2015-06-16I
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
Amended Agenda
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:00 PM
1. Roll -Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by Troy Drake, Lead Pastor, Calvary Chapel Meridian
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved with amendments
A. City Hall West Side Parking Lot — Temporary License Agreement with Ada
County Highway District (ACHD)
Moved to this to Item 6A
B. Amended Cooperative Agreement for Improvements and Maintenance of
the Interstate 84 Meridian Road Interchange (ITD Project No. A010(939)
Between the Idaho Transportation Department and the City of Meridian
C. Accommodations Subdivision on-site Sewer Easement
D. Approval of Task Order 10561.A to Jensen Belts Associates for the
"HILLSDALE PARK DESIGN" project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of
$66,658.00.
E. Resolution No. # 15-1071: Amending the Community Development Block
Grant PY2014 Action Plan
This is moved to Item 8A2 for approval following Continued Public Hearing
F. Approval of purchase of Motion Tablets from CDW-Government, LLC. for
the Not -To -Exceed amount of $56,669.00 and authorize the Purchasing
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda—Tuesday, June 16, 2015 Page 1 of
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Manager to issue and sign a purchase order to CDW-Government, LLC for
the Not -to -Exceed amount of $56,669.00.
G. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to L2 EXCAVATION, LLC for the
"WATER LINE REPLACEMENT — E ANTILLES COURT" Project for a Not -To -
Exceed amount of $76,995.30
H. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: AP 15-002 Franklin Mini Storage by
Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E. Franklin Road Request: City Council
Approval of a Reduction in the Buffer Width Required in the C -G Zoning
District to Residential Uses as Allowed by Unified Development Code
(UDC) 11-313-9C.2
I. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-001
Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 2 by Penwood III, LLC Located 397 SW 5th
Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on
Approximately 0.26 Acres in the L -O Zoning District
J. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-002
Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 3 by Penwood III, LLC Located 381 SW 5th
Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on
Approximately 0.20 Acres in the L -O Zoning District
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-003
Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 4 by Penwood III, LLC Located 397 SW 5th
Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on
Approximately 0.20 Acres in the L -O Zoning District
L. Final Order for Approval: FP 15-016 Paramount Subdivision No. 29 by
Brighton Land Holdings, LLC Located West Side of N. Meridian Road and
the North Side of W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval
Consisting of Sixty -Two (62) Building Lots, Twelve (12) Common Lots and
Three (3) Other Lots on 18.42 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District
M. FP 15-019 Oak Leaf Subdivision No. 2 by Oak Leaf Development Company,
Inc. Located North of Chinden Boulevard and West of N. Jayker Way
Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of . Eleven (11) Single Family
Residential Lots on Approximately 7.99 Acres in the R-2 Zoning District
N. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-013 Silverwater Subdivision No. 2 by
Trilogy Development Located at the South Side of E. Victory Road on the
East Side of S. Standing Timber Way, in the NW 1/4 of Section 30,
Township 3N., Range 1 E., Request for Final Plat Consisting of 2 Common
Lots on 4.67 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, June 16, 2015 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.
A. Moved from Consent Agenda: City Hall West Side Parking Lot — Temporary
License Agreement with Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Approved
7. Community Items/Presentations
A. Eagle Scout Project Presentation by Jacob Chambers
8. Action Items
A. Community Development Block Grant PY2015 Action Plan Draft
Prioritization Hearing
1. Amended onto the Agenda: Continued Public Hearing for
Community Development Bl• PY2014 Action Plan
2. Moved from Consent Agenda: Resolution No. # 15-1071: Amending
the Community Development Block Grant PY2014 Action Plan
Approved
B. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-012 Silverwater Subdivision No. 3 by
Trilogy Development Located at the South Side of E. Victory Road Midway
Between S. Meridian Rd and S. Locust Grove Rd. in the NE 1/4 of Section
30, Township 3N., Range 1E., Request for Final Plat Consisting of 42
Common Lots, 6 Common lots, and 1 Other Lot on 17.22 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District Approved with conditions
C. Public Hearing Continued from June 2, 2015: RZ 15-006 Three Corners by
Sweet Land Development, Inc. Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust
Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard Request: Rezone of Approximately
12.65 Acres of Land from the C -C (Community Business), R-8 (Medium
Density Residential) and R-4 (Medium -Low Density Residential) Zoning
District to the C -C (9.38 Acres), R-8 (2.76 acres) and R-4 (0.51 Acres) Zoning
Districts Approved
D. Public Hearing: TEC 15-002 Pinebridge Subdivision by B.W. Meridian, Inc.
Located East Side of N. Locust Grove Road, South of E. Fairview Avenue
and North of E. Commercial Street Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension
on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on
a Final Plat Approved
E. Public Hearing: CPAM 15-001 Hill Properties/Century Farm School by
Martin Hill, Hill & Hill Properties and Brighton Investments Located East
Side of S. Eagle Road and South Side of E. Amity Road Request:
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda —Tuesday, June 16, 2015 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.
the Future Land Use Designation on 87.01 Acres of Land from Low Density
Residential to Mixed -Use Neighborhood Approved
F. Public Hearing: AZ 15-004 Hill Properties by Martin Hill and Hill & Hill
Properties Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and the South Side of E.
Amity Road Request: Annexation of 78.62 Acres of Land with the R-8 (39.83
Acres) and C -N (38.79 Acres) Zoning Districts Approved
G. Public Hearing: RZ 15-007 Century Farm School by Brighton Investments
Located 114 Mile South of E. Amity Road and 1/2 Mile East of S. Eagle Road
Request: Rezone of 8.39 Acres of Land From the R-8 to the C -N Zoning
District Approved
H. Public Hearing: AZ 14-016 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located
4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Annexation and Zoning of 27.75
Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Approved
Public Hearing: PP 14-018 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located
4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Consisting of Thirty -One (31) Building Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other
Lots on 10.37 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Denied
9. Department Reports
A. Continued from June 9, 2015: Legal and Fire Departments: Memorandum
of Understanding and Agreement between the City of Meridian and the
Meridian Rural Fire Protection District
Continued to June 23, 2015
B. Public Works: Roadway Lighting Policy
10. Future Meeting Topics None
11. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(b)(d): (b) To Consider the
Evaluation, Dismissal or Disciplining of, or to Hear Complaints or Charges
Brought Against, a Public Officer, Employee, Staff Member or Individual Agent, or
Public School Student; AND (d) To Consider Records that are Exempt from
Disclosure as Provided in Chapter 3, Title 9, Idaho Code
# ♦ a I Vj
Adjourned at 11:35 PM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda —Tuesday, June 16, 2015 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 June 16, 2015
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday, June
16, 2015, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, David
Zaremba, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jacy Jones, Sonya Watters, Clint Dolsby, Jeff Lavey, Chris
Amen, Sean Kelly, Max Jensen, Austin Petersen and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam _XLucas Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd_
De Weerd: Well, thank you for joining us. I'd like to welcome you to the City Council
meeting. For the record it is Tuesday, June 16th. It's five minutes after 6:00. We will start
with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Troy Drake, Lead Pastor, Calvary Chapel
Meridian
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. We will be led tonight by Pastor Troy
Drake. He is with the Calvary Chapel in Meridian.
Drake: Hi, Mayor Tammy.
De Weerd: Hi, Pastor Troy. If you will all join us in the invocation or take this as an
opportunity for a moment of reflection.
Drake: Our gracious and Heavenly Father, we just want to thank you for this free country
that we live in, God, where we can pursue our dreams and work where we want to and
live where we want to and where we just owe a debt of gratitude to you for that and so we
are grateful tonight here, Lord. We do pray for the peace for the citizens of Meridian, God,
that you would protect our -- the citizens and also those who serve us, God, the fire, the
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 2 of 57
police, all those who are responsible for keeping the peace and responding to
emergencies, Lord. We pray for peace tonight here in town and, lastly, Lord, I just want to
pray for these people here who have devoted their time, lots of it, in order to -- to serve
the citizens, Lord, we are just thankful that we get to elect our representatives here and
that they are just willing to do the hard work to make sure that we have a good place to
live. So, we just thank you, God, for them and pray that you give them much grace and,
Lord, that you would give them lots of wisdom when it comes to these agenda items
tonight, any type of spending that needs to be done, that they would be wise and good
stewards of those things and -- God, and you just give them great amounts of wisdom to
accomplish your will. So, we thank you ahead of time for what you're going to do and we
just honor you, in Jesus' name we pray, amen.
De Weerd: Pastor, do you need a City of Meridian pin?
Drake: No. I'm good. I'm good.
De Weerd: You have a good collection of them.
Drake: I have got a whole -- I give them to kids and so -- thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you for being here tonight.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On Item 5-A, it's been requested to move that item to 6-A. On item 5-E, the
proposed resolution -- or the resolution number is 15-1071 and that item has requested to
be removed to that Item 8-A-2. On Item 8-A it's been requested to add an A-1 and that is
the continued public hearing for the Community Block Grant action plan. And with those
additions and changes, Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the agenda.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as presented or as
noted. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 3 of 57
B. Amended Cooperative Agreement for Improvements and
Maintenance of the Interstate 84 Meridian Road Interchange (ITD
Project No. A010(939) Between the Idaho Transportation
Department and the City of Meridian
C. Accommodations Subdivision on-site Sewer Easement
D. Approval of Task Order 10561.A to Jensen Belts Associates for
the "HILLSDALE PARK DESIGN" project for a Not -To -Exceed
amount of $66,658.00.
F. Approval of purchase of Motion Tablets from CDW-Government,
LLC. for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $56,669.00 and authorize
the Purchasing Manager to issue and sign a purchase order to
CDW-Government, LLC for the Not -to -Exceed amount of
$56,669.00.
G. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to L2 EXCAVATION,
LLC for the "WATER LINE REPLACEMENT — E ANTILLES
COURT" Project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $76,995.30
H. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: AP 15-002 Franklin Mini
Storage by Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E. Franklin Road
Request: City Council Approval of a Reduction in the Buffer
Width Required in the C -G Zoning District to Residential Uses as
Allowed by Unified Development Code (UDC) 11 -3B -9C.2
1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval:
SHP 15-001 Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 2 by Penwood III,
LLC Located 397 SW 5th Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval
for Two (2) Commercial Lots on Approximately 0.26 Acres in the
L -O Zoning District
J. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval:
SHP 15-002 Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 3 by Penwood 111,
LLC Located 381 SW 5th Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval
for Two (2) Commercial Lots on Approximately 0.20 Acres in the
L -O Zoning District
K. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval:
SHP 15-003 Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 4 by Penwood III,
LLC Located 397 SW 5th Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval
for Two (2) Commercial Lots on Approximately 0.20 Acres in the
L -O Zoning District
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 4 of 57
L. Final Order for Approval: FP 15-016 Paramount Subdivision No.
29 by Brighton Land Holdings, LLC Located West Side of N.
Meridian Road and the North Side of W. McMillan Road Request:
Final Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty -Two (62) Building Lots,
Twelve (12) Common Lots and Three (3) Other Lots on 18.42
Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District
M. FP 15-019 Oak Leaf Subdivision No. 2 by Oak Leaf Development
Company, Inc. Located North of Chinden Boulevard and West of
N. Jayker Way Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Eleven
(11) Single Family Residential Lots on Approximately 7.99 Acres
in the R-2 Zoning District
N. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-013 Silverwater Subdivision
No. 2 by Trilogy Development Located at the South Side of E.
Victory Road on the East Side of S. Standing Timber Way, in the
NW 1/4 of Section 30, Township 3N., Range 1 E., Request for
Final Plat Consisting of 2 Common Lots on 4.67 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Constant Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, with the previously approved changes, I move that we approve
the Consent Agenda, authorize the Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
A. City Hall West Side Parking Lot — Temporary License Agreement
with Ada County Highway District (ACHD)
Moved to this to Item 6A
De Weerd: Item No. 6-A was moved from the Consent Agenda. It's regarding the City
Hall west side parking lot. I believe that Councilman Borton had had some questions.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 5 of 57
Borton: I did, Madam Mayor. The source of the questions was just concerning an update
and the status of the parking lot. Some of the unforeseen soil conditions upon further
investigation and it now being contemplated to be an interim or temporary lot, which gave
me some concern. I wasn't sure of the difference -- what that meant from an engineering
and construction perspective from what was originally intended. So, I thought it was
worthy getting that clarity.
