plans along with any required easement forms for execution. It is assumed that the installation of the sewer and water main improvements will fall within the limits of the Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road ~ ~ Intersection Improvements Projects. It is assumed that no additional topographic survey will be required to complete this scope of work. 40-scale plans on 11 "x17" sheets will be provided to the City during the Final Design review and will match the Brighton Corporation's Linder Road / McMillan Road Intersection Improvements Project plans. We will also submit all design and construction plans in electronic format to the City. The water and sewer improvements will be included in the plan set for this work which will include a cover sheet, general note sheet, up to nineteen (19) plan and profile sheets, and three (3) city standard detail sheets. The total set is anticipated to include 24 sheets. We propose to provide the Design Services as outlined above on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $12,000.00 without prior approval of the City of Meridian. We have enclosed a copy of our man-hour and fee estimates for your reference. Construction services are not included under this scope of services. • J O~ c+> st N t~ ao m ~°,~ o ~ N co 0o et co co -A ~ N F- ~ Z .,}, 0 N N r M N ~ O O ~ v a ` ~ o LL ~ C N N ~ C4 N ~ ~ ~ tD }t •~ O a O ~ tt N N ~t r N r N L N O Q~ a ° v •~t ~t O ~ . , ~ a r N r d- OD N O N L .~ ~ ~ --~ J J . _ ~ ~ ~ ° ~= o ~' O N ~ ® ~' a ~ ~ _ •- ~ co - ~ ~. _ r, C ° ~\ „n - N ~ O U fi V {,F~ ~ C ~ . . ~ N m c O 5 G 0 ~ L ~ N L ~ L V V '~ ojj U ~ C :.~ n '~ a~ +~+ .-~ r -p O U ~ ~ ~ O w ¢ .. c . c U o ~ V 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .~ ..r ~ c cB ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~.. Q C7~ C p N . v... ~ ~~ r ~ '~ O .p Q~ ~ ~ c ~ $ 3 3 ° ~ m ~' > d ° v/ c O ~ = a O Z = t~ fA ~ ~ a i Z c $ s a p c Ni • W U U U 'C 'C E V, ~ to ~ ~ c . a --~ ' O °~ • °-; - °~~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~ y CC c c L y L ~ ~~ p ~c ~ ~ c O ~ o 0 0 0 0 o ul o 0 0 o n. ~a a~ c N a a a n. a a Q o a cn U C~ u~ O a ~ ~ c o ~ ' r N Y Y ~ a y a y a O J F - 1 - EXHIBIT C X 0 0 0 0 0 O O p 0 0 0 O O O O (~ 0 0 fV 0 0 N N L O st O O O O~ O~ p N (~ r N ~O 07 Q~ ~ ~ ~ J tf} ER fH r r .. ~' ~ .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~r o d~ o0 o p L O r r (fl r ao c~ fD E U ~ ~ r ~ r ~ 9 ~ ~ U o v oo o o N IL y N N O r N °7 o r = a J a ~ o o ~ fQ J ~ . d L a f6 L ~Q J a ~ _ _ ~ - ° g a a a a tW- ¢ Q r N M et t0 U r 0 a> m October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT C October 17, 2~6 ITEM No. 5-D REQUEST Agreement for Services with AspireOn AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: ¢/ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: \/" 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 meetirt~ stroll become property of the CHy of Meridian. u AGREEMENT • FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -~~ TffiS AGREEMENT, made this _ J~ day of ~riT/~l , 200 by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and ASPIItEON doing business as AspireOn, 547 W Welch Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington. 1. Scope of Services: ASPIREON shall perform all services, and comply in all respects, as specified in the document titled "Scope of Services" a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, together with any amendments that may ~ agreed to in writing by the parties. 2. Time of Performance: This agreement shall become effective upon execution by both parties, and shall expire on September 30, 20Q~un1 lier terminated or extended ~o0 7 3. Indemnification and Insurance: ASPIREON shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or properly and losses and expenses caused or incurred bx ASPIREON, its servants, agents, employees, guests, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of CITY or its employees. ASPIREON will provide services to the CITY and shall be liable for all acts of their employees while upon the premises of the CITY. Additionally, ASPIREON shall maintain Workers Compensation Insurance, in the statutory limits as required by law. ASPIREON shall provide CITY with a Certificate of Insurance, or other proof of in~Tance evidencing ASPIREON'S compliance with the requirements of this paragraph and file such proof of insurance with the CITY. In the event the in~~rance minimums are changed, ASPIREON shall immednately submit proof of compliance with the changed limits. Evidence of all in~ranCe shall be submitted to the City Clerk with a copy to Meridian City Accounting, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. The CITY will further indemnify ASPIREON for any losses, claims, actions, or acts by the CITY, its agents or employees, taken in furtherance or relaxed to the training received from ASPIREON. 4. Independent Contractor: In all matters pertaining to this agreement, ASPIREON shall be acting as an independent contractor, and neither ASPIREON nor any off cer, employee or agent of ASPIREON will be deemed an employee of CITY. The selection and designation of the personnel of the CITY in the performance of this agreement shall be made by the CITY. AspireOn Personal Services Agreement -page 1 of 5 i • 5. Compensation: ASPIltEON shall be compensated for Human Resources consulting services pursuant to and specified in attached Exhibit "A." For the purposes of contact for compliance with this Agreement ASPIREON may deal exclusively with: Human Resources Director City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 6. Method of Payment: ASPIREON will receive a flat retainer of $6000 per month for all services within the Scope of Services attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. ASPIREON shall be responsible to provide an accounting of services provided on a monthly basis. ASPIREON will be paid monthly at the beginning of each month. 7. Notices: Any and all notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when mailed in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 ASPIREON 547 W. Welch Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Either party may change their address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. 8. Attorney Fees: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by a 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. 9. Time is of the Essence: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the parry so failing to perform. AspireOn Personal Services Agreement -page 2 of 5 • 10. Assignment: It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto, that ASPIREON shall not have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate or sell any of its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior express written consent of CITY. 11. Discrimination Prohibited: In performing the Services required herein, ASPIREON shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age or disability. 12. Reports and Information: At such times and in such forms as the CITY may require, there shall be furnished to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data and information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. 13. Audits and Inspections: At any time during normal business hours and as often as the CITY may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the CITY for examination all of ASPIREON' S records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. ASPIREON shall permit the CITY to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. 14. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material: The CITY shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose and otherwise use, in whale or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepazed under this Agreement that are property of the CITY. ASPIREON does use material prepared and copyrighted for their use in furtherance of this Agreement and contain proprietary information that derives separate individual economic value to ASPIREON. Those documents may not be reproduced. without the express written consent of ASPIItEON. Documents that are restricted by this condition must be clearly mazked and identified by ASPIREON to claim this exclusion. Said proprietary materials shall remain the property of ASPIREON and utilization of such proprietary materials by the CITY outside of this Agreement or ongoing beyond the term of this Agreement would require a separate licensing agreement to be entered into by the parties. 15. Compliance with Laws: In performing the scope of services required hereunder, ASPIItEON shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State, and local governments. 16. Changes: The CITY may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Services to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of ASPIREON' S compensation, which are mutually AspireOn Personal Services Agreement -page 3 of 5 • i agreed upon by and between the CITY and ASPIItEON, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. 17. Termination: For Cause: If, through any cause, ASPIItEON, its officers, employees, or agents fails to fiilfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, falsifies any record or document required to be prepazed under this agreement, engages in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this contract, the CITY may immediately terminate this agreement with notice to ASPIItEON. An accounting pursuant to this agreement can then occur to assure that proper payments or credits are accomplished. Without Cause: If the City Council determines that termination of this Agreement is in the list interest of CITY, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to ASPIREON of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least sixty (60) days before the effective date of such termination. ASPIREON may also terminate this agreement at any time by giving at least sixty (50) days notice to CITY. In the event of any termination of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data, and reports prepared by ASPIltEON under this Agreement shall, at the option of the CITY, become its property, and ASPIREON shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily complete hereunder. Notwithstanding the above, ASPIIZEON shall not be relieved of liability to the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by ASPIREON, and the CITY may withhold any payments to ASPIREON for the purses of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the CITY from ASPIREON is determined. This provision shall survive the termination of this agreement and shall not relieve ASPIREON of its liability to the CITY for damages. 18. Construction and Severability: If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is reasonably capable of completion. 19. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral of written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The parties also understand that ASPIREON has existing Agreements with the CITY that are not incorporated under this Agreement. The CITY may contract with AspireOn Personal Services Agreement -page 4 of 5 ASPIREON to perform other functions not included in the Scope of Services of this Agreement. Any such contemporaneous agreements shall also be in writing and substantially similar to this Agreement. 2Q. Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho, and the ordinances of the City of Meridian. 21. Approval Required: This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until approved by the City of Meridian. ASPIREON CITY OF MERIDIAN TAMMY~V~ERD, MAYOR Attest: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.; \, Ps 0` ~~ J a ~ i s 6~8~~ ~ ,. AspireOn Personal Services Agreement -page 5 of 5 SCOPE OF SERVICES Exhibit "A" The following document identifies consulting services to be performed and objectives to be completed reference targeted efforts to assist Client in ongoing efforts towards achieving City Excellence. This effort is inclusive of defined efforts relative to: 1) Talent Development, 2) Talent Acquisition Evaluation, 3) Performance Coaching, and 4) Performance/Accountability System and Strategic Planning Process Implementation and Execution. (. Project Outcome Focus Areas: 1. Talent Development a. Coordinate City wride employee training -Assist in the evaluation and identification of third party training programs to meet City needs and coordinate said program delivery. In regard to third party delivered training programs, ensure consistently and integration with City values, current training efforts, and strategic focus as well as effective targeting of efforts to identified needs. Establish appropriate follow up and mentorship reinforcement, reference third party delivered workshops, to ensure successful executionlutilization of training program competencies. b. Provide assistance on integrating performance catalyst foundation development series into an orientation program for new directors, managers, and supervisors. c. Coordinate competency °Reeesher° and °Execution° efforts to maintain development workshop momentum and facilitate positive application of workshop competencies in daily efforts. Delivery of refresher or execution of mini (approximately 2 hours) workshops as required. d. As needed, serve as a performance catalyst, providing direct coaching to managers needing assistance in applying workshop competencies. 2. Talent Acquisition Evaluation a. Provide consulting on the identfic~tion of position requirements for new or vacant positions. b. Provide candidate evaluation assistance and in#erview consulting 3. Perfom~ance Coaching a. Executive Leadership Coaching as required b. Directed one-on-one ~rformance coaching to assist in performance troubleshooting and serve as an execution r~talyst c. Management Development d. AspireOn Leadership Analysis Tool Feedback coaching 4. Performance/Acxountabil'rty System and Strat~ic Plarming Process Implementation and Execution. a. Overall Execution Consulting regarding Integrated Performance Management System-Compensation, Job Grading, and design of overall program. b. Oversee and drive implementation of Performance Accountabilities Definitions i. Provide support and review in developmerrt of definitions `~ . Aspir~~a ~ ~ ii. Provide assistance/reinforcement of follow up/reviews on success expectations and key milestones. c. Provide assistance on development, implementation, and support of performance evaluation process d. Implementation and assistance in overall Strategic Positioning Process e. Strategic Planning Process Execution Consulting i. Assistance with strategic mapping of initiatives for consistency in development and execution ii. Facilitation, review, and feedback of strategic focus areas and initiatives. iii. Review, feedback, and input on organizational alignment (i.e. re- alignment/re-shaping) iv. Reviewrnput of position descriptions 11. Engagement Understandings - The City Attomey/HR Manager of City of Meridian, shall be the primary point of contact for Client reference the consulting relationship for these services. In addition, the City Attomey/HR Director & Mayor will provide the appropriate empowerment, ongoing support, and mandate to the organization to allow AspireOn to perform these services. - Bi-Monthly engagements to review project status and coordinate project efforts will be held between the City Attomey/HR Director, Mayor (if available), and applicable AspireOn Consultants. - AspireOn will be given appropriate representation and participation in overall strategic planning meetings as well as access to relevant information to ensure alignment of efforts with overall strategic objectives and initiatives. - AspireOn commits to having consultant resources on site at Client, as required to pertorm referenced services. It is understood that services under this Agreement will also be performed offsite. III. Retainer Understanding: A. General Retainer Assumptions: 1. AspireOn's Regular Fee Structure is as Follows: a. Level A} Executive Coaching Engagements, Team Engagements, Strategic Positioning and Execution Mapping, Results Project Managemerrt/Overall Training Coordination, Execution Engagements, Pertormance Coaching, Execution Catalyst Engagements - $155/hr b. Level B) Information Analysis, Process Review, Program CustomizatioN Development Candidate Evaluations - $105/hr c. Level C) Administrative support, documentation, travel - $47/hr 2. Retainer is based on estimated time commitments within each of the above three fee areas factored on a 52- week year. The estimate does not represent a faced service delivery distribution commitmerrt. AspireOn shall notify Client upon reaching the retainer threshold in a monthly period and `~ . Aspir~nd 2 receive authorization before providing any additional services for that month. Rough time estimates factored into retainer rate are as follows: a. 5.65 hours per week of Level A effort, b. 5.40 hours per week of Level B effort, c. 1.75 hours per week of Level C effort. (Actual services may vary by levels but will not exceed retainer without approval of the client) 3. Retainer will be prepaid on a monthly basis and deemed due upon the 1 ~ of every month. 4. The following AspireOn tools/services are not deemed part of the retainer agreement and as such would be billed on an actual per utilization basis. The utilization of these tools remains at the discretion of the client as directed to the consultant: a. Profiles & Leadership Analysis/Packet - $350 per b. Leadership Execution Challenges - $75 per c. Leadership Scans/360's -$400 per d. Environmental Scan - To Be Negotiated e. Process Analysis - i.e. benchmarking, process analysis (building department), etc. f. Additional AspireOn Development Workshops or training (above the retainer) as directed by the City (i.e. project management training, non-supervisor development programs, and conflict managemerrtlresolution workshops). B. Retainer Terms: 1. This represents the recommended level of services necessary (Estimated time commitments described above) for successful catalyst and execution efforts to address the project outcome (integrated) focus areas as mutually identified. This retainer rate represents a 10% discount by the consultant from normal rates given Client's commitment to the retainer. 2. Discounted retainer rates: (10% discount ) a. Level A Services - $139.50/hr b. Level BServices - $94.50lhr a Level CServices - $42.30/hr 3. Monthly Retainer - $6,000lmonth IV. F~cpenses Out of pocket expenses directly incurred in association with performing the services as outlined above will be submitted to Client for reimbursement. Every effort will be made to minimize such expenses in performing these services. Expenses are anticipated to include, but are not limited to: supplies and additional business travel expenses that may be incurred. ~~ . Aspirin. October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 200b APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-E REQUEST Contract with Cascade Pipeline Corporation for Water and Sewer Improvements in conjunction with the ITD Locust Grove Road Grade Separation AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: See attached ~' ,a~ Z~v~ OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubac meeHrrgs shop become property of fhe CHy of Medd~n. • • Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer /~~ CC: File, Len Grady Date: October 11, 2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for October 16 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the October 16 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Contract with Cascade Pipeline Corporation for Water and Sewer Improvements in Coniunction with the ITD Locust Grove Road Grade Separation Two bids were received for this contract. Cascade Pipeline was the low bidder at $212,198. The Engineer's estimate was $194,854. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves a contract with Cascade Pipeline Corporation for construction of Water and Sewer Improvements in Conjunction with the ITD Locust Grove Grade Separation project at a cost of $212,198 and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item. ~ Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT LOCUST GROVE ROAD GRADE SEPARATION ITD PROJECT IM-STP-84-I(047~5, KEY NO. 8048 BID NOTE TO BIDDER: Use indelible ink or type when completing this form. Proposal of `~sea66' ~.~ `~ ~ (hereinafter called "Bidder"), organized-and existing nder the laws f the state of A,~~ , doing business as a(n) _ ti,,.,o To: City of Meridian Address: 33 East Idaho Ave.. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Project Title:, Water and Sewer Improvements in Coniunction with the Idaho Transportation Department Locust Grove Road Grade Separation In compliance with the Invitation to Bid and Information for Bidders for the Water and Sewer Improvements in Conjunction with the Idaho Transportation Department Locust Grove Road Grade Separation, having examined the Drawings and Specifications with related documents and the site of the proposed Work, and being familiar with all conditions sun'ounding the proposed Project, including the availability of materials and labor, hereby propose to furnish all labor, materials and supplies and complete the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents within the time set forth therein and at the prices stated in the Bid Schedule of Items and Prices. These prices are to cover all expenses incurred in performing the Work required under the Contract Documents, of which this is a part. By submission of this Bid, each Bidder certifies, and in case of a joint Bid each party thereto certifies as to his own organization, that this Bid has been arrived at independently, without consultation, communication, or agreement as to any matter relating to this Bid with any other Bid or with any other Bidder or with any competitor. The Bidder agrees that the Work will be completed within 60 calendar days after the date when the Contract Time commences to run. In the event the Bidder is awarded the Contract and fails to complete the work within the time limit or extended time limit agreed upon, as more particularly set forth in the Contract Documents, liquidated damages of $250.00 per calendar day will be assessed against the Contractor for each day in excess of the stated work completion time. These late damages will be subtracted from the Contractor's bid price before final payment is made. * Insert "individual'; "partnership" or "corporation" BID DOCUMENTS Bp-8 ~ C~s ~~~ BID SCHEDULE OF ITEMS AND PRICES The following is the Bid Schedule for the Water and Sewer Improvements in Conjunction with the Idaho Transportation Department Locust Grove Road Grade Separation. The award will be based on the lowest Total Bid subject to the requirements of Paragraph 14 of the Information For Bidders. The unit price for each bid item shall be written in figures and words in the spaces provided. The total bid price shall be written in figures in the spaces provided. BIDDER acknowledges receipt of the following ADDENDA: Addendum No. ~ Dated: ~' ~ ~ Initials: Addendum No. Dated: Initials: Addendum No. Dated: Initials: Addendum No. Dated: Initials: NOTE: BIDS shall include sales tax and other applicable taxes and fees. Quantities shown are estimated and may vary during construction. BIDDER agrees to perform all the work described in the Contract Documents for the following unit prices or lump sum. Item No. Estimated Unit Item Description Unit Bid Item Quantity (With Unit Price Written in Words) Price Total Bid 207.4.1.A.1. 1 LS REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS ~~~~~.~ Dollars ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 307.4.1.G.1. 300 SY TYPE "P" SURFACE RESTORATION(TEMPORARY) ~ ~~ ,iz~~ Dollars ~~ 401.4.1.A.1.a 30 LF 6" PVC, AWWA C900, CLASS 150, DR 18, WATER MAIN ~d~ /~~~~ ~.~ Dollars 401.4.1.A.1.b 599 LF 8" PVC, AWWA C900, CLASS 150, DR 18, WATER MAIN ~,~,~ Dollars BID DOCUMENTS BD-9 ~J Item No. Estimated Unit Item Description Unit Bid Item Quantity (With Unit Price Written in Words) Price Total Bid 401.4.1.A.1.c 79 LF 10" PVC, AWWA C900, CLASS 150, DR 18, WATER MAIN 401.4.1.A.1.d 490 LF 12" PVC, AWWA C900, CLASS 150, DR 18, WATER MAIN ~---~ c~~K ~ Dollars ~~ ~ 3l ~s~ 402.4.1.A.1.a 2 EA 6" GATE VALVE ~ ~ ~~ ~ f ~~~ / ~~ Dollars 402.4.1.A.1.b 1 EA 8" GATE VALVE z~..Y~= .~' o~s..d.~ Dollars f~GYJ ~ l~G~'7 _` 402.4.1.A.1.c 1 EA 10" GATE VALVE ~/~ vim/ collars /S~c~~ ~ /.~C~~ 402.4.1.A.1.d 3 EA 12" GATE VALVE ~~~ I 'tea ~ ~'~S® -~ Dollars 403.4.1.A.1. 2 EA NEW FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY ~~~ mil/ ~ ~ ~~~ . ~D ~~ti ~/ ~,,~~,~.~ Dollars 501.4.1.8.1. 1,162 LF 8" PVC, ASTM D3034, SDR 35, 1 SANITARY SEWER PIPE - ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ % ~olla~s BID DOCUMENTS BD-10 i Item No. Estimated Unit Item Description Unit Bid Item Quantity (With Unit Price Written in Words) Price Totat Bid 502.4.1.A.1. 8 EA 48" STANDARD SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE, TYPE A /~io ~~..~ 7G/.~' ~% J ~ / ~~ ~ ~' r ~-.r~~~ Dollars ~/ 502.4.1.F.1. 1 EA CONNECT PIPE TO EXISTING MANHOLE a~~~ o~.s~.~-.~ Dollars %'' ~ ~`~~ 503.4.1.A.1. 2 EA 8" TYPE "T" SEWER CLEANOUT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iY?O ~ ~tt~ ~ Dollars G~ig/~~x ,~i~ovt , 504.4.1.A.1. 49 LF 4" PVC, ASTM D3034, SDR 35, SEWER SERVICE PIPE ~ ~ ~ Dollars ~~ ~~~~ d 504.4.1.D.1. 3 EA 4" SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION f ~~-$~~r.~~.r~rl~~ ~ ~ .av.~ ~ Dollars --sue ~~~ 2030.4.1.C.1. 2 EA ADJUST VALVE BOX TO GRADE ~ ~~~',~~.~~,~ Dollars ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ SP-1a 3 EA 2" BLOW-OFF ASSEMBLY PER SD 7.12(W) ~ ~~ ~ J~~,~,ro,~ Dollars G^'~C~ ~~~' SP-1 b 1 EA 2" BLOW-OFF ASSEMBLY , PER SD 7.12B(W) ii ~7/~,~,~~~ Dollars BID DOCUMENTS BD-11 • Item No. Estimated Unit Item Description Unit Bid Item Quantity (With Unit Price Written in Words) Price Total Bid SP-Z 1 EA UPGRADE IRRIGATION PIPE TO WATER CLASS PIPE ~r..~" ~~la,~' Dollars ~~ ~5~~ SP-3 5 EA MODIFIED 2" WATER SERVICE CONNECTION ~~~~ ~~ ~ Dollars SP-4 1 LS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT a~sn`n~~/ ./'fib ~ y~~ ~ G~~ ~ Dollars / SP-5 2 EA RELOCATE EXISTING WATER METER ~ ~ ~~/~a~~ = i/~ ~ ia~ ~~'Sio~b .~ ~~ ~~-v~~~"~ Dollars SP-6 2 EA RELOCATE EXISTING CHECK VALVE ~~`~~ ~ ~~~ ~~- a~~~ ~ Dollars !tea D~ TOTAL OF BID $ c~~~, ~ ~`(~ The Bidder understands that quantities listed are approximate and the Owner reserves the right to increase or decrease individual items as may be, in its sole judgment, to its best interest depending upon conditions encountered or observed during the execution of the work. BID DOCUMENTS BD-12 Respectful ubm tted: S ure ~~~ ~ Name (printed or typed) . ~~ Title (printed or typed) / L tJ to Attest btd y corporations): By: Sig ature (by Corporate or Assist rporate Secretary) Name: ~ „~~ (Typed or printed) Title: lrat.~~ Firm: ~~~~~ .~,~ L~~ Business Address: ~'J~ ~ J~X ~~,~.~ ,~''~; By: .J~ Name of Company Address ~.~6'~'~' License Number Seal (If Bid is by a Corporation) Date: Z-~ ~ Telephone Numbe ~~ ~~~' ~~~~ Fax: ~ ° G~/~~ Public Works License Number: /i -i ~ ~i~~~ ~~ Contractor's representative to contact regarding this bid: \ ~~~' ~~~~ BID DOCUMENTS BD-13 October 13, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 21~G APPLICANT Planning Department -Matt Ellsworth ITEM NO. 1D-A- ~ REQUEST Presentation of COMPASS Request for Preliminary Commitment /Support for the Walkable Communities Initiative 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: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materia>s presented at putslic meetings shM becom® properly of the City of Meriden. • • T« Anna Canning, Planning Director GCS Terri Sct~orzman, Communit~tion Coo~nator, COMPASS Fr+onr Matt EJ~Iswoith, Associate City Planner October 9 7, ZOt~ Rge Walkable Communities Request, City Couna"I Departmerrt Report RECEg~ S;ity Of lifteridiaig (City Clerk Office Teri Schorzman has requested preliminary commitment of support from the City of Meridian for the Walkable Communities Initiative, a program offered by Bikewalk.org. The goal of the program is to speed the creation of places where walking and bicycling are safe, viable transportation options. This is a grant program in that participating cities receive consultatioq staff training, and a facilitated workshop looking at existing pedestrian conditions, opportunities, barriers, etc. Workshops result in prioritization of needed improvements, action recommendations, and an overview of steps needed for implementation. The commitment on the part of the City would depend on the level of involvement from area agencies, cities, etc. It is estimated that comributions from joint-sponsors will range from $1,500 - $2,000 in addition to staff time. If there is enough area support to apply for the program, and the application is approved by Bikewalk, then up to five workshops will be held in various locations in Ada, and Canyon counties. The Meridian Development Corporation Board expressed preliminary interest in participating in the program at their October 1 l s` meeting, pending details related to cost, workshop location, etc. Should Council support the initiative, COMPASS will prepare and submit the application to Bikewalk.org. If the application is approved, a budget amendment will be needed at a later date to approve the funds. October 13, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 200b APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. LD -~ 1 REG2uESr Tabled from October 10, 2006 -- Agreement for Hookup to the City of Meridian Sewer /Water Svstem Outside City Limits for William J. Walgamott II at 2bb0 East Franklin -Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: COMMENTS See previous Item PQeket / Minutes CITY SEWER DEPT: ,y CITY PARKS DEPT: 1,`„~q'~ MERIDIAN SCHQOL 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 pubdc meeHn~ shad become properly of fhe City of Meric6an. Meridian City Council October 10, 2006 Page 14 of 40 C. Public Works Department 1. Agreement for Hookup to the City of Meridian Sewer /Water System ®utside City Limits for William J. Walgamott II at 2660 East Franklin Road: De Weerd: Okay. Council, Item 7-C-1. I will tum this over to our Public Works Director Brad. Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item here is a request for water and sewer service outside city limits at a property at 2660 East Franklin by William Walgamott and Mary Wale. They have applied to Ada county to, I believe, build a day care. They are required to have central water and sewer. Those services were stubbed into their property as part of the Franklin Road rebuild project, so those are available. They have signed an agreement for hook up to the city water-sewer system outside the city limits, which requires annexation, a bond when their property is contiguous. So, we are recommending approval of that. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for Brad at this time? Bird: Madam Mayor, are we just working on the first one? De Weerd: Yes, we are. Bird: Okay. I have no questions on it. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no questions from Council, do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I don't know if the applicant's here this evening, but I would like to have their opinion about requirements and their understanding of the requirements to be annexed into the City of Meridian and that they are agreeable to what it is they are getting into. De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Okay. Brad, is there an urgency to this request? Watson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know how to prioritize the urgency of the request. Our staff has been handling this. I haven't had firsthand conversations with this applicant. All I can say is Karie in my office does make them abundantly aware of what the requirements are and this agreement has been signed. That's what I go on that they understand it. But I have not talked with them personally. De Weerd: Okay. Watson: If you would like me to contact them and have them show up next week, I can do that. Meridian City Council October 10, 2006 Page 15 of 40 Bird: I'd like that myself. De Weerd: Council, is that your preference? Bird: That would be my preference. Rountree: I would be more comfortable -- Bird: I would, too. Rountree: -- in knowing full well that they understand, because it's better that way than having them come back and say, well, we didn't know or somebody told us differently. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we can go ahead and put this on next week's agenda. 2. Agreement for Hookup to the Citv of Meridian Sewer /Water System ®utside City Limits for Kit Kat Klub at 4842 West Franklin Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-C-2. I will tum this over to Brad as well. Watson: Okay. Madam Mayor, this is another request for a connection to city water and sewer services outside the existing city limits. This is the property at 4842 West Franklin Road, commonly known as the Kit Kat Klub. They have a -- I'll start by saying that it appears that they have submitted an application to Ada county for an expansion of the facility. Part of that -- part of the conditions that Ada county or Central District Health put on that project was that they connect to central sewer. Joe Silva of the fire department also reviewed that application and required fire sprinklers in the facility. So, they are requesting both city water and sewer. We have a subsequent letter dated October 3rd from Central District Health. Actually, it's dated October 2nd, received October 3rd by our office, that says that the septic system is failing and it was -- it was written directly to Public Works Department requesting that it be allowed to connect to central sewer. Based on those parameters, the Public Works Department would recommend connection to those. They have signed the same agreement that I previously mentioned, the agreement for hook up outside the city limits, wherein it requires annexation when it's contiguous. The applicant is here tonight, if you have any questions of him. And if you have any questions for me I would be happy to answer them. De Weerd: So, Brad, this is not just about hooking up to sewer services, but it's tied to an expansion? Watson: I think that's how it originally started, that Central District Health required central sewer to be provided -- city sewer to be provided to the facility and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there was akitchen -- addition or r~ ~~ October 13, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT Parks Department -Doug Strong ITEM NO. (.p . C. , REQUEST Kiwanis Paris Development, Impact Fee Reimbursement, and Real Property Conveyance Agreement 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 SCWOOL 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 aFFached ,, ~ ,~/,/''~ T ;~y / G f Y ~ w ~r~ ~'~ ~~ ~~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented al pubpc meeHn$s shall become properly of the City of Merman. PARK DEVELOPMENT, IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT, AND REAL PROPERTY CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT This Park Development, Impact Fee Reimbursement, and Real Property Conveyance Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of , 2006, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (the "City"), and the developer of the Grammercy Subdivision, Tuscany Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation, whose address is 660 E. Franklin, Ste. 240, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (the "Developer"), and Kenai Partners, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, whose address is 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120, Boise, Idaho 83713 (the "Landowner"). RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Developer has agreed to purchase from Landowner certain real property located in City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, for the purposes of platting and developing the Grammercy Subdivision; and B. WHEREAS, Landowner will retain ownership of a certain portion of real property in the Grammercy Subdivision consisting of two and four hundredths (2.04) acres more particularly described in a legal description attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A (the "Property"); and C. WHEREAS, Landowner desires to gift, grant and transfer the Property, and City desires to receive as a gift, have granted and have transferred the Property; and D. WHEREAS, Developer has undertaken at its own expense to construct and develop the Property as a park more fully depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Park"), adjacent to that existing Kiwanis Neighborhood Park ("Kiwanis Park"), which when completed such Park will be incorporated into and connected with Kiwanis Park; and E. WHEREAS, Developer has undertaken at its own expense to construct and develop additional park improvements to the existing Kiwanis Park; and F. WHEREAS, Developer has agreed to provide the construction, installation and inspection of the improvements necessary to construct the Project strictly adhering to City specifications, the benefit of Developer being completion of the design and construction of the Project at a date earlier than would be possible if City were to undertake such construction, and the benefits to City being the completion of construction of the Project at substantially less cost and expense, resulting in a savings to the citizens and residents of Meridian, and the obtaining of additional park space and improvements for the use and enjoyment of the citizens and residents of Meridian at a date earlier than would otherwise be possible, which benefits to City are determined substantial and in the best interests of City and its citizens and residents; and PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IlVIPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 1 OF 24 G. WHEREAS, Developer desires to donate a portion of the Work on the Project to City as a gift; and H. WHEREAS, City has earmarked and will earmark certain impact fee funds for Work on the Project, and City desires to use those impact fee funds to reimburse Developer for the portion of the Work on the Project that is not donated by Developer; and I. WHEREAS, City, pursuant to Meridian City Code section 10-7-9, and Idaho Code sections 67-8207 and 8209, has the authority to enter into agreements with developers for the construction of system improvements, including park and recreation facilities, when the same are to be paid by development impact fees; and J. WHEREAS, Developer is entitled to receive reimbursement in the calculation of development impact fees, for the present value of any construction of system improvements of the category for which the development impact fee is being collected, provided that an agreement for such reimbursement is negotiated in good faith; and K. WHEREAS, City agrees that the use of the park impact fee reimbursement will help City achieve its goal of increasing its inventory of neighborhood parks. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, City, Developer, and Landowner do hereby agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement, the following words have the meanings herein stated: 1.1 "C~' shall mean City of Meridian acting through its Parks and Recreation Department ("MPR"). 1.2 "Construction Documents" shall mean the completed and fully detailed drawings and specifications prepared by and paid for by City, setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Work. Upon review and acceptance of the Construction Documents by City and Developer, the same shall be incorporated into this Agreement. The Construction Documents shall become the property of City. Construction Documents must comply with the Program Documents and the design development documents, or with deviations agreed to by City and Developer. 1.3 "Contract Documents" shall mean this Agreement, and any other modifications authorized by Change Order issued pursuant to this Agreement. City shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished under this Agreement. City shall, without additional PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 24 compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications, and other services. In the event of any inconsistencies among the Contract Documents, the documents will first be interpreted as a reasonable whole to assure that the goal of a functional facility is achieved. Should the inconsistency still exist then, the documents will be interpreted as follows: The Construction Documents, the design development documents and then the Program Documents. 1.4 "Design Engineer" shall mean the firm of Pinnacle Engineering, 12552 Executive Drive, Boise, Idaho 83713, and will not be changed without the prior written consent of City. 1.5 "Developer" shall mean Tuscany Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation, 660 E. Franklin, Ste. 240, Meridian, Idaho 83642, Developer of the Grammercy Subdivision. 1.6 "Landowner" shall mean Kenai Partners, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120, Boise, Idaho 83713. 1.7 "Program Documents" shall mean all of the requirements and minimum quality standards applicable to the Project outlined by City in its standard plans, details, and specifications. City warrants that its design development documents and its complete design of the Project does and will fully satisfy or exceed the requirements of the Program Documents in providing fully functional facilities, unless indicated otherwise in the approved design development documents. If quality levels are not stated in the Program Documents, it shall remain at the same level of quality and workmanship established for the rest of the Project. 1.8 "Project" shall mean both the design and construction of certain park improvements to the existing Kiwanis Park and the design and construction of the new Park with the legal description attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A (the "Property"), and as depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein, of Grammercy Subdivision No. 1, consisting of two and four hundredths (2.04) acres, as donated by Landowner and as approved by the Meridian Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and the Meridian City Council 1.9 "Project Representative" shall mean the person appointed by City to act on its behalf as to matters indicated under this Agreement. The appropriate Project Representative during the design phase and the construction phase is Doug Strong or his designee. City may employ an additional outside consultant to act with and on behalf of City as an inspector. 1.10 "Work" shall mean all labor, equipment, materials, management services and other services necessary or appropriate to construct the Project. 2. TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY 2.1 Transfer of Title. Landowner agrees to gift, grant and convey, and City agrees to receive as a gift, to have granted and to have conveyed the Property. City's agreement to accept the gift of real property is conditioned upon the City's review of the condition of title to the Property. City will not accept the gift of real property until City is satisfied through its review of PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 3 OF 24 the state of title that there are no monetary liens or any encumbrances that would cause the Property to be incapable of being used for the purposes contemplated by this Agreement. 2.2 Deed. Landowner shall convey the Property to City by a deed of gift substantially similar to the Deed of Gift attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof. 2.3 Title Commitment/Title Policy. Landowner makes no express or implied warranties pertaining to the condition of title to the Property. City has chosen to obtain at its own expense a title commitment and/or a title policy on the Property through Lawyers Title of Treasure Valley. 2.4 Gift Date. T'he transfer of the Property contemplated by this Agreement shall take place on or before December 31, 2007 (the "Gift Date"), at a location and time mutually agreed upon by the parties. The transfer of the Property shall take place through escrow closing at Lawyers Title of Treasure Valley, with costs shared equally by Landowner and City. 2.5 Prorations. All items typically prorated, including, without limitation, taxes, liens and assessments, shall be prorated as of the Gift Date. All prorations shall be final. 2.6 Tax Status. It is understood that Landowner intends for the transfer of the Property to City to represent a gift and to qualify as atax-exempt contribution to City. In recognition of the gift from Landowner, City will provide information and assistance as necessary for completion of the applicable Department of Treasury Forms and other reasonable documentation as maybe required to document such gift. 3. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER 3.1 Improvements to be Constructed by the Developer. Developer shall complete Work on the following improvements, and City shall reimburse Developer for such construction and improvements pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement: (i) eight (8) inch pond pipe/manhole; (ii) infiltrator swale; (iii) pond excavation and finishing; (iv) pond liner and installation; (v) rip- rap around pond; (vi) cleanup work and haul off debris; (vii) rough grading; (viii) preparation and paving of parking lot; (ix) preparation and construction of concrete walkways; (x) preparation and paving asphalt paths; (xi) install concrete; (xii) fencing-removal and installation of new fence; (xiii) electrical work; (xiv) pond aerator and installation; (xv) intake screen and installation; (xvi) irrigation system and installation; (xvii) finish grading; (xviii) seeding; (xix) tree planting; (xx) bark mulch; and (xxi) initial landscape maintenance until City assumes such maintenance duties. 3.2 Additional Improvements to be Constructed By Other Parties. Parties other than Developer shall complete Work on the following additional improvements: (i) picnic Shelter; (ii) restrooms; (iii) installation of playground equipment; and (iv) basketball court. The improvements listed in this paragraph are not subject to this Agreement and Developer is not obligated to construct said improvements. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IlVIPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 4 OF 24 ~ o 3.3 Plans and Specifications. The Park improvements shall be installed and constructed as shown on the plans, details and specifications that are in accordance with MPR's adopted Master Plan and MPR's standard plans, details and specifications (Contract Documents), as per the technical specifications for the Park paid for by City and submitted by Design Engineer. These Contract Documents shall be approved by the director of MPR and other applicable government agencies prior to development. 3.4 Work. Developer shall provide all construction supervision, inspection, labor, materials, tools, equipment, and all other Work necessary for the execution and completion of the Project. 3.5 Work Area. Developer shall at all times keep all areas where work is being performed or materials stored, and surrounding areas, free from the accumulation of waste materials or rubbish caused by his operations. Upon completion of the Work or any portions thereof accepted by City for partial occupancies, Developer shall remove all waste and rubbish and all construction tools, equipment, machinery and surplus materials from such areas. Developer will comply with the dust control ordinance. 3.6 Repair and Remodel. City may use the proposal documents, the design development documents and the Construction Documents and modifications thereof for any remodel renovation, addition or repair of the Project or any part thereof. 3.7 Defects. Developer warrants to City that all materials and equipment furnished under this Agreement will be new; that all Work will be of good quality, free from improper workmanship and defect, and, further, that the materials and equipment used in construction will be constructed and installed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Developer shall correct any work that fails to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents where such failure to conform appears during the progress of the Work, and shall remedy any defects due to faulty materials, equipment or workmanship which appear within a period of one year from the Completion Date. The provisions of this Agreement apply to work performed by Developer and Developer's subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers. All corrections shall be made at no additional cost and at no increase in the contract price. With respect to latent defects not reasonably discoverable within such one year period of time, such defects shall be corrected by Developer upon written request given within one year from the actual date of discovery of such defect, except that Developer shall not be required to correct latent defects first discovered later than three (3) years from the Completion Date. The foregoing warranties are in addition to and not a limitation of: (i) all other rights and remedies available at law and equity including any specific additional warranties contained elsewhere in the Contract Documents, (ii) such warranties as maybe available from manufacturers of equipment, suppliers of materials or other third-parties,(iii) Developer's obligation to complete all Work in strict accordance with the Contract Documents, and (iv) City's other remedies. 3.8 Inspection Certificates. Developer will secure and submit certificates of all inspection, testing, or approvals to the Project Representative. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 5 OF 24 ~ ! 3.9 Manufacturer Warranties. Developer will collect and submit to City all manufacturers' warranties and all other documents relating to materials and facilities otherwise required by the Contract Documents. 3.10 Other Warranties. Any warranties provided by Developer and of third parties are for the benefit of City. Developer will be obligated and responsible to City to the full extent of any warranties provided by subcontractors, suppliers, manufacturers or others. 3.11 Insurance. Developer shall provide such insurance as is required in the Section 9 of this Agreement. 4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY 4.1 Duties of Citv. City shall provide Developer and Landowner with the following: 4.1.1 Engineering and architectural designs prepared by City's independent contractor necessary to complete the Project. 4.1.2 Construction Documents of the Project prepared by City's independent contractor and in accordance with the design development documents and all applicable building codes in effect on the date hereof. All design, engineering, architectural, or other professional services that are a part of the Work shall be performed by duly licensed professionals, skilled and experienced in this type of project. 4.1.3 Specifications for the ten (10) foot wide multi-use pathway for the portion that goes through the Park. 4.1.4 Specifications for the pressurized irrigation system and imgation pond. 4.1.5 Specifications for the Park's pressurized irrigation pump station currently existing at the Park site. 4.1.6 Specifications for the location of the sewer and water stubs to the Park. 4.1.7 Specifications for the location of other utilities for the Park. 4.1.8 Specifications for the PUIS design for the Park. 4.2 Project Representative. The Project Representative shall be acquainted with the Project and shall act on behalf of City with respect to the Project, subject to the limitations upon such authority contained in this Agreement. The Project Representative during the design phase and the construction phase is Doug Strong. If City desires a Project Representative other than Doug Strong, then City shall designate the new Project Representative in writing as provided in Section 11, below. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 6 OF 24 4.3 Notice of Fault, Defect, or Nonconformance. If City becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project or non-conformance with the Contract Documents, City shall give prompt written notice to Developer. 4.4 Fees, Assessments, and Charges. City shall secure and pay for all necessary approvals, easements, assessments, and charges required for use, or occupancy of the facilities, including any plan check fee required by the Meridian City Building Department. 5. SUBCONTRACTORS 5.1 All Work not performed with Developer's own forces shall be performed under written subcontracts. Developer shall submit to City, a list of the names and addresses of all subcontractors, suppliers, and consultants. Developer shall complete Form WH-5 as required by the State Tax Commission. 5.2 No contract or agreement, express or implied, shall be deemed to exist between City and any subcontractor, supplier, consultant or other person acting on behalf of Developer. Developer shall be responsible for the control and direction of all subcontractors, supplies, and other persons participating in the construction of the Project and shall be responsible to City for their acts and omissions, and their failure to perform the Work in strict accordance with the Contract Documents. Developer shall be responsible for the payment of all subcontractors, supplies and other third parties participating in the construction of the Work and shall indemnity, defend, and hold City harmless from any claim, liability, cause of action, or suit relating to or arising out of the acts of such person or failure to make payments due or allegedly due any of such persons. 6. COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT 6.1 Construction Com len tion. Developer shall substantially complete all Work on the Project by June 7, 2007, weather permitting. Time extensions maybe granted hereunder by City in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. If a time extension is not granted, then in that event if Developer fails to complete construction within the time periods herein stated, Developer shall be in default of this Agreement. 6.2 Completion of the Project. Completion of the Project shall mean the date determined by the Project Representative and Developer when construction is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Construction Documents so that City can fully occupy or effectively utilize the facilities for its intended use. At the time of City occupancy of the Project, City shall direct the Project Representative to execute a written certificate of completion (the "Certificate of Completion"). The date of the Certificate of Completion shall be the "Completion Date." All warranties, including, without limitation, the three (3) year warranty provided in Section 3, shall commence on the Completion Date. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IlVIPACT FEE REIlVIBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 7 OF 24 7. REIlVIBURSEMENTS AND PAYMENTS 7.1 Donation. Developer agrees to donate to City Park improvements and Work not to exceed Two Hundred Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($275,000.00). 7.2 Reimbursement. City shall reimburse Developer for the remaining costs associated with any Park improvements and Work performed by Developer in an amount not to exceed /100 Dollars ($_,_.~1This amount is still being defined as of the date this document is being submitted to the Meridian City Clerk for posting on the City Council Agenda. This amount will be settled and inserted here at the time this Agreement is considered for approval by the Meridian City Councill. Developer shall submit to City invoices for any and all completed and uncompensated costs on the first day of each month until such time as Developer completes construction on the Park. City, upon verification of work completed, shall pay Developer in full for each invoice received before the last day of the same month in which City receives the invoice to the extent such invoice requests payment for Reimbursed Costs. City shall pay Developer at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum for any invoices not paid in full by the end of the month in which Developer submitted the invoice to City. S. CHANGES IN THE PROJECT 8.1 Changes by City. City, without invalidating this Agreement, may order changes within the general scope of the Project consisting of additions, deletions or other revisions. The Completion Date shall be adjusted accordingly. Changes in the Project maybe authorized only by written Change Order approved by City. 8.1.1 Change Order ("Change Order") is a written order to Developer issued by City after the date hereof, authorizing a change in the Project or the Completion Date. 8.1.2 City will provide Developer written authorization and direction to make City requested Design Changes. Any City directed Additional Design Changes will be paid by written Change Order. 8.2 Claims for Additional Time. 8.2.1 If Developer wishes to make a claim for an extension in the Completion Date or in an instance where Developer contends it was delayed by an act or omission of City, it shall give City written notice thereof within ten (10) calendar days after the occurrence of the event giving rise to such claim, which claim shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. This notice shall be given by Developer before proceeding to execute any Work affected by the event giving rise to such a claim, except in an emergency endangering life or property in which case Developer shall act, at his discretion, to prevent threatened damage, injury or loss. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIlVIBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 8 OF 24 ~ ~ 8.2.2 If it is determined from the claim and notice submitted by Developer that City has delayed Developer, then City shall issue a Change Order and an extension of time shall be granted for the demonstrated period of time lost that is directly attributable to the delay. 9. INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND WAIVER OF SUBROGATION 9.1 Indemnity. Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its agents, employees, representative, consultants and successors from and against all claims, damages, costs, liabilities, judgments, legal fees, expenses, actions, and suits for personal injury, death, and property damage, arising out of the Project, the Work, or the acts or omissions of Developer, subcontractors, suppliers, agents, consultants, representatives and materialmen, including without limitation the employees of each, caused by any negligent or wrongful act or omission of any of such persons or by any failure to comply fully with any term or condition of the Contract Documents, to the extent the acts, omission, or negligence of City did not cause such claims, damages, costs, liabilities, judgments, legal fees, or expenses. 9.2 Liability Insurance. Developer shall carry the following insurance for Work on the Project: 9.2.1 The primary engineer and all associates and consultants shall carry professional liability insurance with a minimum limit of Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($500,000.00). This insurance shall continue for two years after the Completion Date. 9.2.2 Developer shall purchase and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single limit on One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence. The policy shall provide coverage for bodily injury and property damage, and shall include broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury liability (including coverage for employee acts), blanket contractual liability and products and completed operations. Liability coverage shall be provided for hazards commonly referred to as XCU (explosion, collapse, and underground). 9.2.3 All subcontractors of any tier shall be required to provide comprehensive general liability insurance with combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of at least One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, comprehensive auto liability insurance for all owned, non-owned vehicles with combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of at least One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence or other limits as approved by City. 9.2.4 Developer and its subcontractors shall carry Worker's Compensation Insurance to cover obligations imposed by Federal and State statutes covering all employees, and employers' liability insurance with a minimum limit of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and No/100 Dollars ($100,000.00) per Accident; Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) per Disease Policy Limit; One Hundred Thousand Dollars and No/100 Dollars ($100,000.00) Disease, each employee. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIlVIBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 9 OF 24 ~ ~ 9.2.5 Insurance Policy Requirements: All insurance required in this Section 9.3 shall be endorsed as follows: (a) City, including their respective agents, employees, consultants and representative shall be named as additional insured. (b) The insurance required shall contain a severability of interest clause such that the insurance afforded applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. (c) All insurance policies shall not be terminated or cancelled without thirty (30) calendar days advance written notice of cancellation to be provided by the insurance company. (d) The insurance afforded by Developer shall be primary insurance and any insurance carried by City shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Developer. (e) Each entity providing insurance shall furnish certificates of insurance that shall specifically set forth evidence of all coverage required above. If required each entity providing insurance will allow the other party to review and copy such insurance provisions contained in the certified policies. 10. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND CITY'S RIGHT TO PERFORM DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIONS 10.1 Termination for Cause. 10.1.1 If Developer fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement City, may upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to Developer and Landowner take such action as is necessary to perform such obligation either with or without terminating this Agreement. 10.1.2 In the event of any material breach of this Agreement by Developer, after ten (10) calendar days written notice to Developer, City may, in addition to any other remedies available, terminate this Agreement, take possession of the Project site and the raw materials, equipment, tools, construction equipment and machinery thereon owned or provided by Developer and may finish the Work by whatever reasonable means and methods City may determine necessary or expedient. In such instance Developer relieved from any of its obligations under this Agreement, including obligations assumed under the liability for damages paragraph listed herein. 10.1.3 As used in the foregoing paragraph, a material default shall include but is not limited to: (a) persistent or repeated failures to provide properly skilled workmen or PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 10 OF 24 materials or failure to prosecute the Work according to the progress schedules provided herein; (b) unjustified failure to make proper payments to subcontractors for materials or labor; (c) persistent or intentional disregard of laws, ordinance, rules, regulations or orders of any public authority having jurisdiction; (d) being adjudged to be bankrupt or being subject to any state or federal insolvency proceedings. 10.2 Amendment. In the event City Council determines that this Agreement shall be modified, the terms of this Agreement shall be amended and Developer shall comply with the amended terms. Failure to comply with the amended terms shall result in default. 10.3 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by 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. 10.4 Plans and Specifications. In the event of any termination, whether if for cause or without cause, City shall have the right to reproducible copies of all design and construction plans and specifications, the ownership of all work in progress, and the right to complete all construction. 