De Weerd: Okay. We will have Max answer that, but I think it's probably more for either
Councilman Rountree or I to address. We did bring this item to our -- the Council for
discussion with some of the initial estimates for the cost of the parking lot, as there is a
higher and better use hoped for that corner. The pavement will last ten to 15 years and to
address parking in our downtown, but also to hopefully have that parcel as an area for
redevelopment. Mr. Rountree, do you have anything at add?
Rountree: The original estimate for the parking lot was done based on engineering to
provide a permanent long-term parking facility. We looked at the numbers and it was just
too much money for the thought that at some point in time that property could and
probably will be redeveloped. We looked at the engineering and felt that we did not have
to do the extensive earthwork that was being recommended and reduced the cost
significantly and within the budget we had allocated as a Council for the parking lot and
come up with a solution, along with some changes that we were able to work out with
ACHD as far as things they were originally requiring with sidewalk to be removed and
replaced and that sort of thing, so, again, brought the cost of the project down and,
actually, I think that the bids came in even under what our final estimates were. So, Max,
if you want to give us an update of the status of where that is, that, hopefully, will answer
your questions, Joe.
Borton: Okay.
Jensen: Madam Mayor, Member of the Council, my name is Max Jensen with Public
Works Department. In regards to the bids, they were approximately 12,000 higher than
the engineer's estimate, but we are still within the budget for the project. We did open up
bids on that last Tuesday and the low bidder was sent the agreement for signature and we
just received it back here today, so that will be back in front of you next Tuesday for
consideration.
De Weerd: And, Max, I'd like to commend you for your diligence and certainly for Ada
County Highway District and their interest in working with us to minimize the cost and to
get this project moving forward. So, thank you for that.
Jensen: I appreciate that. Thank you for your help as well.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. Any further questions, Mr. Borton?
Borton: Yeah. I have one, Madam Mayor.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 6 of 57
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: And some of the -- the source of the question was does the changes in design or
engineering create some expense in ten or 12 years that wouldn't otherwise be there as
originally intended? Is there going to be some replacement or -- assuming it doesn't
redevelop as quickly as we hope are we kicking some the expense down the road, rather
than paying for it now?
Jensen: Councilman Borton, that's a very good question. As an interim parking lot we --
the decision has been made as far as not an everlasting parking lot. So, a temporary use
until a better use comes along. So, with that in mind there may be additional maintenance
issues that -- that do come up. The certainty of that is unknown. The original
recommendation by the consulting engineer was to remove approximately about eight feet
of soils throughout the whole site. In some test of the bores out there they found
construction material and wood and concrete, but there were previous buildings on that
site that were removed and pit run was brought back in to fill those voids. So, one of the
recommendations by the consultant engineer was to remove about nine feet of fill all the
way across the project site. The other option is to build a typical section for asphalt and
the pit run and the base and build it on existing soil over there, but still compacting it and
doing standard per the ISPWC. So, if you went through the whole site and removed about
nine feet of fill, as the first suggestion was, that would increase costs roughly about
120,000 dollars for that site and that's not within the budget. So, the other option was -- is
that we could build upon -- excuse me -- build upon the soils that are currently out there
and -- and that was the direction that -- that we had created this final design based upon.
Borton: Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Just one brief question. Under ideal situations what's the life span of a
temporary lot? I mean how long would it last before it would require some future
maintenance and repair work?
Jensen: Councilman Cavener, that's -- that's not a -- nobody is really going to put a year
or a time frame to that for a -- for a parking lot. You know, under ideal situations you have
a parking lot they will last, you know, 30, 40 years and that's if everything is built perfect,
the materials brought in were perfect, compaction was perfect, the testing was perfect.
So, there is -- there is no per se set number as far as if you build it correctly or if you build
it differently than -- like in our case here instead of removing eight feet or nine feet of soils,
to use the existing. The geotechnical investigations show that there were some portions
in some areas that there were pieces of wood or concrete. That doesn't necessarily mean
that things still won't last a good life span. It's -- it's uncertain to put a certain time frame
on it.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 7 of 57
Cavener: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 6-A.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 6-A. Madam Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: In favor of the ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Thank you, Max, for being here.
Jensen: Thank you for your time.
Item 7: Community Items/Presentations
A. Eagle Scout Project Presentation by Jacob Chambers
De Weerd: Okay. 7-A is an Eagle Scout presentation by Jacob Chambers. I will ask you
to come forward. Thank you for joining us.
Chambers: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Hello. My name is Jacob Chambers. I would
like to thank you all for letting me speak to you today about my Eagle Scout project. My
Eagle project is on the matter of bone marrow donation. If you would look on your flyers
that have been given to you on your desk, bone marrow donation is mostly found in the
blood cancers like leukemia and now if I may ask a question to the council members.
How many of you have experienced someone with leukemia or another type of cancer?
Cancer is very common. Now my project is to help save people with very rare problems
like leukemia or aplastic anemia. Now, my event will be held at the Boise Hawks
Memorial Stadium from July 9th through July 11th and it will be to raise awareness to the
community about bone marrow donation. Do you have any questions?
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Jacob?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 8 of 57
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Jacob, why did you select this as -- for your Eagle Scout project?
Chambers: Well, I selected this for my Eagle project because I thought it was a crucial
part of getting people to be aware of bone marrow donation. There are a lot of myths
surrounding bone marrow donation that have often caused people to not sign up to be a
bone marrow donation, causing the loss of life and I felt it was very important to inform the
community that saving lives is important through this organization.
De Weerd: So, Jacob, could you tell us, perhaps, what kind of process do you go through
to see if you are an eligible donor?
Chambers: Yes, Madam Mayor. Be The Match has a -- is a very well set organization, so
first they ask you questions about your health, like have you had heart disease or a --
cancers or blood cancers before and after you have gone through a series of questions
about your medical health, then, they will inform you and you will go to what is known as a
cheek swab station where you swab your cheeks in your four coordinates, so your upper
two and your lower two and they will swab all those coordinates and they will send you to
a lab and that lab will check your DNA to see if there are any corruptions in your DNA and
will link you to potential donors. Now, if you do -- if they do think you are a match they will
call you in for blood testing to see if your blood is the best option for a potential candidate
or patient and if your blood has been accepted and is the best match for the patient, they
will contact you with when -- with the next steps in order to become -- for bone marrow
donation.
De Weerd: And I think, as you noted, it's the -- the uncertainty or the mystique behind
what that is. What -- is it painful going through bone marrow -- donating your bone
marrow?
Chambers: Thank you for asking that question, Madam Mayor. It is not painful to go
through bone marrow donation. There is two options of ways of doing this. First is using
stem cells, which are nonspecialized cells inside of your body and you get a series of
three shots over five days, so it's not very painful. Then you go through a basic blood
transfusion where they collect those stem cells and put the blood directly back in your
body. You will not lose any blood during this procedure and is used in about 95 percent of
all bone donations. Now, the other -- the other treatment is where they actually go inside
of your bones and collect the bone marrow. Now, the bone marrow, when you do -- that's
-- this type -- there is only about five percent of people do this and it's mostly because of
specific things that react in your blood, but those five percent you will be -- experience no
pain, you will all be put under anesthesia, so you will not feel anything. They will be very
delicate. You should be up to your normal routine within two -- two days -- I'm sorry.
Within your treatment and it has no permanent effect on your bones and between three
and seven days your bone marrow should regenerate.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 9 of 57
De Weerd: Thank you, Jacob. Any other questions from Council?
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: So, do you have an ask for us?
Chambers: I -- I do not currently. I have asked for you -- one thing that would help me a
lot would be the community education with this -- helping my project to inform the
community the most that we can to help save lives and that would be a very great thing.
De Weerd: So, those of you with social media, if you will post this event on your social
media or if you have friends that you know that might be interested, share that with them,
and although I will be out of town at my parents' 60th wedding anniversary, I would
challenge all of our Council Members to show up and to support you at the Hawks
stadium.
Chambers: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to thank the Council for their time and
I would like to thank you for your involvement in helping save lives. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Nice job.
De Weerd: And I might mention that Jacob, the soon to be Eagle Scout, is going to be a
new MYAC member and so we honored to have you, Jacob.
Item 8: Action Items
A. Community Development Block Grant PY2015 Action Plan Draft
Prioritization Hearing
1. Amended onto the Agenda: Continued Public Hearing for
Community Development Block Grant PY2014 Action Plan
2. Moved from Consent Agenda: Resolution No. # 15-1071:
Amending the Community Development Block Grant
PY2014 Action Plan
De Weerd: Okay. Our next item under Item 8-A is our Community Development Block
Grant. I will turn this to Sean.
Kelly: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thanks for the
opportunity to be here tonight to discuss next year's plan for the CDBG action plan. What
follows is the committee's recommendation for what goes forward for our draft action plan.
You will notice that the action -- that our entitlement for the city has gone up by ten
percent for this year, which is quite a considerable amount. That has also added to our
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 10 of 57
public service dollars in terms of what we can spend. That cap was raised by about 5,000
dollars in this year alone. The administration is always capped at 20 percent as you
know. We are asking for that full amount this year. I know it seems a little early, but our
2017-2021 -- or con plan is ready to start -- start -- start to go to bid, so that needs to be
included in this year's -- this year's budget to include our fair housing and other program
issues that we need to work with every year. The application process -- we had a bunch
of LOI's and almost all of our LOI's submitted full applications. We only had one LOI,
letter of intent, that did not submit a full application. So, I was pretty successful in that
campaign. The scoring committee, which was comprised of Councilman Cavener, Caleb
Hood, Ken Corder, Todd Lavoie, Karen Woodell, myself, and we had two community
members this year, as opposed to one the last two years. We had Gretchen Caserotti
from the library come back to us to help us out, as well as James Rucker, from the senior
advisory board. The projects were assessed based on the goals in front of you here, as
well as project capacity and capacity to carry out the program. This is an overview of the
national objectives and the goals that HUD has established. Every project that we
approve and that we put on an action plan has to be supported by our con plan and has to
meet one of these national objectives. I want to draw your attention to two of them that
are on this slide, because they mean a lot for this year and for the next year and that's the
expand economic opportunities, as well as the aid and prevention of elimination of slum
and blight. As I have been here twice now I think talking to you guys about the problems
that we have with slum and blight, which we have a bonafide plan that's currently in that
substantial amendment that will come up here in a little bit -- a little while. But expanding
economic opportunities -- the slum and blight prevention and the elimination -- the
restoring historicity of buildings, those things that would be in that slum and blight plan,
those are very good economic opportunities or programs that we can use to spawn
economic development within the -- using CDBG. CDBG strategies and objectives that
we have within our current consolidated plan, again, economic opportunities -- that's one
that we are trying to hit this next year, however, we are slightly hamstringed being able to
meet that, because we don't have that slum and blight plan. So, there is a couple of
things that I'd like to try to do with this action plan for the next year to bolster other areas
of the CDBG program for the next year, so that we can kind of compensate for not being
able to do some of those economic development activities. We also didn't have a lot of
applications that had anything to do with economic development specifically, so that also
is a hindrance to that. Public service applications. We had three, which is a -- there is an
interesting anomaly this year, as mentioned by I believe Caleb Hood during our committee
meeting, probably the first year that they had seen the ask cannot meet the cap for public
service. Usually we have a competition and we have to either select two over three or
perhaps ask one to step back a little bit from their ask. We didn't have to do that this year.
So, the committee is recommending that all three that had submitted be accepted for the
next year's action plan. You will notice the Meridian Food Bank number in green there. In
previous years Meridian Food Bank -- their ask has been decreased and so the committee
as a -- the committee has decided or had decided to put forth that that gap between the
ask and the cap be afforded to the Meridian Food Bank. We thought that that was
apropos. CATCH has returned as well. They'd like to ask -- their ask is smaller than it
has been -- than it was this past year and that's because they are coming in -- they are
really coming into their program capacity and understanding what they can do in Meridian
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 11 of 57
and so they have lowered their amount because they think that that's a better -- better
policy for what they can do in Meridian within one given year. So, that's why that number
is a little bit -- a little bit less, it's about 6,000 dollars less than it was last year. And, then,
the senior advisor committee -- Ken Corder actually put together an application for a
senior resource guide to be used around the City of Meridian. For the nonservice
applications we had seven applications. Those applications did go above the cap that we
have, the outstanding budgetary that we had there. We do have 50,000 dollars that came
from three private -- three previous program years. HUD is going to change the way they
-- they actually have already changed the way they do things. As of 2015, as of this year,
they are no longer going to use first -in, first -out for any CDBG, any home or any other
things. So, because of that we would like to use those -- use that -- the obligated funds
from I think it's 11, '12, and '13, most of that came from admin. We have used these
before. We use it on the Idaho Avenue project, a couple of the projects to bolster them up
in previous years. But this will clean us up for 2015. We will have no deobligated funds in
previous -- from previous years and we will be starting fresh with whatever HUD --
whatever HUD rule that they come with up for 2016 and how to operate that way. What
that does is it gives us enough money to actually do an entire of the program. So, of the
seven applications we did the -- the community has asked for five to be funded and with
two alternatives and I will explain the alternatives. Meridian Elementary School -- as you
know, we are doing a project with them. We have worked with them in the past. They are
currently building their fitness path with the ADA equipment that is a serendipitous
occasions, because ACHD has agreed to punch in from 4th Street to connect with that
path in 2017, creating a free flowing pathway -- master pathway piece to come all the way
through and reach those amenities, like the clinic and the food bank and the Boys and
Girls Club. It's also creating a community element, which is why the Meridian Elementary
School is asking for a baseball field to be renovated, two dilapidated baseball fields that
they own, they want those to go away and they want to put a picnic shelter -- some type of
a community shelter there. It's turning a very public area into a very accessible piece for
that LMI community. It's right in the heart of our LMI community. Parks and Recreation
would like to continue the Five Mile Creek pathway that is north of Pine, south of Fairview,
right about 2 1/2 -- or was it 2 1/2 Street, something around there. That number, if you
notice, we did not recommend funding it fully. I did talk to the project manager for that
particular project, they had a little leeway there. What that does is it zeros out budget by
bringing them down by just that much. It doesn't impact their project too greatly. Boys
and Girls Club are asking for the -- their main building to be painted, so that's a brush up
project and that falls right in line with the gym being built this year. So, that brings their
new building online with the esthetics of the new -- of the new gym. Neighbor Housing
and Services is actually called Neighbor Works now. They have -- that was their parent
organization before. They just assumed that label as well. They and the Ada County
Housing Authority wanted to partner with Meridian again to do more down payment
assistance for low income individuals -- for down payment assistance and closing costs
here in Meridian. That puts vacant homes with an owner in it that's paying taxes. It's
actually putting money back into the community and the county. And, then, that is where
we go to the Meridian Development Corporation. They have two projects they put forth.
The first project is really important I think, because it's the one that actually answers the
strategy that we tried to use this year, which is economic development. We can't use it,
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 12 of 57
so what I'm asking to do and what I asked the committee to do is to have these as
alternate projects in the action plan. This and their sidewalk improvement project. The
sidewalk improvement project would have scored a lot higher had we had a slum and
blight plan actually implemented and actually used that. So, if we have these as alternate
projects in the action plan and we have a project that cannot fulfill its obligations or it does
not progress as it should, we have a fall -back piece that we don't have to spend a lot of
time doing a substantial amendment, especially right in the middle of the time that we are
planning for the very next year, which becomes a little bit more arduous. So, that's why
those two projects are being asked to be alternative projects built in. Just to -- just to be
clear, too, the fagade improvements is completely dependent on that slum and blight plan
finished in that year. If it's not, then, that's clearly not going to work. But if we can get the
slum and blight plan finished in the next year, which is not going to be as intensive as the
con plan development and a lot cheaper, hopefully that can actually be a project that we
move forward with if we have something that falls. This is the plan that I have currently.
hope to return on July 7th after taking all of your input and moving forward with
reprioritization if we need to. July 7th I would give the -- give a similar presentation with
the prioritization with a more clear description of what these projects are going to look like.
That would put us at August 12th for City Council again to approve that. This will be -- I'm
going to start the public -- the citizen participation plan, the public review process about a
week and a half early, so that we don't end up with a mismatch of when the publication
actually hits, so we have a 30 day -- it's probably going to be about 40 days on the next
one, so I think that that might become a standard operating procedure, too, so we don't hit
that. Madam Mayor, at this time I'd like to solicit any comments or input that Council or
you may have for the 2015 program year action plan.
De Weerd: Thank you, Sean. Council, any comments, questions for Sean?
Cavener: Sean, I appreciate your hard work on this and the committee as well. One of
the things I was really pleased to see were these fall back plans. It seems every year we
have a plan in front of us and inevitably something gets in the way and that project goes
away and being able to have projects ready made, ready to go should that happen is
forward thinking and I appreciate your effort on that.
De Weerd: And thank you, Mr. Cavener, for serving on the selection committee. Any
additional questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Sean.
Kelly: Madam Mayor, thank you.
De Weerd: Also on our agenda is a public hearing for the Community Development Block
Grant. Okay. I don't get it.
Kelly: Madam Mayor --
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 13 of 57
De Weerd: We have 8-A-1 and A-2.
Kelly: Yes, Madam Mayor. Hopefully this is less baffling than it was on the 9th. Staff
would ask that public comment period be closed as of tonight. No comments have been
received by staff at this time, so there is nothing to add to that substantial amendment.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions on this? And before I close the public hearing
is there anyone who would like to comment?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: No comments, I move that we close the public hearing on the Community
Development Block Grant fiscal year 2015 action plan.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Then the next item is a resolution on the 2014 action plans. Do you
have any comments on that?
Kelly: Madam Mayor, I just wish that the -- or staff recommends that the adoption of the
program year 2014 substantial amendment as described to Council on 9 June is adopted
and forwarded to HUD.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I move that we approve Resolution 15-1071, amending the Community
Development Block Grant fiscal year 2014 action plan and to send a copy to HUD.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution on Item 8-A-2.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 14 of 57
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you, Sean.
Kelly: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
B. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-012 Silverwater Subdivision
No. 3 by Trilogy Development Located at the South Side of E.
Victory Road Midway Between S. Meridian Rd and S. Locust
Grove Rd. in the NE 1/4 of Section 30, Township 3N., Range 1E.,
Request for Final Plat Consisting of 42 Common Lots, 6
Common lots, and 1 Other Lot on 17.22 Acres of Land in the R-8
Zoning District
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-B is continued from May 26. It's final plat 15-012. 1 will ask for
staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before
you is a request for a final plat. This site consists of 17.22 acres of land. It's currently
zoned R-8 and is located south of East Victory Road, south of the -- excuse me -- north of
the Ridenbaugh Canal and east of Meridian Road. A final plat is proposed that consists of
42 building lots, six common lots and one other lot consistent with the approved
preliminary plat. Written testimony was received from Shawn Brownlee, the applicant's
representative, in agreement with the staff report, except for condition number 5.13, which
requires a minimum five foot wide detached sidewalk to be constructed off site along the
frontage of the out parcel with the property owner's consent per a provision of the existing
development agreement. This property was part of the preliminary plat for Cavanaugh
Subdivision that was platted back in 2007 and this is the outparcel here that we are -- we
are talking about. At the time Council required a detached sidewalk to be constructed
along the frontage of the property. The provision does leave an out. It reads that if the
construction and easement for the sidewalk is not allowed in writing by the owner of the
outparcel, the applicant shall bond or provide another city approved method for providing
assurance that the pathway improvements in that area are constructed when the
outparcel redevelops. The applicant is requesting Council to remove this condition of
approval. Staff will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comments? No comments? Okay. In
agreement with -- okay. Council, I'm looking for a motion.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 15 of 57
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 15-012 and to remove the condition 5-B from the application.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: And a second. Any discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary
Nary: Madam Mayor, the -- the only way you can remove that condition is you're going to
have to grant a new condition requiring they amend their development agreement. You
already have a contractual development agreement requirement and a final plat is not
appropriate to remove those conditions. They are going to have to go through the
development agreement modification process. So, if you would like them to do that, that's
going to be required. Or you can leave it in and they can still go through the development
agreement modification process, if that's what you would like to do.
Bird: Yeah. I would -- I forgot about the DA. So, that's my fault. Let's just take that five
out if the second will agree.
De Weerd: Second agree?
Borton: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I didn't hear what he said.
Bird: I just took out the condition of five. Leaving it in, then, they can go --
Zaremba: Leaving the condition in?
Bird: Yeah. And, then, they can get a DA modification if they want to. I forgot it was in
the DA.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 16 of 57
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing Continued from June 2, 2015: RZ 15-006 Three
Corners by Sweet Land Development, Inc. Located Southeast
Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard
Request: Rezone of Approximately 12.65 Acres of Land from the
C -C (Community Business), R-8 (Medium Density Residential)
and R-4 (Medium -Low Density Residential) Zoning District to the
C -C (9.38 Acres), R-8 (2.76 acres) and R-4 (0.51 Acres) Zoning
Districts
De Weerd: Item 8-C is a public hearing continued from June 2nd on RZ 15-006. 1 will ask
for staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. The next application before you is a
request for rezone for Three Corners. This site consists of approximately 12.65 acres of
land. It zoned C -C, R-8, and R-4 and is located at the southeast corner of East Chinden
Boulevard and North Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is
Chinden Boulevard and single -- single family residential property in Banbury Subdivision,
zoned R -1P in the city of Eagle. To the east is a private school and church, zoned C -C
and R-8 and to the south and west are single family residential properties, zoned R-4 and
R-1 in Ada County. In 2013 this property received rezone, preliminary plat, and a
development agreement modification approval to develop 54 residential lots, eight
commercial lots, and six common lots on the site. The property is subject to two different
development agreements. The Council has approved two phases of final plats for this
property. The applicant is requesting a rezone of 12.65 acres of land from C -C, R-8 and
R-4 zoning districts, to the C -C, which is 9.38 acres and the R-8 zone, which is 2.76 acres
and the R-4 zone, which is .51 acres. Basically to clean up the zoning boundaries. In the
previous approvals, the 2013 zoning districts and the subdivision were deemed consistent
with the mixed use community designation of the comp plan. During review of the second
phase of the final plat it was discovered that the current zoning boundaries did not
coincide with the boundaries of the final plat. In order to expedite the approval of the final
plat, the Council granted approval of the final plat with a condition that the applicant obtain
approval of the rezone application to correct the zoning discrepancy prior to city
engineer's signature on the final plat. Because the subject rezone is only required to
correct the zone boundary error, staff is not recommending a development agreement and
the applicant is still responsible to comply with all previous conditions of approval and the
recorded development agreements associated with this property. The Commission
recommended approval of the proposed rezone at their hearing. Kent Brown testified in
favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. Kent Brown did submit written
testimony in agreement with the staff report. Written testimony since the Commission
hearing from Kent Brown in agreement with the Commission's recommendations. Staff
will stand for any questions.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 17 of 57
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Good evening, Kent. If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Brown: Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. As we came forward and
you might remember in our final plat hearing we made the lots larger in that phase. They
had more depth to them and that depth caused us to go into the commercial zoning and
into the R-8 zoning. Realistically, there is a few hundred feet and realistically just a clean
up of the zoning boundaries and I think that clarifies any anything. We haven't -- when I
showed up for the neighborhood meeting the contractors thought I was there to steal stuff
after they left. So, I haven't had anybody ever comment on this, so -- anyway. They
wrote down my license plate number.
De Weerd: Well, it's nice to hear we have neighbors that are keeping an aye out
Brown: Right.