11. NOTICES 11.1 Any and all notices, demands, requests or other communications required under this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly served or delivered, if delivered by hand to the party to whose attention it is directed, or when sent, three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt request, or one (1) day after deposit with a nationally recognized air carrier providing next day delivery, or if sent via facsimile transmission, when received as determined by the facsimile transmission report related thereto, addressed as follows: To City: Meridian City Clerk 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 With a copy to: Doug Strong, Director, Parks and Recreation Department 11 W. Bower Meridian, Idaho 83642 To Developer: Tuscany Development, Inc. 660 E. Franklin, Ste. 240 Meridian, Idaho 83642 To Landowner: Kenai Partners, LLC 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120 Boise, Idaho 83713 PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IlVIPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 11 OF 24 Either party shall give notice to the other party of any change of their address for the purpose of this section by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. 12. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 12.1 Design. Developer acknowledges to City that Developer and firms working for Developer have been reviewed by City based upon Developer's representations and warranties that Developer has particular skill and experience in construction of park and recreation facilities substantially similar to this Project. Developer shall at all times manage the construction process so as to incorporate all of City's requirements and objectives for the Project as expressed in the Contract Documents, and so as to deliver the Project within the time limits provided in this Agreement. Any instance in which Developer learns of any defect or insufficiency in the Project or any part thereof, or learns that the Work is not proceeding in accordance with City's actual objectives and requirements, then Developer shall immediately advise the Project Representative and Developer shall take all necessary action to correct same. 12.2 Building Codes. The Project, as designed and constructed, shall fully comply with all codes and standards applicable at date of this Agreement, including (a) the International Building Code; (b) Current IBC Standards; (c) Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines; (d) Current Uniform Plumbing Code; (e) Current National Electrical Code. Compliance with all of the foregoing codes shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Building Department, where applicable. Plan check fees in connection therewith shall be paid by City. Plumbing and electrical permits shall be paid by City. The foregoing codes are in addition to and not in derogation of any other codes that maybe applicable by law or governmental regulation. 12.3 Construction Documents. Developer shall keep at the Project a complete copy of the Construction Documents and shall afford the Project Representative access thereto. All cost resulting from errors, omissions, discrepancies, inconsistencies or ambiguities in the Construction Documents shall be borne by City, including any cost to correct Work akeady performed or to redesign or otherwise correct such deficiencies. 13. RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENT: Developer shall maintain all records required by law for the period required. 14. UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS 14.1 Subsurface Conditions. Should unknown physical conditions below the surface of the ground or should concealed or unknown conditions in an existing structure of an unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Agreement, be encouraged, the Completion Date shall be equitably adjusted by Change Order upon claim by either party made within a reasonable time after the first observance of the conditions. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 12 OF 24 14.2 Site Inspection. Developer acknowledges that it has taken all steps reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the Work, and that it has investigated and satisfied itself as to the general and all local conditions which can affect the Work or its cost, including but not limited to: (1) conditions bearing upon transportation, disposal, handling, and storage of materials, remodel work, tie-ins and existing structures, utilities, security, and existing operations; (2) the availability of labor, water, electric power, and roads; (3) uncertainties of weather, river stages, tides, or similar physical conditions at the site; (4) the topography and conditions of the ground; and (5) the character of equipment and facilities needed preliminary to and during work performance. Any failure of Developer to take the actions described and acknowledged in this paragraph will not relieve Developer from responsibility for estimating properly the difficulty and cost of successfully performing the work, or for proceeding to successfully perform the work without additional expense to City. City does not assume any responsibility for erroneous conclusions or interpretations made by Developer. 14.3 Representations of this Agreement. City assumes no responsibility for any conclusions or interpretations made by Developer based on the information made available by City, nor does City assume responsibility for any understanding reached or representation made concerning conditions which can affect the work by any of its officers or agents before the date hereof, unless that understanding or representation made concerning conditions which can affect the work by any of its officers or agents before the date hereof is expressly stated in this Agreement. 14.4 Notice of Conditions. Developer shall promptly, before the conditions are disturbed, and in all instances within ten (10) calendar days after the conditions are discovered, give a written notice to the Project Representative of (1) subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site which differ materially from those which a reasonably prudent Developer could anticipate, foresee, or make provision for this type of Work at such site locations; or (2) unknown physical conditions at the site, of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the Contract Documents and which could have been reasonably foreseen and/or anticipated by a prudent developer. 14.5 Duty to Investigate. City shall investigate the site conditions promptly after receiving the notice. If the conditions do materially so differ and cause an increase or decrease in Developer's time required for, performing any part of the Work under this Agreement, whether or not changed as a result of the conditions, an equitable adjustment shall be made under this clause and the Agreement modified in writing accordingly. 14.6 Additional Time. No claim by Developer for additional time shall be allowed if there is no written notification to City as required herein. 15. SUSPENSION OF WORK 15.1 City may order Developer, in writing, to suspend, delay or interrupt all or any part of the Work for such period as may be determined to be appropriate by City. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 13 OF 24 15.2 If performance of all or any part of the Work is suspended under this Agreement for the convenience of City, an equitable adjustment shall be made to the Completion Date. However, no adjustment in the Completion Date shall be made under this clause for any suspension, to the extent that performance would have been so suspended, delayed, or for which an equitable adjustment is provided for under any other term or condition of this Agreement. 16. MISCELLANEOUS 16.1 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 16.2 Date Hereof. As used herein, the term "the date hereof' shall mean the date first set forth above. Idaho. 16.3 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of 16.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between City and Developer and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement maybe amended only by written instrument signed by both City and Developer. 16.5 Severability. Should any portion of this Agreement be found to be unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction in such determination shall not void the entire Agreement, but will be limited only to those unenforceable provisions. 16.6 Attorney Fees. If either party shall default in the full and timely performance of this Agreement and said default is cured with the assistance of an attorney for the other party and before the commencement of a suit thereon, as a part of curing said default, the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the other party shall be reimbursed to the other party upon demand. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall file suit or action at law or equity to interpret or enforce this Agreement hereof, the unsuccessful party to such litigation agrees to pay to the prevailing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the prevailing party, including the same with respect to an appeal. 16.7 Ca tions. The captions at the beginning of the several paragraphs and sections, respectively, are for convenience in locating the context, but are not part of the text. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 14 OF 24 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. DATED this day of , 2006. CITY OF MERIDIAN "DEVELOPER" By: Mayor Tammy de Weerd ATTEST: By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT, INC. By: Gregory B. Johnson, President By: R. Craig Groves, Secretary/Treasurer "LANDOWNER" KENAI PARTNERS, LLC By: Gregory B. Johnson, Managing Member By: R. Craig Groves, Managing Member PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 15 OF 24 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada ) On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that 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: STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada ) On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared GREGORY B. JOHNSON and R. CRAIG GROVES, known to me to be the President and Secretary/Treasurer, respectively, of Tuscany Development, Inc., who executed the within instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that said 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. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires: PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIlVIBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 16 OF 24 ~ ~ STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared GREGORY B. JOHNSON and R. CRAIG GROVES, known or identified to me to be the Managing Members of Kenai Partners, LLC, the Idaho limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, or the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said Idaho limited liability company, and acknowledged to me that such Idaho limited liability company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires: Schedule of Exhibits: Exhibit A -Legal Description of the Park Exhibit B -Depiction of the Park Exhibit C -Deed of Gift PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IlVIPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 17 OF 24 • i EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the West 112 of the NE 114 of Section 20, T.3N., R. l E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the North 114 corner of said Section 20, from which the Northeast comer of said section bears Narth 89°46'02" East, 2b5b.88 feet; Thence along the North-Saurh rmd-section line South 00°24'04" ~fTest,1541.32 feet to the REAL POINT OF BLGIAIl~IQVG. Tbance South 89°35'56" East, 40.00 feet; Thence South 00°24'04" West, 915.87 feet; Thence North 89°54' 13" East,120.08feet; Thence North 55°29'51" East, 43.98 feet to a point on a curve; Thence 3020 feet along the arc of a non tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a delta angle of 23 °04'26", and a long chord bearing Soutb 34°30' 09~ East, 30.00 feet; Thence South 55°29'51" RTest, 32.35 feed Thence South 00°05'47"East, 154.82 feet; Thence North 89°54' ] 3" East, l Ob0.00 feet to a paint on the westerly bavndary of ®anito Subdivision, as same is recorded in Book 8b of Plats at Page 9783, records of Ada Coanty, Idaho; Thence along the West boundary of said subdivision South Ol°42'39" West, 15.01 feet to the Southwest comer of said subdivision lying on the North boundary of Thousand Springs Subdivision No. 5, as same is recorded in Book 79 of Plats at Page 8535, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said North boundary South 89°54' 13" West, 1247.79 feet to the Center of said Section 20; Thence along the Morth-Soutl-miri-section line ate, the Bast boundaryy of Resolution Subdivision No.l , as same is recorded in Baok 82 of Plats at Page 9041, rceords of Ada County, Idaho, Nardi 00°24'04" East, 1104,23 feat to the Point of Beginoing. Containing 2.04 acres, mare ar less. EXHIBIT A - • • EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF THE PARK i i -~ '`° { 's", ~ ~ 0~ ~_~ ~" , .,. .~ !~ ~ , - ~ ~~ ,~ ~ ,. ~ EXHIBIT B - 1 • • EXHIBIT C DEED OF GIFT [REPRESENATION ONLY -ORIGINAL MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED] DEED OF GIFT THIS DEED OF GIFT is made this day of , 200_, between Kenai Partners, LLC, and Idaho limited liability company ("Grantor") and City of Meridian, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho whose current address is 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho 83642 ("Grantee"). WITNESSETH: Section 1. Conveyance. AS A GIFT to Grantee, Grantor does hereby grant and convey to Grantee all of the real property located in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereafter, the "Property"), to be used as a public park ("Park") . TOGETHER with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property unto Grantee subject to the following express conditions and covenants that are accepted and agreed to by Grantee as evidenced by Grantee's execution of this Deed of Gift: Section 1. Exceptions. This conveyance by Grantor to Grantee is made subject to the following exceptions: All taxes and assessments levied against the Property, including liens and assessments of any irrigation district ("Taxes") for the year in which the conveyance is made shall be prorated between Grantor and Grantee as of the date of this Deed of Gift. Taxes levied and assessed for the prior year shall be paid by Grantor. 2. Easements and rights-of--way for roads, ditches, utilities and other purposes and uses, which easements and rights-of--way are of record or visible upon a physical inspection of the Property. 3. Exceptions, reservations, terms, covenants and conditions of record; provided, however that Grantee shall not be subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Grammercy Subdivision recorded as Instrument No. in the records of Ada County, Idaho; and further, Grantee shall not be a member of the Grammercy Subdivision Homeowners' Association, nor subject to assessments thereof. EXHIBIT C - 1 Section 2. Conditions of Conveyance. City covenants and agrees to use the Property to provide community open space and recreation facilities for the citizens of the City of Meridian. All maintenance of the Property shall be undertaken by the Grantee, and Grantee shall maintain the Property and all fixtures and equipment in satisfactory park-like condition. 2. Without the prior written consent of Grantor, which consent shall be within the sole and exclusive discretion of Grantor, at no time and under no circumstances shall the Property, or any portion thereof, or the park to be constructed thereon, be utilized for any residential, commercial, industrial or use other than the use of the Property as a public park. Section 3. Acc tance. By its acceptance below, Grantee shall be deemed to have accepted and agreed to comply with the conditions and restrictions set forth in this Deed of Gift. EXHIBIT C - 2 i • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused its name to be subscribed this December, 200_. GRANTOR: KENAI PARTNERS, LLC By: Gregory B. Johnson, Managing Member By: R. Craig Groves, Managing Member STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) day of On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Gregory B. Johnson and R. Craig Groves, known or identified to me to be the Managing Members of Kenai Partners, LLC, the Idaho limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, or the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said Idaho limited liability company, and acknowledged to me that such Idaho limited liability company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires: EXI-IIBTT C - 3 ACCEPTANCE C CITY OF MERIDIAN, by its execution below, hereby accepts the terms of the foregoing Deed of Gift, and agrees to accept title to the Property subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth therein, and agrees to comply with the same. DATED this day of , 200_ CITY OF MERIDIAN, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho By: Mayor Tammy de Weerd ATTEST: STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada ) By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that 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) Commission Expires: Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: EXHIBTT C - 4 EXHIBIT A Legal Description A parcel of land located in the West 112 of the NE 1 /4 of Section 20, T_ 3N., R. l E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly descnbed as follows: Commencing at the North 1i4 corer of said Section 20, from which the Northeast oorn+~ of said section 'bears Norio 89°46'02" East. 2656.88 feet; Thence along the Noah-South mid-section line South 00°24'04" West, 1541.32 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGIlVNQIIG. Thence South 89°35'86" East, 40.00 feet; Thence South 00°24'04" West, 915.87 feet; Thence North 89°84' 13" East,120A8feet; Thence North 55°29'51" East, 43.98 feet to a point on a curve; Thence 30.20 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a delta' angle of 23°04'26", and a long chord bearing South 34°30' 09" East, 30.00 feet; Thence Sontla 55°29'51" West, 32.35 feet; Thence South 00°05'47"East, 154.82 feet; Thence North 89°54' 13" East, 1060.00 feet W a point on the westerly boundary of gomta Subdivision, as same is recorded is Book 86 of Plats at Page 9783, records of Ada ~.`OAnty, Idaho; Th~ce along the West boundary of said subdivision South Ol°42'39" West, 1 S.OI feet to the Southwest corner of said subdivision lying on the North boundary of Thousand Springs Subdivision No, 5, as same is recorded in Book 79 of Plats at Page 8535, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said North boundary South 89°54' 13" West, 1247.79 feet to the Center of said Section 20; Thence along the North-South mid-section line and the Bast boundary of Resohrtion Subdivision No.l, as same is recorded in Book 82 of Plats at Page 9041, records of Ada County, Idaho, North 00°24' 04" East, 1104,23 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 2.04 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT C - 5 ~ ~ RECEIVED OCT 17100 City of Meridiffi City Clerk Office PARK DEVELOPMENT, IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT, AND REAL PROPERTY CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT This Park Development, Impact Fee Reimbursement, and Real Property Conveyance Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of , 2006, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (the "City"), and the developer of the Gramercy Subdivision, Tuscany Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation, whose address is 660 E. Franklin, Ste. 240, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (the "Developer"), and Kenai Partners, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, whose address is 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120, Boise, Idaho 83713 (the "Landowner"). RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Developer has agreed to purchase from Landowner certain real property located in City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, for the purposes of platting and developing the Gramercy Subdivision; and B. WHEREAS, Landowner will retain ownership of a certain portion of real property in the Gramercy Subdivision consisting of two and four hundredths (2.04) acres more particularly described in a legal description attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A (the "Property"); and C. WHEREAS, Landowner desires to gift, grant and transfer the Property, and City desires to receive as a gift, have granted and have transferred the Property; and D. WHEREAS, Developer has undertaken at its own expense to construct and develop the Property as a park (the "Park"), adjacent to that existing Kiwanis Neighborhood Park ("Kiwanis Park"), which when completed such Park will be incorporated into and connected with Kiwanis Park; and E. WHEREAS, Developer has undertaken at its own expense to construct and develop additional park improvements to the existing Kiwanis Park; and F. WHEREAS, Developer has agreed to provide the construction, installation and inspection of the improvements necessary to construct the Project strictly adhering to City specifications, the benefit of Developer being completion of the design and construction of the Project at a date earlier than would be possible if City were to undertake such construction, and the benefits to City being the completion of construction of the Project at substantially less cost and expense, resulting in a savings to the citizens and residents of Meridian, and the obtaining of additional park space and improvements for the use and enjoyment of the citizens and residents of Meridian at a date earlier than would otherwise be possible, which benefits to City are determined substantial and in the best interests of City and its citizens and residents; and PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE I OF 25 G. WHEREAS, Developer desires to donate a portion of the Work on the Project to City as a gift; and H. WHEREAS, City has earmarked and will earmark certain impact fee funds for Work on the Project, and City desires to use those impact fee fiends to reimburse Developer for the portion of the Work on the Project that is not donated by Developer; and I. WHEREAS, City, pursuant to Meridian City Code section 10-7-9, and Idaho Code sections 67-8207 and 8209, has the authority to enter into agreements with developers for the constriction of system improvements, including park and recreation facilities, when the same are to be paid by development impact fees; and J. WHEREAS, Developer is entitled to receive reimbursement in the calculation of development impact fees, for the present value of any construction of system improvements of the category for which the development impact fee is being collected, provided that an agreement for such reimbursement is negotiated in good faith; and K. WHEREAS, City agrees that the use of the park impact fee reimbursement will help City achieve its goal of increasing its inventory of neighborhood parks. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, City, Developer, and Landowner do hereby agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement, the following words have the meanings herein stated: 1.1 "City" shall mean City of Meridian acting through its Parks and Recreation Department ("MPR"). 1.2 "Construction Documents" shall mean the completed and fully detailed drawings and specifications prepared by and paid for by City, setting forth in detail the requirements for construction of the Work. Upon review and acceptance of the Construction Documents by City and Developer, the same shall be incorporated into this Agreement. The Construction Documents shall become the property of City. Construction Documents must comply with the Program Documents and the design development documents, or with deviations agreed to by City and Developer. 1.3 "Contract Documents" shall mean this Agreement, and any other modifications authorized by Change Order issued pursuant to this Agreement. City shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished under this Agreement. City shall, without additional PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 25 • compensation, correct or revise any en-ors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications. and other services. In the event of any inconsistencies among the Contract Documents, the documents will first be interpreted as a reasonable whole to assure that the goal of a fiuctional facility is achieved. Should the inconsistency still exist then, the documents will be interpreted as follows: The Construction Documents, the design development documents and then the Program Documents. 1.4 "Desi En ig neer" shall mean the firm of Pinnacle Engineering, 12552 Executive Drive, Boise, Idaho 83713, and will not be changed without the prior written consent of City. 1.5 "Developer" shall mean Tuscany Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation, 660 E. Franklin, Ste. 240, Meridian, Idaho 83642, Developer of the Gramercy Subdivision. 1.6 "Landowner" shall mean Kenai Partners, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120, Boise, Idaho 83713. 1.7 "Pro~,ram Documents" shall mean all of the requirements and minimum quality standards applicable to the Project outlined by City in its standard plans, details, and specifications. City warrants that its design development documents and its complete design of the Project does and will fully satisfy or exceed the requirements of the Program Documents in providing fully functional facilities, unless indicated otherwise in the approved design development documents. If quality levels are not stated in the Program Documents, it shall remain at the same level of quality and workmanship established for the rest of the Project. 1.8 "Project" shall mean both the design and construction of certain park improvements to the existing Kiwanis Park and the design and construction of the new Park with the legal description attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A (the "Property"), attached hereto and incorporated herein, of Gramercy Subdivision No. 1, consisting of two and four hundredths (2.04) acres, as donated by Landowner and as approved by the Meridian Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and the Meridian City Council 1.9 "Project Representative" shall mean the person appointed by City to act on its behalf as to matters indicated under this Agreement. The appropriate Project Representative during the design phase and the construction phase is Doug Strong or his designee. City may employ an additional outside consultant to act with and on behalf of City as an inspector. 1.10 "Work" shall mean all labor, equipment, materials, management services and other services necessary or appropriate to construct the Project. 2. TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY 2.1 Transfer of Title. Landowner agrees to gift, grant and convey, and City agrees to receive as a gift, to have granted and to have conveyed the Property. City's agreement to accept the gift of real property is conditioned upon the City's review of the condition of title to the Property. City will not accept the gift of real property until City is satisfied through its review of PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 3 OF 25 the state of title that there are no monetary liens or any encumbrances that would cause the Property to be incapable of being used for the purposes contemplated by this Agreement. 2.2 Deed. Landowner shall convey the Property to City by a deed of gift substantially similar to the Deed of Gift attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof. 2.3 Title Commitment/Title Policy. Landowner makes no express or implied warranties pertaining to the condition of title to the Property. City has chosen to obtain at its own expense a title commitment and/or a title policy on the Property through Lawyers Title of Treasure Valley. 2.4 Gift Date. The transfer of the Property contemplated by this Agreement shall take place on or before December 31, 2007 (the "Gift Date"), at a location and time mutually agreed upon by the parties. The transfer of the Property shall take place through escrow closing at Lawyers Title of Treasure Valley, with costs shared equally by Landowner and City. 2.5 Prorations. All items typically prorated, including, without limitation, taxes, liens and assessments, shall be prorated as of the Gift Date. All prorations shall be final. 2.6 Tax Status. It is understood that Landowner intends for the transfer of the Property to City to represent a gift and to qualify as atax-exempt contribution to City. In recognition of the gift from Landowner, City will provide information and assistance as necessary for completion of the applicable Department of Treasury Forms and other reasonable documentation as maybe required to document such gift. 3. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER 3.1 Improvements to be Constructed by the Developer. Developer shall complete Work on the Project as described on Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein, subject to to the donation and reimbursement provisions in Section 7 of this Agreement. 3.2 Additional Improvements to be Constructed By Other Parties. Parties other than Developer shall complete Work on the following additional improvements, including without limitation: (i) picnic Shelter; (ii) restrooms; (iii) installation of playground equipment; and (iv) basketball court. The improvements listed in this paragraph are not subject to this Agreement and Developer is not obligated to construct said improvements. 3.3 Plans and Specifications. The Park improvements shall be installed and constructed as shown on the plans, details and specifications that are in accordance with MPR's adopted Master Plan and MPR's standard plans, details and specifications (Contract Documents), as per the technical specifications for the Park paid for by City and submitted by Design Engineer. These Contract Documents shall be approved by the director of MPR and other applicable government agencies prior to development. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 4 OF 25 • • 3.~1 Work. Developer shall provide all construction supervision, inspection, labor, materials, tools. equipment, and all other Work necessary for the execution and completion of the Project. 3.5 Work Area. Developer shall at all times keep all areas where work is being perforned or materials stored, and surrounding areas, free from the accumulation of waste materials or rtbbish caused by his operations. Upon completion of the Work or any portions thereof accepted by City for partial occupancies, Developer shall remove all waste and nebbish and all constriction tools, equipment, machinery and surplus materials from such areas. Developer will comply with the dust control ordinance. 3.6 Repair and Remodel. City may use the proposal documents, the design development documents and the Construction Documents and modifications thereof for any remodel renovation, addition or repair of the Project or any part thereof. 3.7 Defects. Developer warrants to City that all materials and equipment furnished under this Agreement will be new; that all Work will be of good quality, free from improper workmanship and defect, and, fiirther, that the materials and equipment used in construction will be constricted and installed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Developer shall correct any work that fails to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents where such failure to conform appears during the progress of the Work, and shall remedy any defects due to faulty materials, equipment or workmanship which appear within a period of one year from the Completion Date. The provisions of this Agreement apply to work performed by Developer and Developer's subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers. All corrections shall be made at no additional cost and at no increase in the contract price. With respect to latent defects not reasonably discoverable within such one year period of time, such defects shall be corrected by Developer upon written request given within one year from the actual date of discovery of such defect, except that Developer shall not be required to correct latent defects first discovered later than three (3) years from the Completion Date. The foregoing warranties are in addition to and not a limitation of: (i) all other rights and remedies available at law and equity including any specific additional warranties contained elsewhere in the Contract Documents, (ii) such warranties as may be available from manufacturers of equipment, suppliers of materials or other third-parties,(iii) Developer's obligation to complete all Work in strict accordance with the Contract Documents, and (iv) City's other remedies. 3.8 Inspection Certificates. Developer will secure and submit certificates of all inspection, testing, or approvals to the Project Representative. 3.9 Manufacturer Warranties. Developer will collect and submit to City all manufacturers' warranties and all other documents relating to materials and facilities otherwise required by the Contract Documents. 3.10 Other Warranties. Any warranties provided by Developer and of third parties are for the benefit of City. Developer will be obligated and responsible to City to the full extent of any warranties provided by subcontractors, suppliers, manufacturers or others. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 5 OF 25 3.11 hsurance. Developer shall provide such insurance as is required in the Section 9 of this Agreement. 4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY 4.1 Duties of City. City shall provide Developer and Landowner with the following: 4.1.1 Engineering and architectural designs prepared by City's independent contractor necessary to complete the Project. 4.1.2 Construction Documents of the Project prepared by City's independent contractor and in accordance with the design development documents and all applicable building codes in effect on the date hereof. All design, engineering, architectural, or other professional services that are a part of the Work shall be performed by duly licensed professionals, skilled and experienced in this type of project. 4.1.3 Specifications for the ten (10) foot wide multi-use pathway for the portion that goes through the Park. 4.1.4 Specifications for the pressurized irrigation system and irrigation pond. 4.1.5 Specifications for the Park's pressurized irrigation pump station currently existing at the Park site. 4.1.6 Specifications for the location of the sewer and water stubs to the Park. 4.1.7 Specifications for the location of other utilities for the Park. 4.1.8 Specifications for the PUIS design for the Park. 4.2 Project Representative. The Project Representative shall be acquainted with the Project and shall act on behalf of City with respect to the Project, subject to the limitations upon such authority contained in this Agreement. The Project Representative during the design phase and the construction phase is Doug Strong. If City desires a Project Representative other than Doug Strong, then City shall designate the new Project Representative in writing as provided in Section 11, below. 4.3 Notice of Fault Defect, or Nonconformance. If City becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project or non-conformance with the Contract Documents, City shall give prompt written notice to Developer. 4.4 Fees Assessments, and Charges. City shall secure and pay for all necessary approvals, easements, assessments, and charges required for use, or occupancy of the facilities, including any plan check fee required by the Meridian City Building Department. 5. SUBCONTRACTORS PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 6 OF 25 ~ ~ 5. I All Work not perfoi-~ned with Developer's own forces shall be performed under written subcontracts. Developer shall submit to City, a list of the~names and addresses of all subcontractors, suppliers, and consultants. Developer shall complete Form WH-5 as required by the State Tax Commission. 5.2 No contract or agreement, express or implied, shall be deemed to exist between City and any subcontractor, supplier, consultant or other person acting on behalf of Developer. Developer shall be responsible for the control and direction of all subcontractors, supplies, and other persons participating in the construction of the Project and shall be responsible to City for their acts and omissions, and their failure to perform the Work in strict accordance with the Contract Documents. Developer shall be responsible for the payment of all subcontractors, supplies and other third parties participating in the construction of the Work and shall indemnity, defend, and hold City harmless from any claim, liability, cause of action, or suit relating to or arising out of the acts of such person or failure to make payments due or allegedly due any of such persons. 6. COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT 6.1 Construction Completion. Developer shall substantially complete all Work on the Project by June 7, 2007, weather permitting. Time extensions may be granted hereunder by City in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. If a time extension is not granted, then in that event if Developer fails to complete construction within the time periods herein stated, Developer shall be in default of this Agreement. 6.2 Completion of the Project. Completion of the Project shall mean the date deternlined by the Project Representative and Developer when construction is sufftciently complete in accordance with the Construction Documents so that City can fully occupy or effectively utilize the facilities for its intended use. At the time of City occupancy of the Project, City shall direct the Project Representative to execute a written certificate of completion (the "Certificate of Completion"). The date of the Certificate of Completion shall be the "Completion Date." All warranties, including, without limitation, the three (3) year warranty provided in Section 3, shall commence on the Completion Date. 7. REIMBURSEMENTS AND PAYMENTS 7.1 Total Project Budget. The total Project budget is Seven Hundred Fifty Six Thousand, Thirty Seven and no/100 Dollars ($756,037.00), as detailed on Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 7.2 Donation. Developer agrees to donate to City Park improvements and Work in the amount of Two Hundred Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($275,000.00). 7.3 Reimbursement. City shall reimburse Developer for the remaining costs associated with any Park improvements and Work performed by Developer in an amount not to exceed the Total Project Budget as set forth in Section 7.1, less the amount of the Donation set forth in Section 7.2, said amount being Four Hundred Eighty One Thousand Thirty Seven and PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 7 OF 25 ~ ~ no/100 Dollars ($481.037.00)Developer shall submit to City invoices for any and all completed and uncompensated costs on the first day of each month until such time as Developer completes construction on the Park. City, upon verification of work completed, shall pay Developer in full for each invoice received before the last day of the same month in which City receives the invoice to the extent such invoice requests payment for Reimbursed Costs. City shall pay Developer at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum for any invoices not paid in full by the end of the month in which Developer submitted the invoice to City. 8. CHANGES IN THE PROJECT 8.1 Changes by Cit_y. City, without invalidating this Agreement, may order changes within the general scope of the Project consisting of additions, deletions or other revisions. The Completion Date shall be adjusted accordingly. Changes in the Project may be authorized only by written Change Order approved by City. 8.1.1 Change Order ("Change Order") is a written order to Developer issued by City after the date hereof, authorizing a change in the Project or the Completion Date. 8.1.2 City will provide Developer written authorization and direction to make City requested Design Changes. Any City directed Additional Design Changes will be paid by written Change Order. 8.2 Claims for Additional Time. 8.2.1 If Developer wishes to make a claim for an extension in the Completion Date or in an instance where Developer contends it was delayed by an act or omission of City, it shall give City written notice thereof within ten (10) calendar days after the occurrence of the event giving rise to such claim, which claim shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. This notice shall be given by Developer before proceeding to execute any Work affected by the event giving rise to such a claim, except in an emergency endangering life or property in which case Developer shall act, at his discretion, to prevent threatened damage, injury or loss. 8.2.2 If it is determined from the claim and notice submitted by Developer that City has delayed Developer, then City shall issue a Change Order and an extension of time shall be granted for the demonstrated period of time lost that is directly attributable to the delay. 9. INSURANCE, INDEMNITY AND WAIVER OF SUBROGATION 9.1 Indemnity. Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its agents, employees, representative, consultants and successors from and against all claims, damages, costs, liabilities, judgments, legal fees, expenses, actions, and suits for personal injury, death, and property damage, arising out of the Project, the Work, or the acts or omissions of Developer, subcontractors, suppliers, agents, consultants, representatives and materialmen, including without limitation the employees of each, caused by any negligent or wrongful act or omission of any of such persons or by any failure to comply fully with any term or condition of the Contract PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 8 OF 25 • Documents, to the extent the acts, omission, or negligence of City did not cause such claims, damages, costs, liabilities, judgments, legal fees, or expenses. 9.2 Liability Insurance. Developer shall carry the.following insurance for Work on the Project: 9.2.1 The primary engineer and all associates and consultants shall carry professional liability insurance with a minimum limit of Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($500,000.00). This insurance shall continue for two years after the Completion Date. 9.2.2 Developer shall purchase and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single limit on One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence. The policy shall provide coverage for bodily injury and property damage, and shall include broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury liability (including coverage for employee acts), blanket contractual liability and products and completed operations. Liability coverage shall be provided for hazards commonly referred to as XCU (explosion, collapse, and underground). 9.2.3 All subcontractors of any tier shall be required to provide comprehensive general liability insurance with combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of at least One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, comprehensive auto liability insurance for all owned, non-owned vehicles with combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of at least One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence or other limits as approved by City. 9.2.4 Developer and its subcontractors shall carry Worker's Compensation Insurance to cover obligations imposed by Federal and State statutes covering all employees, and employers' liability insurance with a minimum limit of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and No/100 Dollars ($100,000.00) per Accident; Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) per Disease Policy Limit; One Hundred Thousand Dollars and No/100 Dollars ($100,000.00) Disease, each employee. 9.2.5 Insurance Policy Requirements: All insurance required in this Section 9.3 shall be endorsed as follows: (a) City, including their respective agents, employees, consultants and representative shall be named as additional insured. (b) The insurance required shall contain a severability of interest clause such that the insurance afforded applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. (c) All insurance policies shall not be terminated or cancelled without thirty (30) calendar days advance written notice of cancellation to be provided by the insurance company. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 9 OF 25 • (d) The insurance afforded by Developer shall be primary insurance and any insurance carried by City shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Developer. (e) Each entity providing insurance shall furnish certificates of insurance that shall specifically set forth evidence of all coverage required above. If required each entity providing insurance will allow the other party to review and copy such insurance provisions contained in the certified policies. 10. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND CITY'S RIGHT TO PERFORM DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATIONS 10.1 Termination for Cause. 10.1.1 If Developer fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement City, may upon seven (7) calendar days' written notice to Developer and Landowner take such action as is necessary to perform such obligation either with or without terminating this Agreement. 10.1.2 In the event of any material breach of this Agreement by Developer, after ten (10) calendar days written notice to Developer, City may, in addition to any other remedies available, terminate this Agreement, take possession of the Project site and the raw materials, equipment, tools, construction equipment and machinery thereon owned or provided by Developer and may finish the Work by whatever reasonable means and methods City may determine necessary or expedient. In such instance Developer relieved from any of its obligations under this Agreement, including obligations assumed under the liability for damages paragraph listed herein. 10.1.3 As used in the foregoing paragraph, a material default shall include but is not limited to: (a) persistent or repeated failures to provide properly skilled workmen or materials or failure to prosecute the Work according to the progress schedules provided herein; (b) unjustified failure to make proper payments to subcontractors for materials or labor; (c) persistent or intentional disregard of laws, ordinance, rules, regulations or orders of any public authority having jurisdiction; (d) being adjudged to be bankrupt or being subject to any state or federal insolvency proceedings. 10.2 Amendment. In the event City Council determines that this Agreement shall be modified, the terms of this Agreement shall be amended and Developer shall comply with the amended terms. Failure to comply with the amended terms shall result in default. 10.3 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by 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. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 10 OF 25 10.4 Plans and Specifications. In the event of any teinlination, whether if for cause or without cause. City shall have the right to reproducible copies of all design and construction plans and specifications, the ownership of all work in progress, and the right to complete all construction. 11. NOTICES 11.1 Any and all notices, demands, requests or other communications required under this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly served or delivered, if delivered by hand to the party to whose attention it is directed, or when sent, three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt request, or one (1) day after deposit with a nationally recognized air carrier providing next day delivery, or if sent via facsimile transmission, when received as detei7nined by the facsimile transmission report related thereto, addressed as follows: To City: Meridian City Clerk 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 With a copy to: Doug Strong, Director, Parks and Recreation Department 11 W. Bower Meridian, Idaho 83642 To Developer: Tuscany Development, Inc. 660 E. Franklin, Ste. 240 Meridian, Idaho 83642 To Landowner: Kenai Partners, LLC 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120 Boise, Idaho 83713 Either party shall give notice to the other party of any change of their address for the purpose of this section by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. 12. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 12.1 Desi .Developer acknowledges to City that Developer and firms working for Developer have been reviewed by City based upon Developer's representations and warranties that Developer has particular skill and experience in construction of park and recreation facilities substantially similar to this Project. Developer shall at all times manage the construction process so as to incorporate all of City's requirements and objectives for the Project as expressed in the Contract Documents, and so as to deliver the Project within the time limits provided in this Agreement. Any instance in which Developer learns of any defect or insufficiency in the Project or any part thereof, or learns that the Work is not proceeding in accordance with City's actual PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE I 1 OF 25 • objectives and requirements, then Developer shall immediately advise the Project Representative and Developer shall take all necessary action to coi7ect same. 12.2 Building_Codes. The Project, as designed and constructed, shall fully comply with all codes and standards applicable at date of this Agreement, including (a) the International Building Code; (b) Current IBC Standards; (c) Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines; (d) Current Uniform Plumbing Code; (e) CutTent National Electrical Code. Compliance with all of the foregoing codes shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Building Department, where applicable. Plan check fees in connection therewith shall be paid by City. Plumbing and electrical permits shall be paid by City. The foregoing codes are in addition to and not in derogation of any other codes that maybe applicable by law or governmental regulation. 12.3 Constriction Documents. Developer shall keep at the Project a complete copy of the Construction Documents and shall afford the Project Representative access thereto. All .cost resulting from errors, omissions, discrepancies, inconsistencies or ambiguities in the Construction Documents shall be borne by City, including any cost to correct Work already performed or to redesign or otherwise correct such deficiencies. 13. RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENT: Developer shall maintain all records required by law for the period required. 14. UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS 14.1 Subsurface Conditions. Should unknown physical conditions below the surface of the ground or should concealed or unknown conditions in an existing structure of an unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Agreement, be encouraged, the Completion Date shall be equitably adjusted by Change Order upon claim by either party made within a reasonable time after the first observance of the conditions. 14.2 Site Inspection. Developer acknowledges that it has taken all steps reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the Work, and that it has investigated and satisfied itself as to the general and all local conditions which can affect the Work or its cost, including but not limited to: (1) conditions bearing upon transportation, disposal, handling, and storage of materials, remodel work, tie-ins and existing structures, utilities, security, and existing operations; (2) the availability of labor, water, electric power, and roads; (3) uncertainties of weather, river stages, tides, or similar physical conditions at the site; (4) the topography and conditions of the ground; and (5) the character of equipment and facilities needed preliminary to and during work performance. Any failure of Developer to take the actions described and acknowledged in this paragraph will not relieve Developer from responsibility for estimating properly the difficulty and cost of successfully performing the work, or for proceeding to successfully perform the work without additional expense to City. City does not assume any responsibility for erroneous conclusions or interpretations made by Developer. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 12 OF 25 • 14.3 Representations of this Agreement. City assumes no responsibility for any conclusions or interpretations made by Developer based on the information made available by City, nor does City assume responsibility for any understanding reached or representation made concerning conditions which can affect the work by any of its officers or agents before the date hereof, unless that understanding or representation made concerning conditions which can affect the work by any of its officers or agents before the date hereof is expressly stated in this Agreement. 14.4 Notice of Conditions. Developer shall promptly, before the conditions are disturbed, and in all instances within ten (10) calendar days after the conditions are discovered, give a written notice to the Project Representative of: (1) subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site which differ materially from those which a reasonably prudent Developer could anticipate, foresee, or make provision for this type of Work at such site locations; or (2) unknown physical conditions at the site, of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the Contract Documents and which could have been reasonably foreseen and/or anticipated by a prudent developer. 14.5 Duty to Investigate. City shall investigate the site conditions promptly after receiving the notice. If the conditions do materially so differ and cause an increase or decrease in Developer's time required for, performing any part of the Work under this Agreement, whether or not changed as a result of the conditions, an equitable adjustment shall be made under this clause and the Agreement modified in writing accordingly. 14.6 Additional Time. No claim by Developer for additional time shall be allowed if there is no written notification to City as required herein. 15. SUSPENSION OF WORK 15.1 City may order Developer, in writing, to suspend, delay or interrupt all or any part of the Work for such period as may be determined to be appropriate by City. 15.2 If performance of all or any part of the Work is suspended under this Agreement for the convenience of City, an equitable adjustment shall be made to the Completion Date. However, no adjustment in the Completion Date shall be made under this clause for any suspension, to the extent that performance would have been so suspended, delayed, or for which an equitable adjustment is provided for under any other term or condition of this Agreement. 16. MISCELLANEOUS 16.1 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 16.2 Date Hereof. As used herein, the term "the date hereof' shall mean the date first set forth above. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 13 OF 25 16.3 Govel7iina Law. Tlus Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Idaho. 16.4 Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between City and Developer and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement maybe amended only by written instniment signed by both City and Developer. 16.5 Severability. Should any portion of this Agreement be found to be unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction in such determination shall not void the entire Agreement, but will be limited only to those unenforceable provisions. 16.6 Attorne~Fees. If either party shall default in the full and timely performance of this Agreement and said default is cured with the assistance of an attorney for the other party and before the commencement of a suit thereon, as a part of curing said default, the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the other party shall be reimbursed to the other party upon demand. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall file suit or action at law or equity to interpret or enforce this Agreement hereof, the unsuccessful party to such litigation agrees to pay to the prevailing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the prevailing party, including the same with respect to an appeal. 16.7 Captions. The captions at the beginning of the several paragraphs and sections, respectively, are for convenience in locating the context, but are not part of the text. PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 14 OF 25 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. DATED this day of , 2006. CITY OF MERIDIAN "DEVELOPER" TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT, 1NC. R v: Mayor Tammy de Weerd ATTEST: R v: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk By: Gregory B. Johnson, President By: R. Craig Groves, Secretary/Treasurer "LANDOWNER" KENAI PARTNERS, LLC By: Gregory B. Johnson, Managing Member By: R. Craig Groves, Managing Member PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 15 OF 25 r ~ STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada ) • On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that 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) STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada ) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires:_ On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared GREGORY B. JOHNSON and R. CRAIG GROVES, known to me to be the President and Secretary/Treasurer, respectively, of Tuscany Development, Inc., who executed the within instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that said 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. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires: PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 16 OF 25 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared GREGORY B. JOHNSON and R. CRAIG GROVES, known or identified to me to be the Managing Members of Kenai Partners, LLC, the Idaho limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, or the persons who executed the instniment on behalf of said Idaho limited liability company, and acknowledged to me that such Idaho limited liability company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) Schedule of Exhibits: Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires:_ Exhibit A -Legal Description of the Park Exhibit B -Deed of Gift Exibit C -Elements of Project Improvements Exhibit D -Total Project Budget PARK DEVELOPMENT AND PARK IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT PAGE 17 OF 25 . ,. EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the West 1%2 of the NE ll4 of Section 20, T.3N., It.1 E., k3.v1., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the North 1I4 earner of said Section 20, fronn which the Northeast corner of said section bears North 89°4fi'OZ" East, 2656.88 feet; Thence along the North-South mid-section line South 00°24'04" West, 1541.32 feet to the ttEAI. I'®Y~'T OE BE~II`~IING. Thence South 89°35',56" East, 40.00 feet; Thence South 00°24'04" West, 915.87 feet; T'hencc North 89°54' I3" East, 120.fl8 feet; Thence North 55 °29' S l "Bast, 43.98 feet to a point on a curve; Tlietice 30.20 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a delta: angle of 23°04'26", and a long chord beaming South 34°30'09" East, 30.0® feet; Thence South 55°29'52"West, 32.35 feet; 'T'hence South 00°05'47" East, 154,82 feet; Thence North 89°54' 13" East, 1060.(}0 feet to a poixit on the westerly boundary of Bonita Subdivision, as same is recorded in Book 86 of Plats at Page 57783, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along the 1>4'est boundary of Sand subdiviston South O1°42'39" West, 15.01 feet to the Southwest corn~;r of said subdivision lying on the North boundary of Thousand Springs Subdivision No. -5, as same is recorded in Book 79 of Plats at Page 6535, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said North boundary South 89°54' I3" West, 1247.79 feet to the Center of said Section 20; Thence along the lJoath-South mid-section tine and the East boundazy of Resolution Subdivision No.l, as same is recorded in Book 82 of Plats at Page 9041, records of Ada County, Idaho, North 00°24'04" East, 1104,23 feet to the Point of Begitaning. Containing 2.04 acres, more or Less. y i EXHIBIT B DEED OF GIFT [REPRESENATION ONLY -ORIGINAL MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED] DEED OF GIFT THIS DEED OF GIFT is made this day of , 200_, between Kenai Partners, LLC, and Idaho limited liability company ("Grantor") and City of Meridian, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho whose current address is 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho 83642 ("Grantee"). WITNESSETH: Section 1. Conveyance. AS A GIFT to Grantee, Grantor does hereby grant and convey to Grantee all of the real property located in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereafter, the "Property"), to be used as a public park ("Park") . TOGETHER with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining. This conveyance by Grantor to Grantee is made subject to the following exceptions: All taxes and assessments levied against the Property, including liens and assessments of any irrigation district ("Taxes") for the year in which the conveyance is made shall be prorated between Grantor and Grantee as of the date of this Deed of Gift. Taxes levied and assessed for the prior year shall be paid by Grantor. 2. Easements and rights-of--way for roads, ditches, utilities and other purposes and uses, which easements and rights-of--way are of record or visible upon a physical inspection of the Property. 3. Exceptions, reservations, terms, covenants and conditions of record; provided, however that Grantee shall not be subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Kenai Subdivision recorded as Instrument No. in the records of Ada County, Idaho; and further, Grantee shall not be a member of the Kenai Subdivision Homeowners' Association, nor subject to assessments thereof. Section 2. Conditions of Conveyance. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property unto Grantee subject to the following express conditions and covenants which are accepted and agreed to by Grantee as evidenced by Grantee's execution of this Deed of Gift (collectively, "Grantee Covenants"): City covenants and agrees to use the Property to provide community open space and recreation facilities for the citizens of the City of Meridian. All maintenance of the Property shall be undertaken by the Grantee, and Grantee shall maintain the Property and all fixtures and equipment in satisfactory park-like condition. Prohibitions on Use. Without the prior written consent of Grantor, which consent shall be within the sole and exclusive discretion of Grantor, at no time and under no circumstances shall the Property, or any portion thereof, or the park to be constructed thereon. be utilized for any residential. commercial, industrial or use other than the use of the Property as a public pack. Restriction of Transfer. The Property shall not, in whole or in part, be transferred or conveyed by Grantee. By: Section 3. Term of Grantee Covenants -Succession. The term of the Grantee Covenants shall commence on the date of recordation of this Deed of Gift and continue thereafter for a period of thirty (30) years following the date of recordation of this Deed of Gift ("Covenant Term"). From and after the expiration of the Covenant Term, the Grantee Covenants shall automatically terminate and end and shall be of no further force or effect. The Grantee Covenants shall be a burden on the Property for the benefit of the Grantor, its successors and assigns, and shall run with the land. Section 4. Acceptance. By its acceptance below, Grantee shall be deemed to have accepted and agreed to comply with the conditions and restrictions set forth in this Deed of Gift. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused its name to be subscribed this day of December, 200_ GRANTOR: KENAIPARTNERS,LLC Gregory B. Johnson, Managing Member By: R. Craig Groves, Managing Member STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Gregory B. Johnson and R. Craig Groves, known or identified to me to be the Managing Members of Kenai Partners, LLC, the Idaho limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, or the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said Idaho limited liability company, and acknowledged to me that such Idaho limited liability company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year ill this certificate first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires:_ r } A ACCEPTANCE CITY OF MERIDIAN, by its execution below, hereby accepts the terms of the foregoing Deed of Gift, and agrees to accept title to the Property subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth therein, and agrees to comply with the same. DATED this day of , 200 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada ) ATTEST: CITY OF MERIDIAN, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho By: Mayor Tammy de Weerd William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk By: On this day of , 2006, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that 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) Commission Expires: Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: ~ ~ EXHIBIT A (EYhibit to Deed of Gift) Legal Description A parcel of land located in the West lit of the NE li4 of Section 20, T.3N., R.1E., B.ivl., Ada County, Naha, moreparticulariy described as fellows: Couarneucing at the North i/4 corner of said Section 20, from which the Narthex~st corner of said section bears North 39°46'02" East, 2656.&R feet; Thence along the North-South mid-section line 5auth 00°24'04" West, 1541.32 feet to the %EAI., INT ®F BE~L"d1~I1,J~. T'henez South $9°3S'S6" East, 40.fl0 fee~f; Thence South 00°24'04" West, 915.87 feet; Thence North 89°54' 13" East, 120,08 feet; Thence North 55 °29' S1 "East, 4398 feet to a point on a carve; 'Thence 30.20 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a delta angle of 23°fl4'26", and a long chozd bearing South 34°30'09" East, 30.00 feet; T'her4ce Sa.uth 55°2.9'51" West, 32.35 feet; Thence South 00°05'47" East, 154.82 feet; Thence North 89°54' 13" East, 10b0.Q0 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of F3anita Subdivision, as s~une is recorded in Book 86 of Plats at Page 9783, records afAda County, Idaho; 'Thence along the `t~'cst boundary of said subdivision South !31°42'39" West, J.5.01 feet to the Southwest carver of said subdivision lying on the North boundary of Thousand Springs Subdivision No. S, as same is reeorde~d in Book 79 ofPlats at ,Page &535, rc-cards of Ada County> Idaho; Thence along saidd Nartl-. boundary South 89°54' 13" West, 1247.79 feet to the Center of said. Scotian 20; 'Thence slang the North-South mid-section tine and the East boundary of Resolution Subdivision No.l, as wane is recorded iri Book $2 of Plats at Page 9041, records of Ada Cauuty, Idaho, North 00°24'04" East, 1104..23 feet to the Point of Begixuming. Cot~taiaing 2.04 acres, more or less. S A EXHIBIT C Ki•t~rani'~ ~elerdiarr i'~arGt. -breakr~~t~n r~~i~PSCc_.~ ~l~eit~G~rt~6 ~F~'FL~a 4:t}., ~rIC. ~" ~~rt~ °'tlr'=,:llatlf;_ilr. ".?~ '~~CI.CPu J ?IYf9:~fri?truf r i':e ~"its' Clr31r ~i~~~ ~h' t`~.~t~ ?urfd r tv'3' ~ 'I"i~~n C27 ~~S.C'€`u' Pend I r~ ~ in :. ~~~ 17C+.C4 dip-rap ~r~~lrni F~r.~ ~„ C,+C+~.C~7 r~.f`3f~~ .+htl „#~+.r_+r.~ i<+~k;ri-a ~-i? oa:}C'•C„ P.~ .,?M~v~ ~~rl..i-u I~t W-~i=3,rt~1Gt"G', ~° C:C+~tr~a + a hcia.ad c~7 C G+C ?~.#u3'vu 3~t:siat J3?~7a 5.77 7-cL't+.C+u rl"-ta3ii CUllrr~t Rr~ i1kC1.[1~: Jectri~~ ~,~~dt C.ctt~uh ~~~ t9'-C`C ~~und aLra=7~r a ~~~~7C' ~°~ r ~ _,H.e ~ _:raEri' fi~~i~+~':.=+t ~ .I'v li~r~ ~ 3.tC+" ~ieii =h ~*irs~ ~1~.QCtL_Uu ~~udi~~ 7,dE,.~u ~'~rt tr~~ `'~ ,,_~. z '- Lar~d~ca~e m ~nt~ran:~ ~~. ~~-`.~~~ P'ilrlil' I'l~% `~~~~'~~ 1=irrt~l '~r~lk ~-~rc~u~~ ~~~~_C~L~ tut'~!~-~~erd drau~~,~rc-~j fst 5~~ar ~~.~ ~ ~Arint. `~Ct~:C7G+ =~p~ru1- ,_a~ ;,~'~ ~ ~,°.r3~ ~r,.~~c>+'t€lr}~t tiMp. ~9~.9~'iC+.CF ~"~ ~ _ < , _ ~~.~~ C=_ ~~l ~C..'4r ~J. a~d'u.~t ~;~:I~t", ~t~. ~ ~. ~ ~".~3+a S~~,174.~" ~~tit~d ~fi~~t[ d~r~t€c~n: ~~rriEBr .€~ ;~. ~"~~ t€arrt~~had r~x~t,Wrials ,~,Gt. ~t - Pry- . ~~i° ~~~~Ir~~ C~ vrat~rt ~~b.~'~7'.~ ; ,fit. #~- Pr~~. ~ v" t;at~t~ ° 8~ °~;~ ~~Ct t.r ~~tire 't~.~~il~ a .Y, EXHIBIT D Kiwanis Park Project Budget Landscape Contract $649,174.00 Survey & Staking (allowance) 7,000.00 Contingency 10% 64,000.00 Construction Management 5% 33,130.25 Insurance 2,732.75 Total Proiect Budget $756.037.00 Less: Developer Contribution $275,000.00 Less: Landowner Contribution $ (approx. 2.035 acres) Remaining Proiect Cost $481,037.00 Kiwanis Park Budget $340,684.00 Less: Restroom, Playground 140,216.00 Remaining Kiwanis Park budget $ 200,468.00 Unfunded difference $ 280,569.00 Budget Amendment needed X280,569.00 • October 13, 2006 FP 06-045 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT Incline Village, LLC ITEM NO. S REQUEST Final Plat approval of 61 single-family residential building lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village Subdivision - 1947 & 1923 N. Black Cat Road and 5136 W. Cherry Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS See attached Staff Comments See attached Comments Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Mertdlan. • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C October 17, 2006 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF INCLINE VILLAGE, LLC FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 61 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 8 COMMON LOTS ON 20.01 ACRES IN AN R-4 ZONE LOCATED AT 1947 AND 1923 NORTH BLACK CAT ROAD AND 5136 WEST CHERRY LANE IN A PORTION OF THE SE 1/ OF T. 3N., R.1W., SECTION 4 CASE NO. FP-06-045 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 October 17, 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: October 17, 2006, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT I5 HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE SE '/ OF T. 3N., R. 1 W., SECTION 4, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006, ORDER OF CONDTTIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-045) Page 1 of 4 • • HANDWRITTEN DATE: 09/01/06, SHEET 1 OF 4, J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.", INCLINE VILLAGE, LLC, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments asset 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: October 17, 2006, listing 20 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 11 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 J-U-B Engineers, inc., a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and consisting of 4 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements of the Council taken at their October 17, 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-offis not to create a mosquito breeding problem; and it is suggested that the stonnwater 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 stonmwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is ORDER OF CONDTTIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-045) Page 2 of 4 preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: 1. State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion ofoff--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 morethantwenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest ORDER OF CONDTTIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR INCLINE VII.LAGE SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-045) Page 3 of 4 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 1`1f'°' day of ~,~~~ , 2006. ATTEST: ®`®`~\~\C3~~` ` ~°'- `~ ~. ' ~~, e LIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK ,~, ~ ~~' ti; Copy served upon: / Applicant ~.,,~~~ ~~<<`°° fanning DepartlfiH'~'k~rr, rriit-~~```` -,/~ubhc Works Department / City Attorney ~c~ ~~~~~~~ v By: City Clerk's Office WEERD Dated: ~ V ~-v~ `1~ ~~ ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR INCLINE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-045) Page 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Hearing Date: October 17, 2006 Transmittal Date: October 12, 2006 Mayor and City Council ,~) -~ ~ ~~~ `;r. ~~°~y ~N, Q'I'F1f 4]F ~~.~.~~ ~~Sq~~ `~ ~ ~o.~cr ~. ~~ ,~ ~ l `~`'A-~? i'k~,r~~t~ ~v"x`-.~^- =rte Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner f`"' y~ Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator ~ C Incline Village Subdivision Final Plat Request for Final Plat Approval of Incline Village Subdivision Consisting of 61 Single-Family Residential Building Lots and 8 Common Lots on 20.01 Acres in an R-4 Zone by Incline Village, LLC (File# FP-06-045). We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments and conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUNIlVIARY & LOCATION The applicant, Incline Village, LLC, has applied for final plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres of land for Incline Village Subdivision. The current zoning designation for the proposed subdivision is R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential). The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 3.05 dwelling units per acre; the net density is 3.80 dwelling units per acre. Incline Village Subdivision is located at 1947 and 1923 N. Black Cat Road and 5136 W. Cherry Lane in the SE % of T. 3N., R.1 W., Section 4. This property has not been previously platted. The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Incline Village Subdivision on July 11, 2006 and the submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of Incline Village Subdivision with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved preliminary plat (PP-06-016) and development agreement (Inst. No. 106151230). 2. The applicant's application indicated that the pressurized irrigation system in this development is to be owned and operated by Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. However the plat calls out Settlers as owning and maintaining the system. A letter of plan approval from the agency who will own the system shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a single-point connection to the potable water system 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. Exhibit "A" FP-06-045 Incline Village Subdivision FP.doc PAGE I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT 4. 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. 5. The existing house shall be required to connect to City sewer and water. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments prior to signature on the final plat, and shall be responsible for the actual physical connection of the house to the services prior to certificates of occupancy being issued. 6. Sanitary sewer to this site is being proposed via extensions of existing mains in Black Cat Road. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer 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. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three-feet. If there is less than three feet from top of pipe to sub-grade then upgraded pipe materials shall be used per City of Meridian Standard Specifications. 7. The applicant shall submit a signed easement using City of Meridian's standard forms for the off- site sewer main prior to plan approval. Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Turnberry and W. Cherry Lane. The applicant shall be responsible to install mains to and through this development. Coordinate main size 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. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 10. Graphically depict on the face of the plat a special setback on along lots that are adjacent to the proposed infiltration trenches. The setback shall be of sufficient width to ensure the Department of Environmental Quality's Best Management Practice of ZO-feet separation between building foundations and infiltration trenches. 11. Address ownership in a plat note for the following lots: Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 6, Block 4. 12. 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 Department.) 13. Per the development agreement, Lots 1-3, Block 4 shall be limited to single story construction. Bonus rooms shall be allowed on the subject lots, but no south facing windows are permitted. The Meridian Building Department will enforce these restrictions. 14. The sum of the lot lines of the eastern boundary of Block 3 do equal what is depicted on the plat. The applicant shall confirm this information and make any necessary adjustments. 15. The bearing shown on the northern boundary of this project does not match the bearing of record for Turnberry No. 2. The applicant shall include bearings or record in parenthesis. Exhibit "A" FP-06-045 Incline Village Subdivision FP.doc PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT 16. The applicant shall submit final street name approval from the Ada County Street Name Committee. 17. Revise the following plat notes on the face of the plat prepared by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., and dated 09/01/06: 3.) Revise to read, "...unless otherwise dimensioned a 10-foot wide permanent public utilities, drainage and irri atg ion is te-be centered on interior ..." 10.) Include instrument number. 11.) Include instrument number. *.) Add a note, "Bottom elevation of structural footings shall be set a minimum of 12-inches above the highest established normal ground water elevation." *.) Add a note, "Individual lot owners are responsible for maintenance of any irrigation/drainage pipe or ditch crossing their lot unless such maintenance responsibilities are assumed by an irrigation/drainage district." *.) Add a note, "Direct lot access to N. Black Cat Road is prohibited." *.) Add a note, "This plat is subject to a development agreement recorded as instrument number 106151230 of Ada County Records." 18. The landscape plan, prepared by Jensen Belts and dated 02/01/06, shall be revised as follows: a. Move conifers in landscape buffer along Cherry Lane to the middle of the buffer (north- south) per UDC 11-3BSC; b. Depict the required fencing along Lot 19, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block 3 per UDC 11-3A- 7A7a; d. Include fencing details (i.e. construction materials & picture/sketch) for the required fencing along Lot 19, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block 3 per UDC 11-3A-7A7b; e. Depict and construct a 10-foot wide gravel shoulder with lawn or other vegetative groundcover along Cherry Lane adjacent to the site, per UDC 11-3B-7CSa. Submit three copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 19. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B- 11. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 20. 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 lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Plans will need to be Exhibit "A" FP-06-045 Incline Village Subdivision FP.doc PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The Certificate of Completion shall verify that all landscape improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. 6. 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. 7. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 9. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 10. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. 11. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record the fmal plat within two years of the approval of the preliminary plat per UDC 11-6B-7A. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen months, maybe considered for fmal approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval per UDC 11-6B-7B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Incline Village Subdivision (FP-06-045) with the above stated comments and conditions. Exhibit "A" FP-06-045 Incline Village Subdivision FP.doc PAGE 4 • ~~f October 16, 2006 Kristy Vigil City of Meridian 660 Watertower Lane, Suite 201 Meridian, ID 83642 RE Dear Kristy: • J-U-B ENGINEERS, inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208/376-7330 FAX: 208/323-9336 incline Village Subdivision -Final Plat Please accept this letter as our response to your staff report regarding the above noted project dated October 17, 2006. Our response to the conditions of approval are noted below each condition. 1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved preliminary plat {PP-06-016) and development agreement (inst. No. 106151230). Dut y noted. The applicant's application indicated that the pressurized irrigation system in this development is to be owned and operated by Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. However the plat calls out Settlers as owning and maintaining the system. A letter of plan approval from the agency who will own the system shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. The project is provided with irrigation water by the Settler's Irrigation District and the PI system will be owned and maintained by the HOA. 3. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a single-point connection to the potable water system 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. The project will utilize a single point connection to the Meridian water system. Connection details and common irrigable areas were provided to the city with the construction pions and final plot application. 4. 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. Duty noted. The existing house shall be required to connect to City sewer and water. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments prior to signature on the final plat, and shall be responsible for the actual physical connection of the house to the services prior to certificates of occupancy being issued. Duly noted. ti~bibit "R" Lity of Boise January 15, 2005 Page 2 b. Sanitary sewer to this site is being proposed via extensions of existing mains in Black Cat Road. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer 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. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three-feet. If there is less than three feet from top of pipe to sub-grade then upgraded pipe materials shall be used per City of Meridian Standard Specifications. The design complies with the above noted standards. 7. The applicant shall submit a signed easement using City of Meridian's standard forms for the off-site sewer main prior to plan approval. We are working on the easement now. Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Turnberry and W. Cherry Lane. The applicant shall be responsible to install mains to and through this development. Coordinate main size 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. Duly noted. 9. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. Duly noted. 10. Graphically depict on the face of the plat a special setback on along lots that are adjacent to the proposed infiltration trenches. The setback shall be of sufficient width to ensure the Department of Environmental Quality's Best Management Practice of 20-feet separation between building foundations and infiltration trenches. This change has been made to the plat. 11. Address ownership in a plat note for the following lots: Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 6, Block 4. This change has been made to the plat. 12. 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 Department. ) We are working on this condition. 13. Per the development agreement, Lots 1-3, Block 4 shall be limited to single story construction. Bonus rooms shall be allowed on the subject lots, but no south facing windows are permitted. The Meridian Building Department will enforce these restrictions. This condition should be clarified to clearly state that the prohibition on south facing windows applies only to the bonus room and not to the first story portion of the building. 14. The sum of the lot lines of the eastern boundary of Block 3 do equal what is depicted on the plat. The applicant shall confirm this information and make any necessary adjustments. This change has been made to the plat. C:\Documents and Settings\vigilk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKCB\Final plat response-ltrhd.doc F.~hibit "H" City of Boise January 15, 2005 Page 3 15. The bearing shown on the northern boundary of this project does not match the bearing of record for Turnberry No. 2. The applicant shall include bearings or record in parenthesis. This change has been made to the plat. 1b. The applicant shall submit final street name approval from the Ada County Street Name Committee. Done. 17. Revise the following plat notes on the face of the plat prepared by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., and dated 09/01/06: 3.) Revise to read, "...unless otherwise dimensioned a 10-foot wide permanent public utilities, drainage and irri>ation is ta-be centered on interior ..." 10.) Include instrument number. 11.) Include instrument number. *.) Add a note, "Bottom elevation of structural footings shall be set a minimum of 12-inches above the highest established normal ground water elevation." ".) Add a note, "Individual lot owners are responsible for maintenance of any irrigation/drainage pipe or ditch crossing their lot unless such maintenance responsibilities are assumed by an irrigation/drainage district." *.) Add a note, "Direct lot access to N. Black Cat Road is prohibited." *.) Add a note, "This plat is subject to a development agreement recorded as instrument number 106151230 of Ada County Records." These changes have been made. 18. The landscape plan, prepared by Jensen Belts and dated 02/01 /06, shall be revised as follows: a. Move conifers in landscape buffer along Cherry Lane to the middle of the buffer (north- south)per UDC 11-3B5C; b. Depict the required fencing along Lot 19, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block 3 per UDC 11- 3A-7A7a; d. Include fencing details (i.e. construction materials & picture/sketch) for the required fencing along Lot 19, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block 3 per UDC 11-3A-1A7b; e. Depict and construct a 10-foot wide gravel shoulder with lawn or other vegetative groundcover along Cherry Lane adjacent to the site, per UDC 11-3B-7C5a. Submit three copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. These changes have been made and submitted to the city. 19. 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 11-36-11 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 11-36- 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 11-36-11, then the applicant C:\Dotuments and Settings\vigilk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKCB\Final plat response-ltrhd.doc Exhibit "k2" City of Boise January 15, 2005 Page 4 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. Duly noted. 20. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions of the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. Duly noted. We have noted the General Requirements and have no issue with the provisions contained therein. Please convey our acceptance of the conditions as proposed to the City Council as we do not intend to attend the hearing regarding this matter. Sincerely, J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. Daren Fluke, AiCP Project Manager C:\Uocuments and Settings\vigilk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files~OLKCB~Final plat response-ltrhd.doc !•shibit "B" October 13, 2006 FP 06-044 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT ATM Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Final Plat approval of 47 single-family residential building lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision - NEC of Mesa Way and E. Victory 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: 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: See attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C October 17, 2006 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ATM DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 47 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 11 COMMON LOTS ON 18.84 ACRES IN AN R-4 ZONE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEST CORNER OF MESA WAY AND EAST VICTORY ROAD IN A PORTION OF LOTS 3, 4, AND 5 AND ALL OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1 OF KACHINA ESTATES SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SE 1/ of T. 3N., R. lE., SECTION 19 CASE NO. FP-06-044 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 October 17, 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: October 17, 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: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CABELLA CREEK SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-044) Page 1 of 5 • 1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING CABELLA CREEK SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN A PORTION OF LOTS 3, 4 AND 5 AND ALL OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1 OF KACHINA ESTATES SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SE '/ OF T. 3N., R. 1 E., SECTION 19, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 09/15/06, SHEET 1 OF 6, THE LAND GROUP, INC.", ATM 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: October 17, 2006, listing 24 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 11 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 5 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from The Land Group, Inc., 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 of the Council taken at their October 17, 2006 meeting as follows, to-wit: 1.0 Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their October 17, 2006 meeting: Approve with the applicant's commitment to the mitigation proposal, specifically pertaining to item number 22 of the applicant's response letter (Exhibit "B"). ORDER OF CONDTTIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CABELLA CREEK SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-044) Page 2 of 5 • 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-offis not to create a mosquito breeding problem; and it is suggested that the stormwater be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality; that engineers and architects should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: 1. State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Deparhnent, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CABELLA CREEK SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-044) Page 3 of 5 ! !~ AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHING5 ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days 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 ~~ ~ day of ~k o b~ , 2006. ``\`°`~1,u u i i r~ r~By:JyIAYOR T e ERD ATTEST: ~ ``° a~,\`p~y~~ ~, ~ ,Ado ~ M ~ Q~° ~`` ` bi:::Lt'~~ WII.,LIAM G. BER , J ., CITE C ORDER OF CONDTTIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CABELLA CREEK SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-044) Page 4 of 5 Copy served upon: / Applicant ~r Planning Department ~ Public Works Department City Attorney C By: City Clerk's Office Dated: I C - 2~ - G l~ ORDER OF CONDTTIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CABELLA CREEK SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-044) Page 5 of 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT r ~~ ~a _~ STAFF REPORT: Hearing Date: October 17, 2006 e:r-~~° ~j~ ~ ~ ; ~ i ~ ~p ~ :~* ,F ~.~ Transmittal Date: October 12, 2006 ~, f'~~~~, tU.v-aca .~. TO: Mayor and City Council ~°~~ ~~~e q ~ FROM: Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator ~ C SUBJECT: Cabella Creek Subdivision Final Plat Request for Final Plat Approval of Cabella Creek Subdivision Consisting of 47 Single-Family Residential Building Lots and 11 Common Lots on 18.84 Acres in an R-4 Zone by ATM Development, LLC (File# FP-06-044). We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments and conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUIVIlVIARY & LOCATION The applicant, ATM Development, LLC, has applied for fmal plat approval of 47 single-family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres of land for Cabella Creek Subdivision. The zoning designation for the proposed subdivision is R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential). The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 2.5 dwelling units per acre; the net density is 3.1 dwelling units per acre. Cabella Creek Subdivision is located at the northeast corner of Mesa Way and E. Victory Road in the SE '/a of T. 3N., R.IE., Section 19. This property is a portion of Lots 3, 4, and 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 1 of Kachina Estates Subdivision. The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Cabella Creek Subdivision on June 6, 2006 and the submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of Cabella Creek Subdivision with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved preliminary plat (PP-06-012) and development agreement (recorded as instrument #106141057). 2. The applicant has indicated that the pressurized imgation system in this development is to be owned and operated by the Homeowners' Association. Therefore plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review, with a draft Operations and Maintenance manual being required prior to plan approval. A "final draft" shall be submitted prior to signature on the final plat. 'The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a single-point connection to the potable water system 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. Exhibit "A" FP-06-044 Cabella Creek Subdivision FP.doc PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR~ENTS STAFF REPORT 4. 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. The required street buffer along Victory Road shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy for any dwelling units in this development. All existing houses that are to remain shall be required to connect to City sewer and water. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments prior to signature on the final plat, and shall be responsible for the actual physical connection of the house to the services prior to certificates of occupancy being issued. 7. The preferred construction traffic entrance to the development shall be Victory Road and not Mesa Way. That one public street access, and no driveways, will be allowed to Victory Road. Existing driveway(s) to Victory Road may be utilized until the internal streets within the plat are constructed and approved by the Transportation Authority (AC)=ID). At such time, direct lot access to Victory Road shall be prohibited. 9. The applicant shall be responsible to install a temporary off-peak pumping station in a location designated by 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. 10. Sanitary sewer and water service to this site is being proposed via extensions of existing mains in Victory 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. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three-feet. If there is less than three feet from top of pipe to sub-grade then upgraded pipe materials shall be used per City of Meridian Standard Specifications. 11. The applicant shall be responsible to install sewer mains to S. Mesa Way from E. Loggers Pass Street and E. Glacier Bay Street. 12. A 12-inch water main shall be required to be installed from E. Victory Road to the northern most of Mesa away along the frontage of this project. 13. Due to the crossing of the Ten Mile Creek at S. Bailey Way, the applicant shall perform a "Cumulative Rise Test" to ensure the 100-year flood will pass through the improvement. Said study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to construction plan approval. 14. The preliminary plat showed a portion of Lots are encumbered by the AE floodplain. The applicant shall do one of the following to mitigate for this: a) The applicant shall revise the lots to ensure all buildable lots are out of the AE floodplain. The applicants surveyor shall submit a signed, stamped letter certifying that all lots are out of the floodplain. Exhibit "A" FP-06-044 Cabella Creek Subdivision FP.doc PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PL~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR'T'MENTS STAFF REPORT b) Or, file for a LOMAR with FEMA to remove the floodplain. The letter shall be submitted to Public Works prior to signature on the final plat. c) Or, add a note on the final plat referencing the floodplain map and those lots will have to file elevation certifications. Concurrent with submittal for signature the applicant shall submit a second plat with the floodplain overlay on it. 15. Include "Meridian" in the situate statement. 16. Include the instrument number for the Restrictive Covenants shown on the face of the plat. 17. It appears that the bearings called out on the face of the plat do not match the bearings of record. The applicant shall confirm this information and include bearings of record in parenthesis on the face of the plat. 18. The development agreement on this property has the following condition, "To mitigate the potential of light from cars exiting this site from entering through the windows of the neighbor's house across Mesa Way (Binford property), the applicant has volunteered to, at the developer's expense, provide off-site improvements adjacent to the Binford property to mitigate light intrusion from car headlights. Said improvements may include widening the "U" of their (Binford's) driveway and providing berming and landscaping on the Binford's property, as allowed by the Binford's." The applicant shall provide a letter from the Binford's stating that this requirement has been met, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 19. A pedestrian/sidewalk easement shall be dedicated over all sidewalks not falling in the public right-of--way. 20. Any existing domestic wells andlor septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape imgation. 21. Revise the following plat notes on the face of the plat prepared by The Land Group and dated 9/15/06: 1.) Revise to dedicate 14-feet of easement. The extra is needed to ensure 10-feet past the edge of sidewalk. 5.) Revise to read, "A ten (10) foot wide easement along all rear lot lines, and centered on interior lot lines shall be reserved for Public Utilities, transportation of property drainage, and/or the installation and maintenance of a pressurized irrigation system." *.) Add a note restricting direct lot access to Victory. *.) Add a note, "Bottom elevation of structural footings shall be set a minimum of 12-inches above the highest established normal ground water elevation." *.) Add a note, "Individual lot owners are responsible for maintenance of any irrigation/drainage pipe or ditch crossing their lot unless said maintenance is assumed by an irrigation/drainage entity." *.) Add note: "This plat is subject to a development agreement recorded as instrument number 106141057 of Ada County Records." 22. The landscape plan, prepared by The Land Group and dated 9/12//06, shall be revised as follows: a.) The proposed 6-foot wide parkways shall be constructed with root barrier per UDC 11- 3A-17E2, revise plan accordingly. Exhibit "A" FP-06-044 Cabella Creek Subdivision FP.doc PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPA~MENTS STAFF REPORT b.) Depict the existing fencing on the northern boundary (abutting Salmon Rapids No. 5) on the plan. Submit three copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 23. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B- 11. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 24. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions of the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAI. REQUIItEMENTS Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. All ditches that lay within this development shall be tiled, 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. Z. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. 6. 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. Exhibit "A" FP-06-044 Cabella Creek Subdivision FP.doc PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR~ENTS STAFF REPORT 7. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 9. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 10. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. 11. 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 RECONIlVIENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Cabella Creek Subdivision (FP-06-044) with the above stated comments and conditions. Exhibit "A" FP-06-044 Cabella Creek Subdivision FP.doc PAGE 5 ~w v~ ~' ~~ ~ '~ r t'1tI~: I. •1\T) t;ll(11:1', 1~<:. Uctobcr 17, 200E Pxojcct No. 06208 Kristy Vigil Assistant City Plaltnrr Ciry of Aicridian 1)lanning tt ~ctning GGO L:. Watcrtowcr, Stc. 202 Meridian, II) 83G42 RI :: C;abcDa Crcck Subdivision ~ 1''inal flat ~\Pproval Dear ltls. Vigil: 'Chank you for reviewing our application for final plat of Capella Crcck Subdivision. 'l'he following letter is in response to your staff report dated far the regular schedulul public hearing on Uctober 17, 2006. Site SpeciSc Conditions 1. x111 terms outlined in the recorded Development Agrccntcnt (instrument No. IOGi=110570) will be stet. Item 5.1.7 speciftes the construction of a mininnun 10' wide multi use pathway on the south side of the '!'en hiilc Crcck 1)1'1111. 't'he Pathway will be consh•ttcted r»1 the north side of thr '1'cn 1\Ii1c (;reek Drain front S. {iailcy ~~/ay to S. \lesa Way and on the south side of thr canal froth S. liailcy Way to Victory road based on the orientation of thc'1'en Gtile Crcck thmu};h the site. 2. "!'hc pressure irrigation system will pe owned and maintainrd by the Nampa hicridian lrrigation District and not the Capella Crcck 1-tonnrc>wncrs ilssociation. Approval and verification of such will be coordinated with the Nampa ~•icridian Irrigation Listrict and R•ieridian Pup{ic Wclrks. 3. Assessments for irrigation of common areas will be paid by the developer prior to signature of the Final plat as a single-point connecliou to the potable water system will be Herded as the irrigation tvater rights associated with Nampa Meridian lrrigation District far thc'I'cn ]11i1c t;reck Drain arc not year round. 4. All fencing will hr constructed ro UllC; requirements. 5. '1'hc sweet buffer will pc coltstrtTCtrd pl~or to request f(1r occupancy for chvcllings within the proposed dcvclopmcnt. G. 'l'11e existing; houses will connect to central srn~iees and pay all needed assessnnents. 7. '1'lte intprovculenl drawings 8c I?SC/SWPPP 11avc identified that the prefrrrcd constntction cnuancc is to be off of Victory Road and not A~Icsa Way. d ,~ . Exhihit "B" L~ • October 17, 2{JDG Page 2 of :i H. t)nly one public access is proposed onto ~~ictory Road for this development and aH existing driveways will be closed as specified. c). An off-peak sanitaty~ sewer Lift station is proposed with this development and will be coordinated with the (.;ity of i\Icriclian Public ~~orls as rcquerstcd. lU. L?xtensians of main line sewer anct water will be coordinated with lllcridian Public ~~orks through the plan review process. 1 ]. Sewer utains will be constructed as approved with ~iMeridian Public works within L. Lopgcrs bass and 1:. tJlacicr lia}~ ~K~ay. l2. 11 l2" water main will be constructed front 14. Victcx-y Road through the development to the northwcstcrly most point of our frontage along S. itlcsa VVay as .tltprovrd by A4ericlian Public ~~Uorks. 13. A "Cumulative Risc 'l'est" will be complctcd to ensure that the lUU-year flcwd will pass through the bridge intproventent with no cumulative effect uP•strcam. ICI. ;1 note has been :ulded to the final plat referencing the flop plain Wrap and those lots that will need to file and elevation ccrtiGcate. At the time the final plat is submitted for signature, a secoJtd cop}' will reveal the flood plain overlay. 15. "City of h•Icridian" has bccn added to the situate as requested. 1 G. The Restrictive Covenants shown cxt the face of the plat has bccn removed as the final plat will tae recorded prior to the t:ovcuants, (;onditictns and Restrictions (CC&R's) being recorded such that the CC&R's can make reference to the treaded plat of Cabella Crcck Subdivision. 17. Cxistin}; bearings of record that differ from the actual field survey depicted on the plat will be noted in parenthesis. 18. r1 letter from the 13inford's will be submitted indicating that efforts to reduce the Ix~rential lights from cars have been complctcd prier to requcstinf; signature for final plat. 1 c). Pedestrian sidewalk cascmrnt will be dedicated for all sidewalks and pathways that fall txttsidc aE ACFJ[~ right-of-way. 2U. lixisting <lontestic septic systems will be removed prr A•Icricfian (;it}, Ordinance and l(IahO Central I~JStrJCI 1-Ieal[h CCgUlCCn7CIttS. J'\L5UIlg domestic wcps will be removed per Il~leridian Cit}' C)rdinancc and Idaho llepartntcnt of titVatcr Resources standards. 2l. '17tc plat notes have bccn revised as specified. 22. .•1 reprised landscape plan will be resulnnitted prior to requesting finsJl plat signahlrc with the subject revisions complctcd. Also, the tight subject cvcrgrcc:n Oetcher i7, 200ti Page 3 of 3 Crl'f:S thaC wCIC rCn1o\rCd ~\lt~lOgt the RUChUrl7.1i1C)It OE C:itp ~~rbarist, I?Irc~y Flaff, will be rcplaccc{ wide eight ($) G' to 7' tall evergreens in the locations the strhject trees were removed {torn prior to rcqucsUng signature of the Final plat her a phone crntvcrsation wilt ~Iroy 1 [uff an October 16, 2UUG. 23. The 13% open space calculatwn that was a{proved during the tune of the hreliminar}~ plat excluded areas with storm drain detention, wet ponds anti the Ten ~•[ilc C;rcek brain. "I'hc percentage of open shacr is now 13% or greater with the improventcnts drawings conth{ctc and will remain at or abo~•c 13`% oncr constructed. 24. 'Phis statement is agreed to. General Requireiuents 1-11. "1'he follawutg general requircntcnts arc agreed to and will be csecutcd as requested. Plcasc let me know if you have any questions regarding this response letter. If you need any clarification or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 939-401. Sincerely, Eric Cronin, h;I'1' THE LAND GROUP, INC. F.~bibit "tt" u October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Request to Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission from Applicant for Reconsideration for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CHy of Meridian. COMMENTS See attached October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ~ ~ REQUEST Tabled from July 25, 2006 -- Request for Reconsideration of Denail for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet /Minutes Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Mertdtan. i • October 13, 2006 AZ 06-025 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT RMR Consulting, Inc. ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Findings for Denial -- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for Baraya Subdivision --southeast corner of West Franklin Road and South Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Findings CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Mertdian. October 13, 2006 PP 06-024 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT RMR Consulting, Inc. ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Findings for Denial -- Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 406 single-family residential lots, 1 office and 23 other /common lots on 94.05 acres in the proposed R-8 and L-O zone for Baraya Subdivision --sec of W. Franklin Rd. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Findings CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • s October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ~ 4 REQUEST Regeust for Reconsideration for Denial for Annexation and Zoning Conditional Use Permit and Variances for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Merldfan. C_J October 13, 200b AZ Ob-035 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 200b APPLICANT The Regency at River Valley, LLC ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Findings for Denial -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C and R-40 zones for Regency at River Valley -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY see atMched Findings CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Emailed: Mater~la presented at public meetings shall become property of the City ! ~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 10/03/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST ) FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ) OF 12.06 ACRES TO C-C AND R-40 ) FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY ) THE REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY, LLC ) APPLICANT ) Case No. AZ 06-035 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on October 3, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., Anna Canning, City Planning Director for the Planning Department, Benjamin Clegg of Bach Corp., appeared and testified, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearings scheduled for October 3, 2006, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearings and with the notice of public hearings having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY; CASE NO. AZ-06-035 PAGE I OF 4 \_ J hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council on October 3, 2006, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions provided services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§67-6509 and 67-6511, and § 11-SA, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Title 11, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 12.06 acres in size and is generally located at 2500 N. Eagle Road; East side of Eagle Road, approximately'/2 mile north of Fairview Avenue, in Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County,. 5. RAMI, LLC, whose address is 2785 W., 9000 South, West Jordon, Utah, 84088, is the current property owner. 6. Applicant is The Regency at River Valley, LLC, whose address is 2785 W., 9000 South, West Jordon, Utah, 84088 7. The subject property is currently zoned RUT (Ada County). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY; CASE NO. AZ-06-035 PAGE 2 OF 4 The Applicant requests the property be zoned C-C (Community Business District) and R-40 (High Density Residential District). The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 9. The entire parcel of property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as dei=lned in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: Community Business District and High Density Residential District. 11. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map designates the subject property as Mixed Use Regional. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The City of Meridian has discretionary authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code §50-222. The Municipal Code of the City of Meridian §11-SB-3 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The provisions of Idaho Code §50-222 govern the conditions upon which the City may exercise its authority to annex territory, but the exercise of that authority is discretionary as determined by the City Council. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT ANID CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby order and this does order: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY; CASE 1`!O. AZ-06-035 PAGE 3 OF 4 ! ~ That the application for annexation and zoning is denied for the following reasons: The proposed development is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of October, 2006. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN SHAUN WARDLE VOTED -~~~ COUNCILMAN JOE BORTON VOTED _~~~ COUNCILMAN CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED -~~~ COUNCILMAN KEITH BIltD VOTED _~~~ MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ` DATED: lO - ` ~ mod' ,- ATTEST: \~,.~~~°~ `~ ~ ~'~~ s~ ~d C - ~~ _ CITY CLERK = ~ ~ e' ~~i~ ~ Y 4$~ ' 4 s~~ Copy served upon Applicant, the Pl~~ai ~~~;~~Public Works Department, and City Attorney. "'~"" ""`` BY~ Dated: ~0 - ~ 3 -~ City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY; CASE NO. AZ-06-035 PAGE 4 OF 4 MOTION: APPROVED: ~_ DISAPPROVED: Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 37 of 53 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. Mr. Nary, since we don't have an annexation, do we still need a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you would. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-030, preliminary plat. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11- 4.3.2783 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 38 of 53 Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Thank You. Items 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are all public hearings on this same application or same subdivision. AZ 06-035, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06- 015, and VAR 06-016. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The Regency Subdivision -- there is, actually, not a subdivision application associated with this project. I'll talk about that a little bit more later. There are two parcels that you can see outlined here in the teal color just south of the C-G. That's our subject site. It is located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately a half mile north of Fairview Avenue. I'll throw up the aerial here. To the north is the Finch Lateral and, again, I'll talk about that here in a minute as well. There are also some single family homes mixed in here on some large parcels. Most of this has been zoned in the city with a commercial designation as part of the Redfeather development. There aren't any commercial uses approved on this site currently, but, again, it is zoned C-G in the city. To the west is Stokesbeny Subdivision. It's an office park. And, then, you have got the elementary school, River Valley Elementary School, just to the west of that. To the south is the turf farms. To the east, as I mentioned, there are some future single family homes in Redfeather as it progresses back to the west. Madam Mayor, I went through all of the applications that are associated with this and I will just briefly touch on each one of them and, then, go into some more detail on each one, I guess, as well. So, annexation and zoning is 12 acres requested for zoning. 1.5 acres -- one and a half acres is requested to be C-C right on Eagle Road. So, it would be this pad site here along Eagle Road and, then, ten and a half acres is remainder area proposed for the R-40 density residential zone. Concurrent with that request is the Conditional Use Permit to construct amulti-family development that consists of 204 multi-family dwelling units. Now, this is a little bit different multi-family development than we are used to seeing in that they are multi-multi family units. There are -- most all of these are 24 unit buildings. There is a 12 unit building right here. There is a mix of bedrooms within these. Some are one and two bedrooms, some are two and three, some are one and three. This area I think is business -- I can't read it exactly, but it's kind of got a different little professional feel to it anyways and its marketed to those folks a little bit differently. There is also a private street request -- there are several private streets. The one I want to touch on first has to do with its connection to Eagle Road, a state highway, which is not at the mid mile location. This property does have access to the mid section line. However, that does not extend out to Meridian Road at the mid section line. So, they'd ask for avariance -- a temporary variance, if you will, to have access at this access point to the development at this time. It is their only frontage. There is no other public street frontage today. Staff is recommending approval of that variance on a temporary basis until this public street -- public collector roadway can you extend out to Eagle Road, get a signal put in here and, then, this will be the primary entrance into the development until Allys Way, which Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 39 of 53 I'll touch on here -- a little bit here in a minute, gets pushed up to Ustick Road. So, as a condition for recommending approval -- a temporary approval of that variance, we want to see all of these lots take access -- consolidate their access points, give cross-access, so we can eventually feed all of these properties that have access to Eagle Road down to the future public street and use this as an access and close off the access points that these parcels particularly today utilize. So, that's one of the variance requests. The other one has to do with parking. I did talk with the applicant just actually during the hearing. There is a little bit of a -- I counted the number of stalis proposed through the multi-family and, actually, I came up with a count of 403 parking stalls. They assured me that there will be at least 408 parking stalls, which is a minimum number required per the UDC in this development. The variance is related to the requirement to provide covered parking stalls. This plan is not the revised plan. Essentially, staffs recommendation is that anywhere that is not encumbered by the imgation easement, which all these parking stalls up in here, and that are not adjacent to this building and up to about half of this building and around the loop at the clubhouse -- I'm sorry, that's the clubhouse there and open spaces and trails -- some walking trails in between. That those areas I just pointed out not be required to have either carports or garages. That's what the UDC requires. Two covered parking stalls per dwelling unit. We will talk about that a little more. The applicant, I understand, has a visual that they can show you. It's kind of color coded showing where garages are, where carports are, and where surface parking spots are. And, then, finally, the third variance request has to do with the 80 square foot private usable open space that's required for multi-family developments. This requirement was added to the UDC primarily because there is no private usable open space outside of the units that someone can call their own and barbecue or just hang out on a patio on their deck, things of that nature. The bottom units on those -- of these, if not all these, do have a patio area, but the upper two floors do not propose any private usable open space for those residents. I think real quick what I will do is I guess I'll finish with the private streets. So, all the access drives in here are private streets that will carry a separate private lane, blue signs, so that emergency services can find the units that are addressed off of each private lane. I do have shot-off-the-press a-mail from Joe Silva stating that he's okay with having just the one access point here and in the future the one access point being here, because all these buildings are going to be fully fire sprinklered NFP 13, which, basically, I understand is everything gets sprinklered, the attics and everything are fully sprinkled. So, there is currently a lack of access into this site, but it will be -- at least the fire department's okay with having a single access point of this development temporarily. In that same vein I want to touch on Allys Way just for a minute. Allys Avenue is what it's also been called. I'm not quite sure what it's going to end up being called, but that's the other collector that shoots up north, comes out at Lowe's. It's currently got the conduit and the signal mass and things for the signalization right there at the Lowe's entrance. ACHD is requiring developers as they come in and develop in the city to construct their portion of that collector roadway, so maybe I'll jump back to the vicinity real quick. It doesn't go all the way up, but if you can use your imagination just for a minute. Ustick Road is right there. So, we -- here probably a couple months ago ACRD on this parcel on the south, that first leg of that collector being constructed to that point, so when Redfeather comes in we will at least have the first half mile of that constructed and, then, hopefully, they will come down and Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 40 of 53 tie in with Records when this property develops. And, again, we will have this connection out here. So, this applicant will be -- I think one of the requirements from ACHD was they will be road trusted for half of the requirements of a crossing of this as well, so Redfeather will do the other half and we will actually have a bridge crossing and they are constructing their portion of this collector road, which will align with River Valley or whatever it's called across the street. The development agreement is proposed by staff, just because this isn't your standard single family development that we typically see, there are quite afew -- I don't want to call them odd ball requirements, but the out of the ordinary restrictions and requirements that we felt it was a good project to have a develop agreement on and restrict the uses that occur on this property. I think I covered all the variances that were partially supportive of one, not recommending approval of the waiver of another one, and I think I'm pretty clear. If not, you can sure ask me any questions. The applicant I believe is also going to clarify what they intend to do with the Finch Lateral, aka the South Slough, if you prefer and similar to the last project if it's going to be tiled or not tiled. It is a pretty large facility. Maybe just quickly some more highlights -- and I will let the applicant kind of sell their project, if you will, to you, but the gross density of River Valley is 17.86 dwelling units per acre. There is approximately 2.7 acres or 22 percent of the site being set aside for open space. They are providing a community clubhouse with an exercise room, billiards table, a lounge area, a barbecue area, dining facilities, children's play area, tot lot, the open space I mentioned, a hot tub and pool, a water amenity right in the center of clubhouse visitor area and walking trails throughout as I mentioned earlier as well. With that I think I have touched on all of my points and, hopefully, gave you the -- I gave the full view of the project and what's before you all and allow the applicant to supplement that, but if you have any questions will be available for those. De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, I guess I just need a little more clarity on the connecting -- maybe abackage road per se that runs parallel to Eagle between this multi-family and the commercial piece. Is that currently in that design? Hood: Yeah. Madam Mayor, the piece they own -- and maybe I'll jump back real quick, just to the parcel configuration. So, everything here is what's going to be C-C. So, that north side -- south driveway is there and, then, these parcels -- there is two to the south and one to the north. I don't know if that helps or not, but the cross-access would be -- De Weerd: They are just running it through a parking lot? Hood: Correct. It's a backage road that will be -- the building and parking between Eagle Road and this backage drive aisle. It does have -- as you can see in this conceptual -- and totally conceptual in nature, there is a development agreement requirement that that come back in for at least design review approval, if not Conditional Use Permit approval. I can't remember. And, yeah, I don't know that this parking lot layout would fly when we review it, but the idea is to get a drive aisle connection to the property to the north and the property to the south and that could or may not have -- preferably may not have on back off parking or people backing into that drive aisle. That's certainly something that -- if that's the desire of the Council to restrict it further Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 41 of 53 than that, I guess, but, again, we haven't spent too much time reviewing that parcel, because there is no real -- they don't have anyone that's ready to move in there now and the plan is just conceptual. We could use this as a potential use. De Weerd: I don't know what our chief of police thinks, but running a two way through a parking lot can't be all that safe and when it's private it makes is more cumbersome. But, chief, do you have any comments on that? Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you're absolutely right, it would be cumbersome and if it becomes a private access drive there is not much enforcement in activity or anything else we can do on that, especially in terms of a two way. We can still respond in there reference collisions, but there are probably other ways to look at designing it. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any questions for staff before I call the applicant up? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant -- if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Rindlisbaker: Yes, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, grateful to be here and to discuss this project. My name is Greg Rindlisbaker with the Bach team. Our address is 11650 South State Street, Draper, Utah. I just want to kind of quickly overview what our company does and the project that we are proposing, so you can have an idea of what type of product we produce and that will help clarify I think a lot of questions that you may have and concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. Rindlisbaker: And, then, we will haggle from there. And I'm hoping this clicker will work. Okay. As Caleb mentioned, this is the project that we are proposing to do. We have been in business now for about 30 years and we specialize in doing apartment projects and residential communities. We have been doing apartments for about ten or 12 years now and through our experience we have learned a lot about what works in an apartment community, what's going to look good now, what's going to look good in five years, ten, 20 years and so these variances that we are asking for and some of the improvements that we put in the project -- and for that reason we want this to look good for years to come. We have never sold a project. We are the developer, the builder, the property manager, and the owner of the projects, but 15 years from now I can't say we will still own the property and it's still going to be part of your city. So, you know, we take a lot of pride in the project that we do and we know it's going to be here for a long time, so we want to make sure that the product we produce will last for a really long time. First of all our entrances -- this will be our primary entrance eventually. As Caleb mentioned, this is the temporary access that we are requesting. Just to clarify, Madam Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 42 of 53 Mayor, your concern here, this is -- these are just cross-easements. This piece to the north is another acre, which will probably be some type of commercial development. It will be across-easement so they can actually come through here and access Eagle, turn, and, then, come through down here to access River Valley in the long term -- it's just these -- basically, it alleviates the traffic problem onto Eagle. They can come down to River Valley, catch the light here at the mid mile and, then, get onto Eagle safely. So, it, actually, reduced traffic congestion and safety issues onto Eagle. You see that all the time in malls where they are having cross-easements between restaurants where you can cross through different restaurant pads or different offices. Right across the street there is cross-easements between each -- each office building and you see -- I have seen that quite a bit along Eagle Drive and it really, actually, works out to the benefit of the city and traffic. The entrances to our project -- this is a typical entrance into our project. -This one was built in Tri-Cities, Washington. We will have signs as you enter in, a water feature. This is another entrance sign to a project we built in Idaho Falls. This project is another shot of -- a close up of a shot in the Tri-Cities area of our entrance into the project. This is a -- we can talk about the clubhouse. There is an entry -- I'm going to show what the area here is going to look like and clubhouse and the water features. This is a water feature in Tri-Cities again. You can see the statute we do here. This is called the Crossings at Chapel Hill. We kind of followed a horse theme. We haven't quite picked the theme here for Regency, but we are going to do something similar to this. This one is up in Montana in Billings. We have got an Elk and a lot of features, actually, in front of this, but same kind of feel. Clubhouse interiors, which will be right here as you enter in. We try to make it a really nice area. We want this project to be a Class A project. This project will rival we think any project in the Treasure Valley area and, in fact, probably the state of Idaho and it's going to be something that's going to be something that residents will feel -- I think feel proud to live at and will be a nice benefit to the community. We have a 24 hour fitness center. Key card access. You can enter the fitness center and workout anytime you want. We can track who is coming and going with their key card access. Another picture of the fitness center. A pool area. We take a lot of pride in our pool areas. This will be shots that we are going to be doing something similar to this area and with our pool areas I want to mention that we have our in-house landscaping company. We do not subcontract that out. We have learned that we are very picky about our landscaping, we want it done very well and maintenance free. All of our flower beds we cover with small rock or aggregate, we put weed barrier underneath that, so when people come in to maintain it, all we need is a mow and trim and the project looks great. No weeds, always looks nice, and you will see that in these pictures. This project is in Tri-Cities, Washington, just finished a month or two ago. This one is in St. George, Utah. This one is in Twin Falls, Idaho. Another shot of St. George from the top part. We add little green areas. These are gazebos where people can come and lay out and read while their kids are swimming. Hot tub. We have water falls into the pool if area public law permits that. Common areas, which will be these areas. Tot lots. Some grass areas. Something -- similar projects we have done. This is the barbecue area. I want to point out these barbecue areas are fire proof. These are on concrete, masonry all construction, vented properly up at the top. And these are to help prevent fires. This is where we want people to barbecue and we are going to cover this in the variance request later on on the decks. This is a typical tot lot. Meridian City Council • October 3, 2006 Page 43 of 53 This one's in St. George, Utah. Typical landscaping. These are the putting greens. I think this is Tri-Cities, Washington, again. This is the common area shot of our landscaping in St. George, Utah. Building interiors and exteriors. This is in Ogden, Utah, our Pinebrook property. This one, again, is in Billings, Montana. This is the Tri-Cities project again. Interior of our apartment models. This is, actually, an older unit, so we want to show some of the quality we put in here. We do nice -- nicer wood cabinets, instead of Milamean, which you see in some apartment complexes. Microwaves above the ranges. Washers and dryers back here in the laundry room. Now we come to the Regency. This is what we are proposing that the clubhouse looks like. It will be very similar to this. The color scheme will be similar to this. It's not been finalized, but very similar. A building elevation. And you can see on here we have built product in the past with private balconies on them and we are trying to get away from that and I will go through that a little bit later on. And you can see here there is private patios on the first floor, but we are not proposing these on the second and third floor, but on the first. I want to go onto the covered parking variance. We met with our engineer today and we wanted to throw the color scheme in here so you could see exactly what we proposing. We do not meet the ordinance. We have some obstacles that we cannot overcome. This north side of the South Slough or Finch Lateral, I'm not sure which one it's named. I keep hearing different names. But there is an easement there and we are not allowed to put anything along that easement, any type of structure. So, we are requesting that this variance be approved for parking. We have placed the covered carports, which are kind of in the pink color. You can see where those carports are. And the purple area -- these were blue and red. I don't know why they are purple and pink. The purple area are garages that we are proposing to put in there. There is 36 garages, upgraded from carports. We prefer to do more garages, but there is only -- it's kind of a supply and demand. We do as many as we feel like we can do for the return we can get on that investment. But it adds something a little bit nicer to the community as well. So, we have 192 covered carports, 36 garages, and, then, 180 open parking stalls, which equates to 480 parking stalls, 408, which will give you the two parking stalls per unit. Now, the back of garages are not the most beautiful things. What we have done here -- this one's in Tri-Cities. We have put a lot of landscaping behind these to kind of help hide the look from the street side. This is a public street here and we have done that to help -- you know, makes it a little esthetically pleasing. We also broke up the garage here in back. We can do that as well if the City Council would like to see that. All right. The private balcony variance. One thing we want to cover -- and I know economics isn't a thing that city councils and mayors generally look at, but we have to make the project pencil. If we are required to put in the private balconies, I'd just have to take something from the project somewhere else. Maybe it might be microwaves, it might be a tot lot -- who knows what it would be, but to make it pencil I have to put in -- I have to basically move money one way or the other and I think the return on what you get for the balcony is not that great. I still am being able to provide one-third of all the units -- one-third of all the units with private balcony space. If somebody really wants private balcony space they can rent a unit on the first floor. We are also providing in a common area places for people to come and barbecue that has been designed to be safe. So, we won't have people throwing debris -- I mean it's not -- you know, people throwing cigarette butts out on the grass. Children falling from balconies. You might think that's kind of funny, but it Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 44 of 53 does happen. It happened actually two days ago in Salt Lake City where I mom actually caught the baby before it landed and got hurt. Also, a concern about barbecues being a fire hazard. People do barbecue and smoke on their -- on their balcony. Now, if they smoke on the patio outside on the first floor, it's not quite as scary, because they are on concrete. They get on the second, third floor they are on outdoor carpeting and wood deck flooring. I'll show you a few pictures and concerns. Our insurance companies do not like having people put -- I guess that document didn't show up. It's a letter from our insurance company that we just received two weeks ago. It's kind of ironic that it came at the same time, but, basically, they have gone down to our St. George project and said get these barbecues off the decks. Oh, and there it is right there. In order to -- the paragraph showed up. In order to reduce the risk of fire, gas and charcoal grills or similar devices used for cooking, heating, any purposes, should not be used on any balcony under any overhanging portion or within ten feet of any structure. So, they are concerned about that fire hazard. Here is a fire we had about months ago on a project. This was in Idaho Falls, Idaho. And as you can see, we have provided a barbecue area around the pool that the residents can use at their discretion. If it's available they can use it. A shot from the front. So, you know, in conclusion, I just want to point out we have patios on the first floor for residents to use if they want private area. We have storage units -- we have people storing -- oh, I guess this isn't quite the conclusion piece. We have people that store stuff on those balconies as well and it becomes unsightly. Now, we can try to police it, we have on-site management, but it's very difficult to police the barbecuing and people storing stuff on the balconies. You're going to see some pictures -- not all of these are from our properties, but some of them are. And, you know, it just doesn't make a goodly amount of curb appeal and we want this to be a nice place for our residents and when people drive by that are city people -- or, you know, citizens of the city, we don't want them to be thinking about all that stuff hanging out on the decks and patios. So, we would ask for your -- we'd ask for your approval on these applications that we are requesting tonight and I would be happy to field any questions that you might have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: No? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Stanfield: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Scott Stanfield, Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. I'll address some of the engineering issues as quick as I can. We can meet all the engineering and planning requirements for the site plan, including the 35 foot buffer along Eagle Road to the west, the 25 foot buffer along our collectors to the south, and Allys Avenue -- Allys Way to the east. We can provide our five foot minimum buffer adjacent to non-Bach owned parcels adjacent to us. We can meet the landscape island criteria inside our project. Covered parking. Again, we are asking for a variance on the covered parking. Asking for your discretion in that item. Greg indicated on the north boundary along the Slouth/Lateral Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 45 of 53 Nampa-Meridian has made it clear they don't want any structures of that type inside the easement. We worked it out just prior to P&Z meeting and just recently in other discussion with Mr. Silva. We are going to put the covered patios -- or covered carports up front and in order to get around the fire code issue regarding separation for horizontal clearances with a ladder truck going over the top of them, we are going to upgrade to an NFP-12 -- 12 fire sprinklers, attics, crawl spaces, every room sprinklered, in order to go ahead and provide what cover we can adjacent to the buildings. The amenities. Greg went over the amenities quite well, I believe. The tiling of the Finch Lateral. Our boundary is generally following the Finch Lateral/South Slough. Sometimes is crosses over the center of it, sometimes it doesn't quite go that far. It's called in a metes and bounds and not necessarily following the center of it. So, we don't necessarily have ownership and certainly we don't own the entire Finch Lateral. So, the question that I would have is can we legally the that and trespass. With all that aside, the South Slough, in my opinion, throughout the valley, acts more as a natural drainage way. It is a natural low point. If you drive up there and look at it and it looks like Ten Mile, Five Mile, Nine Mile Drain, versus a lateral that just happens to have a water right associated with it and it is a supply ditch for some downstream users, hence, the name Finch Lateral. Up and down that lateral, that slough, there are various pipe sizes. There is 48 inches, there is some in excess of 48 inches. There is some box culverts. There is some smaller than 48 inches. Downstream there has been some projects over the years that have been allowed not to the that. Valen Courts, Woodberry, I believe, some projects north of Chateau Meadows, Waterberry, and Clearbrook and, then, maybe even Fothergill going back many years ago. I'm not sure. Most of that, to my knowledge, has been left open over the years. I did have a conversation with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on September 13th and Bill Henson reiterated to that upstream of there the county -- I'm assuming he meant the highway district, has a storm drainage to overFlow and when it rains the runoff goes into the slough and his comment to me was even the 48 inch is not adequate. And I asked that -- and I have copies of the letter in writing, I asked for him to put that in writing, but I haven't received that yet and I haven't had any return phone calls. So, other than my testimony and my experience, I can't offer any more than that on the Finch Lateral. But that's all I have to say and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? No? Okay. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Caleb, I guess I have a question. Is there not a needed landscape buffer between multi-family and commercial? Hood: There is, Madam Mayor. By ordinance there is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer requirement and that's -- I mentioned it in the staff report or to the Council that we did not receive a revised landscape plan ten days prior to this hearing that we could evaluate and update you as to the changes made. I did received a revised site plan, but it doesn't depict landscaping and there was several changes to the landscape plan. I did talk with Scott and Greg on the phone today. He mentioned that the five foot Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 46 of 53 landscaping adjacent to the -- one of the -- the outparcels, if you will, on Eagle Road, has now been provided some of the landscaping between -- on Eagle Road, the 35 foot wide landscape buffer on Eagle Road, which is now being shown -- I do not -- still don't have a copy of that landscape plan, but we will get that when that C-C lot develops, they will be required to construct -- the higher intense use constructs the land use buffers. So, yes, there is a requirement. De Weerd: Wouldn't it makes sense, though, to have it on what the Council is looking at? Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we tried to get a revised plan for you to look at and it just -- it wasn't provided, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: If the applicant has a response to that -- the question on the landscape plan, is that -- is that something that could be provided relatively soon or is there a reason that it couldn't -- Rindlisbaker: When I was reading through the staff report last week -- De Weerd: If you will state your name again for the record Rindlisbaker: Oh. Sorry. Greg Rindlisbaker. Address? De Weerd: No. You're good. Rindlisbaker: I was reading the staff report last week and came across that requirement and didn't know that -- like I said, I received the staff report last week and I didn't know it had been requested earlier than that, or I would have had it completed and to you, but that's something I could have done, I imagine, within a week, week and a half. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Stanfield: Could I add to that real quick? Scott Stanfield. I think I need to reiterate what Caleb said. What you, really, have before you tonight is a site plan for the multi-family. The commercial up front, Rindlisbaker is not sure what kind of tenant is going to be in there and certainly if that application moves forward for a site plan approval we will have to meet all of the requirements that you have, but I believe with the multi-family, the requirement is to landscape the 35 foot up front. And Bach is willing to do that with the multi-family, kind of dress up their approach. Back on the temporary approach coming off Eagle, should you grant that variance, both sides of that will also be landscaped, just Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 47 of 53 to kind if clean up the approach, because their access points will be right here and not at their focal point, which is kind of backwards. So these will be landscaped, both sides, 35 foot buffer along Eagle will be landscaped. In fact, the revised site plan -- engineering site plan I have this area open for landscaping right there and we can put landscaping on the comer there and on the comer there, just to kind of jazz up that approach in the interim. So, again, as the commercial application comes forward we won't have any problems meeting the city requirements for the commercial application. Just wanted to kind of -- what they want to do to clean that area up now. De Weerd: You know, I guess I understood that, but it doesn't show it and that is what always concerns me on interpretation of those kind things and, then, to come in and say, well, that plot is a little bit too narrow, we can't really do all of the landscaping and maybe we need a variance and so -- Stanfield: I understand. I'll almost promise you that Bach won't come in for a variance, but he'll have to make that commitment. And the staff report did have that ten days, even if at the P&Z, it's just something we all got busy and the landscape architect got busy and we overlooked it. So, it's not that it wasn't in the staff report, because Craig did a wonderful job of putting the staff report together, even at the P&Z level. So, it's not on the city, it's on us as a project team for not having that in ten days prior. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a point of clarification. For the record that NFP-13 is sprinkler all areas of those buildings. One of the other benefits -- and we were speaking earlier about cooking safety and on the balconies, it would require that all those balconies -- that particular standard would require all those balconies to be also fire sprinklered. Just a point of clarification for Council to consider. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I'm looking for your direction on what you would like to do. Bird: Has the applicant had his rebuttal? De Weerd: He doesn't -- can he rebut his engineer? I don't know. But does the applicant have any further comment? Rindlisbaker: What staff has asked about the landscaping plan, we will comply with those requirements. If you have any other questions, I'll answers those as well. De Weerd: Okay. Rindlisbaker: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 48 of 53 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Greg, I do have one question or at least invite you to comment on Chief Musser's remarks with regard to the drive aisle connectivity just to the -- Rindlisbaker: Over here? Borton: Correct. And that's going to -- I think if I heard you right, it will be a -- basically a parking lot drive aisle behind -- Rindlisbaker: Yeah. This piece here I have been told it's going up for auction. Gorton: Is it correct that it will connect all the way down to River -- Rindlisbaker: River Valley? Borton: -- River Valley Road? Rindlisbaker: The idea is, yes, it will, but I don't have control over these two parcels. Gorton: Right. Rindlisbaker: So, that's going to have to be worked out with the city and those parcel owners. However, by providing this cross-access here, this parcel now has access to Eagle through my property and so it will have to have access out onto Eagle on that piece. Also this parcel here, the same thing, they can come out onto this road and come onto Eagle. So, we are reducing just by having ashared -- a shared cross-easement through there. Instead of three accesses onto Eagle, one. And if we can have an access easement through here, you reduce it down to the intersection and eliminate all those accesses. So, that was the thought behind it. And I know that when I was starting with this development I knew this was going to be a hot issue and I was just trying to come up with any ideas to help resolve those concerns. Borton: Madam Mayor. Then that access to Eagle Road is temporary until River Valley is -- Rindlisbaker: Correct. De Weerd: And so a full access? Rindlisbaker: Temporarily we have requested a full access, yes. De Weerd: And how many trips is this to generate? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 49 of 53 Rindlisbaker: I believe on multi-family it's about six -- but I haven't seen those numbers lately, but about six trips per day per unit. So, 1,200 trips per day on the multi-family. I don't know what will be generated from the commercial out front. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody needs anymore public input, I would move we close AZ 06-035, CUP 06- 022, VS 06-006, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015 and VAR 06-016. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 11 through 15. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm always concemed when we have variances to make projects work, but I'm really concemed when we have three in this particular project and possibly a fourth as it relates to the Finch Lateral. It may not be a variance, but it may be a request to deviate from what our requirement is. I like some of the features that I see here, but I would like to see a good number of the features that have been represented, but not specifically stated on paper as it relates to design, materials, colors, textures, esthetics. Some of the features I saw and some of the displays they had were not, in my opinion, particularly esthetic. Not that my opinion counts, but that's a concern I have. So, I probably at this point would not be in favor of annexation of this particular request. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Regarding the Five Mile Drain or Finch Lateral, whichever you want to call it, I think we are going to start getting ourselves in trouble -- this has been an issue since the eight years I have been on the Council -- is our aquifer is going down and down and down and -- because we are not flood irrigating anymore as much and we are seeming Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 50 of 53 to want to the everything and get it down and, then, when you got a drain ditch like that, which is -- which is a drain ditch, when you're running off and stuff you have heavy rains, you're -- if you have got a the with no way for it to be open and having the runoffs run into it, you're asking for trouble. So, I'm definitely not for tiling that. I am also, like Mr. Rountree, I'm not really sold on this. This is something that I don't think I could buy into right now. It's a lot of area in -- or a lot of density in one little area. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a specific comment about the issue which was -- not necessarily in front of us at the current time, but from a policy perspective if we are going to consider variances to our current ordinance, based on water use and aquifers, I think we need to take a look at that ordinance and have our Public Works Department make some determinations. Idon't want to banter about the scientific need for those sorts of things without good information. So, if that's something that -- certainly, like I said, is for another discussion, I think we should take a look at and maybe have the Council request that we have some more information. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Follow up on Councilman Wardle. We have had this discussion many times. We have had the Bureau, the Corps of Engineers, in to talk to us. I'm sure Bradley has got a lot of backup. I have backup that Iwill -- I can get for you, but that's not regarding this project. It's something we do need to look at. I think we need to look at our whole UDC ordinance. We have had more requests for variances since we adopted than we ever did before. And I helped pass it. De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item No. 11, annexation AZ 06-035. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 11. Is there any discussion? Rountree: I have no further. Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 51 of 53 De Weerd: Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 12. Rountree: Madam Mayor, before I make a motion, could I do a motion for all four of the remainder hearings? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yes, you can. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny Items 12, 13, 14 and 15, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015, VAR 06-016. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Items 12 through 15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Ordinance No. AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Ordinance No. 06-1266. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 06-1266, an Ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 24, 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 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. i ~ Tara Green From: Grp Rindlisbacher [gr~bachhomes.net] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:45 PM To: Tara Green Cc: Sharon Smith; Mark Bottles; rtulcher(c8markbottles.com; C. Caleb Hood; Shon Rindlisbacher Subject: FW: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-0&035) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Green Attachments: 20061012164215933.pdf ~; -= 2006101216 933.~f (1S2 I Tera, Attached is the letter to the City regarding reconsideration of The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community, application # AZ-06-035. If you have any questions regarding this email, please call or email. Thank You, Important: My email address has changed!!! My new address is: gr@bachhomes.net Greg Rindlisbacher President Bach Homes Office 801.566.2224 Direct 801.567.3006 gr@bachhomes. net ----Original Message---- From: savin@bachcorp.com [mailto:savini~bachcorp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:42 PM To: Greg Subject: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) This E-mail was sent from "Savin8035" (8035/80358). Scan Date: 10.12.200616:42:15 (-0400) Queries to: savin@bachcorp.com ~• , - ~ ii - . . October 12; 2006 - • ,Mayor ~ammy:de Weerd and. City°Couhal iVlem4ers - City of-Me~idian - ~ _ - 33' East Idaho Averwe. ~ - - - Meridiarf, Idaho 83642 - ` - Re:.Regency.at River `/alley (AZ-f~-035. GUP--06-022; Vi~R-Q&815, VA1~ f~016) Mayo~xie Weerd.and•Members.ofthe City`Council ,. The Bach. Teem is requesting our~~applkation for The Regertcy:at River Valley Apartment . - Communiiy wh~gt uiras: deinied.previously on Odotier ~, 2006 #o be rec~tiside~i.' . = - Atthe lime the ~riotion~for denlal.was made, •there was.no reas~i stated; Our notes.froip the - ~ - .meeting ;on_~Odo[ler3`~ 2006, s~ow~that the,foNoiatirig items ltste~ below were.4roil~t8 up~ ire:. ~ . ' ~ . . `. discu;s~oq: iNe would~be happy to address these aiui;an~r other issues, not listed' below. that :ttis ~ltayor or Cit~r:C~uncit Me-xtbers may have and consider- ma~ing_m~iticattfgri~ in, order fo ~satisCy those issues: - Ita~rs of di~ussion: ,. ~ _ . _ _ •~ . Pc`ovide:colorboar9ds sho~nnng quality and coloref matehals for.the e~deriorand~~rrterior of - bui~dings ~_ Provide an ripdated landscape plan conforming with e!t City requirements ~ - 'provide a letter-.from the Imgati]on. Company: with regards to the aon-ti0ng .Qr tibng ,of ~tiiie . finch lateral - ~. . ~, Discuss the•tt~c eoncemsanb future~developmer~t of our.comm+ercia~ property adfacent; - to:Eagle Road ,- ~ . °: h:ts. QUr.undsistanding fttat We have conformed_with the,r~uirem intttie newt developmeirt - - _ . aide: T far, we.have reieiv~:positiye ret~pmmendations from planning-`staff and~pfannit>g ~ - cornmisslon,: and-fliers .has bean ~no,public disa~proyal fgr'the project; to=our knowledge: ~ - - - ,, .. _ , . - Wei ark committed to providing :a high quality product in ~lleridisp ~Cif3t, and ask for;your . - recot~si~eretion for;an additionaF°public.treann .. ard_ - The R en at. River Valley Apartmenf _'.' ` . - Community. 9 ~9 ~g ..~ _ . ~ ~. .. - Thank.you foryourtime~aad;reconsideration If you lrave.any questions, please feel~free;to~errral! . - me at i r~tiachhomes.net :or call~me at (801)567-30~. ; - ... Thank Y. - . _ ~ t ® .. G Ri ~ s ~ _ - .. r~ r~~~bacher The :Bach~Tea~m; ~Presiderrt - - ;. _ ~ -- I Ib50 South State Street; Suite 300 • .Draper, Utah 84020 Phone: 801.Sbb.2224 fax: 801,5&b.2203 ~ www.baeficorp:com -. • October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 CUP 06-022 APPLICANT The Regency at River Valley, LLC ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Findings for Denial -Request for a CUP approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 204 multi-family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency at River Valley - e% Eagle n/o Fairview AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See aFlached Findings CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: - / CITY PARKS DEPT: ~" MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacte ~ ~ r~j,Prt~ Date:l~ (p a~ hone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Nlateriads presented at pubdc meetMga shad become properly of the City o! Meridian. C~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 10/03/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR CONDITONAL USE ) PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A ) MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ) CONSISTING OF 204 MULTI-FAMILY ) DWELING UNITS (8 24 PLEXES AND ) 1 12 PLEX) FOR REGENCY AT ) RIVER VALLEY ) THE REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY, LLC ) APPLICANT ) Case No. CUP 06-022 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing before the City Council on October 3, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the denial of the application for annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035, and the hearing was opened on the conditional use permit application and Anna Canning, City Planning Director for the Planning Department, Benjamin Clegg of Bach Corp., appeared and testified, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in Case No. AZ-06-035 does hereby deny the application for Conditional Use Permit. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMTI' FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. CUP-06-022 PAGE 1 OF 3 FINDINGS OF FACT • It is found that the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is not reasonable nor appropriate for the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit due to the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035. DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code Section 11-SA-6 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that based upon the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035 the City Council does hereby deny the application for conditional use permit approval. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMTI' FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. CUP-06-022 PAGE 2 OF 3 • Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the l 7 `°~day of October, 2006. \~~,~ ATTEST: ~`~~~\``~~ .` C~ ~%~_:~ - 9 CITY CLERK .~ ~ ~~ri~i ~t n~~4 Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. BY~ Dated: 10'x.3 •Ut~ City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDMSION; CASE NO. CUP-06-022 PAGE 3 OF 3 Tara Green From: Greg Rindlisbacher [gr@bachhomes.net] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:45 PM To: Tara Green Cc: Sharon Smith; Mark Bottles; rtulcher~markbottles.com; C. Caleb Hood; Shon Rindlisbacher Subject: FW: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Green Attachments: 20061012164215933.pdf zoa6ioiz16 933.pdf (152 I Tera, Attached is the letter to the City regarding reconsideration of The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community, application # AZ-06-035. If you have any questions regarding this email, please call or email. Thank You, Important: My email address has changed!!! My new address is: gr@bachhomes.net Greg Rindlisbacher President Bach Homes Office 801.566.2224 Direct 801.567.3006 gr aL")bachhomes. net ----Original Message From: savin@bachcorp.com [mailto:savin@bachcorp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:42 PM To: Greg Subject: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) This E-mail was sent from "Savin8035" (8035l8035g). Scan Date: 10.12.200616:42:15 (-0400) Queries to: savin@bachcorp.com - ~. .i i . Ot~otier 12~ 2006 - - ;Mayor ~'ammy:de Weerd and City:Coueal Memt;~r's ~ - City of~Mettdiari - - ~ . 33' East Idaho Avenue Meri~iiarl, Idaho 83842 - - Re:, Regency. at River'VaUey (AZ-f~-035, CUP--08x022; VAR-06-d15, Vii-R-0C~Q16) _ ~ .. Mayor de Weerd.:and ~Aembers. •ofttie. City Council; ~ - - ~ TI1e Bach:Team rs requesting our~~application for The. Regerrcy,at River Vapey Apartment _ - I '. Cornmr~nity which was: dgnied previously bn ~ol~ ~., 2006 #o be r~cotfsidered.. = - f _ - - ;. - -- At tfie time the motion for ~enlal.was made, there v~+as no reas~ stated : Our notes .frorh ttie - ~ - .meeting oq:October 3`~ 20~, show that the.foNointing items listeCl~ below wei e: brougt>~ up~ irr, - discu~oq: iNe woui~;be happy. to address these,and:any other issues not listed' below. that the ,. >lfiayor or tarty :Counal Menaliers may hays end Consider matang_m~ifieatiori~ in, ordgr` tb ~sattisfy those issues: - it~txrs of discussion: ~ ~ ~ - - . - - . , Provide:color bdards sl~o4ving quality and:eolor of materials forths.exterior and Interior of - - ~. buildings : ,~ ' .... - Provide an,ripdated landscape plan cohfomling wrtli alt City requirements ~ - - _ -. ~ • '.Provide a.lettar-.fiarrt the. ~imgation. t~mpsriy: with regerds #b the oon: bang Qr tiling ;of the .. finch ]aterai ~ ~ - - • . . - • Discuss the ~trafi3c concems~and future development of our tommerciat property adjacent; to:Eagle Road. ;- ~ ~ . - . -~ lt.is czar ur~de'rstartdirrg #hat We h8ve ronformed_yrith the,req~rirements intha new devstopirtent - - cede: Thus fer, we have rerceived.~poatfve rscpmmendationsfxom planning~staff and~ptanni~ng _ . _ commission; snot-there hss been 'no .p~rbilc disapproval for the project;. to our knowledge. ~ ~ - . ~ We are c~mmitfed to' providing a high qualRyr product~in MeridianCity and ask.foryour: • . . - recoinsitieretion for,an additional public freanng regarrling.The Regency at River 1(alleyApartment Cfommunity. '. ~ . -Thank.you~foryour#irce;-arlti.,reconside~ratlori: if~you.tfave.any:questions, please feel;free:to errraii . one at ~rCd~bachho-ryes:het ~ call me: at (801)587-30(161. ; _ - .Thank Y - ~- } .. e - .. - ~~ Gr' r~~ba.. - ~ Ri. Cher The Bach~Team; (resident ~ ~ .. .. ~ - ~ . _ .. Ib50 Soufh ,State Street; Suite 300 .Drap.er, Uta~i 84020 Phone: 801.66.2224 pax: 801..566.2203 ~ www.baehcorp:com - ~ - - Meridian City Council • October 3, 2006 Page 37 of 53 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. Mr. Nary, since we don't have an annexation, do we still need a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you would. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-030, preliminary plat. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for ReAency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11- 4.3.27B3 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit Reaency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council • • October 3, 2006 Page 38 of 53 Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Thank You. Items 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are all public hearings on this same application or same subdivision. AZ 06-035, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06- 015, and VAR 06-016. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The Regency Subdivision -- there is, actually, not a subdivision application associated with this project. I'll talk about that a little bit more later. There are two parcels that you can see outlined here in the teal color just south of the C-G. That's our subject site. It is located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately a half mile north of Fairview Avenue. I'll throw up the aerial here. To the north is the Finch Lateral and, again, I'll talk about that here in a minute as well. There are also some single family homes mixed in here on some large parcels. Most of this has been zoned in the city with a commercial designation as part of the Redfeather development. There aren't any commercial uses approved on this site currently, but, again, it is zoned C-G in the city. To the west is Stokesbeny Subdivision. It's an office park. And, then, you have got the elementary school, River Valley Elementary School, just to the west of that. To the south is the turf farms. To the east, as I mentioned, there are some future single family homes in Redfeather as it progresses back to the west. Madam Mayor, I went through all of the applications that are associated with this and I will just briefly touch on each one of them and, then, go into some more detail on each one, I guess, as well. So, annexation and zoning is 12 acres requested for zoning. 1.5 acres -- one and a half acres is requested to be C-C right on Eagle Road. So, it would be this pad site here along Eagle Road and, then, ten and a half acres is remainder area proposed for the R-40 density residential zone. Concurrent with that request is the Conditional Use Permit to construct amulti-family development that consists of 204 multi-family dwelling units. Now, this is a little bit different multi-family development than we are used to seeing in that they are multi-multi family units. There are -- most all of these are 24 unit buildings. There is a 12 unit building right here. There is a mix of bedrooms within these. Some are one and two bedrooms, some are two and three, some are one and three. This area I think is business -- I can't read it exactly, but it's kind of got a different little professional feel to it anyways and its marketed to those folks a little bit differently. There is also a private street request -- there are several private streets. The one I want to touch on first has to do with its connection to Eagle Road, a state highway, which is not at the mid mile location. This property does have access to the mid section line. However, that does not extend out to Meridian Road at the mid section line. So, they'd ask for avariance -- a temporary variance, if you will, to have access at this access point to the development at this time. It is their only frontage. There is no other public street frontage today. Staff is recommending approval of that variance on a temporary basis until this public street -- public collector roadway can you extend out to Eagle Road, get a signal put in here and, then, this will be the primary entrance into the development until Allys Way, which Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 39 of 53 I'll touch on here -- a little bit here in a minute, gets pushed up to Ustick Road. So, as a condition for recommending approval -- a temporary approval of that variance, we want to see all of these lots take access -- consolidate their access points, give cross-access, so we can eventually feed all of these properties that have access to Eagle Road down to the future public street and use this as an access and close off the access points that these parcels particularly today utilize. So, that's one of the variance requests. The other one has to do with parking. I did talk with the applicant just actually during the hearing. There is a little bit of a -- I counted the number of stalls proposed through the multi-family and, actually, I came up with a count of 403 parking stalls. They assured me that there will be at least 408 parking stalls, which is a minimum number required per the UDC in this development. The variance is related to the requirement to provide covered parking stalls. This plan is not the revised plan. Essentially, staffs recommendation is that anywhere that is not encumbered by the irrigation easement, which all these parking stalls up in here, and that are not adjacent to this building and up to about half of this building and around the loop at the clubhouse -- I'm sorry, that's the clubhouse there and open spaces and trails -- some walking trails in between. That those areas I just pointed out not be required to have either carports or garages. That's what the UDC requires. Two covered parking stalls per dwelling unit. We will talk about that a little more. The applicant, I understand, has a visual that they can show you. It's kind of color coded showing where garages are, where carports are, and where surface parking spots are. And, then, finally, the third variance request has to do with the 80 square foot private usable open space that's required for multi-family developments. This requirement was added to the UDC primarily because there is no private usable open space outside of the units that someone can call their own and barbecue or just hang out on a patio on their deck, things of that nature. The bottom units on those -- of these, if not all these, do have a patio area, but the upper two floors do not propose any private usable open space for those residents. I think real quick what I will do is I guess I'll finish with the private streets. So, all the access drives in here are private streets that will carry a separate private lane, blue signs, so that emergency services can find the units that are addressed off of each private lane. I do have shot-off-the-press a-mail from Joe Silva stating that he's okay with having just the one access point here and in the future the one access point being here, because all these buildings are going to be fully fire sprinklered NFP 13, which, basically, I understand is everything gets sprinklered, the attics and everything are fully sprinkled. So, there is currently a lack of access into this site, but it will be -- at least the fire department's okay with having a single access point of this development temporarily. In that same vein I want to touch on Allys Way just for a minute. Allys Avenue is what it's also been called. I'm not quite sure what it's going to end up being called, but that's the other collector that shoots up north, comes out at Lowe's. It's currently got the conduit and the signal mass and things for the signalization right there at the Lowe's entrance. ACHD is requiring developers as they come in and develop in the city to construct their portion of that collector roadway, so maybe I'll jump back to the vicinity real quick. It doesn't go all the way up, but if you can use your imagination just for a minute. Ustick Road is right there. So, we -- here probably a couple months ago ACHD on this parcel on the south, that first leg of that collector being constructed to that point, so when Redfeather comes in we will at least have the first half mile of that constructed and, then, hopefully, they will come down and Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 40 of 53 tie in with Records when this property develops. And, again, we will have this connection out here. So, this applicant will be -- I think one of the requirements from ACHD was they will be road trusted for half of the requirements of a crossing of this as well, so Redfeather will do the other half and we will actually have a bridge crossing and they are constructing their portion of this collector road, which will align with River Valley or whatever it's called across the street. The development agreement is proposed by staff, just because this isn't your standard single family development that we typically see, there are quite afew -- I don't want to call them odd ball requirements, but the out of the ordinary restrictions and requirements that we felt it was a good project to have a develop agreement on and restrict the uses that occur on this property. I think I covered all the variances that were partially supportive of one, not recommending approval of the waiver of another one, and I think I'm pretty clear. If not, you can sure ask me any questions. The applicant I believe is also going to clarify what they intend to do with the Finch Lateral, aka the South Slough, if you prefer and similar to the last project if it's going to be tiled or not tiled. It is a pretty large facility. Maybe just quickly some more highlights -- and I will let the applicant kind of sell their project, if you will, to you, but the gross density of River Valley is 17.86 dwelling units per acre. There is approximately 2.7 acres or 22 percent of the site being set aside for open space. They are providing a community clubhouse with an exercise room, billiards table, a lounge area, a barbecue area, dining facilities, children's play area, tot lot, the open space I mentioned, a hot tub and pool, a water amenity right in the center of clubhouse visitor area and walking trails throughout as I mentioned earlier as well. With that I think I have touched on all of my points and, hopefully, gave you the -- I gave the full view of the project and what's before you all and allow the applicant to supplement that, but if you have any questions I will be available for those. De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, I guess I just need a little more clarity on the connecting -- maybe abackage road per se that runs parallel to Eagle between this multi-family and the commercial piece. Is that currently in that design? Hood: Yeah. Madam Mayor, the piece they own -- and maybe I'll jump back real quick, just to the parcel configuration. So, everything here is what's going to be C-C. So, that north side -- south driveway is there and, then, these parcels -- there is two to the south and one to the north. I don't know if that helps or not, but the cross-access would be -- De Weerd: They are just running it through a parking lot? Hood: Correct. It's a backage road that will be -- the building and parking between Eagle Road and this backage drive aisle. It does have -- as you can see in this conceptual -- and totally conceptual in nature, there is a development agreement requirement that that come back in for at least design review approval, if not Conditional Use Permit approval. I can't remember. And, yeah, I don't know that this parking lot layout would fly when we review it, but the idea is to get a drive aisle connection to the property to the north and the property to the south and that could or may not have -- preferably may not have on back off parking or people backing into that drive aisle. That's certainly something that -- if that's the desire of the Council to restrict it further Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 41 of 53 than that, I guess, but, again, we haven't spent too much time reviewing that parcel, because there is no real -- they don't have anyone that's ready to move in there now and the plan is just conceptual. We could use this as a potential use. De Weerd: I don't know what our chief of police thinks, but running a two way through a parking lot can't be all that safe and when it's private it makes is more cumbersome. But, chief, do you have any comments on that? Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you're absolutely right, it would be cumbersome and if it becomes a private access drive there is not much enforcement in activity or anything else we can do on that, especially in terms of a two way. We can still respond in there reference collisions, but there are probably other ways to look at designing it. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any questions for staff before I call the applicant up? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant -- if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Rindlisbaker: Yes, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, grateful to be here and to discuss this project. My name is Greg Rindlisbaker with the Bach team. Our address is 11650 South State Street, Draper, Utah. I just want to kind of quickly overview what our company does and the project that we are proposing, so you can have an idea of what type of product we produce and that will help clarify I think a lot of questions that you may have and concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. Rindlisbaker: And, then, we will haggle from there. And I'm hoping this clicker will work. Okay. As Caleb mentioned, this is the project that we are proposing to do. We have been in business now for about 30 years and we specialize in doing apartment projects and residential communities. We have been doing apartments for about ten or 12 years now and through our experience we have learned a lot about what works in an apartment community, what's going to look good now, what's going to look good in five years, ten, 20 years and so these variances that we are asking for and some of the improvements that we put in the project -- and for that reason we want this to look good for years to come. We have never sold a project. We are the developer, the builder, the property manager, and the owner of the projects, but 15 years from now I can't say we will still own the property and it's still going to be part of your city. So, you know, we take a lot of pride in the project that we do and we know it's going to be here for a long time, so we want to make sure that the product we produce will last for a really long time. First of all our entrances -- this will be our primary entrance eventually. As Caleb mentioned, this is the temporary access that we are requesting. Just to clarify, Madam Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 42 of 53 Mayor, your concern here, this is -- these are just cross-easements. This piece to the north is another acre, which will probably be some type of commercial development. It will be across-easement so they can actually come through here and access Eagle, turn, and, then, come through down here to access River Valley in the long term -- it's just these -- basically, it alleviates the traffic problem onto Eagle. They can come down to River Valley, catch the light here at the mid mile and, then, get onto Eagle safely. So, it, actually, reduced traffic congestion and safety issues onto Eagle. You see that all the time in malls where they are having cross-easements between restaurants where you can cross through different restaurant pads or different ofFces. Right across the street there is cross-easements between each -- each office building and you see -- I have seen that quite a bit along Eagle Drive and it really, actually, works out to the benefit of the city and traffic. The entrances to our project -- this is a typical entrance into our project. This one was built in Tri-Cities, Washington. We will have signs as you enter in, a water feature. This is another entrance sign to a project we built in Idaho Falls. This project is another shot of -- a close up of a shot in the Tri-Cities area of our entrance into the project. This is a -- we can talk about the clubhouse. There is an entry -- I'm going to show what the area here is going to look like and clubhouse and the water features. This is a water feature in Tri-Cities again. You can see the statute we do here. This is called the Crossings at Chapel Hill. We kind of followed a horse theme. We haven't quite picked the theme here for Regency, but we are going to do something similar to this. This one is up in Montana in Billings. We have got an Elk and a lot of features, actually, in front of this, but same kind of feel. Clubhouse interiors, which will be right here as you enter in. We try to make it a really nice area. We want this project to be a Class A project. This project will rival we think any project in the Treasure Valley area and, in fact, probably the state of Idaho and it's going to be something that's going to be something that residents will feel -- I think feel proud to live at and will be a nice benefit to the community. We have a 24 hour fitness center. Key card access. You can enter the fitness center and workout anytime you want. We can track who is coming and going with their key card access. Another picture of the fitness center. A pool area. We take a lot of pride in our pool areas. This will be shots that we are going to be doing something similar to this area and with our pool areas I want to mention that we have our in-house landscaping company. We do not subcontract that out. We have teamed that we are very picky about our landscaping, we want it done very well and maintenance free. All of our flower beds we cover with small rock or aggregate, we put weed barrier underneath that, so when people come in to maintain it, all we need is a mow and trim and the project looks great. No weeds, always looks nice, and you will see that in these pictures. This project is in Tri-Cities, Washington, just finished a month or two ago. This one is in St. George, Utah. This one is in Twin Falls, Idaho. Another shot of St. George from the top part. We add little green areas. These are gazebos where people can come and lay out and read while their kids are swimming. Hot tub. We have water falls into the pool if area public law permits that. Common areas, which will be these areas. Tot lots. Some grass areas. Something -- similar projects we have done. This is the barbecue area. I want to point out these barbecue areas are fire proof. These are on concrete, masonry all construction, vented properly up at the top. And these are to help prevent fires. This is where we want people to barbecue and we are going to cover this in the variance request later on on the decks. This is a typical tot lot. Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 43 of 53 This one's in St. George, Utah. Typical landscaping. These are the putting greens. I think this is Tri-Cities, Washington, again. This is the common area shot of our landscaping in St. George, Utah. Building interiors and exteriors. This is in Ogden, Utah, our Pinebrook property. This one, again, is in Billings, Montana. This is the Tri-Cities project again. Interior of our apartment models. This is, actually, an older unit, so we want to show some of the quality we put in here. We do nice -- nicer wood cabinets, instead of Milamean, which you see in some apartment complexes. Microwaves above the ranges. Washers and dryers back here in the laundry room. Now we come to the Regency. This is what we are proposing that the clubhouse looks like. It will be very similar to this. The color scheme will be similar to this. It's not been finalized, but very similar. A building elevation. And you can see on here we have built product in the past with private balconies on them and we are trying to get away from that and I will go through that a little bit later on. And you can see here there is private patios on the first floor, but we are not proposing these on the second and third floor, but on the first. I want to go onto the covered parking variance. We met with our engineer today and we wanted to throw the color scheme in here so you could see exactly what we proposing. We do not meet the ordinance. We have some obstacles that we cannot overcome. This north side of the South Slough or Finch Lateral, I'm not sure which one it's named. I keep hearing different names. But there is an easement there and we are not allowed to put anything along that easement, any type of structure. So, we are requesting that this variance be approved for parking. We have placed the covered carports, which are kind of in the pink color. You can see where those carports are. And the purple area -- these were blue and red. I don't know why they are purple and pink. The purple area are garages that we are proposing to put in there. There is 36 garages, upgraded from carports. We prefer to do more garages, but there is only -- it's kind of a supply and demand. We do as many as we feel like we can do for the return we can get on that investment. But it adds something a little bit nicer to the community as well. So, we have 192 covered carports, 36 garages, and, then, 180 open parking stalls, which equates to 480 parking stalls, 408, which will give you the two parking stalls per unit. Now, the back of garages are not the most beautiful things. What we have done here -- this one's in Tri-Cities. We have put a lot of landscaping behind these to kind of help hide the look from the street side. This is a public street here and we have done that to help -- you know, makes it a little esthetically pleasing. We also broke up the garage here in back. We can do that as well if the City Council would like to see that. All right. The private balcony variance. One thing we want to cover -- and I know economics isn't a thing that city councils and mayors generally look at, but we have to make the project pencil. If we are required to put in the private balconies, I'd just have to take something from the project somewhere else. Maybe it might be microwaves, it might be a tot lot -- who knows what it would be, but to make it pencil I have to put in -- I have to basically move money one way or the other and I think the return on what you get for the balcony is not that great. I still am being able to provide one-third of all the units -- one-third of all the units with private balcony space. If somebody really wants private balcony space they can rent a unit on the first floor. We are also providing in a common area places for people to come and barbecue that has been designed to be safe. So, we won't have people throwing debris -- I mean it's not -- you know, people throwing cigarette butts out on the grass. Children falling from balconies. You might think that's kind of funny, but it Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 44 of 53 does happen. It happened actually two days ago in Salt Lake City where I mom actually caught the baby before it landed and got hurt. Also, a concern about barbecues being a fire hazard. People do barbecue and smoke on their -- on their balcony. Now, if they smoke on the patio outside on the first floor, it's not quite as scary, because they are on concrete. They get on the second, third floor they are on outdoor carpeting and wood deck flooring. I'll show you a few pictures and concerns. Our insurance companies do not like having people put -- I guess that document didn't show up. It's a letter from our insurance company that we just received two weeks ago. It's kind of ironic that it came at the same time, but, basically, they have gone down to our St. George project and said get these barbecues off the decks. Oh, and there it is right there. In order to -- the paragraph showed up. In order to reduce the risk of fire, gas and charcoal grills or similar devices used for cooking, heating, any purposes, should not be used on any balcony under any overhanging portion or within ten feet of any structure. So, they are concerned about that fire hazard. Here is a fire we had about months ago on a project. This was in Idaho Falls, Idaho. And as you can see, we have provided a barbecue area around the pool that the residents can use at their discretion. If it's available they can use it. A shot from the front. So, you know, in conclusion, I just want to point out we have patios on the first floor for residents to use if they want private area. We have storage units -- we have people storing -- oh, I guess this isn't quite the conclusion piece. We have people that store stuff on those balconies as well and it becomes unsightly. Now, we can try to police it, we have on-site management, but it's very difFcult to police the barbecuing and people storing stuff on the balconies. You're going to see some pictures -- not all of these are from our properties, but some of them are. And, you know, it just doesn't make a goodly amount of curb appeal and we want this to be a nice place for our residents and when people drive by that are city people -- or, you know, citizens of the city, we don't want them to be thinking about all that stuff hanging out on the decks and patios. So, we would ask for your -- we'd ask for your approval on these applications that we are requesting tonight and I would be happy to field any questions that you might have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: No? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Stanfield: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Scott Stanfield, Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. I'll address some of the engineering issues as quick as I can. We can meet all the engineering and planning requirements for the site plan, including the 35 foot buffer along Eagle Road to the west, the 25 foot buffer along our collectors to the south, and Allys Avenue -- Allys Way to the east. We can provide our five foot minimum buffer adjacent to non-Bach owned parcels adjacent to us. We can meet the landscape island criteria inside our project. Covered parking. Again, we are asking for a variance on the covered parking. Asking for your discretion in that item. Greg indicated on the north boundary along the Slouth/Lateral Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 45 of 53 Nampa-Meridian has made it clear they don't want any structures of that type inside the easement. We worked it out just prior to P&Z meeting and just recently in other discussion with Mr. Silva. We are going to put the covered patios -- or covered carports up front and in order to get around the fire code issue regarding separation for horizontal clearances with a ladder truck going over the top of them, we are going to upgrade to an NFP-12 -- 12 fire sprinklers, attics, crawl spaces, every room sprinklered, in order to go ahead and provide what cover we can adjacent to the buildings. The amenities. Greg went over the amenities quite well, I believe. The tiling of the Finch Lateral. Our boundary is generally following the Finch Lateral/South Slough. Sometimes is crosses over the center of it, sometimes it doesn't quite go that far. It's called in a metes and bounds and not necessarily following the center of it. So, we don't necessarily have ownership and certainly we don't own the entire Finch Lateral. So, the question that I would have is can we legally the that and trespass. With all that aside, the South Slough, in my opinion, throughout the valley, acts more as a natural drainage way. It is a natural low point. If you drive up there and look at it and it looks like Ten Mile, Five Mile, Nine Mile Drain, versus a lateral that just happens to have a water right associated with it and it is a supply ditch for some downstream users, hence, the name Finch Lateral. Up and down that lateral, that slough, there are various pipe sizes. There is 48 inches, there is some in excess of 48 inches. There is some box culverts. There is some smaller than 48 inches. Downstream there has been some projects over the years that have been allowed not to the that. Valen Courts, Woodberry, I believe, some projects north of Chateau Meadows, Waterbeny, and Clearbrook and, then, maybe even Fothergill going back many years ago. I'm not sure. Most of that, to my knowledge, has been left open over the years. I did have a conversation with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on September 13th and Bill Henson reiterated to that upstream of there the county -- I'm assuming he meant the highway district, has a storm drainage to overFlow and when it rains the runoff goes into the slough and his comment to me was even the 48 inch is not adequate. And I asked that -- and I have copies of the letter in writing, I asked for him to put that in writing, but I haven't received that yet and I haven't had any return phone calls. So, other than my testimony and my experience, I can't offer any more than that on the Finch Lateral. But that's all I have to say and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? No? Okay. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Caleb, I guess I have a question. Is there not a needed landscape buffer between multi-family and commercial? Hood: There is, Madam Mayor. By ordinance there is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer requirement and that's -- I mentioned it in the staff report or to the Council that we did not receive a revised landscape plan ten days prior to this hearing that we could evaluate and update you as to the changes made. I did received a revised site plan, but it doesn't depict landscaping and there was several changes to the landscape plan. I did talk with Scott and Greg on the phone today. He mentioned that the five foot Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 46 of 53 landscaping adjacent to the -- one of the -- the outparcels, if you will, on Eagle Road, has now been provided some of the landscaping between -- on Eagle Road, the 35 foot wide landscape buffer on Eagle Road, which is now being shown -- I do not -- still don't have a copy of that landscape plan, but we will get that when that C-C lot develops, they will be required to construct -- the higher intense use constructs the land use buffers. So, yes, there is a requirement. De Weerd: Wouldn't it makes sense, though, to have it on what the Council is looking at? Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we tried to get a revised plan for you to look at and it just -- it wasn't provided, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: If the applicant has a response to that -- the question on the landscape plan, is that -- is that something that could be provided relatively soon or is there a reason that it couldn't -- Rindlisbaker: When I was reading through the staff report last week -- De Weerd: If you will state your name again for the record Rindlisbaker: Oh. Sony. Greg Rindlisbaker. Address? De Weerd: No. You're good. Rindlisbaker: I was reading the staff report last week and came across that requirement and didn't know that -- like I said, I received the staff report last week and I didn't know it had been requested earlier than that, or I would have had it completed and to you, but that's something I could have done, I imagine, within a week, week and a half. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Stanfield: Could I add to that real quick? Scott Stanfield. I think I need to reiterate what Caleb said. What you, really, have before you tonight is a site plan for the multi-family. The commercial up front, Rindlisbaker is not sure what kind of tenant is going to be in there and certainly if that application moves forward for a site plan approval we will have to meet all of the requirements that you have, but I believe with the multi-family, the requirement is to landscape the 35 foot up front. And Bach is willing to do that with the multi-family, kind of dress up their approach. Back on the temporary approach coming off Eagle, should you grant that variance, both sides of that will also be landscaped, just Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 47 of 53 to kind if clean up the approach, because their access points will be right here and not at their focal point, which is kind of backwards. So these will be landscaped, both sides, 35 foot buffer along Eagle will be landscaped. In fact, the revised site plan -- engineering site plan I have this area open for landscaping right there and we can put landscaping on the comer there and on the comer there, just to kind of jazz up that approach in the interim. So, again, as the commercial application comes forward we won't have any problems meeting the city requirements for the commercial application. Just wanted to kind of -- what they want to do to clean that area up now. De Weerd: You know, I guess I understood that, but it doesn't show it and that is what always concerns me on interpretation of those kind things and, then, to come in and say, well, that plot is a little bit too narrow, we can't really do all of the landscaping and maybe we need a variance and so -- Stanfield: I understand. I'll almost promise you that Bach won't come in for a variance, but he'll have to make that commitment. And the staff report did have that ten days, even if at the P&Z, it's just something we all got busy and the landscape architect got busy and we overlooked it. So, it's not that it wasn't in the staff report, because Craig did a wonderful job of putting the staff report together, even at the P&Z level. So, it's not on the city, it's on us as a project team for not having that in ten days prior. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a point of clarification. For the record that NFP-13 is sprinkler all areas of those buildings. One of the other benefits -- and we were speaking earlier about cooking safety and on the balconies, it would require that all those balconies -- that particular standard would require all those balconies to be also fire sprinklered. Just a point of clarification for Council to consider. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I'm looking for your direction on what you would like to do. Bird: Has the applicant had his rebuttal? De Weerd: He doesn't -- can he rebut his engineer? I don't know. But does the applicant have any further comment? Rindlisbaker: What staff has asked about the landscaping plan, we will comply with those requirements. If you have any other questions, I'll answers those as well. De Weerd: Okay. Rindlisbaker: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 48 of 53 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Greg, I do have one question or at least invite you to comment on Chief Musser's remarks with regard to the drive aisle connectivity just to the -- Rindlisbaker: Over here? Borton: Correct. And that's going to -- I think if I heard you right, it will be a -- basically a parking lot drive aisle behind -- Rindlisbaker: Yeah. This piece here I have been told it's going up for auction. Borton: Is it correct that it will connect all the way down to River -- Rindlisbaker: River Valley? Gorton: -- River Valley Road? Rindlisbaker: The idea is, yes, it will, but I don't have control over these two parcels. Gorton: Right. Rindlisbaker: So, that's going to have to be worked out with the city and those parcel owners. However, by providing this cross-access here, this parcel now has access to Eagle through my property and so it will have to have access out onto Eagle on that piece. Also this parcel here, the same thing, they can come out onto this road and come onto Eagle. So, we are reducing just by having ashared -- a shared cross-easement through there. Instead of three accesses onto Eagle, one. And if we can have an access easement through here, you reduce it down to the intersection and eliminate all those accesses. So, that was the thought behind it. And I know that when I was starting with this development I knew this was going to be a hot issue and I was just trying to come up with any ideas to help resolve those concerns. Gorton: Madam Mayor. Then that access to Eagle Road is temporary until River Valley is -- Rindlisbaker: Correct. De Weerd: And so a full access? Rindlisbaker: Temporarily we have requested a full access, yes. De Weerd: And how many trips is this to generate? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 49 of 53 Rindlisbaker: I believe on multi-family it's about six -- but I haven't seen those numbers lately, but about six trips per day per unit. So, 1,200 trips per day on the multi-family. I don't know what will be generated from the commercial out front. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody needs anymore public input, I would move we close AZ 06-035, CUP 06- 022, VS 06-006, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015 and VAR 06-016. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 11 through 15. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm always concemed when we have variances to make projects work, but I'm really concemed when we have three in this particular project and possibly a fourth as it relates to the Finch Lateral. It may not be a variance, but it may be a request to deviate from what our requirement is. I like some of the features that I see here, but I would like to see a good number of the features that have been represented, but not specifically stated on paper as it relates to design, materials, colors, textures, esthetics. Some of the features I saw and some of the displays they had were not, in my opinion, particularly esthetic. Not that my opinion counts, but that's a concern I have. So, I probably at this point would not be in favor of annexation of this particular request. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Regarding the Five Mile Drain or Finch Lateral, whichever you want to call it, I think we are going to start getting ourselves in trouble -- this has been an issue since the eight years I have been on the Council -- is our aquifer is going down and down and down and -- because we are not flood imgating anymore as much and we are seeming Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 50 of 53 to want to the everything and get it down and, then, when you got a drain ditch like that, which is -- which is a drain ditch, when you're running off and stuff you have heavy rains, you're -- if you have got a the with no way for it to be open and having the runoffs run into it, you're asking for trouble. So, I'm definitely not for tiling that. I am also, like Mr. Rountree, I'm not really sold on this. This is something that I don't think I could buy into right now. It's a lot of area in -- or a lot of density in one little area. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a specific comment about the issue which was -- not necessarily in front of us at the current time, but from a policy perspective if we are going to consider variances to our current ordinance, based on water use and aquifers, I think we need to take a look at that ordinance and have our Public Works Department make some determinations. Idon't want to banter about the scientific need for those sorts of things without good information. So, if that's something that -- certainly, like I said, is for another discussion, I think we should take a look at and maybe have the Council request that we have some more information. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Follow up on Councilman Wardle. We have had this discussion many times. We have had the Bureau, the Corps of Engineers, in to talk to us. I'm sure Bradley has got a lot of backup. I have backup that Iwill -- I can get for you, but that's not regarding this project. It's something we do need to look at. I think we need to look at our whole UDC ordinance. We have had more requests for variances since we adopted than we ever did before. And I helped pass it. De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item No. 11, annexation AZ 06-035. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 11. Is there any discussion? Rountree: I have no further. Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 51 of 53 De Weerd: Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 12. Rountree: Madam Mayor, before I make a motion, could I do a motion for all four of the remainder hearings? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yes, you can. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny Items 12, 13, 14 and 15, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015, VAR 06-016. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Items 12 through 15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Ordinance No. AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Ordinance No. 06-1266. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 06-1266, an Ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 24, 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 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING VAR 06-014 October 17, 2006 APPLICANT The Regency at River Valley, LLC ITEM NO. ~7 REQUEST Findings for Denial -- Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Regency at River Valley -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached MlnuFes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Findings CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER; ~1 Contacted• ~^ ~ Date: (J Phone: Emailed: Staff I itials: , G.~,rdC~ , p~ Mah3rlals presented at pubUc meetings shall become properly of the Gly of Meridian. • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 10/03/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO UDC 11-3C-6A TO PROVIDE LESS THAN 2 COVERED PARKING STALLS FOR EACH MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT Case No. VAR 06-014 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL FOR THE REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY, LLC APPLICANT The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing before the City Council on October 3, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the denial of the application for annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035, and the hearing was opened on the variance application and Anna Canning, City Planning Director for the Planning Department, Benjamin Clegg of Bach Corp., appeared and testified, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in Case No. AZ-06-035 does hereby deny the application for Variance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-014 PAGE 1 OF 3 FINDINGS OF FACT It is found that the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is not reasonable nor appropriate for the conditions of approval of the variance due to the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035. DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code Section 11-SA-6 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that based upon the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035 the City Council does hereby deny the application for variance. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-014 PAGE 2 OF 3 s • 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 ~ day of October, 2006. ATTEST: CITY CLERK o\\\a\\`\~,~,DQAY,~ ± >, ' de WEERD . •~'~ ~s i~ ~' ~. 3 ~X~~ ~' ~ , \~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~~ ''','',~JJ1 J 1111110 11111111,~`\,t` Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. By:, ~~ 0... Dated: 1®'~3•b~ City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-014 PAGE 3 OF 3 Tara Green From: Greg Rindlisbacher [gr(c~bachhomes.net] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:45 PM To: Tara Green Cc: Sharon Smith; Mark Bottles; rtulcher~markbottles.com; C. Caleb Hood; Shon Rindlisbacher Subject: FW: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Green Attachments: 20061012164215933.pdf 2006101216 933.~If (152 I Tera, Attached is the letter to the City regarding reconsideration of The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community, application # AZ-06-035. If you have any questions regarding this email, please call or email. Thank You, Important: My email address has changed!!! My new address is: gr@bachhomes_net Greg Rindlisbacher President Bach Homes Office 801.566.2224 Direct 801.567.3006 gr@bachhomes. net ----Original Message From: savin@bachcorp.com [mailto:savin@bachcorp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:42 PM To: Greg Subject: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) This E-mail was sent from "Savin8035" (8035/8035g). Scan Date: 10.12.200616:42:15 (-0400) Queries to: savin@bachcorp.com . ~" _ `~ - - ~ ; - - ~ j~ . Oc~tot~er 12l 2006 - - . ;MayorTammy:de Weer~d and City°t~ouhcil Mern4ers - City of AAertdian ". - ~ ~ - 33: East Idaho Avenue ~ - ~ . - Meridian, IdaFio 83642 ~ - . - Re:. Regency at River Valley (AZ-08-035, CUP-OB-022; V~-R-06-015, Vial-R-0f-018) Mayar.de VVeerd.and-Members. ~oftl~e: City`Council; , . - The Btach.Team is .requesting our ~appltcation .for The. Regency:at River Valley Apartmerrt _: - • • `. Community which.was:denied:preyiously on October ~, 2006 to be recogsider~i.' . : At the time the rriotion:fordenial-was made; ~there~~ias. no reaslarai stated; Our nates.froih the - ~ - meeting oo:Ootolzer3'~ 20Q8; show•that the foNo~+ing hams itsted- below wale tiroiigtif:up~ itt, - - .`. discussion: jlVe:woulq:t~ happy to add..ress these•and.an~r. of?ter iSsues,not listed'l~elow.that:the • :~ >511ayor or City:Gvuncil Mer>`ti~ers may hake alnd COnsiderrna~ing m~it~c~tior~.in. ot~dgr~ fo satisfy . - those issues: ~. - ~ . - itatrrs of discussion: ~ ~ ~ - . ~ •- Provide: color, boards sho~niing-qualityand oolor~~f materials fortfie e~deiior and-tnterio~ of - ` .. ._ - the buildings : • ' . , _ :.. . •; Provide hn:~ipd"ated landscape Olaii corrfomling with a!t Gity requirements - - - + Provide a. letter-.firortr tfie. lmga~]on. Company with i~egands xo ;the ion-ti~ng or tiUng of the .. finch lateral ~ .~ ~ - ~ . . •: Discuss the•traffic concetnsanb future tievelopmerrt of our commercial property adfacent; - , to:Eagle Road. ;= . - -: It:ls qur.urtdeistanding that we have conformed with the,requirembn#s inthe nernr development - - . . code: Toes far, we fiave receiv~,positfye rsta~mmertdations from planning-`staff and•ptanning _ . _ eorhtfiisslon,=and-fhena .hasbeen -po.public disa~prorral fqr the project; to °our knowledge: - - - We are.c~mmitteci:to'providirag--a high quelityr pnoduct~in ~Ileridi$p C~fy:and ask foryour - . - - reconsideration for ,an additiorial'public.fiearrng regartling The Rage-nc~r at River Valley ~4partmenf : I . ~ . Community. - - . - .. - Thank.you•foryourtir~ata~d:reconsider~tiori: If~you.fiaveany:quesUons, frleaaefeel~free:to~errreii . , ~- .meat i~r~tiachhorrmes:~net nor call me: of (809)587-30.06:: - - _ ... - ~ - - -Thank Y. , .. ~ - - ,~ _ . . . Gr Ri~~~bacher ~ - - - The:Bach Team; President - . ~ - I Ib50 Soufh ,State Stree4; Suite 300 .Drap.er, Utah 84070 Phone: SD 1.66.2224 fax: 801..566.2203 www.baeheorp:com Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 37 of 53 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. Mr. Nary, since we don't have an annexation, do we still need a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you would. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-030, preliminary plat. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11- 4.3.2763 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 38 of 53 Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections Reaencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Thank You. Items 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are all public hearings on this same application or same subdivision. AZ 06-035, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06- 015, and VAR 06-016. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The Regency Subdivision -- there is, actually, not a subdivision application associated with this project. I'll talk about that a little bit more later. There are two parcels that you can see outlined here in the teal color just south of the C-G. That's our subject site. It is located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately a half mile north of Fairview Avenue. I'll throw up the aerial here. To the north is the Finch Lateral and, again, I'll talk about that here in a minute as well. There are also some single family homes mixed in here on some large parcels. Most of this has been zoned in the city with a commercial designation as part of the Redfeather development. There aren't any commercial uses approved on this site currently, but, again, it is zoned C-G in the city. To the west is Stokesberry Subdivision. It's an office park. And, then, you have got the elementary school, River Valley Elementary School, just to the west of that. To the south is the turf farms. To the east, as I mentioned, there are some future single family homes in Redfeather as it progresses back to the west. Madam Mayor, I went through all of the applications that are associated with this and I will just briefly touch on each one of them and, then, go into some more detail on each one, I guess, as well. So, annexation and zoning is 12 acres requested for zoning. 1.5 acres -- one and a half acres is requested to be C-C right on Eagle Road. So, it would be this pad site here along Eagle Road and, then, ten and a half acres is remainder area proposed for the R-40 density residential zone. Concurrent with that request is the Conditional Use Permit to construct amulti-family development that consists of 204 multi-family dwelling units. Now, this is a little bit different multi-family development than we are used to seeing in that they are multi-multi family units. There are -- most all of these are 24 unit buildings. There is a 12 unit building right here. There is a mix of bedrooms within these. Some are one and two bedrooms, some are two and three, some are one and three. This area I think is business -- I can't read it exactly, but it's kind of got a different little professional feel to it anyways and its marketed to those folks a little bit differently. There is also a private street request -- there are several private streets. The one I want to touch on first has to do with its connection to Eagle Road, a state highway, which is not at the mid mile location. This property does have access to the mid section line. However, that does not extend out to Meridian Road at the mid section line. So, they'd. ask for avariance -- a temporary variance, if you will, to have access at this access point to the development at this time. It is their only frontage. There is no other public street frontage today. Staff is recommending approval of that variance on a temporary basis until this public street -- public collector roadway can you extend out to Eagle Road, get a signal put in here and, then, this will be the primary entrance into the development until Allys Way, which Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 39 of 53 I'll touch on here -- a little bit here in a minute, gets pushed up to Ustick Road. So, as a condition for recommending approval -- a temporary approval of that variance, we want to see all of these lots take access -- consolidate their access points, give cross-access, so we can eventually feed all of these properties that have access to Eagle Road down to the future public street and use this as an access and close off the access points that these parcels particularly today utilize. So, that's one of the variance requests. The other one has to do with parking. I did talk with the applicant just actually during the hearing. There is a little bit of a -- I counted the number of stalls proposed through the multi-family and, actually, I came up with a count of 403 parking stalls. They assured me that there will be at least 408 parking stalls, which is a minimum number required per the UDC in this development. The variance is related to the requirement to provide covered parking stalls. This plan is not the revised plan. Essentially, staffs recommendation is that anywhere that is not encumbered by the irrigation easement, which all these parking stalls up in here, and that are not adjacent to this building and up to about half of this building and around the loop at the clubhouse -- I'm sorryr, that's the clubhouse there and open spaces and trails -- some walking trails in between. That those areas I just pointed out not be required to have either carports or garages. That's what the UDC requires. Two covered parking stalls per dwelling unit. We will talk about that a little more. The applicant, I understand, has a visual that they can show you. It's kind of color coded showing where garages are, where carports are, and where surface parking spots are. And, then, finally, the third variance request has to do with the 80 square foot private usable open space that's required for multi-family developments. This requirement was added to the UDC primarily because there is no private usable open space outside of the units that someone can call their own and barbecue or just hang out on a patio on their deck, things of that nature. The bottom units on those -- of these, if not all these, do have a patio area, but the upper two floors do not propose any private usable open space for those residents. I think real quick what I will do is I guess I'll finish with the private streets. So, all the access drives in here are private streets that will cant' a separate private lane, blue signs, so that emergency services can find the units that are addressed off of each private lane. I do have ahot-off-the-press a-mail from Joe Silva stating that he's okay with having just the one access point here and in the future the one access point being here, because all these buildings are going to be fully fire sprinklered NFP 13, which, basically, I understand is everything gets sprinklered, the attics and everything are fully sprinkled. So, there is currently a lack of access into this site, but it will be -- at least the fire department's okay with having a single access point of this development temporarily. In that same vein I want to touch on Allys Way just for a minute. Allys Avenue is what it's also been called. I'm not quite sure what it's going to end up being called, but that's the other collector that shoots up north, comes out at Lowe's. It's currently got the conduit and the signal mass and things for the signalization right there at the Lowe's entrance. ACRD is requiring developers as they come in and develop in the city to construct their portion of that collector roadway, so maybe I'll jump back to the vicinity real quick. It doesn't go a!II the way up, but if you can use your imagination just for a minute. Ustick Road is right there. So, we -- here probably a couple months ago ACHD on this parcel on the south, that first leg of that collector being constructed to that point, so when Redfeather comes in we will at least have the first half mile of that constructed and, then, hopefully, they will come down and Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 40 of 53 tie in with Records when this property develops. And, again, we will have this connection out here. So, this applicant will be -- I think one of the requirements from ACHD was they will be road trusted for half of the requirements of a crossing of this as well, so Redfeather will do the other half and we will actually have a bridge crossing and they are constructing their portion of this collector road, which will align with River Valley or whatever it's called across the street. The development agreement is proposed by staff, just because this isn't your standard single family development that we typically see, there are quite afew -- I don't want to call them odd ball requirements, but the out of the ordinary restrictions and requirements that we felt it was a good project to have a develop agreement on and restrict the uses that occur on this property. I think I covered all the variances that were partially supportive of one, not recommending approval of the waiver of another one, and I think I'm pretty clear. If not, you can sure ask me any questions. The applicant I believe is also going to clarify what they intend to do with the Finch Lateral, aka the South Slough, if you prefer and similar to the last project if it's going to be tiled or not tiled. It is a pretty large facility. Maybe just quickly some more highlights -- and I will let the applicant kind of sell their project, if you will, to you, but the gross density of River Valley is 17.86 dwelling units per acre. There is approximately 2.7 acres or 22 percent of the site being set aside for open space. They are providing a community clubhouse with an exercise room, billiards table, a lounge area, a barbecue area, dining facilities, children's play area, tot lot, the open space I mentioned, a hot tub and pool, a water amenity right in the center of clubhouse visitor area and walking trails throughout as I mentioned earlier as well. With that I think I have touched on all of my points and, hopefully, gave you the -- I gave the full view of the project and what's before you all and allow the applicant to supplement that, but if you have any questions I will be available for those. De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, I guess I just need a little more clarity on the connecting -- maybe abackage road per se that runs parallel to Eagle between this multi-family and the commercial piece. Is that currently in that design? Hood: Yeah. Madam Mayor, the piece they own -- and maybe I'll jump back real quick, just to the parcel configuration. So, everything here is what's going to be C-C. So, that north side -- south driveway is there and, then, these parcels -- there is two to the south and one to the north. I don't know if that helps or not, but the cross-access would be -- De Weerd: They are just running it through a parking lot? Hood: Correct. It's a backage road that will be -- the building and parking between Eagle Road and this backage drive aisle. It does have -- as you can see in this conceptual -- and totally conceptual in nature, there is a development agreement requirement that that come back in for at least design review approval, if not Conditional Use Permit approval. I can't remember. And, yeah, I don't know that this parking lot layout would fly when we review it, but the idea is to get a drive aisle connection to the property to the north and the property to the south and that could or may not have -- preferably may not have on back off parking or people backing into that drive aisle. That's certainly something that -- if that's the desire of the Council to restrict it further Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 41 of 53 than that, I guess, but, again, we haven't spent too much time reviewing that parcel, because there is no real -- they don't have anyone that's ready to move in there now and the plan is just conceptual. We could use this as a potential use. De Weerd: I don't know what our chief of police thinks, but running a two way through a parking lot can't be all that safe and when it's private it makes is more cumbersome. But, chief, do you have any comments on that? Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you're absolutely right, it would be cumbersome and if it becomes a private access drive there is not much enforcement in activity or anything else we can do on that, especially in terms of a two way. We can still respond in there reference collisions, but there are probably other ways to look at designing it. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any questions for staff before I call the applicant up? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant -- if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Rindlisbaker: Yes, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, grateful to be here and to discuss this project. My name is Greg Rindlisbaker with the Bach team. Our address is 11650 South State Street, Draper, Utah. I just want to kind of quickly overview what our company does and the project that we are proposing, so you can have an idea of what type of product we produce and that will help clarify I think a lot of questions that you may have and concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. Rindlisbaker: And, then, we will haggle from there. And I'm hoping this clicker will work. Okay. As Caleb mentioned, this is the project that we are proposing to do. We have been in business now for about 30 years and we specialize in doing apartment projects and residential communities. We have been doing apartments for about ten or 12 years now and through our experience we have learned a lot about what works in an apartment community, what's going to look good now, what's going to look good in five years, ten, 20 years and so these variances that we are asking for and some of the improvements that we put in the project -- and for that reason we want this to look good for years to come. We have never sold a project. We are the developer, the builder, the property manager, and the owner of the projects, but 15 years from now I can't say we will still own the property and it's still going to be part of your city. So, you know, we take a lot of pride in the project that we do and we know it's going to be here for a long time, so we want to make sure that the product we produce will last for a really long time. First of all our entrances -- this will be our primary entrance eventually. As Caleb mentioned, this is the temporary access that we are requesting. Just to clarify, Madam Meridian City Council • • October 3, 2006 Page 42 of 53 Mayor, your concern here, this is -- these are just cross-easements. This piece to the north is another acre, which will probably be some type of commercial development. It will be across-easement so they can actually come through here and access Eagle, turn, and, then, come through down here to access River Valley in the long term -- it's just these -- basically, it alleviates the traffic problem onto Eagle. They can come down to River Valley, catch the light here at the mid mile and, then, get onto Eagle safely. So, it, actually, reduced traffic congestion and safety issues onto Eagle. You see that all the time in malls where they are having cross-easements between restaurants where you can cross through different restaurant pads or different offices. Right across the street there is cross-easements between each -- each office building and you see -- I have seen that quite a bit along Eagle Drive and it really, actually, works out to the benefit of the city and traffic. The entrances to our project -- this is a typical entrance into our project. This one was built in Tri-Cities, Washington. We will have signs as you enter in, a water feature. This is another entrance sign to a project we built in Idaho Falls. This project is another shot of -- a close up of a shot in the Tri-Cities area of our entrance into the project. This is a -- we can talk about the clubhouse. There is an entry -- I'm going to show what the area here is going to look like and clubhouse and the water features. This is a water feature in Tri-Cities again. You can see the statute we do here. This is called the Crossings at Chapel Hill. We kind of followed a horse theme. We haven't quite picked the theme here for Regency, but we are going to do something similar to this. This one is up in Montana in Billings. We have got an Elk and a lot of features, actually, in front of this, but same kind of feel. Clubhouse interiors, which will be right here as you enter in. We try to make it a really nice area. We want this project to be a Class A project. This project will rival we think any project in the Treasure Valley area and, in fact, probably the state of Idaho and it's going to be something that's going to be something that residents will feel -- I think feel proud to live at and will be a nice benefit to the community. We have a 24 hour fitness center. Key card access. You can enter the fitness center and workout anytime you want. We can track who is coming and going with their key card access. Another picture of the fitness center. A pool area. We take a lot of pride in our pool areas. This will be shots that we are going to be doing something similar to this area and with our pool areas I want to mention that we have our in-house landscaping company. We do not subcontract that out. We have teamed that we are very picky about our landscaping, we want it done very well and maintenance free. All of our flower beds we cover with small rock or aggregate, we put weed barrier underneath that, so when people come in to maintain it, all we need is a mow and trim and the project looks great. No weeds, always looks nice, and you will see that in these pictures. This project is in Tri-Cities, Washington, just finished a month or two ago. This one is in St. George, Utah. This one is in Twin Falls, Idaho. Another shot of St. George from the top part. We add little green areas. These are gazebos where people can come and lay out and read while their kids are swimming. Hot tub. We have water falls into the pool if area public law permits that. Common areas, which will be these areas. Tot lots. Some grass areas. Something -- similar projects we have done. This is the barbecue area. I want to point out these barbecue areas are fire proof. These are on concrete, masonry all construction, vented properly up at the top. And these are to help prevent fires. This is where we want people to barbecue and we are going to cover this in the variance request later on on the decks. This is a typical tot lot. Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 43 of 53 This one's in St. George, Utah. Typical landscaping. These are the putting greens. I think this is Tri-Cities, Washington, again. This is the common area shot of our landscaping in St. George, Utah. Building interiors and exteriors. This is in Ogden, Utah, our Pinebrook property. This one, again, is in Billings, Montana. This is the Tri-Cities project again. Interior of our apartment models. This is, actually, an older unit, so we want to show some of the quality we put in here. We do nice -- nicer wood cabinets, instead of Milamean, which you see in some apartment complexes. Microwaves above the ranges. Washers and dryers back here in the laundry room. Now we come to the Regency. This is what we are proposing that the clubhouse looks like. It will be very similar to this. The color scheme will be similar to this. It's not been finalized, but very similar. A building elevation. And you can see on here we have built product in the past with private balconies on them and we are trying to get away from that and I will go through that a little bit later on. And you can see here there is private patios on the first floor, but we are not proposing these on the second and third floor, but on the first. I want to go onto the covered parking variance. We met with our engineer today and we wanted to throw the color scheme in here so you could see exactly what we proposing. We do not meet the ordinance. We have some obstacles that we cannot overcome. This north side of the South Slough or Finch Lateral, I'm not sure which one it's named. I keep hearing different names. But there is an easement there and we are not allowed to put anything along that easement, any type of structure. So, we are requesting that this variance be approved for parking. We have placed the covered carports, which are kind of in the pink color. You can see where those carports are. And the purple area -- these were blue and red. I don't know why they are purple and pink. The purple area are garages that we are proposing to put in there. There is 36 garages, upgraded from carports. We prefer to do more garages, but there is only -- it's kind of a supply and demand. We do as many as we feel like we can do for the return we can get on that investment. But it adds something a little bit nicer to the community as well. So, we have 192 covered carports, 36 garages, and, then, 180 open parking stalls, which equates to 480 parking stalls, 408, which will give you the two parking stalls per unit. Now, the back of garages are not the most beautiful things. What we have done here -- this one's in Tri-Cities. We have put a lot of landscaping behind these to kind of help hide the look from the street side. This is a public street here and we have done that to help -- you know, makes it a little esthetically pleasing. We also broke up the garage here in back. We can do that as well if the City Council would like to see that. All right. The private balcony variance. One thing we want to cover -- and I know economics isn't a thing that city councils and mayors generally look at, but we have to make the project pencil. If we are required to put in the private balconies, I'd just have to take something from the project somewhere else. Maybe it might be microwaves, it might be a tot lot -- who knows what it would be, but to make it pencil I have to put in -- I have to basically move money one way or the other and I think the return on what you get for the balcony is not that great. I still am being able to provide one-third of all the units -- one-third of all the units with private balcony space. If somebody really wants private balcony space they can rent a unit on the first floor. We are also providing in a common area places for people to come and barbecue that has been designed to be safe. So, we won't have people throwing debris -- I mean it's not -- you know, people throwing cigarette butts out on the grass. Children falling from balconies. You might think that's kind of funny, but it Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 44 of 53 does happen. It happened actually two days ago in Salt Lake City where I mom actually caught the baby before it landed and got hurt. Also, a concern about barbecues being a fire hazard. People do barbecue and smoke on their -- on their balcony. Now, if they smoke on the patio outside on the first floor, it's not quite as scary, because they are on concrete. They get on the second, third floor they are on outdoor carpeting and wood deck flooring. I'll show you a few pictures and concerns. Our insurance companies do not like having people put -- I guess that document didn't show up. It's a letter from our insurance company that we just received two weeks ago. It's kind of ironic that it came at the same time, but, basically, they have gone down to our St. George project and said get these barbecues off the decks. Oh, and there it is right there. In order to -- the paragraph showed up. In order to reduce the risk of fire, gas and charcoal grills or similar devices used for cooking, heating, any purposes, should not be used on any balcony under any overhanging portion or within ten feet of any structure. So, they are concerned about that fire hazard. Here is a fire we had about months ago on a project. This was in Idaho Falls, Idaho. And as you can see, we have provided a barbecue area around the pool that the residents can use at their discretion. If it's available they can use it. A shot from the front. So, you know, in conclusion, I just want to point out we have patios on the first floor for residents to use if they want private area. We have storage units -- we have people storing -- oh, I guess this isn't quite the conclusion piece. We have people that store stuff on those balconies as well and it becomes unsightly. Now, we can try to police it, we have on-site management, but it's very difficult to police the barbecuing and people storing stuff on the balconies. You're going to see some pictures -- not all of these are from our properties, but some of them are. And, you know, it just doesn't make a goodly amount of curb appeal and we want this to be a nice place for our residents and when people drive by that are city people -- or, you know, citizens of the city, we don't want them to be thinking about all that stuff hanging out on the decks and patios. So, we would ask for your -- we'd ask for your appu-oval on these applications that we are requesting tonight and I would be happy to field any questions that you might have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: No? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Stanfield: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Scott Stanfield, Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. I'll address some of the engineering issues as quick as I can. We can meet all the engineering and planning requirements for the site plan, including the 35 foot buffer along Eagle Road to the west, the 25 foot buffer along our collectors to the south, and Allys Avenue -- Allys Way to the east. We can provide our five foot minimum buffer adjacent to non-Bach owned parcels adjacent to us. We can meet the landscape island criteria inside our project. Covered parking. Again, we are asking for a variance on the covered parking. Asking for your discretion in that item. Greg indicated on the north boundary along the Slouth/Lateral Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 45 of 53 Nampa-Meridian has made it clear they don't want any structures of that type inside the easement. We worked it out just prior to P&Z meeting and just recently in other discussion with Mr. Silva. We are going to put the covered patios -- or covered carports up front and in order to get around the fire code issue regarding separation for horizontal clearances with a ladder truck going over the top of them, we are going to upgrade to an NFP-12 -- 12 fire sprinklers, attics, crawl spaces, every room sprinklered, in order to go ahead and provide what cover we can adjacent to the buildings. The amenities. Greg went over the amenities quite well, I believe. The tiling of the Finch Lateral. Our boundary is generally following the Finch Lateral/South Slough. Sometimes is crosses over the center of it, sometimes it doesn't quite go that far. It's called in a metes and bounds and not necessarily following the center of it. So, we don't necessarily have ownership and certainly we don't own the entire Finch Lateral. So, the question that I would have is can we legally the that and trespass. With all that aside, the South Slough, in my opinion, throughout the valley, acts more as a natural drainage way. It is a natural low point. If you drive up there and look at it and it looks like Ten Mile, Five Mile, Nine Mile Drain, versus a lateral that just happens to have a water right associated with it and it is a supply ditch for some downstream users, hence, the name Finch Lateral. Up and down that lateral, that slough, there are various pipe sizes. There is 48 inches, there is some in excess of 48 inches. There is some box culverts. There is some smaller than 48 inches. Downstream there has been some projects over the years that have been allowed not to the that. Valen Courts, Woodberry, I believe, some projects north of Chateau Meadows, Waterberry, and Clearbrook and, then, maybe even Fothergill going back many years ago. I'm not sure. Most of that, to my knowledge, has been left open over the years. I did have a conversation with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on September 13th and Bill Henson reiterated to that upstream of there the county -- I'm assuming he meant the highway district, has a storm drainage to overflow and when it rains the runoff goes into the slough and his comment to me was even the 48 inch is not adequate. And I asked that -- and I have copies of the letter in writing, I asked for him to put that in writing, but I haven't received that yet and I haven't had any return phone calls. So, other than my testimony and my experience, I can't offer any more than that on the Finch Lateral. But that's all I have to say and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? No? Okay. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Caleb, I guess I have a question. Is there not a needed landscape buffer between multi-family and commercial? Hood: There is, Madam Mayor. By ordinance there is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer requirement and that's -- I mentioned it in the staff report or to the Council that we did not receive a revised landscape plan ten days prior to this hearing that we could evaluate and update you as to the changes made. I did received a revised site plan, but it doesn't depict landscaping and there was several changes to the landscape plan. I did talk with Scott and Greg on the phone today. He mentioned that the five foot Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 46 of 53 landscaping adjacent to the -- one of the -- the outparcels, if you will, on Eagle Road, has now been provided some of the landscaping between -- on Eagle Road, the 35 foot wide landscape buffer on Eagle Road, which is now being shown -- I do not -- still don't have a copy of that landscape plan, but we will get that when that C-C lot develops, they will be required to construct -- the higher intense use constructs the land use buffers. So, yes, there is a requirement. De Weerd: Wouldn't it makes sense, though, to have it on what the Council is looking at? Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we tried to get a revised plan for you to look at and it just -- it wasn't provided, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: If the applicant has a response to that -- the question on the landscape plan, is that -- is that something that could be provided relatively soon or is there a reason that it couldn't -- Rindlisbaker: When I was reading through the staff report last week -- De Weerd: If you will state your name again for the record Rindlisbaker: Oh. Sony. Greg Rindlisbaker. Address? De Weerd: No. You're good. Rindlisbaker: I was reading the staff report last week and came across that requirement and didn't know that -- like I said, I received the staff report last week and I didn't know it had been requested earlier than that, or I would have had it completed and to you, but that's something I could have done, I imagine, within a week, week and a half. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Stanfield: Could I add to that real quick? Scott Stanfield. I think I need to reiterate what Caleb said. What you, really, have before you tonight is a site plan for the multi-family. The commercial up front, Rindlisbaker is not sure what kind of tenant is going to be in there and certainly if that application moves forward for a site plan approval we will have to meet all of the requirements that you have, but I believe with the multi-family, the requirement is to landscape the 35 foot up front. And Bach is willing to do that with the multi-family, kind of dress up their approach. Back on the temporary approach coming off Eagle, should you grant that variance, both sides of that will also be landscaped, just Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 47 of 53 to kind if clean up the approach, because their access points will be right here and not at their focal point, which is kind of backwards. So these will be landscaped, both sides, 35 foot buffer along Eagle will be landscaped. In fact, the revised site plan -- engineering site plan I have this area open for landscaping right there and we can put landscaping on the comer there and on the comer there, just to kind of jazz up that approach in the interim. So, again, as the commercial application comes forward we won't have any problems meeting the city requirements for the commercial application. Just wanted to kind of -- what they want to do to clean that area up now. De Weerd: You know, I guess I understood that, but it doesn't show it and that is what always concerns me on interpretation of those kind things and, then, to come in and say, well, that plot is a little bit too narrow, we can't really do all of the landscaping and maybe we need a variance and so -- Stanfield: I understand. I'll almost promise you that Bach won't come in for a variance, but he'll have to make that commitment. And the staff report did have that ten days, even if at the P&Z, it's just something we all got busy and the landscape architect got busy and we overlooked it. So, it's not that it wasn't in the staff report, because Craig did a wonderful job of putting the staff report together, even at the P&Z level. So, it's not on the city, it's on us as a project team for not having that in ten days prior. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a point of clarification. For the record that NFP-13 is sprinkler all areas of those buildings. One of the other benefits -- and we were speaking earlier about cooking safety and on the balconies, it would require that all those balconies -- that particular standard would require all those balconies to be also fire sprinklered. Just a point of clarification for Council to consider. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I'm looking for your direction on what you would like to do. Bird: Has the applicant had his rebuttal? De Weerd: He doesn't -- can he rebut his engineer? I don't know. But does the applicant have any further comment? Rindlisbaker: What staff has asked about the landscaping plan, we will comply with those requirements. If you have any other questions, I'll answers those as well. De Weerd: Okay. Rindlisbaker: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 48 of 53 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Greg, I do have one question or at least invite you to comment on Chief Musser's remarks with regard to the drive aisle connectivity just to the -- Rindlisbaker: Over here? Borton: Correct. And that's going to -- I think if I heard you right, it will be a -- basically a parking lot drive aisle behind -- Rindlisbaker: Yeah. This piece here I have been told it's going up for auction. Borton: Is it correct that it will connect all the way down to River -- Rindlisbaker: River Valley? Borton: -- River Valley Road? Rindlisbaker: The idea is, yes, it will, but I don't have control over these two parcels. Borton: Right. Rindlisbaker: So, that's going to have to be worked out with the city and those parcel owners. However, by providing this cross-access here, this parcel now has access to Eagle through my property and so it will have to have access out onto Eagle on that piece. Also this parcel here, the same thing, they can come out onto this road and come onto Eagle. So, we are reducing just by having ashared -- a shared cross-easement through there. Instead of three accesses onto Eagle, one. And if we can have an access easement through here, you reduce it down to the intersection and eliminate all those accesses. So, that was the thought behind it. And I know that when I was starting with this development I knew this was going to be a hot issue and I was just trying to come up with any ideas to help resolve those concerns. Borton: Madam Mayor. Then that access to Eagle Road is temporary until River Valley is -- Rindlisbaker: Correct. De Weerd: And so a full access? Rindlisbaker: Temporarily we have requested a full access, yes. De Weerd: And how many trips is this to generate? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 49 of 53 Rindlisbaker: I believe on multi-family it's about six -- but I haven't seen those numbers lately, but about six trips per day per unit. So, 1,200 trips per day on the multi-family. I don't know what will be generated from the commercial out front. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody needs anymore public input, I would move we close AZ 06-035, CUP 06- 022, VS 06-006, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015 and VAR 06-016. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 11 through 15. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm always concerned when we have variances to make projects work, but I'm really concerned when we have three in this particular project and possibly a fourth as it relates to the Finch Lateral. It may not be a variance, but it may be a request to deviate from what our requirement is. I like some of the features that I see here, but I would like to see a good number of the features that have been represented, but not specifically stated on paper as it relates to design, materials, colors, textures, esthetics. Some of the features I saw and some of the displays they had were not, in my opinion, particularly esthetic. Not that my opinion counts, but that's a concern I have. So, I probably at this point would not be in favor of annexation of this particular request. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Regarding the Five Mile Drain or Finch Lateral, whichever you want to call it, I think we are going to start getting ourselves in trouble -- this has been an issue since the eight years I have been on the Council -- is our aquifer is going down and down and down and -- because we are not flood irrigating anymore as much and we are seeming Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 50 of 53 to want to the everything and get it down and, then, when you got a drain ditch like that, which is -- which is a drain ditch, when you're running off and stuff you have heavy rains, you're -- if you have got a the with no way for it to be open and having the runoffs run into it, you're asking for trouble. So, I'm definitely not for tiling that. I am also, like Mr. Rountree, I'm not really sold on this. This is something that I don't think I could buy into right now. It's a lot of area in -- or a lot of density in one little area. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a specific comment about the issue which was -- not necessarily in front of us at the current time, but from a policy perspective if we are going to consider variances to our current ordinance, based on water use and aquifers, I think we need to take a look at that ordinance and have our Public Works Department make some determinations. Idon't want to banter about the scientific need for those sorts of things without good information. So, if that's something that -- certainly, like I said, is for another discussion, I think we should take a look at and maybe have the Council request that we have some more information. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Follow up on Councilman Wardle. We have had this discussion many times. We have had the Bureau, the Corps of Engineers, in to talk to us. I'm sure Bradley has got a lot of backup. I have backup that Iwill -- I can get for you, but that's not regarding this project. It's something we do need to look at. I think we need to look at our whole UDC ordinance. We have had more requests for variances since we adopted than we ever did before. And I helped pass it. De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item No. 11, annexation AZ 06-035. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 11. Is there any discussion? Rountree: I have no further. Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 51 of 53 De Weerd: Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 12. Rountree: Madam Mayor, before I make a motion, could I do a motion for all four of the remainder hearings? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yes, you can. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny Items 12, 13, 14 and 15, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015, VAR 06-016. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Items 12 through 15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Ordinance No. AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Ordinance No. 06-1266. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 06-1266, an Ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 24, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and temtories situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-8 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. • October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING • VAR 06-015 October 17, 2006 APPLICANT The Regency at River Valley, LLC ITEM NO. 18 REQUEST Findings for Denial -Request for a Variance to UDC 11-4.3.2763 to providE less than 80 square feet of private, useable open space for each multrdwellling unit for Regency at River Valley -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Ave. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached Mhrutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Findings CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacts ~ Date: V ~ ~ Phone: Emailed: St Initi Is: ~c~~~ Materials presented at public meethtgs sfuzli becmns property of the City of Meridian. • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 10/03/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO UDC 11-4.3.27B3 TO PROVIDE LESS THAN 80 SQUARE FEET OF PRIVATE, USABLE OPEN SPACE FOR EACH MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT Case No. VAR 06-015 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL FOR ) THE REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY, LLC ) APPLICANT ) The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing before the City Council on October 3, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the denial of the application for annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035, and the hearing was opened on the variance application and Anna Canning, City Planning Director for the Planning Department, Benjamin Clegg of Bach Corp., appeared and testified, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in Case No. AZ-06-035 does hereby deny the application for Variance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-015 PAGE 1 OF 3 n -.~ FINDINGS OF FACT U It is found that the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is not reasonable nor appropriate for the conditions of approval of the variance due to the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035. DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code Section 11-SA-6 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that based upon the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035 the City Council does hereby deny the application for variance. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-015 PAGE 2 OF 3 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 ~ day of October, 2006. \~~~~~~ O' ,~ de WEERD ATTEST: ,e.~ ~~°~ ~~ ~,, ~ ~~. ~i {;~~_ CITY CLERK ~; ~ ~ 0 ~ ev ~,i,//,~~111 f 1111 1~ 9 ~ 1 ~\\`'i\®~ Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. By: Dated: ~ ®-~ 3 • ~ City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-015 PAGE 3 OF 3 Tara Green From: Greg fZndlisbacher [grrt/Dbachhomes.net] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:45 PM To: Tara Green Cc: Sharon Smith; Mark Bottles; rtulcher@markbottles.com; C. Caleb Hood; Shon Rindlisbacher Subject: FW: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Green Attachments: 20061012164215933.pdf 2006101216 933.pdf (152 I Tera, Attached is the letter to the City regarding reconsideration of The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community, application # AZ-06-035. If you have any questions regarding this email, please call or email. Thank You, Important: My email address has changed!!! My new address is: gr@bachhomes.net Greg Rindlisbacher President Bach Homes Office 801.566.2224 Direct 801.567.3006 gr@bachhomes.net ----Original Message From: savin@bachcorp.com [mailto:savin@bachcorp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:42 PM To: Greg Subject: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) This E-mail was sent from "Savin8035" (8035/8035g). Scan Date: 10.12.200616:42:15 (-0400) Queries to: savin@bachcorp.com i - .i i - - Ot~i-ber 12; 2006 • - - ;AAayor ~ammy,de VNeerd and. City:Counal Nter-fbers ~ ~ ~ - . City of tlAeridiari - 33: East Idaho Avepue. ~ ~ ~ ~ - Meridian, Idaho 83642 - - Re:. R,~ency at River Vailey (AZ. x-035, GUP-06=022; -V~1R-Q6.015, VAS-0678) ~ . - Mayan de Weerd. and ~ilembers. ~ofthe City Council; . - The Bach.Te is requesting our~~appiioa#ion for The Regertcy.at giver ValleyApartrnent:- - ~ - - `_ Commuinity which.was.d~nied pr~viousljr art Odober3, 2006.to be rec~ilsider~t.' . : . - ;. - -- '. At tFie time the otion~for - m dental- ~ as w made .there s no ~^ wa rea sf ated: O ` r - $Dn.. :. u notes from the ~. ;meeting on.:October 3 .2006, show-that the,follawing ~itams ;listen below,wrere proiigf~ up ttr - . discussion:llVe:would-be happy to address these•aCtd;any gfher issues,not listed below that.thQ >tAayor or CitjrCouncit MertFttiers may hays end corisicier.-mating moal'or~ in, order fo satisfy those issues: .r .. ~. ~. tt~ers of discussion: '~ :: - . • ~ Provide;color.boards sfoiaiin0:quality and:c~lor<xf mateliais for.tf-e:e~derioranil~i!riterior. pf - _ buitdings :: _ - • Provide an mated landscape piarr confom-ing with att:City requirements - - - Provide a leder frorn tht3. Imgation. Compartiy~ whit regards #b the tion: ti4ng Qr tibng of ttie .. .. finch iaterai . ~. Discuss the~ttaffic concerviis~anci future devetopmerrt of our commoreial.propert~r adfacent; - - to:Eagie Road ,= . :. : _ _ ft.is our.understartding #hat we have confomted_yrith the,requiremet>!ts inth~ never'development - - cede: Thus far, we have received.positfye recpmmandationsfmm planninig--staff and-ptanni~g - - corntriission,:and-#hena hasbeen.-na .publlc.disa~iproyat for the project;. to-our knoratedge. - - .. ~ We are.commttted to~ providir~-a Fiigti quality product~in Meridise ~Cif~t~and-asl4 for your ~ ~ • - - recorisixteration for:an addttionat-'pubec treanng regan9.ing The Regency. at: River Valiey Apartment Community. ... - - - - Thank.you foryourtirne,-a41d~,reconsideratiori If~you Piave-an y questiohs, Tease feet free to~emall ins at ~ tia horr~es net :or c:ali me at (801)567.30fi1fi,: ; -. - ~ :. ~Thantc Y. - - - - -3. 1 . ~ - - _ . _ ' - G R~~Nfs ~ _ - - . - . -rte. bather ~ - _ The Bach Team; President ' . ~ - .. ~ .. ~ ~ . I Ib50 South State Street; Suite 300 -Draper, Utah 84070 - Phone: 80i.56b.2224 fax: 801..56b.2203 ~ www.baeheorp:com Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 37 of 53 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. Mr. Nary, since we don't have an annexation, do we still need a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you would. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-030, preliminary plat. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Regencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11- 4.3.2763 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit Regencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 38 of 53 Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Thank You. Items 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are all public hearings on this same application or same subdivision. AZ 06-035, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06- 015, and VAR 06-016. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The Regency Subdivision -- there is, actually, not a subdivision application associated with this project. I'll talk about that a little bit more later. There are two parcels that you can see outlined here in the teal color just south of the C-G. That's our subject site. It is located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately a half mile north of Fairview Avenue. I'll throw up the aerial here. To the north is the Finch Lateral and, again, I'll talk about that here in a minute as well. There are also some single family homes mixed in here on some large parcels. Most of this has been zoned in the city with a commercial designation as part of the Redfeather development. There aren't any commercial uses approved on this site currently, but, again, it is zoned C-G in the city. To the west is Stokesberry Subdivision. It's an office park. And, then, you have got the elementary school, River Valley Elementary School, just to the west of that. To the south is the turf farms. To the east, as I mentioned, there are some future single family homes in Redfeather as it progresses back to the west. Madam Mayor, I went through all of the applications that are associated with this and I will just briefly touch on each one of them and, then, go into some more detail on each one, I guess, as well. So, annexation and zoning is 12 acres requested for zoning. 1.5 acres -- one and a half acres is requested to be C-C right on Eagle Road. So, it would be this pad site here along Eagle Road and, then, ten and a half acres is remainder area proposed for the R-40 density residential zone. Concurrent with that request is the Conditional Use Permit to construct amulti-family development that consists of 204 multi-family dwelling units. Now, this is a little bit different multi-family development than we are used to seeing in that they are multi-multi family units. There are -- most all of these are 24 unit buildings. There is a 12 unit building right here. There is a mix of bedrooms within these. Some are one and two bedrooms, some are two and three, some are one and three. This area I think is business -- I can't read it exactly, but it's kind of got a different little professional feel to it anyways and its marketed to those folks a little bit differently. There is also a private street request -- there are several private streets. The one I want to touch on first has to do with its connection to Eagle Road, a state highway, which is not at the mid mile location. This property does have access to the mid section line. However, that does not extend out to Meridian Road at the mid section line. So, they'd ask for a valance -- a temporary variance, if you will, to have access at this access point to the development at this time. It is their only frontage. There is no other public street frontage today. Staff is recommending approval of that variance on a temporary basis until this public street -- public collector roadway can you extend out to Eagle Road, get a signal put in here and, then, this will be the primary entrance into the development until Allys Way, which Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 39 of 53 I'll touch on here -- a little bit here in a minute, gets pushed up to Ustick Road. So, as a condition for recommending approval -- a temporary approval of that variance, we want to see all of these lots take access -- consolidate their access points, give cross-access, so we can eventually feed all of these properties that have access to Eagle Road down to the future public street and use this as an access and close off the access points that these parcels particularly today utilize. So, that's one of the variance requests. The other one has to do with parking. I did talk with the applicant just actually during the hearing. There is a little bit of a -- I counted the number of stalls proposed through the multi-family and, actually, I came up with a count of 403 parking stalls. They assured me that there will be at least 408 parking stalls, which is a minimum number required per the UDC in this development. The variance is related to the requirement to provide covered parking stalls. This plan is not the revised plan. Essentially, staffs recommendation is that anywhere that is not encumbered by the irrigation easement, which all these parking stalls up in here, and that are not adjacent to this building and up to about half of this building and around the loop at the clubhouse -- I'm sorry, that's the clubhouse there and open spaces and trails -- some walking trails in between. That those areas I just pointed out not be required to have either carports or garages. That's what the UDC requires. Two covered parking stalls per dwelling unit. We will talk about that a little more. The applicant, I understand, has a visual that they can show you. It's kind of color coded showing where garages are, where carports are, and where surface parking spots are. And, then, finally, the third variance request has to do with the 80 square foot private usable open space that's required for multi-family developments. This requirement was added to the UDC primarily because there is no private usable open space outside of the units that someone can call their own and barbecue or just hang out on a patio on their deck, things of that nature. The bottom units on those -- of these, if not all these, do have a patio area, but the upper two floors do not propose any private usable open space for those residents. I think real quick what I will do is I guess I'll finish with the private streets. So, all the access drives in here are private streets that will cant' a separate private lane, blue signs, so that emergency services can find the units that are addressed off of each private lane. I do have ahot-off-the-press a-mail from Joe Silva stating that he's okay with having just the one access point here and in the future the one access point being here, because all these buildings are going to be fully fire sprinklered NFP 13, which, basically, I understand is everything gets sprinklered, the attics and everything are fully sprinkled. So, there is currently a lack of access into this site, but it will be -- at least the fire department's okay with having a single access point of this development temporarily. In that same vein I want to touch on Allys Way just for a minute. Allys Avenue is what it's also been called. I'm not quite sure what it's going to end up being called, but that's the other collector that shoots up north, comes out at Lowe's. It's currently got the conduit and the signal mass and things for the signalization right there at the Lowe's entrance. ACHD is requiring developers as they come in and develop in the city to construct their portion of that collector roadway, so maybe I'll jump back to the vicinity real quick. It doesn't go all the way up, but if you can use your imagination just for a minute. Ustick Road is right there. So, we -- here probably a couple months ago ACHD on this parcel on the south, that first leg of that collector being constructed to that point, so when Redfeather comes in we will at least have the first half mile of that constructed and, then, hopefully, they will come down and Meridian City Council • October 3, 2006 Page 40 of 53 tie in with Records when this property develops. And, again, we will have this connection out here. So, this applicant will be -- I think one of the requirements from ACHD was they will be road trusted for half of the requirements of a crossing of this as well, so Redfeather will do the other half and we will actually have a bridge crossing and they are constructing their portion of this collector road, which will align with River Valley or whatever it's called across the street. The development agreement is proposed by staff, just because this isn't your standard single family development that we typically see, there are quite afew -- I don't want to call them odd ball requirements, but the out of the ordinary restrictions and requirements that we felt it was a good project to have a develop agreement on and restrict the uses that occur on this property. I think I covered all the variances that were partially supportive of one, not recommending approval of the waiver of another one, and I think I'm pretty clear. If not, you can sure ask me any questions. The applicant I believe is also going to clarify what they intend to do with the Finch Lateral, aka the South Slough, if you prefer and similar to the last project if it's going to be tiled or not tiled. It is a pretty large facility. Maybe just quickly some more highlights -- and I will let the applicant kind of sell their project, if you will, to you, but the gross density of River Valley is 17.86 dwelling units per acre. There is approximately 2.7 acres or 22 percent of the site being set aside for open space. They are providing a community clubhouse with an exercise room, billiards table, a lounge area, a barbecue area, dining facilities, children's play area, tot lot, the open space I mentioned, a hot tub and pool, a water amenity right in the center of clubhouse visitor area and walking trails throughout as I mentioned earlier as well. With that I think I have touched on all of my points and, hopefully, gave you the -- I gave the full view of the project and what's before you all and allow the applicant to supplement that, but if you have any questions I will be available for those. De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, I guess I just need a little more clarity on the connecting -- maybe abackage road per se that runs parallel to Eagle between this multi-family and the commercial piece. Is that currently in that design? Hood: Yeah. Madam Mayor, the piece they own -- and maybe I'll jump back real quick, just to the parcel configuration. So, everything here is what's going to be C-C. So, that north side -- south driveway is there and, then, these parcels -- there is two to the south and one to the north. I don't know if that helps or not, but the cross-access would be -- De Weerd: They are just running it through a parking lot? Hood: Correct. It's a backage road that will be -- the building and parking between Eagle Road and this backage drive aisle. It does have -- as you can see in this conceptual -- and totally conceptual in nature, there is a development agreement requirement that that come back in for at least design review approval, if not Conditional Use Permit approval. I can't remember. And, yeah, I don't know that this parking lot layout would fly when we review it, but the idea is to get a drive aisle connection to the property to the north and the property to the south and that could or may not have -- preferably may not have on back off parking or people backing into that drive aisle. That's certainly something that -- if that's the desire of the Council to restrict it further Meridian City Council • October 3, 2006 Page 41 of 53 U than that, I guess, but, again, we haven't spent too much time reviewing that parcel, because there is no real -- they don't have anyone that's ready to move in there now and the plan is just conceptual. We could use this as a potential use. De Weerd: I don't know what our chief of police thinks, but running a two way through a parking lot can't be all that safe and when it's private it makes is more cumbersome. But, chief, do you have any comments on that? Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you're absolutely right, it would be cumbersome and if it becomes a private access drive there is not much enforcement in activity or anything else we can do on that, especially in terms of a two way. We can still respond in there reference collisions, but there are probably other ways to look at designing it. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any questions for staff before I call the applicant up? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant -- if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Rindlisbaker: Yes, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, grateful to be here and to discuss this project. My name is Greg Rindlisbaker with the Bach team. Our address is 11650 South State Street, Draper, Utah. I just want to kind of quickly overview what our company does and the project that we are proposing, so you can have an idea of what type of product we produce and that will help clarify I think a lot of questions that you may have and concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. Rindlisbaker: And, then, we will haggle from there. And I'm hoping this clicker will work. Okay. As Caleb mentioned, this is the project that we are proposing to do. We have been in business now for about 30 years and we specialize in doing apartment projects and residential communities. We have been doing apartments for about ten or 12 years now and through our experience we have teamed a lot about what works in an apartment community, what's going to look good now, what's going to look good in five years, ten, 20 years and so these variances that we are asking for and some of the improvements that we put in the project -- and for that reason we want this to look good for years to come. We have never sold a project. We are the developer, the builder, the property manager, and the owner of the projects, but 15 years from now I can't say we will still own the property and it's still going to be part of your city. So, you know, we take a lot of pride in the project that we do and we know it's going to be here for a long time, so we want to make sure that the product we produce will last for a really long time. First of all our entrances -- this will be our primary entrance eventually. As Caleb mentioned, this is the temporary access that we are requesting. Just to clarify, Madam Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 42 of 53 Mayor, your concern here, this is -- these are just cross-easements. This piece to the north is another acre, which will probably be some type of commercial development. It will be across-easement so they can actually come through here and access Eagle, turn, and, then, come through down here to access River Valley in the long term -- it's just these -- basically, it alleviates the traffic problem onto Eagle. They can come down to River Valley, catch the light here at the mid mile and, then, get onto Eagle safely. So, it, actually, reduced traffic congestion and safety issues onto Eagle. You see that all the time in malls where they are having cross-easements between restaurants where you can cross through different restaurant pads or different offices. Right across the street there is cross-easements between each -- each office building and you see -- I have seen that quite a bit along Eagle Drive and it really, actually, works out to the benefit of the city and traffic. The entrances to our project -- this is a typical entrance into our project. This one was built in Tri-Cities, Washington. We will have signs as you enter in, a water feature. This is another entrance sign to a project we built in Idaho Falls. This project is another shot of -- a close up of a shot in the Tri-Cities area of our entrance into the project. This is a -- we can talk about the clubhouse. There is an entry -- I'm going to show what the area here is going to look like and clubhouse and the water features. This is a water feature in Tri-Cities again. You can see the statute we do here. This is called the Crossings at Chapel Hill. We kind of followed a horse theme. We haven't quite picked the theme here for Regency, but we are going to do something similar to this. This one is up in Montana in Billings. We have got an Elk and a lot of features, actually, in front of this, but same kind of feel. Clubhouse interiors, which will be right here as you enter in. We try to make it a really nice area. We want this project to be a Class A project. This project will rival we think any project in the Treasure Valley area and, in fact, probably the state of Idaho and it's going to be something that's going to be something that residents will feel -- I think feel proud to live at and will be a nice benefit to the community. We have a 24 hour fitness center. Key card access. You can enter the fitness center and workout anytime you want. We can track who is coming and going with their key card access. Another picture of the fitness center. A pool area. We take a lot of pride in our pool areas. This will be shots that we are going to be doing something similar to this area and with our pool areas I want to mention that we have our in-house landscaping company. We do not subcontract that out. We have learned that we are very picky about our landscaping, we want it done very well and maintenance free. All of our flower beds we cover with small rock or aggregate, we put weed barrier underneath that, so when people come in to maintain it, all we need is a mow and trim and the project looks great. No weeds, always looks nice, and you will see that in these pictures. This project is in Tri-Cities, Washington, just finished a month or two ago. This one is in St. George, Utah. This one is in Twin Falls, Idaho. Another shot of St. George from the top part. We add little green areas. These are gazebos where people can come and lay out and read while their kids are swimming. Hot tub. We have water falls into the pool if area public law permits that. Common areas, which will be these areas. Tot lots. Some grass areas. Something -- similar projects we have done. This is the barbecue area. I want to point out these barbecue areas are fire proof. These are on concrete, masonry all construction, vented properly up at the top. And these are to help prevent fires. This is where we want people to barbecue and we are going to cover this in the variance request later on on the decks. This is a typical tot lot. Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 43 of 53 This one's in St. George, Utah. Typical landscaping. These are the putting greens. I think this is Tri-Cities, Washington, again. This is the common area shot of our landscaping in St. George, Utah. Building interiors and exteriors. This is in Ogden, Utah, our Pinebrook property. This one, again, is in Billings, Montana. This is the Tri-Cities project again. Interior of our apartment models. This is, actually, an older unit, so we want to show some of the quality we put in here. We do nice -- nicer wood cabinets, instead of Milamean, which you see in some apartment complexes. Microwaves above the ranges. Washers and dryers back here in the laundry room. Now we come to the Regency. This is what we are proposing that the clubhouse looks like. It will be very similar to this. The color scheme will be similar to this. It's not been finalized, but very similar. A building elevation. And you can see on here we have built product in the past with private balconies on them and we are trying to get away from that and I will go through that a little bit later on. And you can see here there is private patios on the first floor, but we are not proposing these on the second and third floor, but on the first. I want to go onto the covered parking variance. We met with our engineer today and we wanted to throw the color scheme in here so you could see exactly what we proposing. We do not meet the ordinance. We have some obstacles that we cannot overcome. This north side of the South Slough or Finch Lateral, I'm not sure which one it's named. I keep hearing different names. But there is an easement there and we are not allowed to put anything along that easement, any type of structure. So, we are requesting that this variance be approved for parking. We have placed the covered carports, which are kind of in the pink color. You can see where those carports are. And the purple area -- these were blue and red. I don't know why they are purple and pink. The purple area are garages that we are proposing to put in there. There is 36 garages, upgraded from carports. We prefer to do more garages, but there is only -- it's kind of a supply and demand. We do as many as we feel like we can do for the return we can get on that investment. But it adds something a little bit nicer to the community as well. So, we have 192 covered carports, 36 garages, and, then, 180 open parking stalls, which equates to 480 parking stalls, 408, which will give you the two parking stalls per unit. Now, the back of garages are not the most beautiful things. What we have done here -- this one's in Tri-Cities. We have put a lot of landscaping behind these to kind of help hide the look from the street side. This is a public street here and we have done that to help -- you know, makes it a little esthetically pleasing. We also broke up the garage here in back. We can do that as well if the City Council would like to see that. All right. The private balcony variance. One thing we want to cover -- and I know economics isn't a thing that city councils and mayors generally look at, but we have to make the project pencil. If we are required to put in the private balconies, I'd just have to take something from the project somewhere else. Maybe it might be microwaves, it might be a tot lot -- who knows what it would be, but to make it pencil I have to put in -- I have to basically move money one way or the other and I think the return on what you get for the balcony is not that great. I still am being able to provide one-third of all the units -- one-third of all the units with private balcony space. If somebody really wants private balcony space they can rent a unit on the first floor. We are also providing in a common area places for people to come and barbecue that has been designed to be safe. So, we won't have people throwing debris -- I mean it's not -- you know, people throwing cigarette butts out on the grass. Children falling from balconies. You might think that's kind of funny, but it Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 44 of 53 CJ does happen. It happened actually two days ago in Salt Lake City where I mom actually caught the baby before it landed and got hurt. Also, a concern about barbecues being a fire hazard. People do barbecue and smoke on their -- on their balcony. Now, if they smoke on the patio outside on the first floor, it's not quite as scary, because they are on concrete. They get on the second, third floor they are on outdoor carpeting and wood deck flooring. I'll show you a few pictures and concerns. Our insurance companies do not like having people put -- I guess that document didn't show up. It's a letter from our insurance company that we just received two weeks ago. It's kind of ironic that it came at the same time, but, basically, they have gone down to our St. George project and said get these barbecues off the decks. Oh, and there it is right there. In order to -- the paragraph showed up. In order to reduce the risk of fire, gas and charcoal grills or similar devices used for cooking, heating, any purposes, should not be used on any balcony under any overhanging portion or within ten feet of any structure. So, they are concerned about that fire hazard. Here is a fire we had about months ago on a project. This was in Idaho Falls, Idaho. And as you can see, we have provided a barbecue area around the pool that the residents can use at their discretion. If it's available they can use it. A shot from the front. So, you know, in conclusion, I just want to point out we have patios on the first floor for residents to use if they want private area. We have storage units -- we have people storing -- oh, I guess this isn't quite the conclusion piece. We have people that store stuff on those balconies as well and it becomes unsightly. Now, we can try to police it, we have on-site management, but it's very difficult to police the barbecuing and people storing stuff on the balconies. You're going to see some pictures -- not all of these are from our properties, but some of them are. And, you know, it just doesn't make a goodly amount of curb appeal and we want this to be a nice place for our residents and when people drive by that are city people -- or, you know, citizens of the city, we don't want them to be thinking about all that stuff hanging out on the decks and patios. So, we would ask for your -- we'd ask for your approval on these applications that we are requesting tonight and I would be happy to field any questions that you might have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: No? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Stanfield: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Scott Stanfield, Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. I'll address some of the engineering issues as quick as I can. We can meet all the engineering and planning requirements for the site plan, including the 35 foot buffer along Eagle Road to the west, the 25 foot buffer along our collectors to the south, and Allys Avenue -- Allys Way to the east. We can provide our five foot minimum buffer adjacent to non-Bach owned parcels adjacent to us. We can meet the landscape island criteria inside our project. Covered parking. Again, we are asking for a variance on the covered parking. Asking for your discretion in that item. Greg indicated on the north boundary along the Slouth/Lateral Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 45 of 53 Nampa-Meridian has made it clear they don't want any structures of that type inside the easement. We worked it out just prior to P&Z meeting and just recently in other discussion with Mr. Silva. We are going to put the covered patios -- or covered carports up front and in order to get around the fire code issue regarding separation for horizontal clearances with a ladder truck going over the top of them, we are going to upgrade to an NFP-12 -- 12 fire sprinklers, attics, crawl spaces, every room sprinklered, in order to go ahead and provide what cover we can adjacent to the buildings. The amenities. Greg went over the amenities quite well, I believe. The tiling of the Finch Lateral. Our boundary is generally following the Finch Lateral/South Slough. Sometimes is crosses over the center of it, sometimes it doesn't quite go that far. It's called in a metes and bounds and not necessarily following the center of it. So, we don't necessarily have ownership and certainly we don't own the entire Finch Lateral. So, the question that I would have is can we legally the that and trespass. With all that aside, the South Slough, in my opinion, throughout the valley, acts more as a natural drainage way. It is a natural low point. If you drive up there and look at it and it looks like Ten Mile, Five Mile, Nine Mile Drain, versus a lateral that just happens to have a water right associated with it and it is a supply ditch for some downstream users, hence, the name Finch Lateral. Up and down that lateral, that slough, there are various pipe sizes. There is 48 inches, there is some in excess of 48 inches. There is some box culverts. There is some smaller than 48 inches. Downstream there has been some projects over the years that have been allowed not to the that. Valen Courts, Woodberry, I believe, some projects north of Chateau Meadows, Waterbeny, and Clearbrook and, then, maybe even Fothergill going back many years ago. I'm not sure. Most of that, to my knowledge, has been left open over the years. I did have a conversation with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on September 13th and Bill Henson reiterated to that upstream of there the county -- I'm assuming he meant the highway district, has a storm drainage to overFlow and when it rains the runoff goes into the slough and his comment to me was even the 48 inch is not adequate. And I asked that -- and I have copies of the letter in writing, I asked for him to put that in writing, but I haven't received that yet and I haven't had any return phone calls. So, other than my testimony and my experience, I can't offer any more than that on the Finch Lateral. But that's all I have to say and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? No? Okay. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Caleb, I guess I have a question. Is there not a needed landscape buffer between multi-family and commercial? Hood: There is, Madam Mayor. By ordinance there is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer requirement and that's -- I mentioned it in the staff report or to the Council that we did not receive a revised landscape plan ten days prior to this hearing that we could evaluate and update you as to the changes made. I did received a revised site plan, but it doesn't depict landscaping and there was several changes to the landscape plan. I did talk with Scott and Greg on the phone today. He mentioned that the five foot Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 46 of 53 landscaping adjacent to the -- one of the -- the outparcels, if you will, on Eagle Road, has now been provided some of the landscaping between -- on Eagle Road, the 35 foot wide landscape buffer on Eagle Road, which is now being shown -- I do not -- still don't have a copy of that landscape plan, but we will get that when that C-C lot develops, they will be required to construct -- the higher intense use constructs the land use buffers. So, yes, there is a requirement. De Weerd: Wouldn't it makes sense, though, to have it on what the Council is looking at? Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we tried to get a revised plan for you to look at and it just -- it wasn't provided, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: If the applicant has a response to that -- the question on the landscape plan, is that -- is that something that could be provided relatively soon or is there a reason that it couldn't -- Rindlisbaker: When I was reading through the staff report last week -- De Weerd: If you will state your name again for the record Rindlisbaker: Oh. Sony. Greg Rindlisbaker. Address? De Weerd: No. You're good. Rindlisbaker: I was reading the staff report last week and came across that requirement and didn't know that -- like I said, I received the staff report last week and I didn't know it had been requested earlier than that, or I would have had it completed and to you, but that's something I could have done, I imagine, within a week, week and a half. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Stanfield: Could I add to that real quick? Scott Stanfield. I think I need to reiterate what Caleb said. What you, really, have before you tonight is a site plan for the multi-family. The commercial up front, Rindlisbaker is not sure what kind of tenant is going to be in there and certainly if that application moves forward for a site plan approval we will have to meet all of the requirements that you have, but I believe with the multi-family, the requirement is to landscape the 35 foot up front. And Bach is willing to do that with the multi-family, kind of dress up their approach. Back on the temporary approach coming off Eagle, should you grant that variance, both sides of that will also be landscaped, just Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 47 of 53 to kind if clean up the approach, because their access points will be right here and not at their focal point, which is kind of backwards. So these will be landscaped, both sides, 35 foot buffer along Eagle will be landscaped. In fact, the revised site plan -- engineering site plan I have this area open for landscaping right there and we can put landscaping on the comer there and on the comer there, just to kind of jazz up that approach in the interim. So, again, as the commercial application comes forward we won't have any problems meeting the city requirements for the commercial application. Just wanted to kind of -- what they want to do to clean that area up now. De Weerd: You know, I guess I understood that, but it doesn't show it and that is what always concerns me on interpretation of those kind things and, then, to come in and say, well, that plot is a little bit too narrow, we can't really do all of the landscaping and maybe we need a variance and so -- Stanfield: I understand. I'll almost promise you that Bach won't come in for a variance, but he'll have to make that commitment. And the staff report did have that ten days, even if at the P&Z, it's just something we all got busy and the landscape architect got busy and we overlooked it. So, it's not that it wasn't in the staff report, because Craig did a wonderful job of putting the staff report together, even at the P&Z level. So, it's not on the city, it's on us as a project team for not having that in ten days prior. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a point of clarification. For the record that NFP-13 is sprinkler all areas of those buildings. One of the other benefits -- and we were speaking earlier about cooking safety and on the balconies, it would require that all those balconies -- that particular standard would require all those balconies to be also fire sprinklered. Just a point of clarification for Council to consider. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I'm looking for your direction on what you would like to do. Bird: Has the applicant had his rebuttal? De Weerd: He doesn't -- can he rebut his engineer? I don't know. But does the applicant have any further comment? Rindlisbaker: What staff has asked about the landscaping plan, we will comply with those requirements. If you have any other questions, I'll answers those as well. De Weerd: Okay. Rindlisbaker: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 48 of 53 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Greg, I do have one question or at least invite you to comment on Chief Musser's remarks with regard to the drive aisle connectivity just to the -- Rindlisbaker: Over here? Borton: Correct. And that's going to -- I think if I heard you right, it will be a -- basically a parking lot drive aisle behind -- Rindlisbaker: Yeah. This piece here I have been told it's going up for auction. Borton: Is it correct that it will connect all the way down to River -- Rindlisbaker: River Valley? Borton: -- River Valley Road? Rindlisbaker: The idea is, yes, it will, but I don't have control over these two parcels. Borton: Right. Rindlisbaker: So, that's going to have to be worked out with the city and those parcel owners. However, by providing this cross-access here, this parcel now has access to Eagle through my property and so it will have to have access out onto Eagle on that piece. Also this parcel here, the same thing, they can come out onto this road and come onto Eagle. So, we are reducing just by having ashared -- a shared cross-easement through there. Instead of three accesses onto Eagle, one. And if we can have an access easement through here, you reduce it down to the intersection and eliminate all those accesses. So, that was the thought behind it. And I know that when I was starting with this development I knew this was going to be a hot issue and I was just trying to come up with any ideas to help resolve those concerns. Borton: Madam Mayor. Then that access to Eagle Road is temporary until River Valley is -- Rindlisbaker: Correct. De Weerd: And so a full access? Rindlisbaker: Temporarily we have requested a full access, yes. De Weerd: And how many trips is this to generate? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 49 of 53 Rindlisbaker: I believe on multi-family it's about six -- but I haven't seen those numbers lately, but about six trips per day per unit. So, 1,200 trips per day on the multi-family. I don't know what will be generated from the commercial out front. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody needs anymore public input, I would move we close AZ 06-035, CUP 06- 022, VS 06-006, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015 and VAR 06-016. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 11 through 15. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm always concemed when we have variances to make projects work, but I'm really concemed when we have three in this particular project and possibly a fourth as it relates to the Finch Lateral. It may not be a variance, but it may be a request to deviate from what our requirement is. I like some of the features that I see here, but I would like to see a good number of the features that have been represented, but not specifically stated on paper as it relates to design, materials, colors, textures, esthetics. Some of the features I saw and some of the displays they had were not, in my opinion, particularly esthetic. Not that my opinion counts, but that's a concern I have. So, I probably at this point would not be in favor of annexation of this particular request. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Regarding the Five Mile Drain or Finch Lateral, whichever you want to call it, I think we are going to start getting ourselves in trouble -- this has been an issue since the eight years I have been on the Council -- is our aquifer is going down and down and down and -- because we are not flood irrigating anymore as much and we are seeming Meridian City Council • October 3, 2006 Page 50 of 53 to want to the everything and get it down and, then, when you got a drain ditch like that, which is -- which is a drain ditch, when you're running off and stuff you have heavy rains, you're -- if you have got a the with no way for it to be open and having the runoffs run into it, you're asking for trouble. So, I'm definitely not for tiling that. I am also, like Mr. Rountree, I'm not really sold on this. This is something that I don't think I could buy into right now. It's a lot of area in -- or a lot of density in one little area. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a specific comment about the issue which was -- not necessarily in front of us at the current time, but from a policy perspective if we are going to consider variances to our current ordinance, based on water use and aquifers, I think we need to take a look at that ordinance and have our Public Works Department make some determinations. Idon't want to banter about the scientific need for those sorts of things without good information. So, if that's something that -- certainly, like I said, is for another discussion, I think we should take a look at and maybe have the Council request that we have some more information. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Follow up on Councilman Wardle. We have had this discussion many times. We have had the Bureau, the Corps of Engineers, in to talk to us. I'm sure Bradley has got a lot of backup. I have backup that Iwill -- I can get for you, but that's not regarding this project. It's something we do need to look at. I think we need to look at our whole UDC ordinance. We have had more requests for variances since we adopted than we ever did before. And I helped pass it. De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item No. 11, annexation AZ 06-035. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 11. Is there any discussion? Rountree: I have no further. Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 51 of 53 De Weerd: Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. r~ Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 12. Rountree: Madam Mayor, before I make a motion, could I do a motion for all four of the remainder hearings? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yes, you can. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny Items 12, 13, 14 and 15, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015, VAR 06-016. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Items 12 through 15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Ordinance No. AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Ordinance No. 06-1266. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 06-1266, an Ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 24, 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 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. ~ ~ October 13, 2006 VAR 06-016 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT The Regency at River Valley, LLC ITEM NO. 19 REQUEST Endings for Denial -request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 to construe a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections for Regency at River Valley - e% Eagle AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached AAinufes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached f~lndings CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT; CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Emailed: (~ tt~lJ Date: (J ~ Q(p Phone: ~ St In 'als: r Materials presented at pubBc meetings shop becmrte properly of the Oily of Meridian. • • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 10/03/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ) UDC 11-3H-4B2 TO CONSTRUCT ) A VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A STATE ) HIGHWAY AT A LOCATION OTHER ) THAN A SECTION LINE ROAD OR THE ) HALF MILE MARK BETWEEN ) SECTIONS FOR ) THE REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY, LLC ) APPLICANT ) Case No. VAR 06-016 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing before the City Council on October 3, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the denial of the application for annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035, and the hearing was opened on the variance application and Anna Canning, City Planning Director for the Planning Department, Benjamin Clegg of Bach Corp., appeared and testified, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in Case No. AZ-06-035 does hereby deny the application for Variance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-016 PAGE 1 OF 3 FINDINGS OF FACT • It is found that the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is not reasonable nor appropriate for the conditions of approval of the variance due to the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035. DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code Section 11-SA-6 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that based upon the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-035 the City Council does hereby deny the application for variance. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-016 PAGE 2 OF 3 • 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 ~ -~ day of October, 2006. e`~,~IY,p~ T MY de WEERD ATTEST: ° 0 ``aei ~~ ~ ~fi~ As,~i ~ `vim ~~'~ ` _~ ~_ - ~~~L - CITY CLERK = ~~'- :~~~ ~ ~T 9~, 1 ~~~: 1111 119 Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. Bay ~ JI~.J~~ Q Dated: ~ - City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. VAR 06-016 PAGE 3 OF 3 Tara Green From: Greg Rindlisbacher [gr@bachhomes.net] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:45 PM To: Tara Green Cc: Sharon Smith; Mark Bottles; rtulcher~markbottles.com; C. Caleb Hood; Shon Rindlisbacher Subject: FW: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Green Attachments: 20061012164215933.pdf 2006101216 a33.pdf (152 I Tera, Attached is the letter to the City regarding reconsideration of The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community, application # AZ-06-035. If you have any questions regarding this email, please call or email. Thank You, Important: My email address has changed!!! My new address is: gr@bachhomes.net Greg Rindlisbacher President Bach Homes Office 801.566.2224 Direct 801.567.3006 gr@bachhomes.net ----Original Message From: savin@bachcorp.com [mailto:savin@bachcorp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:42 PM To: Greg Subject: Letter for Reconsideration for The Regency at River Valley Apartment Community (AZ-06-035) This E-mail was sent from "Savin8035" (8035/80358). Scan Date: 10.12.200616:42:15 (-0400) Queries to: savin@bachcorp.com .. ~. - ~r ~ - • Oc#otier 12~ 2006 - ~ - ~ - ;AAayor ~'arhmy:de1Neerd and City:Ccunal Membeis City of-AAeridiari ". - - - 33: East Idaho Avenue. ~ - Meridian'. Idaho 83642 - - Re:. Regency at River'Valley (AZ-08-035, GUP-QB-022; VAR-Q~-015, VAR-06016) . Mayor ode Weerd. arni-Ilflembers. ~of the Ci'~y`Cour~cil; , . • - ~ The 8ach:Team is requesting our~appfication .for The. Regei~cy:at River Valley Apartment _: - ~ . . '; Community whicll.was.denied previously nn Clctober.3, 2006.to be recottsiiier~i.' . : . iAt the time the amotion for denial,was made, •there vvas no reas4a stated.: Our notes fio~ the ,• -- • meeting :o4:October3'~:20.06, shover-that the-foNowing ~it~ms listed below we a t)roraigtit up• itr. - ~•disop: iNe:woulq:be happy to address these.and;any otter iSsues,not listed't>elow.fhat.the : ~ ~ >lllay0r or City:Gouncil• Mernbers may hays end Consider.-tna~ing modificatlor~ in, broiar` fo satisfy those issues: . lter<rs of discussion: ~. - . - ~ . - r ~ ~ Provide<color bdar+ds sftoianng :quality and golor ~f matelrials for. tiie:exteiior and `interior of ~ ' - tke bu~Tdittgs •_ Provide an ripdated landscape plan cord'omting with a!t City n3quirements . + 'Provide=a.let{er-.from the ~rmga6on. Comparfyi~ idri#k regards t6 the eon-tiQng Qr tiling .of ttie ,.. .. finch lateral - . ~, Discuss the~treffic concems~anti future~d'eveloprnefit of our commercial property adaacent; • _ -`- ~ tt:is qur undeisfanding #hat we have.conformed..vvith tt~.requiremefrts~ lnth~ .ne~nr development - ~_ c~cJe: Tltur~ far, we .have r~eived,positiye rec~prrirnendations fcoa~ piannir~g-=staff ancl~ planning .:. corrnnisstvn,:nnd-there .has been~no public disapproval for the to our knowled e. - hroJect;.: > g - - ~ ~ Wei are:commitied to' providing--a high quality product~in 1~flleridiea ~Cit3r: and-~sl~ foryoui• ~ _ . - reconsirJerdtiort for .an additional putilic_fieanng regariiing The Regency. st. River \lalley Apartment _ . , G-ommunity. - Thantc.you~foryourtinae;;aad:,recgn5iderati'on ifyou lfave.any:questions, piea~ feel~~ree.to~errrail meat i~rCeabachkorries:net nor call meat {889)567-3000.: _.. • - - - - -Tttiank Y , . - . : ~ , _ ' _ Gr; Rrf~is - .. ~. ,. backer- The`BaCtrTeatn; President " - ~ . .~ ~ .. - ~ • = - ~ ,. - -- - - 11.650 Soufh State Street; Suite 300_ • .Drap.er, Utah 84020 Phone: 801.566.2224 Fax: 801..566.2203 ~ vyww.baeheorp:com -. • ..` - - ~ - Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 37 of 53 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. Mr. Nary, since we don't have an annexation, do we still need a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you would. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-030, preliminary plat. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered .parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11- 4.3.2783 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 38 of 53 Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 06-016 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-462 to construct a vehicular access to a state highway at a location other than a section line road or the half mile mark between sections ReQencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Thank You. Items 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are all public hearings on this same application or same subdivision. AZ 06-035, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06- 015, and VAR 06-016. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The Regency Subdivision -- there is, actually, not a subdivision application associated with this project. I'll talk about that a little bit more later. There are two parcels that you can see outlined here in the teal color just south of the C-G. That's our subject site. It is located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately a half mile north of Fairview Avenue. I'll throw up the aerial here. To the north is the Finch Lateral and, again, I'll talk about that here in a minute as well. There are also some single family homes mixed in here on some large parcels. Most of this has been zoned in the city with a commercial designation as part of the Redfeather development. There aren't any commercial uses approved on this site currently, but, again, it is zoned C-G in the city. To the west is Stokesbeny Subdivision. It's an office park. And, then, you have got the elementary school, River Valley Elementary School, just to the west of that. To the south is the turf farms. To the east, as I mentioned, there are some future single family homes in Redfeather as it progresses back to the west. Madam Mayor, I went through all of the applications that are associated with this and I will just briefly touch on each one of them and, then, go into some more detail on each one, I guess, as well. So, annexation and zoning is 12 acres requested for zoning. 1.5 acres -- one and a half acres is requested to be C-C right on Eagle Road. So, it would be this pad site here along Eagle Road and, then, ten and a half acres is remainder area proposed for the R-40 density residential zone. Concurrent with that request is the Conditional Use Permit to construct amulti-family development that consists of 204 multi-family dwelling units. Now, this is a little bit different multi-family development than we are used to seeing in that they are multi-multi family units. There are -- most all of these are 24 unit buildings. There is a 12 unit building right here. There is a mix of bedrooms within these. Some are one and two bedrooms, some are two and three, some are one and three. This area I think is business -- I can't read it exactly, but it's kind of got a different little professional feel to it anyways and its marketed to those folks a little bit differently. There is also a private street request -- there are several private streets. The one I want to touch on first has to do with its connection to Eagle Road, a state highway, which is not at the mid mile location. This property does have access to the mid section line. However, that does not extend out to Meridian Road at the mid section line. So, they'd ask for avariance -- a temporary variance, if you will, to have access at this access point to the development at this time. It is their only frontage. There is no other public street frontage today. Staff is recommending approval of that variance on a temporary basis until this public street -- public collector roadway can you extend out to Eagle Road, get a signal put in here and, then, this will be the primary entrance into the development until Allys Way, which Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 39 of 53 I'll touch on here -- a little bit here in a minute, gets pushed up to Ustick Road. So, as a condition for recommending approval -- a temporary approval of that variance, we want to see all of these lots take access -- consolidate their access points, give cross-access, so we can eventually feed all of these properties that have access to Eagle Road down to the future public street and use this as an access and close off the access points that these parcels particularly today utilize. So, that's one of the variance requests. The other one has to do with parking. I did talk with the applicant just actually during the hearing. There is a little bit of a -- I counted the number of stalls proposed through the multi-family and, actually, I came up with a count of 403 parking stalls. They assured me that there will be at least 408 parking stalls, which is a minimum number required per the UDC in this development. The variance is related to the requirement to provide covered parking stalls. This plan is not the revised plan. Essentially, staffs recommendation is that anywhere that is not encumbered by the irrigation easement, which all these parking stalls up in here, and that are not adjacent to this building and up to about half of this building and around the loop at the clubhouse -- I'm sorry, that's the clubhouse there and open spaces and trails -- some walking trails in between. That those areas I just pointed out not be required to have either carports or garages. That's what the UDC requires. Two covered parking stalls per dwelling unit. We will talk about that a little more. The applicant, I understand, has a visual that they can show you. It's kind of color coded showing where garages are, where carports are, and where surface parking spots are. And, then, finally, the third variance request has to do with the 80 square foot private usable open space that's required for multi-family developments. This requirement was added to the UDC primarily because there is no private usable open space outside of the units that someone can call their own and barbecue or just hang out on a patio on their deck, things of that nature. The bottom units on those -- of these, if not all these, do have a patio area, but the upper two floors do not propose any private usable open space for those residents. I think real quick what I will do is I guess I'll finish with the private streets. So, all the access drives in here are private streets that will cant' a separate private lane, blue signs, so that emergency services can find the units that are addressed off of each private lane. I do have ahot-off-the-press a-mail from Joe Silva stating that he's okay with having just the one access point here and in the future the one access point being here, because all these buildings are going to be fully fire sprinklered NFP 13, which, basically, I understand is everything gets sprinklered, the attics and everything are fully sprinkled. So, there is currently a lack of access into this site, but it will be -- at least the fire department's okay with having a single access point of this development temporarily. In that same vein I want to touch on Allys Way just for a minute. Allys Avenue is what it's also been called. I'm not quite sure what it's going to end up being called, but that's the other collector that shoots up north, comes out at Lowe's. It's currently got the conduit and the signal mass and things for the signalization right there at the Lowe's entrance. ACHD is requiring developers as they come in and develop in the city to construct their portion of that collector roadway, so maybe I'll jump back to the vicinity real quick. It doesn't go all the way up, but if you can use your imagination just for a minute. Ustick Road is right there. So, we -- here probably a couple months ago ACHD on this parcel on the south, that first leg of that collector being constructed to that point, so when Redfeather comes in we will at least have the first half mile of that constructed and, then, hopefully, they will come down and Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 40 of 53 tie in with Records when this property develops. And, again, we will have this connection out here. So, this applicant will be -- I think one of the requirements from ACRD was they will be road trusted for half of the requirements of a crossing of this as well, so Redfeather will do the other half and we will actually have a bridge crossing and they are constructing their portion of this collector road, which will align with River Valley or whatever it's called across the street. The development agreement is proposed by staff, just because this isn't your standard single family development that we typically see, there are quite afew -- I don't want to call them odd ball requirements, but the out of the ordinary restrictions and requirements that we felt it was a good project to have a develop agreement on and restrict the uses that occur on this property. I think I covered all the variances that were partially supportive of one, not recommending approval of the waiver of another one, and I think I'm pretty clear. If not, you can sure ask me any questions. The applicant I believe is also going to clarify what they intend to do with the Finch Lateral, aka the South Slough, if you prefer and similar to the last project if it's going to be tiled or not tiled. It is a pretty large facility. Maybe just quickly some more highlights -- and I will let the applicant kind of sell their project, if you will, to you, but the gross density of River Valley is 17.86 dwelling units per acre. There is approximately 2.7 acres or 22 percent of the site being set aside for open space. They are providing a community clubhouse with an exercise room, billiards table, a lounge area, a barbecue area, dining facilities, children's play area, tot lot, the open space I mentioned, a hot tub and pool, a water amenity right in the center of clubhouse visitor area and walking trails throughout as I mentioned earlier as well. With that I think I have touched on all of my points and, hopefully, gave you the -- I gave the full view of the project and what's before you all and allow the applicant to supplement that, but if you have any questions I will be available for those. De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, I guess I just need a little more clarity on the connecting -- maybe abackage road per se that runs parallel to Eagle between this multi-family and the commercial piece. Is that currently in that design? Hood: Yeah. Madam Mayor, the piece they own -- and maybe I'll jump back real quick, just to the parcel configuration. So, everything here is what's going to be C-C. So, that north side -- south driveway is there and, then, these parcels -- there is two to the south and one to the north. I don't know if that helps or not, but the cross-access would be -- De Weerd: They are just running it through a parking lot? Hood: Correct. It's a backage road that will be -- the building and parking between Eagle Road and this backage drive aisle. It does have -- as you can see in this conceptual -- and totally conceptual in nature, there is a development agreement requirement that that come back in for at least design review approval, if not Conditional Use Permit approval. I can't remember. And, yeah, I don't know that this parking lot layout would fly when we review it, but the idea is to get a drive aisle connection to the property to the north and the property to the south and that could or may not have -- preferably may not have on back off parking or people backing into that drive aisle. That's certainly something that -- if that's the desire of the Council to restrict it further Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 41 of 53 than that, I guess, but, again, we haven't spent too much time reviewing that parcel, because there is no real -- they don't have anyone that's ready to move in there now and the plan is just conceptual. We could use this as a potential use. De Weerd: I don't know what our chief of police thinks, but running a two way through a parking lot can't be all that safe and when it's private it makes is more cumbersome. But, chief, do you have any comments on that? Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you're absolutely right, it would be cumbersome and if it becomes a private access drive there is not much enforcement in activity or anything else we can do on that, especially in terms of a two way. We can still respond in there reference collisions, but there are probably other ways to look at designing it. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any questions for staff before I call the applicant up? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant -- if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Rindlisbaker: Yes, Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, grateful to be here and to discuss this project. My name is Greg Rindlisbaker with the Bach team. Our address is 11650 South State Street, Draper, Utah. I just want to kind of quickly overview what our company does and the project that we are proposing, so you can have an idea of what type of product we produce and that will help clarify I think a lot of questions that you may have and concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. Rindlisbaker: And, then, we will haggle from there. And I'm hoping this clicker will work. Okay. As Caleb mentioned, this is the project that we are proposing to do. We have been in business now for about 30 years and we specialize in doing apartment projects and residential communities. We have been doing apartments for about ten or 12 years now and through our experience we have teamed a lot about what works in an apartment community, what's going to look good now, what's going to look good in five years, ten, 20 years and so these variances that we are asking for and some of the improvements that we put in the project -- and for that reason we want this to look good for years to come. We have never sold a project. We are the developer, the builder, the property manager, and the owner of the projects, but 15 years from now I can't say we will still own the property and it's still going to be part of your city. So, you know, we take a lot of pride in the project that we do and we know it's going to be here for a long time, so we want to make sure that the product we produce will last for a really long time. First of all our entrances -- this will be our primary entrance eventually. As Caleb mentioned, this is the temporary access that we are requesting. Just to clarify, Madam Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 42 of 53 • Mayor, your concern here, this is -- these are just cross-easements. This piece to the north is another acre, which will probably be some type of commercial development. It will be across-easement so they can actually come through here and access Eagle, turn, and, then, come through down here to access River Valley in the long term -- it's just these -- basically, it alleviates the traffic problem onto Eagle. They can come down to River Valley, catch the light here at the mid mile and, then, get onto Eagle safely. So, it, actually, reduced traffic congestion and safety issues onto Eagle. You see that all the time in malls where they are having cross-easements between restaurants where you can cross through different restaurant pads or different offices. Right across the street there is cross-easements between each -- each office building and you see -- I have seen that quite a bit along Eagle Drive and it really, actually, works out to the benefit of the city and traffic. The entrances to our project -- this is a typical entrance into our project. This one was built in Tri-Cities, Washington. We will have signs as you enter in, a water feature. This is another entrance sign to a project we built in Idaho Falls. This project is another shot of -- a close up of a shot in the Tri-Cities area of our entrance into the project. This is a -- we can talk about the clubhouse. There is an entry -- I'm going to show what the area here is going to look like and clubhouse and the water features. This is a water feature in Tri-Cities again. You can see the statute we do here. This is called the Crossings at Chapel Hill. We kind of followed a horse theme. We haven't quite picked the theme here for Regency, but we are going to do something similar to this. This one is up in Montana in Billings. We have got an Elk and a lot of features, actually, in front of this, but same kind of feel. Clubhouse interiors, which will be right here as you enter in. We try to make it a really nice area. We want this project to be a Class A project. This project will rival we think any project in the Treasure Valley area and, in fact, probably the state of Idaho and it's going to be something that's going to be something that residents will feel -- I think feel proud to live at and will be a nice benefit to the community. We have a 24 hour fitness center. Key card access. You can enter the fitness center and workout anytime you want. We can track who is coming and going with their key card access. Another picture of the fitness center. A pool area. We take a lot of pride in our pool areas. This will be shots that we are going to be doing something similar to this area and with our pool areas I want to mention that we have our in-house landscaping company. We do not subcontract that out. We have teamed that we are very picky about our landscaping, we want it done very well and maintenance free. All of our flower beds we cover with small rock or aggregate, we put weed barrier underneath that, so when people come in to maintain it, all we need is a mow and trim and the project looks great. No weeds, always looks nice, and you will see that in these pictures. This project is in Tri-Cities, Washington, just finished a month or two ago. This one is in St. George, Utah. This one is in Twin Falls, Idaho. Another shot of St. George from the top part. We add little green areas. These are gazebos where people can come and lay out and read while their kids are swimming. Hot tub. We have water falls into the pool if area public law permits that. Common areas, which will be these areas. Tot lots. Some grass areas. Something -- similar projects we have done. This is the barbecue area. I want to point out these barbecue areas are fire proof. These are on concrete, masonry all construction, vented properly up at the top. And these are to help prevent fires. This is where we want people to barbecue and we are going to cover this in the variance request later on on the decks. This is a typical tot lot. Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 43 of 53 This one's in St. George, Utah. Typical landscaping. These are the putting greens. I think this is Tri-Cities, Washington, again. This is the common area shot of our landscaping in St. George, Utah. Building interiors and exteriors. This is in Ogden, Utah, our Pinebrook property. This one, again, is in Billings, Montana. This is the Tri-Cities project again. Interior of our apartment models. This is, actually, an older unit, so we want to show some of the quality we put in here. We do nice -- nicer wood cabinets, instead of Milamean, which you see in some apartment complexes. Microwaves above the ranges. Washers and dryers back here in the laundry room. Now we come to the Regency. This is what we are proposing that the clubhouse looks like. It will be very similar to this. The color scheme will be similar to this. It's not been finalized, but very similar. A building elevation. And you can see on here we have built product in the past with private balconies on them and we are trying to get away from that and I will go through that a little bit later on. And you can see here there is private patios on the first floor, but we are not proposing these on the second and third floor, but on the first. I want to go onto the covered parking variance. We met with our engineer today and we wanted to throw the color scheme in here so you could see exactly what we proposing. We do not meet the ordinance. We have some obstacles that we cannot overcome. This north side of the South Slough or Finch Lateral, I'm not sure which one it's named. I keep hearing different names. But there is an easement there and we are not allowed to put anything along that easement, any type of structure. So, we are requesting that this variance be approved for parking. We have placed the covered carports, which are kind of in the pink color. You can see where those carports are. And the purple area -- these were blue and red. I don't know why they are purple and pink. The purple area are garages that we are proposing to put in there. There is 36 garages, upgraded from carports. We prefer to do more garages, but there is only -- it's kind of a supply and demand. We do as many as we feel like we can do for the return we can get on that investment. But it adds something a little bit nicer to the community as well. So, we have 192 covered carports, 36 garages, and, then, 180 open parking stalls, which equates to 480 parking stalls, 408, which will give you the two parking stalls per unit. Now, the back of garages are not the most beautiful things. What we have done here -- this one's in Tri-Cities. We have put a lot of landscaping behind these to kind of help hide the look from the street side. This is a public street here and we have done that to help -- you know, makes it a little esthetically pleasing. We also broke up the garage here in back. We can do that as well if the City Council would like to see that. All right. The private balcony variance. One thing we want to cover -- and I know economics isn't a thing that city councils and mayors generally look at, but we have to make the project pencil. If we are required to put in the private balconies, I'd just have to take something from the project somewhere else. Maybe it might be microwaves, it might be a tot lot -- who knows what it would be, but to make it pencil I have to put in -- I have to basically move money one way or the other and I think the return on what you get for the balcony is not that great. I still am being able to provide one-third of all the units -- one-third of all the units with private balcony space. If somebody really wants private balcony space they can rent a unit on the first floor. We are also providing in a common area places for people to come and barbecue that has been designed to be safe. So, we won't have people throwing debris -- I mean it's not -- you know, people throwing cigarette butts out on the grass. Children falling from balconies. You might think that's kind of funny, but it Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 44 of 53 does happen. It happened actually two days ago in Salt Lake City where I mom actually caught the baby before it landed and got hurt. Also, a concern about barbecues being a fire hazard. People do barbecue and smoke on their -- on their balcony. Now, if they smoke on the patio outside on the first floor, it's not quite as scary, because they are on concrete. They get on the second, third floor they are on outdoor carpeting and wood deck flooring. I'll show you a few pictures and concerns. Our insurance companies do not like having people put -- I guess that document didn't show up. It's a letter from our insurance company that we just received two weeks ago. It's kind of ironic that it came at the same time, but, basically, they have gone down to our St. George project and said get these barbecues off the decks. Oh, and there it is right there. In order to -- the paragraph showed up. In order to reduce the risk of fire, gas and charcoal grills or similar devices used for cooking, heating, any purposes, should not be used on any balcony under any overhanging portion or within ten feet of any structure. So, they are concerned about that fire hazard. Here is a fire we had about months ago on a project. This was in Idaho Falls, Idaho. And as you can see, we have provided a barbecue area around the pool that the residents can use at their discretion. If it's available they can use it. A shot from the front. So, you know, in conclusion, I just want to point out we have patios on the first floor for residents to use if they want private area. We have storage units -- we have people storing -- oh, I guess this isn't quite the conclusion piece. We have people that store stuff on those balconies as well and it becomes unsightly. Now, we can try to police it, we have on-site management, but it's very difficult to police the barbecuing and people storing stuff on the balconies. You're going to see some pictures -- not all of these are from our properties, but some of them are. And, you know, it just doesn't make a goodly amount of curb appeal and we want this to be a nice place for our residents and when people drive by that are city people -- or, you know, citizens of the city, we don't want them to be thinking about all that stuff hanging out on the decks and patios. So, we would ask for your -- we'd ask for your approval on these applications that we are requesting tonight and I would be happy to field any questions that you might have. ®e Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. ®e Weerd: No? Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Stanfield: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Scott Stanfield, Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. I'll address some of the engineering issues as quick as I can. We can meet all the engineering and planning requirements for the site plan, including the 35 foot buffer along Eagle Road to the west, the 25 foot buffer along our collectors to the south, and Allys Avenue -- Allys Way to the east. We can provide our five foot minimum buffer adjacent to non-Bach owned parcels adjacent to us. We can meet the landscape island criteria inside our project. Covered parking. Again, we are asking for a variance on the covered parking. Asking for your discretion in that item. Greg indicated on the north boundary along the Slouth/Lateral Meridian City Council a October 3, 2006 Page 45 of 53 • Nampa-Meridian has made it clear they don't want any structures of that type inside the easement. We worked it out just prior to P&Z meeting and just recently in other discussion with Mr. Silva. We are going to put the covered patios -- or covered carports up front and in order to get around the fire code issue regarding separation for horizontal clearances with a ladder truck going over the top of them, we are going to upgrade to an NFP-12 -- 12 fire sprinklers, attics, crawl spaces, every room sprinklered, in order to go ahead and provide what cover we can adjacent to the buildings. The amenities. Greg went over the amenities quite well, I believe. The tiling of the Finch Lateral. Our boundary is generally following the Finch Lateral/South Slough. Sometimes is crosses over the center of it, sometimes it doesn't quite go that far. It's called in a metes and bounds and not necessarily following the center of it. So, we don't necessarily have ownership and certainly we don't own the entire Finch Lateral. So, the question that I would have is can we legally the that and trespass. With all that aside, the South Slough, in my opinion, throughout the valley, acts more as a natural drainage way. It is a natural low point. If you drive up there and look at it and it looks like Ten Mile, Five Mile, Nine Mile Drain, versus a lateral that just happens to have a water right associated with it and it is a supply ditch for some downstream users, hence, the name Finch Lateral. Up and down that lateral, that slough, there are various pipe sizes. There is 48 inches, there is some in excess of 48 inches. There is some box culverts. There is some smaller than 48 inches. Downstream there has been some projects over the years that have been allowed not to the that. Valen Courts, Woodberry, I believe, some projects north of Chateau Meadows, Waterberry, and Clearbrook and, then, maybe even Fothergill going back many years ago. I'm not sure. Most of that, to my knowledge, has been left open over the years. I did have a conversation with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on September 13th and Bill Henson reiterated to that upstream of there the county -- I'm assuming he meant the highway district, has a storm drainage to overflow and when it rains the runoff goes into the slough and his comment to me was even the 48 inch is not adequate. And I asked that -- and I have copies of the letter in writing, I asked for him to put that in writing, but I haven't received that yet and I haven't had any return phone calls. So, other than my testimony and my experience, I can't offer any more than that on the Finch Lateral. But that's all I have to say and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council? No? Okay. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Caleb, I guess I have a question. Is there not a needed landscape buffer between multi-family and commercial? Hood: There is, Madam Mayor. By ordinance there is a 25 foot wide landscape buffer requirement and that's -- I mentioned it in the staff report or to the Council that we did not receive a revised landscape plan ten days prior to this hearing that we could evaluate and update you as to the changes made. I did received a revised site plan, but it doesn't depict landscaping and there was several changes to the landscape plan. I did talk with Scott and Greg on the phone today. He mentioned that the five foot Meridian City Council • October 3, 2006 Page 46 of 53 • landscaping adjacent to the -- one of the -- the outparcels, if you will, on Eagle Road, has now been provided some of the landscaping between -- on Eagle Road, the 35 foot wide landscape buffer on Eagle Road, which is now being shown -- I do not -- still don't have a copy of that landscape plan, but we will get that when that C-C lot develops, they will be required to construct -- the higher intense use constructs the land use buffers. So, yes, there is a requirement. De Weerd: Wouldn't it makes sense, though, to have it on what the Council is looking at? Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we tried to get a revised plan for you to look at and it just -- it wasn't provided, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: If the applicant has a response to that -- the question on the landscape plan, is that -- is that something that could be provided relatively soon or is there a reason that it couldn't -- Rindlisbaker: When I was reading through the staff report last week -- De Weerd: If you will state your name again for the record Rindlisbaker: Oh. Sony. Greg Rindlisbaker. Address? De Weerd: No. You're good. Rindlisbaker: I was reading the staff report last week and came across that requirement and didn't know that -- like I said, I received the staff report last week and I didn't know it had been requested earlier than that, or I would have had it completed and to you, but that's something I could have done, I imagine, within a week, week and a half. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Stanfield: Could I add to that real quick? Scott Stanfield. I think I need to reiterate what Caleb said. What you, really, have before you tonight is a site plan for the multi-family. The commercial up front, Rindlisbaker is not sure what kind of tenant is going to be in there and certainly if that application moves forward for a site plan approval we will have to meet all of the requirements that you have, but I believe with the multi-family, the requirement is to landscape the 35 foot up front. And Bach is willing to do that with the multi-family, kind of dress up their approach. Back on the temporary approach coming off Eagle, should you grant that variance, both sides of that will also be landscaped, just Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 47 of 53 • to kind if clean up the approach, because their access points will be right here and not at their focal point, which is kind of backwards. So these will be landscaped, both sides, 35 foot buffer along Eagle will be landscaped. In fact, the revised site plan -- engineering site plan I have this area open for landscaping right there and we can put landscaping on the comer there and on the comer there, just to kind of jam up that approach in the interim. So, again, as the commercial application comes forward we won't have any problems meeting the city requirements for the commercial application. Just wanted to kind of -- what they want to do to clean that area up now. De Weerd: You know, I guess I understood that, but it doesn't show it and that is what always concerns me on interpretation of those kind things and, then, to come in and say, well, that plot is a little bit too narrow, we can't really do all of the landscaping and maybe we need a variance and so -- Stanfield: I understand. I'll almost promise you that Bach won't come in for a variance, but he'll have to make that commitment. And the staff report did have that ten days, even if at the P&Z, it's just something we all got busy and the landscape architect got busy and we overlooked it. So, it's not that it wasn't in the staff report, because Craig did a wonderful job of putting the staff report together, even at the P&Z level. So, it's not on the city, it's on us as a project team for not having that in ten days prior. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a point of clarification. For the record that NFP-13 is sprinkler all areas of those buildings. One of the other benefits -- and we were speaking earlier about cooking safety and on the balconies, it would require that all those balconies -- that particular standard would require all those balconies to be also fire sprinklered. Just a point of clarification for Council to consider. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I'm looking for your direction on what you would like to do. Bird: Has the applicant had his rebuttal? De Weerd: He doesn't -- can he rebut his engineer? I don't know. But does the applicant have any further comment? Rindlisbaker: What staff has asked about the landscaping plan, we will comply with those requirements. If you have any other questions, I'll answers those as well. De Weerd: Okay. Rindlisbaker: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 48 of 53 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Greg, I do have one question or at least invite you to comment on Chief Musser's remarks with regard to the drive aisle connectivity just to the -- Rindlisbaker: Over here? Borton: Correct. And that's going to -- I think if I heard you right, it will be a -- basically a parking lot drive aisle behind -- Rindlisbaker: Yeah. This piece here I have been told it's going up for auction. Borton: Is it correct that it will connect all the way down to River -- Rindlisbaker: River Valley? Borton: -- River Valley Road? Rindlisbaker: The idea is, yes, it will, but I don't have control over these two parcels. Borton: Right. Rindlisbaker: So, that's going to have to be worked out with the city and those parcel owners. However, by providing this cross-access here, this parcel now has access to Eagle through my property and so it will have to have access out onto Eagle on that piece. Also this parcel here, the same thing, they can come out onto this road and come onto Eagle. So, we are reducing just by having ashared -- a shared cross-easement through there. Instead of three accesses onto Eagle, one. And if we can have an access easement through here, you reduce it down to the intersection and eliminate all those accesses. So, that was the thought behind it. And I know that when I was starting with this development I knew this was going to be a hot issue and I was just trying to come up with any ideas to help resolve those concerns. Borton: Madam Mayor. Then that access to Eagle Road is temporary until River Valley is -- Rindlisbaker: Correct. De Weerd: And so a full access? Rindlisbaker: Temporarily we have requested a full access, yes. De Weerd: And how many trips is this to generate? Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 49 of 53 Rindlisbaker: I believe on multi-family it's about six -- but I haven't seen those numbers lately, but about six trips per day per unit. So, 1,200 trips per day on the multi-family. I don't know what will be generated from the commercial out front. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody needs anymore public input, I would move we close AZ 06-035, CUP 06- 022, VS 06-006, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015 and VAR 06-016. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 11 through 15. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm always concemed when we have variances to make projects work, but I'm really concemed when we have three in this particular project and possibly a fourth as it relates to the Finch Lateral. It may not be a variance, but it may be a request to deviate from what our requirement is. I like some of the features that I see here, but I would like to see a good number of the features that have been represented, but not specifically stated on paper as it relates to design, materials, colors, textures, esthetics. Some of the features I saw and some of the displays they had were not, in my opinion, particularly esthetic. Not that my opinion counts, but that's a concern I have. So, I probably at this point would not be in favor of annexation of this particular request. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Regarding the Five Mile Drain or Finch Lateral, whichever you want to call it, I think we are going to start getting ourselves in trouble -- this has been an issue since the eight years I have been on the Council -- is our aquifer is going down and down and down and -- because we are not flood irrigating anymore as much and we are seeming Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 50 of 53 i to want to the everything and get it down and, then, when you got a drain ditch like that, which is -- which is a drain ditch, when you're running off and stuff you have heavy rains, you're -- if you have got a the with no way for it to be open and having the runoffs run into it, you're asking for trouble. So, I'm definitely not for tiling that. I am also, like Mr. Rountree, I'm not really sold on this. This is something that I don't think I could buy into right now. It's a lot of area in -- or a lot of density in one little area. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a specific comment about the issue which was -- not necessarily in front of us at the current time, but from a policy perspective if we are going to consider variances to our current ordinance, based on water use and aquifers, I think we need to take a look at that ordinance and have our Public Works Department make some determinations. Idon't want to banter about the scientific need for those sorts of things without good information. So, if that's something that -- certainly, like I said, is for another discussion, I think we should take a look at and maybe have the Council request that we have some more information. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Follow up on Councilman Wardle. We have had this discussion many times. We have had the Bureau, the Corps of Engineers, in to talk to us. I'm sure Bradley has got a lot of backup. I have backup that Iwill -- I can get for you, but that's not regarding this project. It's something we do need to look at. I think we need to look at our whole UDC ordinance. We have had more requests for variances since we adopted than we ever did before. And I helped pass it. De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item No. 11, annexation AZ 06-035. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 11. Is there any discussion? Rountree: I have no further. Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 51 of 53 De Weerd: Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. • Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 12. Rountree: Madam Mayor, before I make a motion, could I do a motion for all four of the remainder hearings? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yes, you can. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny Items 12, 13, 14 and 15, CUP 06-022, VAR 06-014, VAR 06-015, VAR 06-016. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Items 12 through 15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Ordinance No. AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Ordinance No. 06-1266. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 06-1266, an Ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 24, 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 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. • October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ZO REQUEST Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ciy of Merldlan. • October 13, 2~6 AZ 06-030 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2~6 APPLICANT Gemstar Development, LLC ITEM NO. Zl REQUEST Findings for Denial -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision -north side of Ustick Road and east of Under Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See aftached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Flindings 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: Materials presented at pubitc meetUga shag ~fif Initials: ~~ properly of the oily of Meridian. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 10/03/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 8.03 ACRES TO R-8 FOR NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION Case No. AZ 06-030 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL GEMSTAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC. APPLICANT The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on October 3, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., Anna Canning, City Planning Director for the Planning Department, Shawn Nickel of SLN Planning, Inc., appeared and testified, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearings scheduled for October 3, 2006, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearings and with the notice of public hearings having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. AZ-06-030 PAGE I OF 4 • , hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council on October 3, 2006, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions provided services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§67-6509 and 67-6511, and §11-SA, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Title 11, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 8.03 acres in size and is generally located on West Ustick Road on the north side, approximately 700 fees east of Linder Road, in Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County,. 5. Dennis Creek, whose address is 770 Clear Creek Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642, is the current property owner. 6. Applicant is Gemstar Development, LLC, 228 E. Plaza Drive, Suite I, Eagle, Idaho, 83616. 7. The subject property is currently zoned RUT (Ada County). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. AZ-06-030 PAGE 2 OF 4 8. The Applicant requests the property be zoned R-8 (Medium Density Residential District). The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 9. The entire parcel of property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: Medium Density Residential District. 11. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map designates the subject property as R-8 Medium Density Residential. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The City of Meridian has discretionary authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code §50-222. The Municipal Code of the City of Meridian § 11-SB-3 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The provisions of Idaho Code §50-222 govern the conditions upon which the City may exercise its authority to annex territory, but the exercise of that authority is discretionary as determined by the City Council. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby order and this does order: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. AZ-06-030 PAGE 3 OF 4 • That the application for annexation and zoning is denied for the following reasons: The proposed development is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. /~ ~/~ By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of October, 2006. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN SHAUN WARDLE VOTED _~~CC. COUNCILMAN JOE BORTON VOTED _~~,~' COUNCILMAN CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED _~~~ COUNCILMAN KEITH BIItD VOTED ,~ .__.- MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DATED: ! ~ ' ~ ~'` ~ MOTION: APPROVED: ~_ D ~~\```,~~X~~t~ //~1VIY de WEERD ATTEST: ``~`~,~°~ ~ ®>' r ``a Aoei a ~~ ~ a ` _ i ~~tiLLJ CITY CLERK = ~' ~ ~ q Copy served upon Applicant, the Pl ~~anr~ ei'~~`61ic Works Department, and City Attorney. °''~~n++-~ o~~o~~~``~`~ By: ~_~ Dated: t ~ - a 3-Uh. City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. AZ-06-030 PAGE 4 OF 4 Meridian Citv Council ~ • ®ctober 3, 2006 Page 26 of 53 item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: item 10: Public Hearing: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborou~h Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 9 and 10 are Public Hearing AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. The subject applications before you are for Northborough Subdivision. The site is located on the north of Ustick about 700 feet from Linder. Just for general reference in the vicinity of this project there is a three acre parcel directly to the north of the project. Sawtooth Middle School is, then, north of that. You can see on the aerial just almost off the screen. To the south is the proposed Southwick Subdivision and, then, to the east and west is still large county parcels. The subject applications are request for annexation and zoning of the 8.03 acres to R-8 and a preliminary plat that includes 34 single family lots and four common lots. The average lot size is 7,758 square feet. The gross density is 4.23 dwelling units per acre and the net is 7.17 dwelling units per acre. There is about 13 and a half percent of the site being set aside for open space. There is an existing -- I'm sorry the scaling didn't come in very well with the plat. If you -- north would be facing to the left there. There is an exist private lane that basically bisects this property north-south, separating it east-west and there is that existing three acre parcel, again, in the county that uses that today as access. That will need to be vacated as part of this application, so you will be seeing the application in the future to request to vacate that private lane easement. A couple of outstanding issues, if you will, for the City Council that staff brought up for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission did not make any changes to what the applicant proposed, but in the staff report we did have a statement or two in there about wanting to see the applicant consider an alternative design for Block 4 and I'm going to talk about that for just a second. Block 4 is right here and, again, I apologize, it's hard to see. There is six lots within Block 4. The lot itself is about 150 by 150. Pretty square. It's a very short block and although the UDC doesn't have any minimum block length requirement, it's a lot of asphalt and we just think that there may be a better design and use for this part of the project anyways. Again, the Commission did not make any changes, did not take staffs recommendation for that change, but I did want to bring it up to you. The other thing I did want to call out by the White Drain stub -- White Drain stub is located on this side of the properly. During the hearings the applicant -- during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the applicant stated that they would like to leave that drain open. I didn't see anything in the file from Nampa-Meridian or anyone saying that it would take a large capacity facility. That's generally -- or if it's being used as an amenity, that's generally when the City Council will allow an irrigation ditch, lateral, or canal that's not a natural waterway to remain open. So, I would like the applicant to further talk about that I guess this evening Meridian City Council • October 3, 2006 Page 27 of 53 and if, in fact, they still want to leave it open and the basis for that request, I guess. The Commission did act on this application on August 31st and did send forward a favorable recommendation with some minor changes that are in the staff report. With that I think I will stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions for staff at this time? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Caleb, did you -- when you made reference to altemative designs, is there an idea or ideas that have been tossed around with the applicant to fix your concerns? Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I personally did not. I was not involved with this project. I don't know if staff threw out any altemative designs at the applicant or played with the roadway system to see what would be a more effective design. Jenny Veatch did write the staff report and worked with Anna and Shawn, I think, but I don't know if anything was ever put down on paper. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. Caleb, would you put up the area map that shows all the surrounding zoning? Okay. Thank you. That's all I needed. De Weerd: Caleb, where is it contiguous then? Hood; Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Southwick here and it doesn't -- for some reason the mapping system hasn't showed it in yellow, so I don't know -- and, actually, I'm not even sure that that annexation ordinance has been finalized or not. That would be the point. Again, I don't know -- I can check to see if the ordinance was done. Usually we don't -- you know, we can't process an application if it's not contiguous to the city limits, so -- De Weerd: Caleb, I guess the only other question I have is this is an area that has been a real challenge in that as people and families live there, there is a greater potential of kids walking to school in an area that has no sidewalks. The areas across the street just south of Ustick have an opportunity to walk maybe in a convoluted way, but up Venable Lane, but how is this to connect to the school, other than send the kids down Ustick, which is a really bad road. Hood: And, Madam Mayor, there is no direct connection, obviously, to the school at this point. The middle school is -- this applicant would only be required to construct a sidewalk adjacent to their property fronting Ustick Road. There may be some potential in the future for crossing -- I believe the owner of the property to the north is here this evening and would like to testify. I don't know how supportive the school district would Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 28 of 53 be of a pedestrian connection, at least through this development to the school, but that is -- there is some potential there when that property redevelops, if, in fact, it does redevelop here in the near future. But today they would be forced out onto Ustick Road and up to Linder Road. Neither one have sidewalk until you get to the school. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, if there is no further questions, I would ask the applicant to come forward. Nickle: I did a-mail this to Barb this afternoon, but I guess she had a half day, so she didn't get it on the presentation. Shawn Nickle, 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle, Suite 101, here representing Gemstar Development. I did provide this color copy for you that -- that's come out a little clearer than staffs. Madam Mayor and Commissioners, first off on the issue on the redesign, we did meet with staff a couple of times to try to come up with an alternative plan and we had our engineer layout four or five different plans to try to -- to try to design this project considering all the constraints that were associated with it, providing, you know, stub streets to the east. This parcel right here I believe is commercial, so we had to avoid that for astub -- a residential stub, providing the stub to the north, a stub to the west. We had the drain to contend with. So, one of our earlier designs showed two cul-de-sacs right here and we didn't feel that was really appropriate to provide interconnectivity and we feel that this internal block -- there is the six lots -- this does provide -- it is a little more asphalt than the developer would like to even see on there, but just to try to keep this flowing, we thought it was not appropriate to have two cul-de-sacs in such a small piece of property. With regards to the drain, this is, actually, the first time we heard this come up, but it's been our intent all along to leave the drain open as part of our -- part of our amenity is the open drain. There is a lot of mature trees back here. We do have a tot lot right here that will be fenced off. Actually, the whole -- the whole drain will be fenced off. With regards to the connection to the school -- and if staff could put up the area map again. And, unfortunately, as splits occurred in the county before the city came along and annexed a lot of the property -- and you have heard me talk about this before, you end up with these really funky lots and this one really is no exception in trying to -- trying to get as many lots as we can to develop it's kind of hard not being able to purchase, you know, everything out there like the developer would tend to, to make it more -- make it a better design. We are stuck with this little piece right here now. We do have a stub to the north and we also have a stub to the west. In discussions with this gentleman right here, it doesn't sound like he's too long -- it's too long before he's going to be selling to a developer. If staff could verify the land use -- I believe this was the recently approved comp plan for mixed use; is that correct? Hood: Mixed use. Nickle: Okay. And all indications are that they are going to be developed in a reasonable amount of time. So, I think we are going to -- we are going to see improvements along Linder and Ustick relatively soon. I don't know if it's as soon as the city would like to see it, but in this case, this being kind of an island right here, you know, we did -- we did keep that in consideration, but there is really nothing we can do, Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 29 of 53 L_.J but we are confident that that is going to occur, you know, relatively soon. I think that's all we have. We are in favor of the staffs recommendation and the city Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. I'll stand for any specific questions you have at this point. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point? Sird: I have none. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'm confused how a drain can be an amenity when you are going to fence it off. Nickle: It's more of -- if staff can put the colored back up there. It's more of a visual esthetic with the mature trees and the openness back here. This is going to be a see through fence, it won't be solid, so it can provide that open feel to these lots here and here. So, it's more of a natural -- yeah, we are not -- we are not going to have people playing in the ditch itself and it is not that large of a ditch. It's more of an esthetic amenity. Rountree: Follow up. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Rountree: So, am I to understand we will have some kind of a landscape design and some kind of a maintenance agreement in the CC&Rs that that will be taken care of? Nickle: With the -- in coordination with the irrigation district, because there is an easement located right here. De Weerd: I guess that raises a question from me. If you're fencing it off, is the fenced off open space part of your open space allocation? Nickle: It's part of the - I believe it's part of the 13.5 percent that Caleb spoke of, but it doesn't -- it's not included within our required five percent. In other words, our -- the five percent required is our tot lot and this area right here and this area right here. It doesn't include the landscape strip on Ustick or that -that drain area. De Weerd: And the area that you pointed out that seems to stub into it, what is the use for that? Nickle: This right here will be landscape. It will be some drainage and it also provides access back to this area right here. More of a passive walking path back here along the back and in that -- there will be a clear vision fence along the easement line of the ditch Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 30 of 53 itself. That will be what will not be usable. This area will all be accessible and fenced off for safety, but open fencing and, then, the tot lot itself. De Weerd: Does that mean chain link? Nickle: Wrought iron. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any other questions, Council? Thank you. Nickle: Thank you. De Weerd: We do have a couple of people who did sign up to indicate their neutrality in this. If you would like to provide testimony when I call your name, please, step forward. Steven Lloyd is signed up neutral. If you will, please, state your name and address. Lloyd: Steven Lloyd and I am at 1371 West Ustick, which is directly to the north. De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, do you want to show the other map? And there is a pointer there in front of you, if you can maybe point out to Council where your property is. If we find it. There you go. Lloyd: Okay. Well, I am that parcel there, this parcel here, and, then, this triangular parcel. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Lloyd: So, I'm between there and the school. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Lloyd: Okay. I might be able to clear up a few things as far as the ditch goes. Like I said on the -- or I put down neutral, I'm not really -- I guess I'm more for than for against, but I do have some issues that I'd like -- I think I'm probably more affected with this than anybody, because I am just a slight bit landlocked back there. That -- right now, currently, the blue line is my driveway that goes through it, 700 feet long. So, that would be my first issue when they starting building the subdivision, Iwould -- I don't want to get stuck with -- I have seen these developments go before and as they happen, you know, there is heavy equipment in there and it could go on for --Iwould like to know how long it's going to go on and when it's -- the pavement is going to happen, what is my access going to be throughout the process, how often will I be moved around, will there be certain days that I cannot even access my property. What I'd like to see happen if it goes forward -- because I'm not against it happening, because, actually, when it does happen I do receive services back there to my stub and that's not abed -- necessarily abed thing for me, but if I -- as soon as they start breaking ground on this, I'm pretty sure I will not be able to get through this lane anymore, since I'm going to vacate it. So, what I'm going to ask them to do or I'd like to see happen, if I could Meridian City Council ~ • October 3, 2006 Page 31 of 53 suggest it, would be that Ihave adriveway -- and I am willing to go down this -- that is the west property line and I would like that access to be there throughout the entire project. Now, we run into some problems when we get to this little stub road here, they are going to have to do that. So, what do we do when that happens? What happens when they run pressurized irrigation down the back of the lots right where the driveway that I'm going to need to have? These kinds of issues are what I would like to have answered before, you know, I vacate my road that's in there now and, if I have a choice. I don't even know if I have a choice in the matter, as far as that goes. My number one concern is that at no point during this whole process am I ever not allowed to get to my house. There is emergency concerns, there is, you know, emergency vehicles, fire, whatever. And if so, if there are going to be times where, you know, that the communication between myself the developer is notched up -- I'd like to see it notched up a little bit more than it has been throughout the process to this point. Okay. Because, like I said, I'm pretty well affected by the whole deal. I do have some concerns about traffic. Sorry, the red light's on, but I don't know if you have been here during -- we have a subdivision going here, here, this parcel right here has been purchased. These people are selling probably within the next 20 or 30 days. I don't know about this and I don't know about this. The traffic backs up from this stop light right here -- stop sign right here to right about there at 5:00 o'clock at night. At Linder it's backed up just about the entire mile when the school lets out right here all the way back. This isn't too bad. This is backed up at least a half a mile for -- from about 5:00 o'clock until 6:30. I'm sure some of you have been there at that time. It's impossible to get through. So, I don't know, we have got four or five hundred -- I don't know how many houses are going in all this area here. What are we going to do with this roadway through here? I know that it cannot handle what we have now. I want to know, you know, how is it going to handle all this increased traffic. There is going to be 35 lots -- okay, there is 70 more cars right there coming in and out of there every morning and every evening. That's an issue as far as I'm concerned. What else do I have? As far as connection to the school, if this goes through and this happens the way we think it's going to do, I have talked to Planning and Zoning and I'm going to possibly do something in here. And if that happens, my plan is to talk to the school district and run a pathway right along this property line and over to access the school. So, that could happen at some point in time and Iwould -- if it was fenced between this property line and, then, my property through here, I plan on keeping this back acreage right through here and, then, doing something up here. I would not be opposed to a little fenced off pathway that goes through that connects to the subdivision. Okay. The option is still there for the developer, if they want this parcel here and that helps them get through with the connection, that's always an option as well. I'm not trying to be a real estate agent here at City Council, but that -- I do know that this is going to be developed, the subdivision is going to -- they are going to try to connect it through with the meetings that I have had with these people. This is all supposably going to be sold right away, so there is going to be some other access points that go through. The drain ditch. I would like some more research done on this drain ditch, because all the homeowners -- this homeowner, this homeowner over here -- the drain ditch used to come, I believe, from way down here. It's all closed off now all the way through to this point, I believe, and, then, it's just a little bit of it right through here. The only thing that's coming into it is one homeowners drainage is coming through Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 32 of 53 when he irrigates his field. It's a very minimal amount of water. It's -- I think it should be filled in. Most of the other homeowners around agree. And as far as everybody has told me, the research we found is it's a private ditch anyway. So, it could be filled in and I think it would look a lot better if this -- whoever buys this I think they are going to probably want to do the same thing. We have a lot of usable space here that is taken up by this drain ditch. It's about six feet deep, about 25, 30 feet wide and it's overgrown with weeds, bushes, and trees. So, there are a lot of big existing trees that we'd like to stay, but I think it could be cleaned up and the easiest way to take care of this drain ditch -- as soon as this gentleman right here sells, nobody else -- these two properties, which is happening as we speak, nobody else is draining into this ditch. It can be -- and it has been filled in all the way to this point right here. So, it's also another issue that we could look at as far as that drain ditch goes, because I know I want to fill mine in. There is about a half acre of space that I can't use because of it, so -- and I get absolutely no benefit out of it, except for kind of a -- you know, mosquitoes and numerous other things that come rolling through it. So, it's -- it's an eye sore for my property. It would look pretty good if it was cleaned up from the -- from the aspect of the new subdivision, however. If it was maintained it would look pretty decent. So, that's -- that's about all I have. De Weerd: Thank you. Lloyd: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, I apologize, I know his time was up and I got caught up in what he was saying and didn't pay attention to it. So, I apologize. Rountree: That's all right. It was good information. De Weerd: Yes. Lester Vogel is signed up neutral. Good evening. Vogel: Good evening. Yes. My name is Lester Vogel and we live at 3610 North Linder Road, right south of Sawtooth school. And we don't have any concems with the subdivision, but I guess you have a list of concems we wrote in. And my concems are with the fence and I have already talked to the developer and they said they would consider all my concems with the fence and probably we will need an electric fence on the west side of that, because livestock would be rubbing on it if you didn't have an electric fence. And the imgation water that comes down in front of the property, it comes up and feeds our property, so we will need a way to get into change the water there. We'll have to have a headgate. And the elevation we have talked to the developer about and they are going to try to keep the elevation up so that it doesn't -- when we flood irrigate it doesn't flow into their property. So, other than that, we don't have -- and there is a neighbor -- we have tried to work with them and they have been good to -- whenever Ihave called and talked to them. So, maybe we are on the right track on this one. When the school went in and Watersong and some of them, they didn't have our concems -- they just kind of went the way they wanted to and they didn't -- here they made our problems -- their problems our problems and they are still that way and I'd like Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 33 of 53 to, you know, get along -- as a neighbor I will work with them and I will do -- go 50-50, whatever it takes to get the project done. And Ihave -- I'd like to get the inspector to make sure things are done right before he signs off. We had a little project with the sewer when Meridian done the sewer up Ustick Road that kind of left us in a bind. We finally had to take care of ourself. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Yes. Rountree: You heard Mr. Lloyd's comments about the White Drain. Do you drain any irrigation water that direction? Vogel: Yes, I do. Rountree: So, you do use the White Drain? Vogel: Yeah. And to the east of this project -- I don't know whether I know how to run this thing. This property irrigates -- flood imgates and drains into that ditch. The ditch starts right there and it drains in there and this property drains into it and this property drains into it. Until it's developed. And we drain into it right up there. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Vogel: I think it takes about an 18 inch pipe to cant' that water. But our irrigation comes down along here and right at this point it goes to the west and, then, we have to take it right up to here and there. So, right in here is where we are going to have to have access to our -- to change the water. This is -- all this property down in here has been on a rotation for years and years and so this water -- they will take it out with a weir and it will skim off a little bit and the rest of it will go down here and, then, this property and this little portion here, but they will -- somehow they are going to -- when they irrigate there will not be water for this and it's not too long a time, but -- until this property develops and they won't be able to irrigate. Any other questions? Rountree: No. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come for final remarks. Nickles Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, Shawn Nickle. To address Mr. Lloyd's concerns or comment, we will absolutely work with him and make sure he has access at all times back his property and we will coordinate exactly where that driveway needs to be and make sure that it's open. These two gentlemen that are sitting right here will be Meridian City Council `~ October 3, 2006 Page 34 of 53 responsible for that and I'll make sure that Mr. Lloyd talks to them and gets phone numbers and actually knows how to get ahold of Gemstar. But, yes, we have no intention of ever cutting him off at any point. With regards to the drain, considering the testimony tonight, I guess we'd like the ability -- if we do go in there and pipe that -- it sounds like we are going to be piping for a short period of time -- or the need for it to be piped is going to be for a short period of while these -- until these properties develop right here, if we do go in and pipe it, we are going to lose a lot of those mature trees, so I would like to have the ability to kind of research and see, you know, exactly what -- just to make sure that these are the only properties that go into it and, then, have the ability to go in and fill it in and clean it up and not remove those trees by piping what it sounds like is going to be maybe a couple years that we are to pipe before it will be abandoned, because it doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of property that would drain into that. We, obviously, would maintain flow at this current time on it. And also Mr. Lloyd's question about completion as -- this will be one phase. It will start in the spring and it will be 120 day duration to completion of the construction of the road system and the sewer and water lines and all that. So, I will stand for any other questions you may have. De Weerd: I guess while you're there I will just make my little editorial remark is when this came in as part of the Comp Plan to consider that as a neighborhood center or neighborhood mixed use, my whole concern was looking at this area one piece at a time, because there are a number of issues and the drainage and the sidewalks and the connecting to a real critical piece for me in the safety of the residents we would be putting in and around that, as well with the road that's very heavily traveled, it is hard to look at this critical piece one piece at a time. If everyone seems to be selling at the same time, it would be nice to see a master plan or how all of these pieces would fit together, so that we know infrastructuralwise how those pieces are going to fit together. So, again, that's my editorial piece and it was a concern I had then and I continue to have now. Nickles And, Madam Mayor, it's, obviously, frustrating and difficult for us to try to plan these type of properties piecemeal as well. Unfortunately, getting all the property owners and the develops together never -- never ever works out. It doesn't seem like anyone wants to sell their property or even talk to anybody until the piece next to them develops and gets approved -- or gets approved and all of a sudden they are willing to sell when this happens. Nearly every time we develop a small piece like this we are -- the next day someone comes in and says, okay, we are ready to develop and it's like, well, it would have been nice if we could have done that and planned it at the beginning. I do share your concerns. It is difficult to try to accomplish that. I think we have done a pretty good job in the past, as fast as these areas are growing and developing, I have no -- no concern that you're not going to see development on most of these properties in the next three to five years and it sounds like Mr. Lloyd -- and at one time we actually had aportion -- or, actually, I think we had most of Mr. Lloyd's property as part of this -- as part of our original design, but negotiations fell through and I believe Mr. Lloyd has at least considered going at it himself and so you are going to see -- and he did state for the record that he might be interested in providing a pathway there. So, I think you have an opportunity to get something a little sooner to the north and connect into that school Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 35 of 53 and not have to wait for these few parcels here to develop. But I do agree with your comments. De Weerd: Well -- and I do appreciate what you're saying and all of the pieces coming together over a certain time. Well, Ustick's not even on a five year plan right now and so, again, just one more piece of my concern. Council, any questions for the applicant at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Hood: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Hood: If I may, while Shawn's at the podium, I think you brought Southwick before the Council, did you not? Isn't that correct, Shawn? Can you help us out with the contiguity thing and where that's at, because we don't see that the annexation ordinance has been completed yet. Nickle: Caleb, thank you, I did have that to discuss. I believe two weeks ago you guys acted on the ordinance. I think it was on your agenda two weeks ago. I don't know if the clerk can verify that now or if you have to go back to the records, but -- okay, two weeks ago the ordinance was approved. So, this should be published as the annexation. Hood: Okay. We just couldn't find that and I guess just until that happens, if it hasn't happened, of course, we can't have the ordinance until that happens, so thank you. Nickle: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you need any further information from the applicant for staff? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we are all going to be tongue tied, I move that we close Items No. 9 and 10. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have motion and a second to close Items 9 and 10. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council ®ctober 3, 2006 Page 36 of 53 De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just to throw out my thoughts. This is a different situation on a parcel like this. I share the Mayor's concems with efforts of somewhat piecemeal development, you know through no fault of the developers or landowners, some situations you have got small parcels. I think Shawn's comments about the difficulty in trying to get other people involved in assembling proprieties and doing more the master plan concept that the Mayor talked about, it's extremely difficult, perhaps -- perhaps that's our fault, not the developer's fault, to the extent we allow it to happen. If things come before us in a piecemeal fashion and we approve them we are, in a sense, telling the community that it's acceptable by us. So, maybe some of the fault lies on our end. Having said that and in light of what Shawn has talked about with regards to what might be happening in the relatively near future, there would be other parcels, so it's not parcel -- a private parcel in this location in this area that I'm encouraged about and I am not inclined to approve it. I don't think, in light of those concems, it's necessary for the city to take this on at this point. I'd like to see it joined to other parcels before at least I'm willing to go forward with it. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I don't disagree with what Joe said, but one of the issues that really stands out to me is that we have an adjacent property owner who will be significantly impacted by this and seemed pretty agreeable to what was going on, but indicated that there had been little or no agreement as it relates to his access to his property and it seems to me that this is one of my favorite topics, lanes, and I would just as soon not have a property with a lane annexed into the City of Meridian without some kind of agreement in place between the affected parties. So, I'm not inclined to support moving forward with this particular application until all the homework is done. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 9, annexation request a somewhere here. AZ 06- 030. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item No. 9. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 37 of 53 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. Mr. Nary, since we don't have an annexation, do we still need a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you would. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-030, preliminary plat. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11- 4.3.2783 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit Reaencv at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Susan Wildwoo~ Cha- ed AttoYney At-Law Post Office Box 6502 Bodse, Idaho 83707 Office: (208) 383-0390 Fax: (208) 343-3756 ItFCEIV~I: October 12, 2006 ~~ (~ ~° ~ -~. ~~~ City Council ~ City of Meridian ~~ ;-E ~ ~f ~~~' ~~~~~ ~;~, 33 East Idaho Avenue E ~ `-% ~3~ ~~~ ~i:~as:;E Meridian, ID 83642-2300 RE: Request for Reconsideration: Proposed Northborough Subdivision AZ06-030 Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R 8 (Medium Density Residential PP-06-030 Preliminary Plat approval of 35 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R 8 zone, by Genstar Development, LLC Dear Mayor and City Council, I represent Genstar Development, LLC with regard to the above-referenced application. I was not available to attend the hearing on this matter, held on October 3, 2006. At that hearing, the City Council denied the applications, according to the minutes, because of concerns regarding: 1. Piping or tiling the White Drain, or its use as an amenity. 2. Access for the neighboring property owner, Mr. Steve Lloyd. 3. Master planning for vicinity. My client is requesting that the City Council reconsider this denial based on the following information that would constitute at least in part, new information that was not presented to the City Council and was not available at the October 3, 2006 hearing. 1. White Drain: The Staff Report states that the Meridian Uniform Development Code, Section 11-3A-6 requires that all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of any natural waterway, that intersect, cross oY lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. However, this is not a complete statement of the relevant provisions. a. Section 11-3A-6 actually provides: 11-3A-6: DITCHES, LATERALS, CANALS OR DRAINAGE COURSES: A. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection Bl of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, and drains may be left open when October 12, 2006 ~ • Page 2 used as a water amenity or linear open space. See also subsection B2 of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actaal drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The city council may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. B. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Constraction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to both the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, and drains shall be fenced with a chainlink fence at least six feet (6') in height and having an 11-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, or drain. C. Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or drainage district, piping shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream properties. D. Natural Drainage Courses: All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and October 12, 2006 ~ • Page 3 ease of maintenance of the channel. Relocation of natural swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005, eff. 9-15-2005) b. We have proposed to utilize the White Drain as a waterway amenity under all three of the provisions pertaining to ditches and waterways. First, the Drain is not located wholly on our property. Second, it is a natural water with water contained in it year around Third, we are proposing it both as a waterway and a lineal amenity and can preserve the public safety by fencing off the easement area that allows cleaning of the Drain or access by other landowners that utilize the Drain for irrigation or drainage. c. The White Drain does not intersect, cross or lie within the subject property. The White Drain forms one of the property boundaries. However, the property boundary is only to the centerline of the White Drain. Therefore, we cannot pipe or file it because it is located at least halfway on property that we do not own or control. We did not have confirmation at the meeting that the actual property line is the centerline of the drain. d. We have proposed to utilize an open wrought iron fence that will preserve not only the public safety, but allow for easy access to those with the right to use the easement area. e. We are willing to put a walking path along, but outside of the easement area that would allow children to walk north toward the school when the Lloyd property is developed. Mr. Lloyd is interested in providing connectivity to the school along that portion of the Drain located within his property providing appropriate agreements can be accomplished with both the School and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District or any interested users of the Drain. Please see the letter agreement between Gemstar Properties, LLC and Mr. Steve Lloyd, dated October 9, 2006, attached as Exhibit 1 (Letter Agreement). This information was not available at the October 3, 2006 meeting. We respectfully suggest that it is new information that would support reconsideration of the denial of the application. 