De Weerd: For shady characters.
Brown: Right.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Brown: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who like to
provide testimony on this item? Okay.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Seeing none, I move that we approve RZ 15 -- oh, close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Milam: Trying to get through this. Sorry.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a public -- and a public hearing. And a second to close
the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 18 of 57
De Weerd: Okay. Now, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Move that we approve RZ 15-006.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-C. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Public Hearing: TEC 15-002 Pinebridge Subdivision by B.W.
Meridian, Inc. Located East Side of N. Locust Grove Road, South
of E. Fairview Avenue and North of E. Commercial Street
Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in
Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat
De Weerd: Item 8-D is a public hearing on TEC 15-002. 1 will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next application before you is a request for a
preliminary plat time extension for the Pinebridge Subdivision. This site consists of
approximately 100 acres of land. It's currently zoned C -G and is located south of East
Fairview Avenue and east of North Locust Grove Road. The preliminary plat for this site
was approved in 2007 and consisted of 61 building lots and 21 common and other lots on
170 acres of land in the C -G zoning district. This is the fourth time extension requested
for the subject preliminary plat. No final plats have been approved by Council for this site.
However, Pine Avenue has been widened, the roundabout constructed, Webb Avenue
constructed and new public utilities and municipal services and infrastructure have been
installed, which has facilitated the development of the Scentsy campus and the PKG
campus. Approval of the subject time extension will allow the applicant to proceed with
the platting process. If the subject time extension is not granted, the entire property would
need to be resubmitted for preliminary plat approval. Written testimony has been received
from Dan Torfin, applicant's representative. Staff is recommending approval with the
conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. Which includes the requirement for
compliance with the current Public Works construction standards and the improvement of
the planter island in the middle of the Roundabout in Pine Avenue. The applicant has
requested additional time to complete the roundabout improvements as a water source
has not been developed at this time. He requests an extension from the November 1st,
2015, deadline that's stated in the staff report to November of 2016 to complete these
improvements. Staff will stand for any questions.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 19 of 57
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Would the applicant like to comment? We haven't seen you in a long time.
Torfin: An awful long time. Exactly two years. And it was the same request. Madam
Mayor, Members of the Council, Dan Torfin representing B.W., Inc., in our request for time
extension. Well, we -- we have been approved -- our project has been approved since
2007, so we were in a different City Hall and we had the Scentsy campus and the PKG
campus get started. That was a great start, but any other users have really just faded
away. We have talked to quite a few multi -family developers. We are in discussions right
now and those are things that we think would be a catalyst to get the project started and
so really the platting is kind of a formality. We do have a development agreement that
guides this development specifically. I talked to Dennis and he would like to have another
year to do the landscaping. The irrigation system has not been developed for Pinebridge
and the location is quite a bit north and so for a roundabout it's extensive. Even though
we are asking for a two year time extension and we thought last time we would definitely
be started again with this project with some office user and so it's -- you know, it's our
hope to get something going within this next two years as well. We do have some work to
do. We would love to just landscape and finish out the boulevard and the roundabout and
do the things that we love to do, but we are going to need a little more time to develop that
water source. Right now we are -- we have engaged our consultant to go through and do
asbestos analysis on all the homes. Some of the homes are rented out and we have
turned Pinebridge into a farm. We have got hay fields and we have got horses and cows
and we have got a tree farm. We hope that we can start turning it into some of the other
things that you see on our project. We will likely be back before you with a multi -family
development. We did at our -- our last request there was a request by a gentleman that is
a neighbor on Fairview to get a couple houses cleaned up in that location. The house
adjacent to his property is owned by a bank. Idaho Trust Bank bought it back in 2007 or
'8, so they have owned it for a substantial amount of time. We have the house next door
to it, but it's our intention to encourage the bank to clean up their property and if the
Meridian Fire Department would like, we have a -- you know, we have some homes that
they could use for practice training -- not necessarily burn them down, but potentially there
will be some things that we can do to start cleaning up that frontage and so I -- I will stand
for questions that Council and the Mayor might have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dan. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 20 of 57
Zaremba: Just a comment. My memory is trying to tell me that water was intentionally
not supplied to the roundabout thinking they would be landscaped as desert materials that
wouldn't require any more than the normal rain. Am I remembering that correctly or --
Torfin: There was a proposal that -- it was always going to have water and landscape,
but, you know, lush landscaping. There was a sculpture at one point that really wasn't
supposed to be out for public consumption and it was quite odd. Some people loved it
and most people hated it, but we -- right now we have zero water landscaping out there.
We are trying to keep it maintained. There are some trees that got planted. I think when
PKG opened there was some trees that got planted that have to be hand watered right
now and so we have been doing that for several years. It doesn't sound very smart, but
that's -- that's kind of the reality, but we hope -- we hope to get some things started out
here. Commercial development in Meridian is vibrant, it's just not vibrant in this location,
and a lot of -- the people we have talked to have moved out near Fairview and Eagle that
wanted the exposure and to be near The Village. So, that is our request and we thank
you for your time.
De Weerd: Thanks, Dan. And I understand flag ship food group is -- is very successful in
their building, too, so --
Torfin: Yeah
De Weerd: Congratulations, you have some good employers out there.
Torfin: Yeah. Thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any further questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thanks. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to
offer testimony on this item? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we close the public hearing on Item 8-D.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on 8-D. All in favor
say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 21 of 57
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the time extension requested in Item 8-D.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the request to extend the time frame
two years. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing: CPAM 15-001 Hill Properties/Century Farm
School by Martin Hill, Hill & Hill Properties and Brighton
Investments Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and South Side
of E. Amity Road Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Future Land Use
Designation on 87.01 Acres of Land from Low Density
Residential to Mixed -Use Neighborhood Approved
F. Public Hearing: AZ 15-004 Hill Properties by Martin Hill and Hill &
Hill Properties Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and the South
Side of E. Amity Road Request: Annexation of 78.62 Acres of
Land with the R-8 (39.83 Acres) and C -N (38.79 Acres) Zoning
Districts
G. Public Hearing: RZ 15-007 Century Farm School by Brighton
Investments Located 1/4 Mile South of E. Amity Road and 1/2
Mile East of S. Eagle Road Request: Rezone of 8.39 Acres of
Land From the R-8 to the C -N Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 8-E and F -- or I mean G. Or I can just make up numbers. Are all public
hearings. I will open them all at the same time for CPAM 15-001, AZ 15-004 -- and shall I
open the next one as well, Sonya?
Watters: Yes.
De Weerd: And RZ 15-007. 1 will ask for the staff comments.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 22 of 57
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. The applications before you are a
request for an amendment to the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive
Plan, annexation and zoning, and a rezone request. This site is located off of the
southeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Amity Road. The portion of the site
proposed to be rezoned was annexed with the Hill Century Farm property to the south and
that is this small area right down here. The application is proposing an amendment to the
future land use map to change the land use designation on 87.01 acres of land from low
density residential to mixed use neighborhood as shown on the map there on the right.
The applicant also requests annexation and zoning of 78.6 acres of land with R-8, which
consists of 43.2 acres in CA which consists of 35.4 acres zoning districts and a rezone
of 8.39 acres of land from the R-8 and C -N zoning district, consistent with the proposed
mixed use neighborhood designation. The applicant has requested a change to the
configuration of the R-8 versus the C -N zoning, since submittal of the application as
shown on the right there. The initial application showed the R-8 boundary along this
yellow line here and they have since shifted it to include this area right here and this is just
a little better drawing of the proposed zoning district. A conceptual bubble plan was
submitted as shown that depicts how the property is proposed to develop with a mix of
uses consisting of medium density residential homes at densities of four to eight dwelling
units per acre. Maybe small scale retail, office and professional convenience uses and
elementary school, a YMCA, city park, and potentially a library and health complex. This
plan has been revised in accord with the reconfiguration of the R-8 and C -N zoned
property. The revised plan is shown there on your right. A more detailed plan was
submitted for the school and the YMCA as shown here on your right. The map -- the
aerial map on the left, the red area is where the YMCA and the park and the school are
proposed. Approval of the rezone to C -N will allow the school parcel to be regulated
under one zoning jurisdiction, rather than two, and will allow the school to develop without
approval of a conditional use permit, which is required in the current R-4 district. There
are three existing homes on this site. If you watch my pointer here there is one here
fronting on Amity, there is one here and one over here at the southeast corner of the site.
The home along the center of the south boundary of the annexation area is proposed to
be zoned R-8 and is proposed to remain. That's this one right there. And the home at the
southeast corner of the site is proposed to be included to be included as a C -N zoned
area and is proposed to remain as long as the current owners live there, after which time
the YMCA will expand into that area and the home on the north boundary of the site is
also now proposed to be included in the R-8 zoned area and is proposed to remain until
redevelopment of that area occurs, at which time the homes and outbuildings will be
removed. The Commission recommended approval of the subject application. Mike
Wardle testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. Mike Wardle
submitted written testimony in response to the staff report. There were no major issues of
discussion by the Commission. However, they did make some changes to the staff
recommendations based on the applicant's response to the staff report and I will just go
through those real quickly. The recommended approval to modify development
agreement provision 1.1 E, to allow the two existing homes in the C -N district -- only one
now, since the zoning boundary has changed -- to remain until redevelopment occurs,
rather than be zoned R-8 at this time and not require them to hook up to city services.
The second provision to be modified is 1.113 to allow an extension of the hours of
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 23 of 57
operation in a C -N district for the YMCA to open at 5:00 a.m., rather than 6:00 a.m., as
required per the C -N district. The third provision is 1.1G8 to allow a net density in the R-8
zoned portion of the development to be four to eight dwelling units per acre consistent
with the Hill Century Farm development immediately to the south, rather than six to eight
units per acre gross. And, lastly, include a provision in the development agreement that a
landscape buffer to residential uses is not required adjacent to the Hill home at the
southeast corner of the site as buffering will be achieved through the adjacent city park,
YMCA, and school complex and the property will eventually be part of the YMCA site and
that is DA provision 1.1 H. There are a couple of outstanding issues for City Council. One
that just came up kind of late this afternoon. The Parks Department is requesting an
additional provision to be added to the development agreement as follows: In order to
provide appropriate visibility, parking, and emergency access to the future neighborhood
park, a public street -- allowed on -street parking shall be required along the north side of
the park when the property north of the park is developed and staff also recommends a
provision is added to the agreement that requires the annexation area to be subdivided
prior to issuance of any building permits beyond those required for the development of the
school, YMCA, and park site as shown on the concept plan. Written testimony since the
Commission hearing has been received today from Mike Wardle and staff will stand for
any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: One quick question. Sonya, on the Planning and Zoning Commission changes
on number two, what was the rationale or the reason behind the recommendation to
change the opening from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m?
Watters: The YMCA opens at 5:00 a.m. The C -N district restricts hours of operation from
6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess I have a question --
Watters: 10:00 p.m. Excuse me. Sorry.
De Weerd: -- about the northwest corner, the -- what is existing up there? It's a power
substation. Is that in the county?
Watters: It is in the county, yes, Madam Mayor.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 24 of 57
De Weerd: Are we going to be expecting an annexation there or is that going to be like
Swiss cheese, keeping it in the middle of urban development?
Watters: Applicant has not proposed to include that property as it is out of their control.
De Weerd: Okay.
Watters: The city would like to see it come in.
De Weerd: Separate from that maybe if we could draft a letter to Idaho Power about their
site.
Watters: Yes, Mayor
De Weerd: Okay. Any -- any further questions from Council? Okay. Would the applicant
come forward. Good evening. You brought an audience with you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive
in Boise. I did bring an audience, but this is not the dancer, this is -- this is a young lady
that -- that supports the dancer and grateful to have them back in the neighborhood. They
were gone for a couple of years, but now they are back.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Bird wondered if it was the dancer
Bird: I thought she was older. This one is --
Wardle: The dancer is preparing as the understudy for the lead in Secret Garden, a
Shakespeare, currently. So, she's very, very busy right now. But maybe she will be back
to dance a bit later. Thank you very much. Madam Mayor, I just want to complain that
spend hours preparing for these hearings -- preparing my remarks and so forth and Sonya
takes all of the steam away. But I appreciate her efforts. And I just want to comment that
through this process when we brought in the Hill Century Farm project with just a school
site, we had no idea of the potential opportunities that would come forward through public-
private collaboration to bring not only the school, but a conjoined YMCA facility where they
will literally share facilities between the two, potential of a park that Marty Hill has had in
his mind for a long, long time and, then, other potential elements. So, this unique
opportunity also presented some rather unique challenges, not the least of which were the
fact that we had to deal with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. To make this possible
we had to look at the annexation and the zoning options as well to make sure that all of
the potential uses at some point in the future could be accommodated. A little
parenthetical. I'm certain that Idaho Power Company would be glad to come in if you just
asked them nicely, so that might be a possibility. But since we didn't own or control that,
we didn't offer that as an option. But I want to just note that in this process of making this
happen quickly -- because the school district wants to start an elementary school site late
this summer, it necessitated a very expedited process, not taking -- not taking any steps
out of the process, but just to make sure that everything happened as quickly as it
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 25 of 57
possibly could and so we went through a number of discussions with staff and came
through -- and I want to -- I want to very specifically commend Sonya, because she found
solutions for all of the challenges and as we sat not only on the -- the Brighton and Hill
side, but also with the school district and the YMCA team, the solutions were found to
make all of this happen. I'm not going to go through, then, the process to -- because
Sonya has actually shown you all of the items that I would have presented to you in my
presentation, but just looking at the overall site plan you can see that the red boundary,
with north being to the left, because of the way the property configures, so that's the
boundary between the Hill properties and the properties that Brighton is developing. The
yellow line is simply a line that came through the discussion that Sonya showed earlier
where we had a little bit of a break, an L-shaped break in the R-8 and the C -N zones, but
now we have proposed to align those simply because originally we thought that the park
would wrap around the north side of Marty Hill's property and it -- it is not going to wrap
around, so we just felt that it would be better -- and, then, to accomplish one thing that
staff had originally proposed or recommended and that was to at least bring the parcel
with the original home and outbuildings on the north into an R-8 zone, so that it wouldn't,
you know, be out of sync under the provisions of the C -N. So, a lot of things have -- have
transpired to make all of this happen. I have to acknowledge that I was caught a bit off
guard at 5:05 this evening when we received the information concerning the parks
department request. But as Sonya has been solution oriented, I have sat here this
evening and put together some thoughts and I think I have a solution as well to take care
of that issue. If you -- and you may not have access on your computers, but if -- in the
staff report in the conditions under the planning division, Condition 1.1 talks about the
required development agreement and this is on page 15 of the staff report if you have it
available. But in that 1.1, Item G, talks about the conceptual bubble plan, the fact that
prior to any other plat applications beyond the school and YMCA, that certain things
needed to happen and there were, as a result of that, a number of items, I through XII,
that would necessitate being considered as part of that development agreement and the
planning process that would occur in the future. I would just note that the city controls the
process. Nothing will happen on any of the C -N land north of the school and YMCA
without platting in the future, without even possible conditional use permits, depending on
what the uses proposed are. And certainly, and not least, the CZC and design review
process that all have to take place before anything occurs. We want to make sure that we
don't delay what happens, so I'm going to just rip out a piece of paper and I'm going to
hand it to the Mayor.
De Weerd: The clerk is probably a better choice
Wardle: Well, I want the Mayor at least to be aware and read this --
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: -- and we will get it to the clerk. In response to -- and I have to go to my cell
phone, because this is the only place that I found that this was -- as I was leaving the
office this afternoon at 5:05. Parks Department comments were requesting that there be
a condition that says in order to provide appropriate visibility parking and emergency
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 26 of 57
access to the future neighbor park, a public street allowing on -street parking shall be
required along the north side of the park when the property north of the park is developed.
At about 5:07 1 called Mr. Turnbull, who could not be here this evening, to say, David, this
is new. What your thoughts? And his thought was we would certainly agree that in the
planning process that appropriate visibility, parking, and emergency access to the future
neighborhood park be considered in that, but that we would not necessarily commit that
there would be a full street frontage along that park -- or along the north side. So, again,
because the city controls the process and we have to come back with detailed plans and
plats and so forth, I don't think this will be lost. So, as a result, the proposed language
that we have requested -- and perhaps maybe the clerk needs to read this into the record,
if it could be passed on. This is what I would ask for the Council to add to Condition 1.113
as Item XIII.
De Weerd: Okay. And you read it into the record yourself, so --
Wardle: Not in exactly the precise words.
De Weerd: Not in exact. Okay. Madam Clerk, would you mind reading that?
Jones: Thank you, Madam Mayor. New condition XIII, planning of the C -N property north
of the park and YMCA shall consider appropriate visibility, parking, and emergency
access to the future neighborhood park.
De Weerd: And I guess I would just add, Mr. Wardle, is that this has been a conversation
from day one on the park and having that visibility on the north side, because it was
somewhat restricted on -- on where the school was going to be on the east and on the
south with the houses and the parking lot of the park, the visibility was not -- was certainly
of concern by the Parks Department, the parks commission, and we have been pretty
consistent with that conversation. So, I'm sorry that you were surprised by it, but it's -- it's
been consistent on every park that the city has contemplated for some time.
Wardle: Well, Madam Mayor, I just want to be sure that -- when I talked to Mr. Turnbull he
was not aware that that was an absolute requirement and I talked to Mr. Siddoway as I
was driving to the meeting this evening and he indicated that he had talked to Marty Hill
about this. So, we -- Steve and Marty Hill and I talked about it out at the counter in the
foyer this evening before the meeting and Marty was not aware in the discussions that it --
it was considered a street along that full boundary of the park on the north side. He had
believed from the conversations that it was talking about the area to the east along the
YMCA. So, all I'm telling the Council and asking the Council to do is don't put any
absolutes on us -- the language. Because you control the process assures that this will
have to be considered, but we can't tell you tonight, because we don't have a site design
for the area to the north that it would be a whole frontage along there, but certainly Mr.
Turnbull's commitment is that there would be appropriate access, parking, and visibility for
the park in the future.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 27 of 57
Wardle: I would simply ask, based on the Planning Commission recommendation, with
the one change that was noted because of the zoning boundary relocation and this
addition, that the Council approve the request as proposed.
De Weerd: And, Mr. Wardle, did you have a comment on the second item, which is a
provision added to the DA that requires the annexation area to be subdivided prior to the
issuance of any building permits beyond those required for the development of the school,
YMCA and park site?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, no, that's acceptable. That really has to happen anyway, so that
is not an issue for us. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba? No?
Zaremba: Not really a question. I just was going to comment that our experience around
other parks is that an access road or a nearby road is used by the park users and parked
on, even if it goes through a residential or a commercial area and there is often push back
from the neighbors about people parking on their street to go to the park and I'm -- I'm
sure Steve has probably explained better than I, but I -- part of the reason that I'm sure he
is making the suggestion that it be a roadway that actually goes along the edge of the
park is to minimize the complaints that will come in the future from people along that road
if the road isn't right along the park. If it's somewhere else through the project it may
generate complaints.
Wardle: Madam Mayor and Councilman Zaremba, I would ask Sonya to go to slide seven
in the packet that -- and I would give the clerk a copy of these slides as well. Can you --
yes. Thank you. This is unique in the sense that there is such an extensive amount of
parking immediately available. So, the park element is roughly maybe 40 percent or 35 to
40 percent of that frontage, but Mr. Hill's existing home is on the west boundary just to the
west of that northerly play field and the intent now is to take that -- if they were going to
wrap the park around his property, which they are not proposing to do, it would probably
change the equation, but with that zoning boundary there may not be a direct access
through there or across from Mr. Hill's property and the street frontage that will be there in
front of him in the future. I just -- I guess we want the flexibility as we work through the
planning and the development aspect of it in the future that we not be told that it's required
that there has to be a street along the entire frontage of that park. Certainly adequate
frontage, visibility and parking, but with the parking that's available from the YMCA
complex this is quite different from your normal neighborhood facilities.
De Weerd: Well, I hate to differ, but people like the shortest distance to their designation
and I think that through experience it's not just the parking, it is the safety aspect and
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 28 of 57
having the vision corridor on that, as you stated in the verbiage that you're suggesting,
but, again, the recommendation comes from our parks commission and through
precedence that we have set with other city parks. So, I -- that's why that comment
probably came up.
Wardle: Well, Madam Mayor, we appreciate that, but what we don't appreciate is the fact
that we saw it at 5:05 this evening for the first time.
De Weerd: And I would agree with you on that. I think it must have just slipped by and --
but I do know with -- and I'm not going to say Mr. Turnbull wasn't listening, but it has been
in conversations with the YMCA and Mr. Turnbull, so -- because I have been there and --
anyway, any other questions from Council? Okay.
Wardle: Well, Madam Mayor, just one concluding -- we don't want this to hold up this
process, so we acknowledge that there will be a condition applied. We also acknowledge
that there is going to be a lot of future discussion about this. So, thank you.
De Weerd: And I apologize for the five minutes to 12:00 change, so to speak
Wardle: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. I do have one person signed up on the -- the
sheet. Keith Miller signed up against. Good evening, Mr. Miller. If you will, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Miller: My name is Keith Miller. I live at 6246 North Maximus Place, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Miller: I'd like to preface my remarks with the fact that the development of Hill Century
Farms, along with the new school and YMCA and other things is very good for the City of
Meridian and we need to see it. In October -- on October 16th, 2014, at the Meridian
Planning and Zoning public meeting the application for annexation -- annexing and zoning
the Hill Century Farms Subdivision was approved. Subsequently the City Council
approved that action. The drawings that were shown during that initial public meeting in
the application -- the drawings made by KM Engineering showed a 12 inch sewer line
coming up or down Eagle Road, whichever way you'd like to say it, with a connector going
into the Hill Century Farms Subdivision and Rock Hampton Street. And this was for the
first phase. The public was led to believe that the sewer line and water line would extend
further down South Eagle Road to the southern most point of the development, about
three-quarters of a mile south of Amity Road. The Meridian City Code in Section 948,
about sewers, under required use of sewers it says new subdivisions or developments.
The owner or developer in the new subdivision or development, whether subdivided or
not, shall at his expense construct the necessary extensions of the public sewer system to
provide public sewer facilities for each lot or public area in his subdivision. Additionally,
the owner or developer shall have the responsibility at his expense of installing the main
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 29 of 57
sewer line to the boundary of his development, which is furthest away from the point at
which initial connection is made to the existing sewer main. Since the public meeting and
approval, the sewer line has been rerouted to go through -- through the mile rather than
along Eagle Road, over private, undeveloped land from Amity Road -- south of Amity
Road and east of Eagle Road, blocking access to the sewer by other landowners and
developers. This change is contrary to what was agreed to in the public meeting and
shown and it is also against the Meridian City Code. It is also contrary to the public good,
because it blocks further development on the west side of Eagle Road and on the south
end of Eagle Road for at least five years or more. This shows favoritism to one developer
over the -- over and above other land developers or holders. Meridian is a pro active or
pro development city and restricted access to the sewer impedes development. I would
respectfully request the City Council disallow these nonapproved changes to the sewer
system and revert to the approved public plan. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Council, any questions? We will try and address your
questions and concerns.
Miller: Thank you.
De Weerd: Are there any other members of the public who would like to offer testimony
on this Item? Our director of parks. Not really a member of the public, although you kind
of are, but -- staff comments are always welcome.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I just want to state for the
record that it certainly wasn't our intention to throw out a last minute condition
unexpectedly and I apologize that it's had that effect. It has come up in -- in at least a
couple of preapps that I was in and, again, in a design meeting. So, today as I was
preparing for this and saw that it was on the agenda, I looked for the condition, expecting
to find it and did not. So, when I didn't find it I -- I contacted Sonya and asked about it and
so thus we -- we thought it was worth considering and you have already articulated well
the reasons behind the -- the proposed street frontage adjacent to the parks, so I guess I
just wanted to just come up and state that for the record and ask if there are any
questions of me.