2. Access to Steve Lloyd Property: Although my client had indicated that it would guarantee access to the Lloyd property, it seemed that the City Council wanted something more concrete. The first paragraph of the Letter Agreement sets forth our commitment to provide a temporary road along the western boundary of the proposed Northborongh Subdivision, to remain in place until the permanent, paved and public road is completed. This latter public road will provide access through the Northborough Subdivision for Mr. Lloyd's property. The agreement is assurance to both Mr. Lloyd and to the City that this access shall remain in place. Please see Letter Agreement. This is new information not available at the time of the October 3, 2006 hearing and we respectfully suggest that it would justify reconsideration of the decision made at that time. 3. Master Planning for Vicinity: There was some discussion among the Council members October 12, 2006 ~ . Page 4 regarding what would be planned for this area. There is signiffcant information based on not only the existing Future Land Use Map and Existing Zoning Map, but also with actions taken by the City Council at its meeting on October 10, 2006, approving an amendment to the comprehensive plan map to designate the remaining corners of the intersection of Ustick and Linder Road as Mined Use development areas. a. The City completed a review of and amendment to the City's comprehensive plan that specifically addressed land uses in this vicinity. According to the new Future Land Use Map, the two properties on the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection off Linder and Ustick Roads are designed as Mixed Use. This generally implies higher density residential and either or both commercial, ofSce development. The property that is on the northeast corner is adjacent to the proposed Northborough Subdivision. It is apparently owned by the same person owning the property on the northwest corner of the intersection, making both properties eligible for annexation because of contiguity to the City limits on the western boundary of the northwest property. Any such development would require sidewalks along both Linder Road along the northeast property's west boundary, but also along Ustick Road from the Linder Road intersection to connect directly to the sidewalk to be constructed along Ustick for the proposed Northborough Subdivision. Therefore, the only area that would be lacking sidewalks in the potential near future to take children from Northborough Subdivision to the school would be along the parcel owned by Mr. Vogel who is not selling or developing his property. b. As noted above, and contained in the minutes of the hearing, Mr. Steve Lloyd is contemplating future development of his property. It would take its main access through Northborough to Ustick Road. He has also agreed to make the effort to see if he can negotiate a successful approach to a pathway connection with both the School and Nampa Meridian Irrigation connecting to the walking path that is proposed by my client through Northborough. Therefore, the only property Owner with land north of Ustick Road and between Linder Road and the White Drain that has not indicated development plans, is Mr. Vogel who testified at the hearing. c. The City Council approved a comprehensive Plan amendment on October 10, 2006 in Case CPA 06-002, an application by Mr. and Mrs. Wilford Sindon to change the comprehensive plan map designation of two parcels they own on the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Linder and Ustick Roads, from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community. To illustrate their intended future development, they submitted two concept plans for the respective parcels. These concept plans were attached to the Staff Report as Exhibits and are attached here as Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively. The southeast corner property is separated from the Southwick Subdivision approved for annexation by the City Council on August 22, 2006, by only two long narrow properties. Please see map attached as Exhibit 4. These properties are currently shown as Medium Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Therefore, these two properties are the only properties on the south side of Ustick between Southwick and the intersection of Linder and Ustick Roads that do not have a development plan or proposal in place. October 12, 2006 ~ . Page 5 d. As noted by the City Council members, it is not possible for my client to anticipate future development in this area. However, the information provided above, when taken as a totality, illustrates that there are only three properties, Vogel's to the northwest of Northborough, and the two parcels south of Ustick adjacent to Southwick, that have no indication of any development plans. The rest of the property owners have indicated their development intentions, by either amending the comprehensive plan map or testimony before the City Council. We respectfully suggest that it would be appropriate to reconsider the denial of the Northborough application given this new presentation of information, as well as the newly approved comprehensive plan map designation for Mr. and Mrs. Sindon in Case CPA 06-002. CONCLUSION: My client respectfully suggests that there is sufficient new information, as well as presentation of disparate information that has been put .together in a more cohesive approach that would both justify a reconsideration of the denial of this application. We request that the City Council reconsider the denial and allow us the opportunity to more fully present this material, including ezhibits and large scale maps in a new hearing. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this material and request Very truly yours~,f~ ~CIdQ/ni ~~)% Susan Wildwood cc: Client(s); file October 9~', 2006 Steve Lloyd 1371 West Ustick IVleridian, Idaho Re: The proposed Northborough Subdivision Steve, As discussed, Gemstar Properties will ensure that you have uninterrupted access to your home and property during the construction of the Northborough Subdivision upon approval form IVleridaan City. A temporary road will be established along the Western boundary of the Northborough Subdivision property and will remain in place until the permanent road is completed. Gemstar will also construct a walking path along the White Drain, outside of the 30' easement that will stub to your property. You have stated that when your property is developed you would be willing to pursue talks with the Drainage Dist. to provide a pathway within their 30' easement for the purposes of pathway cannectivity to the School North of your property provided the School supported this access point. Furthermore, Gemstar properties will sale the rights to the survey that was conducted on your property for the amount that was paid. Gemstar will not be held accountable for the accuracy of this survey. Thank you Ge Propertie L Sc - rod t er Date G ~ ~ (J Date ~ y ~ ~/ ~'D~ Al CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF OCTOBER 10, 2006. A. Drawings 1. Conceptual Development Plan 1515 W. Ustick Road _._._ _ _._._._ W. USTICK ROAD / DETAa9:0 soewwc i ;I ~ I ~ a~ s.inEr~a ~~~ >~ Po~n~' aoD ~. ~ I /~* TEti11AL ' ~-ncr~ II II ~~ COMMERCIAL O p ~ '~ APPROXIMATELY ~ I ~' 6.24 ACRES 'I o o ~ .0. eBfE macs /R~ I 'ODD o ~ ~ v:• v aaw sv. a, - i +-2 smwrl of ~ j aF1A:I RETNL OFiICE~ REMIT W. I - PATIO a9o0 s.v. $ a9oo s,c. °: °z I I .. ~~ '°~ DiF./RET. eR~zEw~°r Z i I 0.900 SF. ~ ;v °, ~ e~4py PLAY ~- ~~ °~ AREA I ~° I MIJLTi-FAM1L' I APPR AT~LY ~ I 3 AC ,. I I O O• • . r~ye~~r SN`F~9% .qb~,~ y.~`e~~ `~hz ~ ~ ~ mss' e ~ ~s`~' ' s ~ I ~ PAS PAS PAS I I FU RE PA K it ASH WM107taAL: 8.2. ACltliS MUL71-FAY0.Y: 7.30 ACRES ~I~ RETA0. SPACE: SD.TOp 3.F. RES UIOT RATRk 13 UMT3/ACTH PARK9VG RATS i SPALY/200 S.i. TOTAI IA9TS: S4 IlNis PARMUR: REOUTAED: 234 SPACES PARItlN6 RATIO: 2 SPAC~S/~0q~ PARKB~Ri PROVIDED: 209 SPACES PNDONO REOlOitED: 1p9 SPACES PARlaiti FRONDED: 703 9PACE5 architects • engineers • planners PROPOSED SITE PLAN C W Moore P and • Aso s sm • Gorse, ID 83702 0 100 200 300 FEET NORTH St11iJE~T Ti9 ANENT IIWTN A/d1ERi0iAll IRR/+fiATf®N OI~TRIET A_ 1 EX~i$IT ~. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~ DATE OF OCTOBER 10, 2006. 2.3195 N. Linder Road after ACRD Right of Way Take i3nl?TTi~~7 OLYVEIS - J 1 1 C ,C Lt~1V C O M M H R C I A L R E A L E~ T g T E -~iyoerience T~e/cr/h. __ usnac Ieoao _ _ _ _ + .~, . , . .~ ` ~` '~ oe i I~ :, !'i ~~ \~: `` ~~ I ° ~~ G~ \.,~' ,~ . \ ~ ~ ` ~ ~& ~t ~~ ~ ~ to Z `\ `~, ~ ~ ~~ t i ` \~ `II `l .\ ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i 2S0 S. F1( TI3 STREET - BOISE, IDAI10 208.378.11600 WWW-TOKRc.COM A- 2 ~'j~ ~ 3 ~},, Preliminary Plats Environmental Data ~•~.; ®Hydro Areas ^ Parcels ^ ^ Ada County City Limits ADA COUNTY 'BOISE EAGLE _~~GARDEN CITY KUNA MERIDIAN STAR SCALE 1:27,171 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 FEET • • Preliminary Plats Environmental Data ;.;. ~ Hydro Areas ^ Parcels ^ ^ Ada County City Limits DA COUNTY BOISE EAGLE GARDEN CITY KUNA MERIDIAN STAR SCALE 1:27,171 N 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 FEET • ,~ 1u/~~1~Y~ • • A ~~ • • October 13, 2006 PP 06-030 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2~b APPLICANT Gemstar Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~ REQUEST Findings for Denial -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision -north side of Usfick Raod and east 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 wESr: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached Minutes See attached Plndtngs /~~~ ~"0' Date• ~ ~ ~ aP Phone• ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~f ~ a- .cl toff Initials Mater~is presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Ctly of Meridian. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 10/03/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT ) FOR APPROVAL FOR 34 SINGLE ) FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ) AND 4 COMMON LOTS ON 8.03 ACRES ) FOR NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION 1 Case No. PP 06-030 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL GEMSTAR DEVELOPMENT, INC. ) APPLICANT ) The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing before the City Council on October 3, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the denial of the application for annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-030, and the hearing was opened on the preliminary plat application and Anna Canning, City Planning Director for the Planning Department, Shawn Nickel of SLN Planning, Inc., appeared and testified, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in Case No. AZ-06-030 does hereby deny the application for preliminary plat approval. FINDINGS OF FACT It is found that the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is not reasonable nor appropriate for the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat due to the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-030. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. PP-06-030 PAGE I OF 3 • DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code Section 11-SA-6 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that based upon the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-030 the City Council does hereby deny the application for preliminary plat approval. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAI~NNGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. PP-06-030 PAGE 2 OF 3 fih By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of October, 2006. \``MAYORJ['A~MY de WEERD ATTEST: \`o\,o.~~S ~ ~:,`-~~. a` ~~ ncR . y F` ~ ~~ '/~ ` CITY CLERK ~ ~ _ ~, ~~° 'A~'~,~~~0iiorrriai noo~oo~~~~`~,~®~ Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. y BY~ ~ Dated: 1®- v1~ -~~ City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NORTHBOROUGH SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. PP-06-030 PAGE 3 OF 3 `~ Susan Wildwood, Chartered Attorney At-Law October 12, 2006 City Council ~ City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642-2300 Post O, f,~ice Box 6502 Boise, Idaho 83707 Office: (208) 383-0390 Fax: (208) 343-3756 ILECEI~~I? ~~:~r~ ~ ~~ 20~ F_;i ~~y~ ~)f .ll~lv~~c3i_~rx RE: Request for Reconsideration: Proposed Northborough Subdivision AZ06-030 Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R 8 (Medium Density Residential PP-06-030 Preliminary Plat approval of 35 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R 8 zone, by Gemstar Development, LLC Dear Mayor and City Council, I represent Gemstar Development, LLC with regard to the above-referenced application. I was not available to attend the hearing on this matter, held on October 3, 2006. At that hearing, the City Council denied the applications, according to the minutes, because of concerns regarding: 1. Piping or tiling the White Drain, or its use as an amenity. 2. Access for the neighboring property owner, Mr. Steve Lloyd. 3. Master planning for vicinity. My client is requesting that the City Council reconsider this denial based on the following information that would constitute at least in part, new information that was not presented to the City Council and was not available at the October 3, 2006 hearing. 1. White Drain: The Staff Report states that the Meridian Uniform Development Code, Section 11-3A-6 requires that all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of any natural waterway, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. However, this is not a complete statement of the relevant provisions. a. Section 11-3A-6 actually provides: 11-3A-6: DITCHES, LATERALS, CANALS OR DRAINAGE COURSES: A. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a nataral amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection Bl of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, and drains may be left open when October 12, 2006 Page 2 used as a water amenity or linear open space. See also subsection B2 of this section. 3. Ezcept as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actaal drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The city council may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. B. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to both the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Ezcept as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, and drains shall be fenced with a chainlink fence at least siz feet (6') in height and having an 11-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, or drain. C. Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or drainage district, piping shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream properties. D. Natural Drainage Courses: All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and .October 12, 2006 • Page 3 ease of maintenance of the channel. Relocation of natural swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which serve a relatively small area where ranoff is infrequent. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005, eff. 9-15-2005) b. We have proposed to utilize the White Drain as a waterway amenity under all three of the provisions pertaining to ditches and waterways. First, the Drain is not located wholly on our property. Second, it is a natural water with water contained in it year around. Third, we are proposing it both as a waterway and a lineal amenity and can preserve the public safety by fencing off the easement area that allows cleaning of the Drain or access by other landowners that utilize the Drain for irrigation or drainage. c. The White Drain does not intersect, cross or lie within the subject property. The White Drain forms one of the property boundaries. However, the property boundary is only to the centerline of the White Drain. Therefore, we cannot pipe or file it because it is located at least halfway on property that we do not own or control We did not have confumation at the meeting that the actual property line is the centerline of the drain. d. We have proposed to utilize an open wrought iron fence that will preserve not only the public safety, but allow for easy access to those with the right to use the easement area. e. We are willing to put a walking path along, but outside of the easement area that would allow children to walk north toward the school when the Lloyd property is developed. Mr. Lloyd is interested in providing connectivity to the school along that portion of the Drain located within his property providing appropriate agreements can be accomplished with both the School and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District or any interested users of the Drain. Please see the letter agreement between Genstar Properties, LLC and Mr. Steve Lloyd, dated October 9, 2006, attached as Exhibit 1 (Letter Agreement). This information was not available at the October 3, 2006 meeting. We respectfully suggest that it is new information that would support reconsideration of the denial of the application. 2. Access to Steve Lloyd Property: Although my client had indicated that it would guarantee access to the Lloyd property, it seemed that the City Council wanted something more concrete. The first paragraph of the Letter Agreement sets forth our commitment to provide a temporary road along the western boundary of the proposed Northborough Subdivision, to remain in place until the permanent, paved and public road is completed. This latter public road will provide access through the Northborough Subdivision for Mr. Lloyd's property. The agreement is assurance to both Mr. Lloyd and to the City that this access shall remain in place. Please see Letter Agreement. This is new information not available at the time of the October 3, 2006 hearing and we respectfully suggest that it would justify reconsideration of the decision made at that time. 3. Master Planning for Vicinity: There was some discussion among the Council members October 12, 2006 i • Page 4 regarding what would be planned for this area There is significant information based on not only the existing Future Land Use Map and Existing Zoning Map, bnt also with actions taken by the City Council at its meeting on October 10, 2006, approving an amendment to the comprehensive plan map to designate the remaining corners of the intersection of Ustick and Linder Road as Mined Use development areas. a. The City completed a review of and amendment to the City's comprehensive plan that specifically addressed land uses in this vicinity. According to the new Future Land Use Map, the two properties on the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection of Linder and Ustick Roads are designed as Mixed Use. This generally implies higher density residential and either or both commercial, office development. The property that is on the northeast corner is adjacent to the proposed Northborough Subdivision. It is apparently owned by the same person owning the property on the northwest corner of the intersection, making both properties eligible for annexation because of contiguity to the City limits on the western boundary of the northwest property. Any such development would require sidewalks along both Linder Road along the northeast property's west boundary, but also along Ustick Road from the Linder Road intersection to connect directly to the sidewalk to be constructed along Ustick for the proposed Northborough Subdivision. Therefore, the only area that would be lacking sidewalks in the potential near future to take children from Northborough Subdivision to the school would be along the parcel owned by Mr. Vogel who is not selling or developing his property. b. As noted above, and contained in the minutes of the hearing, Mr. Steve Lloyd is contemplating future development of his property. It would take its main access through Northborough to Ustick Road. He has also agreed to make the effort to see if he can negotiate a successful approach to a pathway connection with both the School and Nampa Meridian Irrigation connecting to the walking path that is proposed by my client through Northborough. Therefore, the only property Owner with land north of Ustick Road and between Linder Road and the White Drain that has not indicated development plans, is Mr. Vogel who testified at the hearing. c. The City Council approved a comprehensive Plan amendment on October 10, 2006 in Case CPA OCr002, an application by Mr. and Mrs. Wilford Sindon to change the comprehensive plan map designation of two parcels they own on the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Linder and Ustick Roads, from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community. To illustrate their intended future development, they submitted two concept plans for the respective parcels. These concept plans were attached to the Staff Report as Exhibits and are attached here as Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively. The southeast corner property is separated from the Southwick Subdivision approved for annexation by the City Council on Augast 22, 2006, by only two long narrow properties. Please see map attached as Exhibit 4. These properties are currently shown as Medium Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Therefore, these two properties are the only properties on the south side of Ustick between Southwick and the intersection of Linder and Ustick Roads that do not have a development plan or proposal in place. ,October 12, 2006 • • Page 5 d. As noted by the City Council members, it is not possible for my client to anticipate future development in this area. However, the information provided above, when taken as a totality, illustrates that there are only three properties, Vogel's to the northwest of Northborough, and the two parcels south of Ustick adjacent to Southwick, that have no indication of any development plans. The rest of the property owners have indicated their development intentions, by either amending the comprehensive plan map or testimony before the City Council We respectfully suggest that it would be appropriate to reconsider the denial of the Northborough application given this new presentation of information, as well as the newly approved comprehensive plan map designation for Mr. and Mrs. Sindon in Case CPA 06-002. CONCLUSION: My client respectfully suggests that there is sufficient new information, as well as presentation of disparate information that has been put .together in a more cohesive approach that would both justify a reconsideration of the denial of this application. We request that the City Council reconsider the denial and allow ns the opportunity to more folly present this material, including ezhibits and large scale maps in a new hearing. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this material and request. Very truly yours~,f~ _" - _ J ~GlljQ//?i C~)~/Gl!~~~U~G Susan Wildwood cc: Client(s); file • October 9~', 2006 Steve Lloyd 1371 West Ustick Meridian, Idaho Re: The proposed Northborough Subdivision Steve, As discussed, Gemstar Properties will ensure that you have uninterrupted access to your home and property during the construction of the Northborough Subdivision upon approval form Meridian City. A temporary road will be established along the Western bouadary of the Northborough Subdivision property and will remain in place until the permanent road is completed. Gemstar will also construct a walking path along the White Drain, outside of the 30' easement that will stub to your property. You have stated that when yaw property is developed you would be willing to pwsue talks with the Drainage Dist. to provide a pathway within their 30' easement for the purposes of pathway connectivity to the School North of your property provided the School supported this access point. Furthermore, Gemstar properties will sale the rights to the survey that was conducted on your property for the amount that was paid. Gemstar will not be held accountable for the accuracy of this survey. Thank you Ge Propertie L Sc - rod t er Datel4~ ~~ Dates y d G EXH~~1~ 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H[EARIDTG DATE OF OCTOBER 10, 2006. A. Drawings 1. Conceptual Development Plan 1515 W. Ustick Road _._._ _ _____._ W. USTICK ROAD OETACf(p SIOt7Allt i it , '' 6°FO~oo ~aErAa ~ P ~~ .o6~_aF. 6rFrc~/as:r on>~ I `\ aaoo s.F. o~vE-~ i I .. ~~ COMMERCIAL O %: APPROXIMATELY ' sNn~o I ~ ~ ~ 6.24 ACRES 0 0 ~ .O. I eRE rtACxs .00~ i I +a.o64 sF. Qi ~ o:'iv t-2 9taM) ~ ~ ~ om~/ 4ErAa nFrta/ RErAa W I - PATIO 4400 S.F. $ a4o6 SF. q, Z~ ~ .. ~~ ' °~ utr./gEr. m~arAr z ~' a4oo sF. I ::v a I _ ~,~~ <Cb~ ~y~` PLAY I ~~~_ ~~~\~i/~ AREA I MULTI-FAMiL' . ~ 'APP AT~C:Y ~ I 3 AC ,~ , ~) .. i' O O ~ ~ ~ .tom I ~~ ~ .~s~~~~ .~~ ~~ e~~ ~~~ ~ e~~ I PA ~ ~'~S PA ~ P I I if FUTURE PARK I CSH carma~u: a24 ALRES aan-FAIiY: ae6 AQff$ ~~ dETAIL SPAts 60,700 av. a[a w6r RAna t6 tA6TS/Aax PAPo0i0 RATq: t SPALY/200 aF. TOTAL 1401S 6t I4i1S PAW@BG IffOURED: 20~ SPACF9 PARIf4~Ri RATS 2 SPALtB/~pT PAfOt~ PROYt0E0: 264 SpACl9 PARgNO OEOWSED: 100 ~ACCS PARI®i0 FRONDED: 100 SPACES architects • engineers • planners PROPOSED SITE PLAN C W Moore P aza • 250 S 5th • Boise, iD 83702 0 100 200 300 FEET NORTH su~r~r t~ ~..~r w~r~ aalF.~~ ~~aT~~ wstr~er A- 1 pGHiBIT z CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TIC HEAR~DATE OF OCTOBER 10, 2006. 2.3195 N. Linder Road after ACRD Right of Way Take ~iaa'crrsa~sa oY.rvEia ~~'7'~~ral-~~al C O M M H Fl O l A L R E A L E S T A T E 'FijCPCp/E~1CP. T~P.,/N~>~J. J _~_-_-__ ~~ 1 l i n In 4 4I ~B j ~o ~~ ~z 1~ 1~ i I ~~I i ' 1' i I I J L l Jr C LtiLV A- 2 ~~ Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 26 of 53 Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborouah Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 9 and 10 are Public Hearing AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. The subject applications before you are for Northborough Subdivision. The site is located on the north of Ustick about 700 feet from Linder. Just for general reference in the vicinity of this project there is a three acre parcel directly to the north of the project. Sawtooth Middle School is, then, north of that. You can see on the aerial just almost off the screen. To the south is the proposed Southwick Subdivision and, then, to the east and west is still large county parcels. The subject applications are request for annexation and zoning of the 8.03 acres to R-8 and a preliminary plat that includes 34 single family lots and four common lots. The average lot size is 7,758 square feet. The gross density is 4.23 dwelling units per acre and the net is 7.17 dwelling units per acre. There is about 13 and a half percent of the site being set aside for open space. There is an existing -- I'm song the scaling didn't come in very well with the plat. If you -- north would be facing to the left there. There is an exist private lane that basically bisects this property north-south, separating it east-west and there is that existing three acre parcel, again, in the county that uses that today as access. That will need to be vacated as part of this application, so you will be seeing the application in the future to request to vacate that private lane easement. A couple of outstanding issues, if you will, for the City Council that staff brought up for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission did not make any changes to what the applicant proposed, but in the staff report we did have a statement or two in there about wanting to see the applicant consider an alternative design for Block 4 and I'm going to talk about that for just a second. Block 4 is right here and, again, I apologize, it's hard to see. There is six lots within Block 4. The lot itself is about 150 by 150. Pretty square. It's a very short block and although the UDC doesn't have any minimum block length requirement, it's a lot of asphalt and we just think that there may be a better design and use for this part of the project anyways. Again, the Commission did not make any changes, did not take staffs recommendation for that change, but I did want to bring it up to you. The other thing I did want to call out by the White Drain stub -- White Drain stub is located on this side of the property. During the hearings the applicant -- during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the applicant stated that they would like to leave that drain open. I didn't see anything in the file from Nampa-Meridian or anyone saying that it would take a large capacity facility. That's generally -- or if it's being used as an amenity, that's generally when the City Council will allow an irrigation ditch, lateral, or canal that's not a natural waterway to remain open. So, I would like the applicant to further talk about that I guess this evening Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 27 of 53 and if, in fact, they still want to leave it open and the basis for that request, I guess. The Commission did act on this application on August 31st and did send forward a favorable recommendation with some minor changes that are in the staff report. With that I think I will stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions for staff at this time? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Caleb, did you -- when you made reference to altemative designs, is there an idea or ideas that have been tossed around with the applicant to fix your concerns? Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I personally did not. I was not involved with this project. I don't know if staff threw out any altemative designs at the applicant or played with the roadway system to see what would be a more effective design. Jenny Veatch did write the staff report and worked with Anna and Shawn, I think, but I don't know if anything was ever put down on paper. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. Caleb, would you put up the area map that shows all the surrounding zoning? Okay. Thank you. That's all I needed. De Weerd: Caleb, where is it contiguous then? Hood; Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Southwick here and it doesn't -- for some reason the mapping system hasn't showed it in yellow, so I don't know -- and, actually, I'm not even sure that that annexation ordinance has been finalized or not. That would be the point. Again, I don't know -- I can check to see if the ordinance was done. Usually we don't -- you know, we can't process an application if it's not contiguous to the city limits, so -- De Weerd: Caleb, I guess the only other question I have is this is an area that has been a real challenge in that as people and families live there, there is a greater potential of kids walking to school in an area that has no sidewalks. The areas across the street just south of Ustick have an opportunity to walk maybe in a convoluted way, but up Venable Lane, but how is this to connect to the school, other than send the kids down Ustick, which is a really bad road. Hood: And, Madam Mayor, there is no direct connection, obviously, to the school at this point. The middle school is -- this applicant would only be required to construct a sidewalk adjacent to their property fronting Ustick Road. There may be some potential in the future for crossing -- I believe the owner of the property to the north is here this evening and would like to testify. I don't know how supportive the school district would Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 28 of 53 be of a pedestrian connection, at least through this development to the school, but that is -- there is some potential there when that property redevelops, if, in fact, it does redevelop here in the near future. But today they would be forced out onto Ustick Road and up to Linder Road. Neither one have sidewalk until you get to the school. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, if there is no further questions, I would ask the applicant to come forward. Nickle: I did a-mail this to Barb this afternoon, but I guess she had a half day, so she didn't get it on the presentation. Shawn Nickle, 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle, Suite 101, here representing Gemstar Development. I did provide this color copy for you that -- that's come out a little clearer than staffs. Madam Mayor and Commissioners, first off on the issue on the redesign, we did meet with staff a couple of times to try to come up with an alternative plan and we had our engineer layout four or five different plans to try to -- to try to design this project considering all the constraints that were associated with it, providing, you know, stub streets to the east. This parcel right here I believe is commercial, so we had to avoid that for astub -- a residential stub, providing the stub to the north, a stub to the west. We had the drain to contend with. So, one of our earlier designs showed two cul-de-sacs right here and we didn't feel that was really appropriate to provide interconnectivity and we feel that this internal block -- there is the six lots -- this does provide -- it is a little more asphalt than the developer would like to even see on there, but just to try to keep this flowing, we thought it was not appropriate to have two cul-de-sacs in such a small piece of property. With regards to the drain, this is, actually, the first time we heard this come up, but it's been our intent all along to leave the drain open as part of our -- part of our amenity is the open drain. There is a lot of mature trees back here. We do have a tot lot right here that will be fenced off. Actually, the whole -- the whole drain will be fenced off. With regards to the connection to the school -- and if staff could put up the area map again. And, unfortunately, as splits occurred in the county before the city came along and annexed a lot of the property -- and you have heard me talk about this before, you end up with these really funky lots and this one really is no exception in trying to -- trying to get as many lots as we can to develop it's kind of hard not being able to purchase, you know, everything out there like the developer would tend to, to make it more -- make it a better design. We are stuck with this little piece right here now. We do have a stub to the north and we also have a stub to the west. In discussions with this gentleman right here, it doesn't sound like he's too long -- it's too long before he's going to be selling to a developer. If staff could verify the land use -- I believe this was the recently approved comp plan for mixed use; is that correct? Hood: Mixed use. Nickle: Okay. And all indications are that they are going to be developed in a reasonable amount of time. So, I think we are going to -- we are going to see improvements along Linder and Ustick relatively soon. I don't know if it's as soon as the city would like to see it, but in this case, this being kind of an island right here, you know, we did -- we did keep that in consideration, but there is really nothing we can do, ~ i Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 29 of 53 but we are confident that that is going to occur, you know, relatively soon. I think that's all we have. We are in favor of the staffs recommendation and the city Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. I'll stand for any specific questions you have at this point. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'm confused how a drain can be an amenity when you are going to fence it off. Fickle: It's more of -- if staff can put the colored back up there. It's more of a visual esthetic with the mature trees and the openness back here. This is going to be a see through fence, it won't be solid, so it can provide that open feel to these lots here and here. So, it's more of a natural -- yeah, we are not -- we are not going to have people playing in the ditch itself and it is not that large of a ditch. It's more of an esthetic amenity. Rountree: Follow up. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Rountree: So, am I to understand we will have some kind of a landscape design and some kind of a maintenance agreement in the CC&Rs that that will be taken care of? Fickle: With the -- in coordination with the irrigation district, because there is an easement located right here. De Weerd: I guess that raises a question from me. If you're fencing it off, is the fenced off open space part of your open space allocation? Fickle: It's part of the - I believe it's part of the 13.5 percent that Caleb spoke of, but it doesn't -- it's not included within our required five percent. In other words, our -- the five percent required is our tot lot and this area right here and this area right here. It doesn't include the landscape strip on Ustick or that -that drain area. De Weerd: And the area that you pointed out that seems to stub into it, what is the use for that? Fickle: This right here will be landscape. It will be some drainage and it also provides access back to this area right here. More of a passive walking path back here along the back and in that -- there will be a clear vision fence along the easement line of the ditch Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 30 of 53 ~~ itself. That will be what will not be usable. This area will all be accessible and fenced off for safety, but open fencing and, then, the tot lot itself. De Weerd: Does that mean chain link? IVickle: Wrought iron. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any other questions, Council? Thank you. Nickles Thank you. De Weerd: We do have a couple of people who did sign up to indicate their neutrality in this. If you would like to provide testimony when I call your name, please, step forward. Steven Lloyd is signed up neutral. If you will, please, state your name and address. Lloyd: Steven Lloyd and I am at 1371 West Ustick, which is directly to the north. De Weerd: Okay. Caleb, do you want to show the other map? And there is a pointer there in front of you, if you can maybe point out to Council where your property is. If we find it. There you go. Lloyd: Okay. Well, I am that parcel there, this parcel here, and, then, this triangular parcel. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Lloyd: So, I'm between there and the school. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Lloyd: Okay. I might be able to clear up a few things as far as the ditch goes. Like I said on the -- or I put down neutral, I'm not really -- I guess I'm more for than for against, but I do have some issues that I'd like -- I think I'm probably more affected with this than anybody, because I am just a slight bit landlocked back there. That -- right now, currently, the blue line is my driveway that goes through it, 700 feet long. So, that would be my first issue when they starting building the subdivision, Iwould -- I don't want to get stuck with -- I have seen these developments go before and as they happen, you know, there is heavy equipment in there and it could go on for --Iwould like to know how long it's going to go on and when it's -- the pavement is going to happen, what is my access going to be throughout the process, how often will I be moved around, will there be certain days that I cannot even access my property. What I'd like to see happen if it goes forward -- because I'm not against it happening, because, actually, when it does happen I do receive services back there to my stub and that's not abed -- necessarily abed thing for me, but if I -- as soon as they start breaking ground on this, I'm pretty sure I will not be able to get through this lane anymore, since I'm going to vacate it. So, what I'm going to ask them to do or I'd like to see happen, if I could i ~ Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 31 of 53 suggest it, would be that Ihave adriveway -- and I am willing to go down this -- that is the west property line and I would like that access to be there throughout the entire project. Now, we run into some problems when we get to this little stub road here, they are going to have to do that. So, what do we do when that happens? What happens when they run pressurized irrigation down the back of the lots right where the driveway that I'm going to need to have? These kinds of issues are what I would like to have answered before, you know, I vacate my road that's in there now and, if I have a choice. I don't even know if I have a choice in the matter, as far as that goes. My number one concern is that at no point during this whole process am I ever not allowed to get to my house. There is emergency concerns, there is, you know, emergency vehicles, fire, whatever. And if so, if there are going to be times where, you know, that the communication between myself the developer is notched up -- I'd like to see it notched up a little bit more than it has been throughout the process to this point. Okay. Because, like I said, I'm pretty well affected by the whole deal. I do have some concerns about traffic. Sorry, the red light's on, but I don't know if you have been here during -- we have a subdivision going here, here, this parcel right here has been purchased. These people are selling probably within the next 20 or 30 days. I don't know about this and I don't know about this. The traffic backs up from this stop light right here -- stop sign right here to right about there at 5:00 o'clock at night. At Linder it's backed up just about the entire mile when the school lets out right here all the way back. This isn't too bad. This is backed up at least a half a mile for -- from about 5:00 o'clock until 6:30. I'm sure some of you have been there at that time. It's impossible to get through. So, I don't know, we have got four or five hundred -- I don't know how many houses are going in all this area here. What are we going to do with this roadway through here? I know that it cannot handle what we have now. I want to know, you know, how is it going to handle all this increased traffic. There is going to be 35 lots -- okay, there is 70 more cars right there coming in and out of there every morning and every evening. That's an issue as far as I'm concerned. What else do I have? As far as connection to the school, if this goes through and this happens the way we think it's going to do, I have talked to Planning and Zoning and I'm going to possibly do something in here. And if that happens, my plan is to talk to the school district and run a pathway right along this property line and over to access the school. So, that could happen at some point in time and Iwould -- if it was fenced between this property line and, then, my property through here, I plan on keeping this back acreage right through here and, then, doing something up here. I would not be opposed to a little fenced off pathway that goes through that connects to the subdivision. Okay. The option is still there for the developer, if they want this parcel here and that helps them get through with the connection, that's always an option as well. I'm not trying to be a real estate agent here at City Council, but that -- I do know that this is going to be developed, the subdivision is going to -- they are going to try to connect it through with the meetings that I have had with these people. This is all supposably going to be sold right away, so there is going to be some other access points that go through. The drain ditch. I would like some more research done on this drain ditch, because all the homeowners -- this homeowner, this homeowner over here -- the drain ditch used to come, I believe, from way down here. It's all closed off now all the way through to this point, I believe, and, then, it's just a little bit of it right through here. The only thing that's coming into it is one homeowners drainage is coming through Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 32 of 53 • when he irrigates his field. It's a very minimal amount of water. It's -- I think it should be filled in. Most of the other homeowners around agree. And as far as everybody has told me, the research we found is it's a private ditch anyway. So, it could be filled in and I think it would look a lot better if this -- whoever buys this I think they are going to probably want to do the same thing. We have a lot of usable space here that is taken up by this drain ditch. It's about six feet deep, about 25, 30 feet wide and it's overgrown with weeds, bushes, and trees. So, there are a lot of big existing trees that we'd like to stay, but I think it could be cleaned up and the easiest way to take care of this drain ditch -- as soon as this gentleman right here sells, nobody else -- these two properties, which is happening as we speak, nobody else is draining into this ditch. It can be -- and it has been filled in all the way to this point right here. So, it's also another issue that we could look at as far as that drain ditch goes, because I know I want to fill mine in. There is about a half acre of space that I can't use because of it, so -- and I get absolutely no benefit out of it, except for kind of a -- you know, mosquitoes and numerous other things that come rolling through it. So, it's -- it's an eye sore for my property. It would look pretty good if it was cleaned up from the -- from the aspect of the new subdivision, however. If it was maintained it would look pretty decent. So, that's -- that's about all I have. De Weerd: Thank you. Lloyd: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, I apologize, I know his time was up and I got caught up in what he was saying and didn't pay attention to it. So, I apologize. Rountree: That's all right. It was good information. De Weerd: Yes. Lester Vogel is signed up neutral. Good evening. Vogel: Good evening. Yes. My name is Lester Vogel and we live at 3610 North Linder Road, right south of Sawtooth school. And we don't have any concerns with the subdivision, but I guess you have a list of concerns we wrote in. And my concerns are with the fence and I have already talked to the developer and they said they would consider all my concerns with the fence and probably we will need an electric fence on the west side of that, because livestock would be rubbing on it if you didn't have an electric fence. And the irrigation water that comes down in front of the property, it comes up and feeds our property, so we will need a way to get into change the water there. We'll have to have a headgate. And the elevation we have talked to the developer about and they are going to try to keep the elevation up so that it doesn't -- when we flood irrigate it doesn't flow into their property. So, other than that, we don't have -- and there is a neighbor -- we have tried to work with them and they have been good to -- whenever Ihave called and talked to them. So, maybe we are on the right track on this one. When the school went in and Watersong and some of them, they didn't have our concerns -- they just kind of went the way they wanted to and they didn't -- here they made our problems -- their problems our problems and they are still that way and I'd like ~ ! Meridian City Council ®ctober 3, 2006 Page 33 of 53 to, you know, get along -- as a neighbor I will work with them and I will do -- go 50-50, whatever it takes to get the project done. And Ihave -- I'd like to get the inspector to make sure things are done right before he signs off. We had a little project with the sewer when Meridian done the sewer up Ustick Road that kind of left us in a bind. We finally had to take care of ourself. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Yes. Rountree: You heard Mr. Lloyd's comments about the White Drain. Do you drain any imgation water that direction? Vogel: Yes, I do. Rountree: So, you do use the White Drain? Vogel: Yeah. And to the east of this project -- I don't know whether I know how to run this thing. This property irrigates -- flood irrigates and drains into that ditch. The ditch starts right there and it drains in there and this property drains into it and this property drains into it. Until it's developed. And we drain into it right up there. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Vogel: I think it takes about an 18 inch pipe to carry that water. But our irrigation comes down along here and right at this point it goes to the west and, then, we have to take it right up to here and there. So, right in here is where we are going to have to have access to our -- to change the water. This is -- all this property down in here has been on a rotation for years and years and so this water -- they will take it out with a weir and it will skim off a little bit and the rest of it will go down here and, then, this property and this little portion here, but they will -- somehow they are going to -- when they irrigate there will not be water for this and it's not too long a time, but -until this property develops and they won't be able to irrigate. Any other questions? Rountree: No. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come for final remarks. Nickles Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, Shawn Nickle. To address Mr. Lloyd's concerns or comment, we will absolutely work with him and make sure he has access at all times back his property and we will coordinate exactly where that driveway needs to be and make sure that it's open. These two gentlemen that are sitting right here wall be Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 34 of 53 responsible for that and I'll make sure that Mr. Lloyd talks to them and gets phone numbers and actually knows how to get ahold of Gemstar. But, yes, we have no intention of ever cutting him off at any point. With regards to the drain, considering the testimony tonight, I guess we'd like the ability -- if we do go in there and pipe that -- it sounds like we are going to be piping for a short period of time -- or the need for it to be piped is going to be for a short period of while these -- until these properties develop right here, if we do go in and pipe it, we are going to lose a lot of those mature trees, so I would like to have the ability to kind of research and see, you know, exactly what -- just to make sure that these are the only properties that go into it and, then, have the ability to go in and fill it in and clean it up and not remove those trees by piping what it sounds like is going to be maybe a couple years that we are to pipe before it will be abandoned, because it doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of property that would drain into that. We, obviously, would maintain flow at this current time on it. And also Mr. Lloyd's question about completion as -- this will be one phase. It will start in the spring and it will be 120 day duration to completion of the construction of the road system and the sewer and water lines and all that. So, I will stand for any other questions you may have. ®e Weerd: I guess while you're there I will just make my little editorial remark is when this came in as part of the Comp Plan to consider that as a neighborhood center or neighborhood mixed use, my whole concem was looking at this area one piece at a time, because there are a number of issues and the drainage and the sidewalks and the connecting to a real critical piece for me in the safety of the residents we would be putting in and around that, as well with the road that's very heavily traveled, it is hard to look at this critical piece one piece at a time. If everyone seems to be selling at the same time, it would be nice to see a master plan or how all of these pieces would fit together, so that we know infrastructuralwise how those pieces are going to fit together. So, again, that's my editorial piece and it was a concem I had then and I continue to have now. Nickles And, Madam Mayor, it's, obviously, frustrating and difficult for us to try to plan these type of properties piecemeal as well. Unfortunately, getting all the property owners and the develops together never -- never ever works out. It doesn't seem like anyone wants to sell their property or even talk to anybody until the piece next to them develops and gets approved -- or gets approved and all of a sudden they are willing to sell when this happens. Nearly every time we develop a small piece like this we are -- the next day someone comes in and says, okay, we are ready to develop and it's like, well, it would have been nice if we could have done that and planned it at the beginning. I do share your concerns. It is difficult to try to accomplish that. I think we have done a pretty good job in the past, as fast as these areas are growing and developing, I have no -- no concem that you're not going to see development on most of these properties in the next three to five years and it sounds like Mr. Lloyd -- and atone time we actually had aportion -- or, actually, I think we had most of Mr. Lloyd's property as part of this -- as part of our original design, but negotiations fell through and I believe Mr. Lloyd has at least considered going at it himself and so you are going to see -- and he did state for the record that he might be interested in providing a pathway there. So, I think you have an opportunity to get something a little sooner to the north and connect into that school Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 35 of 53 • and not have to want for these few parcels here to develop. But I do agree with your comments. De Weerd: Well -- and I do appreciate what you're saying and all of the pieces coming together over a certain time. Well, Ustick's not even on a five year plan right now and so, again, just one more piece of my concern. Council, any questions for the applicant at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Hood: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Hood: If I may, while Shawn's at the podium, I think you brought Southwick before the Council, did you not? Isn't that correct, Shawn? Can you help us out with the contiguity thing and where that's at, because we don't see that the annexation ordinance has been completed yet. Nickle: Caleb, thank you, I did have that to discuss. I believe two weeks ago you guys acted on the ordinance. I think it was on your agenda two weeks ago. I don't know if the clerk can verify that now or if you have to go back to the records, but -- okay, two weeks ago the ordinance was approved. So, this should be published as the annexation. Hood: Okay. We just couldn't find that and I guess just until that happens, if it hasn't happened, of course, we can't have the ordinance until that happens, so thank you. Nickle: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you need any further information from the applicant for staff? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we are all going to be tongue tied, I move that we close Items No. 9 and 10. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have motion and a second to close Items 9 and 10. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 36 of 53 De Weerd: Mr. Borton. • Borton: Just to throw out my thoughts. This is a different situation on a parcel like this. I share the Mayor's concems with efforts of somewhat piecemeal development, you know through no fault of the developers or landowners, some situations you have got small parcels. I think Shawn's comments about the difficulty in trying to get other people involved in assembling proprieties and doing more the master plan concept that the Mayor talked about, it's extremely difficult, perhaps -- perhaps that's our fault, not the developer's fault, to the extent we allow it to happen. If things come before us in a piecemeal fashion and we approve them we are, in a sense, telling the community that it's acceptable by us. So, maybe some of the fault lies on our end. Having said that and in light of what Shawn has talked about with regards to what might be happening in the relatively near future, there would be other parcels, so it's not parcel -- a private parcel in this location in this area that I'm encouraged about and I am not inclined to approve it. I don't think, in light of those concems, it's necessary for the city to take this on at this point. I'd like to see it joined to other parcels before at least I'm willing to go forward with it. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I don't disagree with what Joe said, but one of the issues that really stands out to me is that we have an adjacent property owner who will be significantly impacted by this and seemed pretty agreeable to what was going on, but indicated that there had been little or no agreement as it relates to his access to his property and it seems to me that this is one of my favorite topics, lanes, and I would just as soon not have a property with a lane annexed into the City of Meridian without some kind of agreement in place between the affected parties. So, I'm not inclined to support moving forward with this particular application until all the homework is done. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 9, annexation request -- somewhere here. A~ 06- 030. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item No. 9. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Meridian City Council October 3, 2006 Page 37 of 53 r Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. Mr. Nary, since we don't have an annexation, do we still need a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, yes, you would. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny Item 10, PP 06-030, preliminary plat. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 10. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 06-014 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3C-6A to provide less than 2 covered parking stalls for each multi-family dwelling unit for Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 06-015 Request for a Variance to UDC 11- 4.3.2763 to provide less than 80 square feet of private, usable open space for each multi-dwelling unit Regencv at River Vallev by The Regency at River Valley, LLC -east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: • October 13, 2006 AZ 06-042 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust ITEM NO. 23 REQUEST Public Hearing -- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision -- 2180 East Amity Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached P8Z Item Packet / Minutes See attached Recommendations See attached Comments Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. October 13, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING • PP 06-044 October 17, 2006 APPLICANT Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust ITEM NO. 24 REQUEST Public Hearing -- Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision -- 2180 East Amity 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 P8~Z Item Packet /Minutes See attached Recommendations See attached Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. October 13, 2006 AZ 06-044 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT Dan Wood ITEM NO. 25 REQUEST Public Hearing -- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Whitebark Subdivision - 2135 East Amity 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: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Cffy of Meridian. COMMENTS See attached P8.Z Item Packet /Minutes See attached Recommendations i • October 13, 2006 PP 06-046 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 17, 2006 APPLICANT Dan Wood ITEM NO. 26 REQUEST Public hearing -- request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision -- 2135 East Amity 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: See attached Request to Defer COMMENTS See attached P8Z Item Packet /Minutes See attached Recommendations Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Mertdlan. • October 13, 200b MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Gemstar Development, LLC ITEM No. 27 REQUEST Ordinance -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Southwick Subdivision - 1255 West Ustick 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 / ~~ O Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings stroll become properly of itte city of Meru. AZ 06-019 October 17, 200b ADA COUNTY RECORDER YID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 ; ~~ BOISE IDAH010119I06 OM RECORDED C R QUEST OF III I~II~II~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~ ~~~ Ciry of Meridian 1 ~t~ 1 ~5'~ i ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~i` ~" ~2 ~~ BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE (AZ-06-019) SOUTHWICK SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM RUT (ADA COUNTY) TO R-4 (MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SiIMMARY 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: CR Kellogg. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re- zoned from RUT (Ada County) 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-06-019 SOUTHWICK SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 3 i • 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 /~C~"~ ~v , 2006. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this ~~ day of ~ ~dY~-t~tiJ , 2006. ~, .~ ~.~`~~`~ a-WEERD ATTEST: '; ~~'/j/J//_'- __ ~ __ r WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI ~ ~- tg~ , ~' *~~ a~i'ss''~f®@AII@f@9@1 1@4911A14`~~~4~~s ANNEXATION OF AZ-06-019 SOUTHWICK SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3 l~ STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) On this ~*' day of ®~,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. ~~~ M. •• Y+ • ' i e ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ • + ~ r •~,~nn ~ i • •rn~e` ~ • iK~'j i • •~_ ewe..+- ~ • ••••.F ~P~~. OTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: o ~ 1 , qG' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: - t 1 ANNEXATION OF AZ-06-019 SOUTHWICK SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3 ~~ ~ DA H O ~ 1450 East Watertower St. `Suite I50 ~~ p ~s _ Y= SUR~E~ Meridian,ldaho83642 ~_ y ~ y G RO U ~ ~ Phone (208) 846-8570 ` -Fax (208) 884-5399 Project No, OS-349 February 14, 2006 Southwick Subdivision _ __ -- -- - --- -_-_.--- Annegation & Rezone RUT to R 4 A parcel of land located in Government Lot 4 of Section 1, T:3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idah©, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner ,common to Sections 35 and 36, T.4N., R.1 W., and Section 2 and the said Section 1, from ;which the 1/4 corner common to said Sections 36 and 1 bears South 88°42'32" East, ,2662.16 feet; Thence South 88°42'32" East, 987.03 feet to the REAL POINT OF .BEGINNING. Thence South 00°40'38" West, 1356.82 feet to a point on the North boundary of Meridian Park Subdivision No. 1, as same is recorded in Book 47 of Plats at Page 3356, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said North boundary South 89°17'25" East, 183.90 feet; Thence departing said boundary North 00°39'53" East, 25.97 feet; Thence South 89°.OS' 12"East, 174.47 feet to a point on the East line of said Government Lot 4; Thence along said East line North 00°03'31." East, 1328.06 feet to.the West 1/16 -comer common to said Sections 36 and 1; Thence North 8$°42'32" West, 344.05 feet to the Point of Begimiing. Containing 10.83 acres, more or less. -REV W APP ~ BY' OCT 1 X006 ~ WORK DEP~~G Prepared By: Idaho Sul'VA~i `\ - ae ID. Terry Peugh, PLS P.C. ~~~f~s~®®~a! ~a~d ~a~rv~y®~°s ~: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' T ~ b F- I- .y `°s. ~ e3 M. d33, ~ @{ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~p~ P' ~ ~3 M ~{j ~ 4CVG[ 911 MN "- ~-~_Z4'OLB ~~j;- ~ ~B Li+'trLL Al „SZ.L1.68 N ~ ~~ ~ 3 „ZtSD.68 5 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + , (1 11 1 I I I 1 ~ 1 J 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I ' v o~ .y N ~f N ~ I ~ 1 a D d,J7p~ ~j i~N •~ ~ Q fT`~cf~Zp ~ I f ~ Q ,- 1 r 1 w wI ~~ ~+^ _~ o z t 1'ro ~I°' ~ MI IM z+'1 Qa9 O I I'mp' LS ~ o ~n o i if o ~' ~' i $ ~ ~ r 'e'' ,~0 z~ I fn ~0~? I ~ a '70 ~' i i I ~ t7 ~ ~ ~ 1 t3 1 1 ~d 1 ~~ as O~ I I a° tau ~~ ~ ~ 1 gym. , ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ' ~/ 1 ~ U t 1 o~ ~ U~1 1 I f N tWi N 1 9N1PIN!<J39 1 t'S 1 j0 1NIOd 3tl32f 1 1 4/t 9£'S .eoitti---~--VO'b4£'--~ ~-----s-°~tas - t'S Z'S rt~ i£,ives ~ QyQ~ 3t~IlSfl £•s s£•s sl/1 nn s~ivla 3s ~ozssve .~•~t S~~ ~~ ~ PROJECT: DESCRIPTION: FILE: junk.cgx UNITS: U.S. SURVEY FOOT INSTRUMENT SETUP Instrument point: Backlight point: Backsight.Bearing: Remarks: TYPE FROM TO Thursday, September 07,2006 2:01 PM PAGE 1 1 500.0000 500.0000 1 500.0000 5ao.oooo N 00°00'00" E Distance: 0.00 DIRECTION DISTANCE NORTHING FASTING TRAY 1 2 S 00°40'38" W 1356.82 -856.7252 483.9631 TRAY 2 3 S 89°17'25" E 183.90 -859.0031 667.8490 TRAV 3 4 N 00°39'53" E 25.97 -833.0349 668.1503 TRAV 4 5 S 89°05'12" E 174.47 -835.8159 842.5981 TRAV 5 6 N 00°03'31" E 1328.06 492.2434 843.9566 TRAV 6 7 N 88°42'32" W 344.05 499.9956 499.9940 Closure Closing line: S 53°41'06" W 0.01 from 7 to 1 Latitude (N): 0.00 Perimeter: 3413.27 Departure (E): -0.01 Error of Closure: 1:458233 Area: 471584.28 Square feet 10.8261 Acres NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE N0.06- t ~°1® PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land located in Government Lot 4 of Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Attachment "A". This parcel contains 10.83 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 ~®I't+~ da of -® ""~~~ ~ \~® ~ s~i ~ ° Mayor and City Council of the City o~M 'dian~~~ By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk ~ ~ First Reading: t0-I"1 °®CD Ac~q~ r~ by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code ~t~,~ S I~' NO Second Reading: ----- al,l~e~.~in~~ g STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 06- 1~"I O 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 O 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. ~~ -~ William. L.M. Nary, City Att ORDINANCE SUMMARY - AZ-06-019 SOUTHWICK SUB Page 1 of 1