De Weerd: Thank you. No. I think, Steve, we are very familiar with that condition
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other -- yes, please. How is retirement working for you?
Good evening.
Gestron: Well, they say that some people fail. Thank you. Dr. Gestron, 3675 Deerfield,
Eagle, Idaho. I'm here representing the West Ada School District. I just thought it was
probably appropriate to come up and publicly acknowledge all of the work that Brighton
Corporation is doing on our behalf and publicly acknowledge the Hills for their -- their
dream and what this represents and, finally, to thank you publicly for -- and the staff in
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 30 of 57
particular for doing everything you can to expedite this, so that we have this elementary
open in 2016, because Sienna, for example, will be over 900 next year and you know that
we build elementaries for 650. We were fortunate enough to get the funding, pass the
bond from the community, and immediately, then, of course, we put architectures,
engineers, and everyone else on our typical fast track that we really work, but we
appreciate everybody's efforts. We are looking forward to providing this area with an
outstanding elementary and just a project that's unprecedented for our valley. So, again,
just appreciate your expediency on all of the processes that we are going through.
Questions?
De Weerd: Any questions for Bruce? For Dr. Gestron.
Rountree: Are you on schedule?
Gestron: We are currently on schedule. That depends on tonight's vote
De Weerd: Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony.
Gestron: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further testimony? Mr. Wardle, I guess, hopefully, you can answer Mr.
Miller's question, otherwise, I will probably put Clint on the spot there.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Mike Wardle once again. I will make my
statement and, then, if it needs to be corrected it can be corrected. There are two trunk
lines actually in the city's facilities planning. One on the north side of -- north and easterly
side, excuse me, of Ten Mile Creek and one that goes on the westerly and the southerly
side. All of the developments that lies north and easterly and even south of Lake Hazel
Road in the future will be served by the trunk line that goes through Hill Century Farm.
So, we didn't actually deny any access to any property that was intended to be served by
that north and easterly trunk line. It will be extended in the future as the other -- future
development comes along south of Lake Hazel. But everything that was intended to be
served is served. I don't know what will happen on the westerly side of Ten Mile, but
that's, obviously, a future consideration as development occurs on that side. So, I believe
that's really the solution. We did not -- we did not purposely or intentionally -- we actually
tried to implement the city's plan as we did this and it was all reviewed with and approved
by the city. Thank you. If I need to be corrected, I can be corrected.
Dolsby: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that is correct. There is a trunk line that
runs -- that is going to be built to serve Hill Century Farm that is meant to serve on the
east side of Eagle Road mainly and, then, there is a separate trunk that's going through
White Bark and Southern Highlands as that's constructed. It will serve much of the area
to the west of Eagle Road, also to the south of Lake Hazel down in that part of the impact
area.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any further questions?
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 31 of 57
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Did you have any other closing remarks, Mr. Wardle? I thought you
were eager to answer the questions that --
Wardle: Well, sometimes my attention span is a little short. We want to keep the school
district on schedule, so we -- we simply ask for your approval. Obviously, we will live with
and work with any conditions that the Council decides to attach, but we also would expect
that in future discussions that there may not be as many absolutes as perhaps we think
this evening. So, thank you very much. If there are not further questions I would step
aside.
De Weerd: Any further questions for Mr. Wardle?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: None.
Wardle: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 8-E, F and G.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close these three public hearings. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 8-E, 15-001.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-E. Any discussion? Madam
Clerk.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 32 of 57
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 8-F, AZ 15-004 with the recommended DA
changes from staff, with one change. On item 1.1.E to allow one existing home and that
the applicant's recommended DA provision with respect to vision and access to the park
site on the north side be included, as well as the recommendation that has been
suggested by staff for the required subdivision prior to issuing building permits and all
other staff and applicant comments.
Bird: Second
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we approve Item 8-G, RZ 15-007, subject to staff and applicant
comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-G. Any comments from
Council? Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 33 of 57
H. Public Hearing: AZ 14-016 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1,
LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request:
Annexation and Zoning of 27.75 Acres of Land with an R-8
Zoning District
I. Public Hearing: PP 14-018 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1,
LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -One (31) Building
Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other Lots on 10.37 Acres of Land
in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item No. 8-H and I are public hearings on AZ 14-016 and PP 14-018. 1 will
open these two public hearings with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications
before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. The
annexation area for this site consists of 27.75 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in
Ada County and is located at 4617 and 4620 South Martinel Lane and 3570 East Amity
Road. This project was heard by the Council on March 17th. The applicant had
submitted a revised conceptual development prior to that hearing based on the
Commission's recommendation of denial, based on their determination that it was leapfrog
development and not an orderly expansion of the city limits and services, the location of a
stub street to the north and the impact on area schools. The revisions to the plan included
the removal of private streets on the northern portion of the annexation area and the stub
street was relocated farther to the west. Council determined these changes to be
significant and remanded the project back to the Commission for their review and
recommendation. The Commission heard this project on May 21st and recommended
approval of the revised plan to the City Council. The staff report has been undated to
reflect the revised plan and changes. I will just go ahead and go through the applicant's
request again, since it's been a couple months. The applicant is requesting annexation
and zoning of 27.75 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district consistent with the medium
density residential future land use map designation. The map on the screen there on the
left is the boundaries of the annexation area. A preliminary plat is proposed on the 10.37
acre portion of the property at the southwest corner of the annexation area, consisting of
31 single family residential building lots, which include the lot for the existing home, and
seven common lots. The gross density for the subdivision is 2.99 dwelling units per acre,
with an average lot size of 6,926 square feet. The map on your right there depicts the
boundaries of the preliminary plat. The property at the southeast corner of the annexation
area is an assisted living facility that's currently receiving city services and is not included
in the plat. The property at the northeast corner of the annexation is not included in the
plat either and will remain a rural residential property. A conceptual development plan is
proposed showing how the property -- there is an aerial view, but this is a concept plan
showing how the property is proposed to develop in the future, along with the Luke parcel
here at the southwest corner and the parcel where the existing home is located here
within the platted area. Redevelopment of these areas will require a new preliminary plat.
Access is proposed via South Martinel Avenue from East Amity Road. Private streets are
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 34 of 57
proposed internally for access to the new residential homes with a gated entrance off
Martinel Avenue. Martine] Avenue is the street here that runs clear up to the north
boundary. Private streets are proposed internally for access to the new residential homes
with a gated entrance off Martine[ Avenue. Martine] Avenue stubs to the north property
boundary for future extension. Public street frontage is provided to the assisted living
facility at the southeast corner of the site, which is right here and is also required to be
provided to the parcel to the west owned by the Taylors, which is right here. With
redevelopment of the northern portion of the site. A cross -access easement is required to
be provided to the Luke outparcel at the southwest corner of the site for access to the
private streets. Again, the Luke parcel is right here. This is the proposed preliminary plat.
The applicant has submitted photos of typical sample elevations as shown here for future
homes in this development, as well as the future homes to the north. Two story elevations
were submitted as shown after the Commission meeting. The applicant had every
intention of constructing a mix of single and two story homes, but their elevations they
submitted originally were only of single story homes. So, they submitted these as a
supplement to the application. The Commission recommended approval of the requested
annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications. Tamara Thompson testified in
favor at the hearing. Frank Shoemaker, Bradford Deadman, Dan Luke and Roger Taylor
testified in opposition and no written testimony was received on the application. The key
Commission discussion was the differences between the original concept plan and the
revised one. There have been no changes to the staff recommendation and no written
testimony since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions Council may
have.
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Sonya, would you indicate where the gates on the roads are going to be,
please.
Watters: Yes.
Zaremba: I missed that.
Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, Councilmen, it's going to be
approximately right in here. This is the only private street and that is within the platted
area at the southwest corner of the site. These will all be public at the north. So, again,
right about -- approximately right in here.
Zaremba: Thank you. The drawing before that I think answered my question. My
recollection is that we have a requirement that if there is a gate that traffic that's not going
to make it through the gate must have an escape without backing onto the main street and
it appears that there is a u -turn available before where you're indicating the gate is.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 35 of 57
Watters: Yes. Right here. Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Yeah. So, I'm satisfied.
Watters: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Sonya, I believe at the Council discussion the -- the southwest corner was
also noted to -- to have discussion at P&Z. Was that discussed? For creating an
outparcel there.
Watters: Yes. Madam Mayor, the applicant provided a conceptual redevelopment plan
for that property here and they are providing a cross -access easement for future
redevelopment for that property to come through here and access the private street.
De Weerd: Okay. And is that in the DA to allow that access?
Watters: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Anything further from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Thompson: Good evening. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Tamara
Thompson. I'm with The Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. As requested, we
went back to Planning and Zoning with our new concept plans. They had not seen that
previously and I'm pleased to announce that we obtained Planning and Zoning
Commission approval -- or recommendation for approval to come back before you. In the
process we did -- of coordinating the access to the north with the subdivision to the north.
We -- we did lose the private streets on the north side, but the preliminary plat that's
before you tonight still does have the private streets as a part of that proposal. We have
read the staff report and agree with its conditions and findings, with a few modifications.
1.1.1 H has to do with -- hope it will work tonight -- that ten foot wide common area shown
on the concept plan. So, I do want to just reiterate this is a concept plan on the north side.
This will be phase two. That's not part of the preliminary plat that's before you tonight.
The property line is the middle of a ditch in that location and Mr. Taylor that's to the west
of us uses that for irrigation, so he needs access to that. So, in order to provide that
access and a consistent maintenance, we are proposing that that be a common lot. Let's
see. Number 1.1.2F and 1.1.3G. These related and they deal with a 15 foot wide
common lot on the south side of Lot 29 for future connectivity to pedestrian connectivity to
Eagle Road and we would like to provide an alternate for that, that in lieu of that we will
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 36 of 57
provide access to Eagle Road north of Lot 24 in that approximate location and I believe
we discussed that one last time also. And, lastly, general condition 1.2.4 deals with
irrigation and tiling irrigation ditches and I just want to confirm that we will tile anything that
we can, but there is active farming for some of the adjacent neighbors, so the ones that
affects them we will be leaving open. And with that we will respectfully request your
approval tonight and I will stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Do you propose some kind of a bulb or a turnaround or is that indicated on this
drawing as the end of the access street coming off of Amity? Is that included in that
shaded area or is it just going to have a barricade at the end of that road and if you get up
there you can't turn around?
Thompson: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, we will be providing a cul-de-
sac at the top temporarily until phase two is constructed.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council at this point?
Bird: I have got none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I did have several people sign up. When I call your name
if you would like to provide testimony at that time I would invite you forward. Frank
Shoemaker signed up against. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Shoemaker: Good evening. My name is Frank Shoemaker. My address is 3497 East
Zaldia Lane in Meridian. My property is on the north boundary of this project. I would like
to ask for an additional three minutes if possible for my neighbor Mr. De Angeli who lives
at 3405 Zaldia Lane. He also abuts the north boundary of this property. I'm opposed to
Nesting Swan -- is this on? Can you hear? Okay. I'm opposed to Nesting Swan
Subdivision density as presented this evening. The lot sizes have not changed. The feet
have not changed since our first meeting with Planning and Zoning several months ago.
Even when the March 17th meeting with City Council concluded, Commissioner Bird's
comments and concerns that this area north of Amity Road and east of Eagle Road be
kept at a density not greater than R-4. The developer did relocate the stub road in phase
two at the request of Randy Clarno, who had purchased options on both Shoemaker and
De Angeli properties. Mr. Clarno will be before the City Council on June 23rd requesting
approval of the Shelburne Subdivision. His density is R-4. The key elements to
remember this evening are transitional area, conformity, and not leapfrog developments,
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 37 of 57
similar lot size and architectural style. Two projects in the immediate area were also
zoned R-8, Kingsbridge and Napoli. City Council concluded this density was too high for
the area and was not a good transition. The Kingsbridge project is north of the
Shoemaker and Di Angeli properties and the final plat is R-2. Those lots along Zaldia
Lane are 15,000 square feet and an architectural style limited to one level dwellings on
four of the six building lots backing up Zaldia Lane. The building lots in Napoli Subdivision
west of the Di Angeli and Shoemaker properties was approved as R-4. Lot sizes on the
east side of Tindaris Street vary from 12,153 square feet to 12,642 square feet. The lots
as proposed for the Shelburne project on the Shoemaker and De Angeli properties, which
are adjacent to and note of phase two of the Nesting Swan Subdivision, which will be
before you -- City Council June 23rd vary from 33,433 square feet, which included an
existing barn on the Shoemaker property, 12,979 square feet, 11,000 square feet,
10,6243 square feet. Frontages vary from 76 to 88 feet, with a depth of 135 feet. If the
Nesting Swan Subdivision is approved as presented tonight several lots will be less than
6,300 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 6,600 square feet. This will
set a precedence for phasing those lots adjacent to Shoemaker and De Angeli properties.
Currently have a frontage of 60 feet and 110 feet depth. Average lot size 6,600 square
feet. These lots in Nesting Swan phase one and two need to be at least 10,600 square
feet. The size of the lots dictate the architectural style. Small lots typically two story
homes. Very little architecture style. Larger lots we are going to have some one story
houses and a little bit a diversity. Two story houses are pretty much going to be a box
design. What they showed here appear to be on larger lots than what they propose.
Now, Sonya, do you have those pictures? This right here -- let's see. Let me start here.
This is Zaldia Lane. This is what we have in our neighborhood right now. A lot of buffer
zone, a lot of green area. That's the Kingsbridge Subdivision. Along here we have the
Napoli Subdivision. You have seen that. Again, a good diversity, transition area to the --
to the subdivision and the surrounding area. This is what we are going to see -- this is
what exists in the Meridian area on small lots. We have two story houses, varying
architectural diversity and so this does not conform to this one or this. The Nesting Swan
Subdivision is too high in density. It does not conform to the area and at a higher density
than the existing Kingsbridge and Napoli Subdivisions and the proposed Shelburne
Subdivision, which will go before City Council June 23rd. As proposed the neighborhood
conforming will be adversely and it will set a precedence for the second phase. I think you
can look at these pictures and ought to be obvious that there is a difference in architecture
and style that's going to be existing on the subdivision as proposed. Smaller lots. Two
story houses. The City Council in approving the Kingsbridge Subdivision and the Napoli
Subdivision stated the R-8 density was not a good fit for the area. Councilman Bird
reinforced those concerns when he suggested that the area north of Amity and east of
South Eagle be kept R-4. And one of the most high density projects in our area. I thank
you for hearing my comments. Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Shoemaker. Council, any questions?
Rountree: No.
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 38 of 57
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Roger Taylor signed up against. Good evening. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Taylor: Roger Taylor. 4607 South Eagle Road, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Taylor: Okay. When we moved into this subdivision and built our dream home we had a
great view and we had privacy and that's soon going to be all gone. To ease the pain you
can continue with a six foot privacy fence, which is already along the north side of the
property now along -- along here, which would help give us some privacy and to help the
view a little bit if we could have this area here and here --
De Weerd: Sir -- can someone go and show him how to use that?
Rountree: He's got it.
De Weerd: Oh, is it? I'm sorry, my eyes aren't working.
Taylor: If we could have them --
De Weerd: I'm over here.
Taylor: -- as single story homes that would at least give us a view of the hills. Now, for
this ditch that we are worried about here, they are going to call that common area. Are
they going to have access to that? Here. Are they going to have access to that common
area?
De Weerd: We will ask the applicant when they get back up
Taylor: Because I have got a ditch right there with running water. Okay. The ditch that
runs from here over to here can all be tiled and buried, which would make the project look
better, be a neater job, and it would help control all the weeds. I can't believe that there
was no changes -- or very little changes from the last plan that was submitted that the
Mayor and Council had already rejected. Not one lot changed in size or the number of
lots changed. As Mayor and Council, you have the power to change it to an R-4 all the
way to Amity. This would be consistent with the subdivisions and border -- that border this
development. I hope for the neighborhood that it's changed to an R-4. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 39 of 57
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. Marie Morgan signed up against. Good evening. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Morgan: Good evening. My name is Marie Morgan and my address is 4620 South
Martinel Lane in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Morgan: My husband and I own the property that is to be phase two of the Nesting Swan
Subdivision. I would like to see larger lots on our property, as well as the nicer homes that
that would bring. We talked to our developer and asked him if he would do larger lots on
phase -- at least phrase two and he said he wasn't sure he could do that, but if the City
Council approved that and would go along with that, that he would make larger lots there
for us. At previous meetings I have heard neighbors, planning board members, and City
Councilmen speak in favor of gradual lot progression from the nearby Kingsbridge
Subdivision through the bordering Shelburne Subdivision, which is to our north, which is
proposing R-4 zoning on towards Nesting Swan. We support phase one as it's proposed
and we don't wish to slow their progress down, but in order to insure their interests are
considered, I would like to address the size of our lots today. I propose that the zoning in
phase one presented tonight, if it is approved, have it approved on a condition of a
development agreement limiting phase two lots to at least 8,000 square feet or larger. I
believe that will win most of the support of the neighbors, provide for a smooth transitional
flow and allow our developer to follow through with what he has said he would do for us.
Thank you for your consideration.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Ma'am, why are you worrying just about phase two size lots? You know, that -- you
don't have much of a buffer through there, so I personally think that the whole
development should have the R-4 lots --
Morgan: I agree.
Bird: -- as I have stated before. So, why are you just worrying about phase two?
Because it's your property?
Morgan: I agree with that. I think that the whole thing should be R-4, but I didn't feel that I
could speak for the person that owns phase one. I wasn't sure I could speak for her, so I
just wanted to speak for our own property. But I would like to see the whole thing as R-4.
Bird: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 40 of 57
Morgan: Thank you.
De Weerd: Nothing further. Thank you. Dan Luke signed up against.
Luke: Dan Luke. 3290 East Amity, Meridian. I live on the southeast corner of the
roundabout. I got 12 things I want to say that I got down and, then, the 13th is for Keith.
De Weerd: You're lucky 13, Keith.
Luke: I got to wear these. I wanted to write it down so I don't forget. All right. Does
everybody know where I live? Right on the roundabout. Okay. Number one. Before they
had this project we had -- we had -- me and my neighbor put our properties together to
sell them together. Number two. I had a verbal and handshake out on Eagle Road when
this was all discussed. Number three. I was notified on the first two meetings of this -- of
their project. Number four. A guy named Sandy Sanderson come up to my door and
offered me 70,000 dollars for my acre and a half and I tear everything down. Number five.
I pay taxes on my property of 160,000 dollars. Number six. I was left out. Number
seven. I want my property to be developed also. Number eight. Eagle is the only road
between Meridian and Boise to get on the freeway. There is going to be five lanes on
Eagle and five lanes on Amity. Number nine. They are using my land as a barrier for the
roundabout. Number ten. My land is the lowest in the area. The road is over three foot
high in front of my house. A fence wouldn't even work for privacy. Number 11. 1
apologize for the hours you have spent on their project. Number 13. You said on the last
meeting that you wanted the housing to go all the way to the roundabout. That was on the
-- that was on the map. I want to change your mind. I want to show you something and
have everybody look at it and see what you think. Since these people don't let on their
life, I want to show you what's next on my life. I went to ACHD --
De Weerd: Dan, can I just interrupt you for a moment and ask, Jo, will you give him your
three minutes? Okay.
Luke: So, you're saying -- yeah, she wanted to me.
De Weerd: I wanted to verify it with her.
Luke: Thank you. Now, I talked to right away the supervisor and I talked to Christy Little,
program administrator. Now, I told them the whole deal what's going on on this project,
about what these people are doing to me and I couldn't believe the thing that they said to
me. I was just astonished. They are telling me that on Eagle Road, right -- right here on
the -- right here on this corner -- do you see that corner right there on my property? They
are going to give me 24 feet of right of way right there. A right -in and a right -out. And
Christy also told me since -- what I'm -- propose to do or want to do is she said I could
also put an access out onto Eagle Road, a right -out, but there is one little problem -- there
is not a problem. She said I can get through there, but she would see -- she would rather
see this piece of property go past that island a little bit. So, what that means is I need to
take -- or we need to take some of their land, so we can -- so I got an access out onto
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 41 of 57
Eagle. Now, I want to -- I want to give this to you guys. Did you want to read this? So,
what this is saying is I got a hold of Rick McGraw, which is Coldwell Bankers, and he went
out of town this weekend, he wasn't able to come, so got me a guy that he works with
called Jarem Langston and if you guys could read this, it's showing you what -- how good
this piece of property can be worth. It can be valuable. It can be a lot of things in the City
of Meridian. It's just showing you how good this -- this piece of property can be. They
highly recommend -- it's a very valuable piece of commercial property. That's what Rick
McGraw is telling me. You know, I gave him -- I would have probably give that guy a
hundred bucks just to come in here to tell you guys what life is about on this piece of
property, but --
Rountree: If you could sum up now. Your time is up.
Luke: What's that?
Rountree: If you could sum up now.
Luke: Okay. So, what I'm trying to say is, you know, these people have -- they are giving
me access out on my own property? I can't believe people -- they are trying to do what
they want to do. They are trying to make -- you know, I will tell you what happens --
what's going to happen if we can't get this piece of property commercialized. This is what
will happen. Jack show -- Jack has got something that will show you what -- what will
happen if I don't end up -- this is my grandson. You know, I live in the county right now.
It's not the --
Rountree: If you could, please, summarize. Your time is up.
Luke: I want to add something --
Rountree: No. No. He's had his three and he's working on your three.
Luke: The picture right there is going to tell you what it's going to be like if we don't take
care of my property. They are not -- they don't want nothing to do with it. All we need is a
little access out there onto Eagle Road and we will have a prime piece of commercial
property. I'm just telling you I have been left out and we need to change the map to make
this right. You got Idaho Power on one side, you got a pond on the other, and the other
side over here has not been finished yet. I'm just saying this piece of property is going to
be worth a lot in the future and I think you guys -- the City of Meridian would rather have it
commercialized than being a pig farm than commercial. Thanks. I don't know what else I
can say.
Bird: Mr. President?
Rountree: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 42 of 57
Bird: Danny. This application has nothing to do with your property. So, what we -- what
we work on on this property is -- this application is just this property. If you want it to be
commercial or something you need to put an application in for that and -- but right now
what we are ruling on is this application that is before us. We cannot enact anything on
your property, we can't put any conditions on it, we can't do anything with it. So, you need
to -- if you want it to be zoned commercial, you need to bring it through, get with the staff,
find out if it can be done and go that route.
Luke: It's going to be too late -- if you say yes -- because if you say yes on their project,
then, they ain't going to give me access out onto Eagle and my piece of property ain't
going to be worth nothing.
Bird: Well --
Luke: That's all I'm saying. They left me out. I'm just telling you what should be done
together and -- didn't I say anything about leap frogging yet? I'm sorry, you got to read
this. I got to tell you. I forgot to read it.
Rountree: You are past your three minutes.
Luke: Yeah. That was number 12.
De Weerd: Mr. Luke, I think you're out of time.
Luke: Can I just read this?
De Weerd: If you would like to give it to the clerk she can make a copy of it.
Luke: Definition for leapfrogging. That's all I ask.
De Weerd: I think our City Council knows what leapfrog is. Jack Martin. Well, thank you
for being here. Oh. Okay. Those are the names that signed up. Is there anyone else
who would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Would the applicant like to wrap
this up?
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tamara Thompson again. I will
attempt to address comments that were made by the neighbors. As far as the density, our
overall density is 2.99 and if you take out the large lot we are under four at 3.79 1 believe
is what it is. So, as far as the density is concerned, we -- we are under the R-4. The R-8
is consistent with the medium density residential and we are asking for that zone due to
the dimensional standards on that and which deal with the lot size and the setbacks. So,
we would like to stay with the dimensional standards of the R-8, but we are fine if there is
a condition stating that the density has to stay below R-4. That would be an acceptable
condition if that's what you would like to see. Let's see. As far as transition to the north,
there is a 30 foot wide easement in that area right now. There is going to be high school.
The school district has already purchased the property to the immediate east of the site,
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 43 of 57
so the smaller lots and the density that we are requesting is appropriate for this area due
to the proximity to the corner and having a high school right next door. As far as the -- I
wanted to go back to that landscape. The easement to the north is 30 feet to the property
to the north. So, in lieu of -- in lieu of the properties touching, the properties on the north,
there is a 30 foot landscape buffer in that area that would provide the transition and one of
the conditions of approval here is that a pathway be provided in there for school children
to be able to get to the school without going onto the public streets and we will provide
that access. Let's see. As far as -- our original application included five foot perimeter
fencing. The conditions that staff has -- has put that up to six feet of solid fence on the
perimeter and we are acceptable -- we are agreeable to that condition. Let's see. As far
as being consistent and everything being the same out here as far as the density, as far
as the lot sizes, I recently was at a presentation by the BCA, the Building Contractors
Association, and one of the items that they brought up is home prices and how to retain
home prices and their studies have found that one of the things that affects home prices
more than anything is having too much of the same product in the same area. So, what
we are proposing provides variety, provides a lot of different choices for home buyers and
that will -- from what the BCA's findings have been, will support higher home values and
retain those home values for the existing homes. So, we will have a gated community in
one area and smaller lots in another and that will transition, then, into larger lots. This
provides the variety of options and, again, we are under the -- the R-4. As far as Mrs.
Morgan, my client is not in town and that -- as far as the -- if he would approve larger lots,
that was not anything that was verbalized to me, so I can't really comment on that, if that
was a conversation that -- that they had or not. And, then, Mr. Luke brings up several
items and the property is currently comp planned medium density residential. It's not
commercial. I -- we are not changing his access. We are providing him access to a
private gated community should he like it. We are not saying that he has to do that. What
he currently has for access will retain -- he will retain that. We are not changing that for --
for as long as that use is as it is today and he has gone to ACHD and talked to them about
what access would be allowed if it were commercial. So, we are not changing any of that.
We are providing access should he like to be included in the gated community, but that's
not a requirement. So, I think I have addressed everything. Please correct me if I'm
wrong, but in conclusion we do comply with the Comprehensive Plan and we agree with
staff's findings with the few conditions that I named earlier and we would respectfully
request your approval tonight. Thank you.
De Weerd: Tamara, I think you didn't note the tiled ditch or the ditch --
Rountree: The common area.
Thompson: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, I'm not sure what --
De Weerd: Well, you mentioned that you would establish a common area and I think
that's phase two and the gentleman suggested that it go along side the road and where
the other red line is.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, I believe -- oh, I see. Okay.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 44 of 57
De Weerd: Oh, there you go.
Thompson: So, I believe what Mr. Taylor was stating is that here, here could be tiled.
That that did not need to be left open and we are agreeable to that. We will tile everything
we can, but I wanted to clarify with that condition that we would be leaving some of the
ditches open because of the act of farming. My understanding is that this area would
need to be left open and Mr. Taylor's question I believe was would there be access to that,
yes, there is. There is an easement on both sides of that ditch and, again, the property
line is the middle of the ditch and we have pulled the individual lots property lines out to
the edge of the easement for that ditch to retain, so that Mr. Taylor could have access to
both sides and so that the homeowners association could, then, access that to maintain
the subdivision side of the ditch. I hope that answers that question.
De Weerd: It does.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. On that particular subject would the easement on the back of
the lots adjacent to that common lot be fenced?
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, the fence would be at the back of the
lots -- individual lots.
Rountree: Which is at the edge of the easement?
Thompson: On the east side, yes. Yes. Yes.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. You mentioned the pathway on the north side. Is it the
intention to build that pathway as well?
Thompson: The -- our condition of approval is to -- is to provide that pathway. That would
be provided with phase two.
Rountree: And there was some discussion about the elevation of the superior lots and
that circular drive in phase two to single level. Comment on that. I didn't hear your
response to that.
Thompson: Councilman Rountree, the developer would not like to be limited on -- it will
be the individual property owners if they want a single story or a -- or two story, but we
would like to not limit the -- a section of lots to just single story.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, final question. We have heard testimony from Mrs. Morgan
about being a property owner for phase two and wishing to have an R-4, yet this proposes
an R-8, and I'm curious what's going on here. Is there a -- are they still owners and they
have a developer that's going to buy based on the condition of the outcome of this or they
have sold it or what's -- what's going on here?
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 45 of 57
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, my understanding is that there is an
option to purchase and based on the outcome of the annexation and the zoning and the
conditions of approval. I don't believe they have closed yet. But, again, I -- that was news
to me as far as the larger lots. This is what my client has asked me to present.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tamara, on the phase two, I understand it's concept, but your density level, are you
including the existing property and home in that density level?
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, yes, the -- so, the density for the
southern plat -- that's the plat that we have now, that density is 2.99 and that includes the
home. But if you remove the larger lots -- let me see if Sonya has it in the staff report
here. I believe it's 3.79, but let me find it for sure. Yes. Sorry. So, if you remove that --
the larger lot for the existing home -- because it is larger than the others, then, the overall
density is 3.79 without that large lot.
Bird: Yeah. That -- that's what I was figuring.
Thompson: Yeah. So, if you take out all of that --
Bird: You know, if you want to stand or the deal, let's just -- I think it would be smart for
your neighbors and everybody around there if we just zoned that R-4 on both of them. I
know you --
De Weerd: The setbacks are different for an R-8 versus an R-4
Bird: I know. I know
De Weerd: I have a question. You know, I understand the gated community concept, but
the Luke property still concerns me, that that piece is carved out of a -- I envision gated
communities as kind of upper scale, it's -- there is a perception of safety and it is for a
certain set that wants the security that they believe is provided by a gate. To have a piece
of property cut out like that just doesn't make sense.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, my understanding is that the developer did talk to Mr. Luke
and try to include that piece. They could not agree on a purchase price. But that doesn't
preclude Mr. Luke from redeveloping his property and having it included in -- at no cost to
the -- a private community and last time we were here we did talk at length about the
benefits of a gated, private community and the vision of what the developer has for that
and it is up scale, it is secure, and it lends itself to a different buyer. Typically those
buyers are older without children, but it's not going to be -- you know, that's not going to
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 46 of 57
be the requirement. I don't know how to answer that about Mr. Luke's property. This --
this is the property that is under option and they couldn't come to an agreement and it
wasn't trying to leave him out. I wasn't included in those conversations, but he can be
included in this if he would like to be and he can do it himself without the cost of -- of the
roadways and of each of those homeowners having to provide the annual payments in
order to live there.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have a question. I'm still a little bit confused regarding the access to Mr. Luke's
property. You mentioned that it would stay the same as long as the zoning doesn't
change and I would like more -- I'd like to understand that detail a little bit clearer.
Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam.
Milam: Milam.
Thompson: Milam. Sorry. As far as his access, as long as -- and I didn't say the zoning
change, I said the -- and maybe I did, but I meant to say commercial. But as long as the
property stays as is, no applications are submitted, nothing would change there. It will
stay as is. Nobody is going to change his access as far as require him to use this private
street. His -- his access would stay as is. If and when a development application is
submitted, at that time it may be conditioned that he would have to take access separately
and we are providing for him to take that access -- that cross -access in order to do that.
But it's not a requirement as part of this development that that happen. Did I clarify that?
You still look a little confused.
Milam: Yeah. Madam Mayor. So, I guess to clarify, if he's not -- if his property is not part
this development, I agree with him that a commercial use would be more appropriate. At
least in terms of location and the traffic and being cut out like that. So, if he were to do
that -- so, you're saying that he -- there may be requirements by ACHD or somebody that
may require a different access, but you're not doing something disallowing access to that
property.
Thompson: That's correct.
Milam: Okay. Thank you.
Thompson: Yeah. Anything that we are doing is not affecting his access. A future
development application could potentially change that and I don't know what that is, but at
that time, you know, should he need access to the private street that that cross -access is
being granted.
Milam: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 47 of 57
De Weerd: I can't believe that that access would be granted if the use is not compatible. I
doubt if your gated community folks would like a retail cut through.
Thompson: Yeah. And, Madam Mayor, the Comprehensive Plan for that is medium
density residential, so --
De Weerd: Okay. I just wanted you to clarify that.
Thompson: Yeah. I do. We are aware of that. There would be a whole process that
would have to happen for that commercial to take place. It sounds like Mr. Luke has had
that conversation with ACHD and that they are talking to him about direct access, which I
would like to just state that they did not allow us any direct access onto Eagle Road. We
did ask for it and it was not something that they would allow.
De Weerd: Didn't you say you were accessing on the north part of phase one?
Thompson: That is for pedestrian only.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
Thompson: And what you see there hashed in is -- that is for emergency access, so it
would have a barricade there for vehicles, but it's pedestrian only.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Thank you.
Rountree: Justin.
De Weerd: Justin, I think Council wanted to hear from you. And, of course, the applicant
always has the last word, so we kind of did this out of order. Sorry about that.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm here for questions, obviously. There
was a lot of discussion about the Luke property and access. All I can say is that
discussions like that with ACHD staff, they are often hypothetical what if discussions and
they are not specifically pertaining to development application, obviously. It is a unique
situation, but I don't want to elaborate more than that, because I don't think it would be
appropriate at this time.
De Weerd: It would be speculative
Lucas: Correct.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 48 of 57
Bird: Does that property -- that property don't have access to Eagle Road now, does it?
Lucas: Which property?
Bird: The Luke property.
Lucas: I'd have to verify that with Mr. Luke himself. I do not believe he has a driveway cut
to Eagle Road.
Bird: Just Amity.
De Weerd: Yeah. Just Amity.
Lucas: It's just to Amity. Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. And any final
comment from applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: And I brought it up at the March meeting and I failed to follow up with you on it
was whether or not in a scenario that an outparcel like this, if it's been -- there has been a
successful or unsuccessful result on other areas of the city where a project like this has
been left out, remained in the county, and become successful or problematic? And
should have -- I should have -- I know it was briefly referenced, but --
Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I can't think of any off the top of my head.
We typically like to include parcels like this, rather than leave them out if it's possible, but,
again, that's not something the city can control.
Borton: Right. Okay.
Watters: We just try to look out for the best we can as to allow them an option for
development, so that they -- they don't get land locked or there is no access or things like
that.
De Weerd: I think there probably is an example at Linder and Ustick where the Ada
County Paramedics went in when that subdivision -- I think it's Turtle Creek or --
Rountree: Yeah. Turtle Creek.
De Weerd: When that came in it left an outparcel. Of course, it has other constraints with
the drainage ditch there, but -- ACHD did grant them access and took care of the
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 49 of 57
extraordinary conditions and if I tried I probably could think of some more. Any other
questions from Council? Hearing none, what is your pleasure?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will close the -- I'm going to ask that we close the public hearings on AZ 14-016
and PP 14-018.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-H and I
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve AZ 14-016, but instead of an R-8 zone it will be an
R-4 zone and to include public, applicant, and staff comments.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call
roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, nay.
De Weerd: Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Item 8-I. It's kind of difficult to approve a preliminary plat when you just left on
the setback.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will make a motion. If I'm wrong Bill can straighten me out. I move we deny PP
14-018.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 50 of 57
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny Item 8-I. Any discussion? Madam
Clerk.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Item 9: Department Reports
A. Continued from June 9, 2015: Legal and Fire Departments:
Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement between the City
of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9-A is under Department Reports. Continued item from Legal and
the Fire Department on an MOU.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I contacted the fire district attorney
actually last Tuesday night based on the Council's request for some additional changes to
the contract or the MOU. He was in trial all of last week. I was at AIC. We exchanged a
couple of e-mails. I spoke with him today and the district had a meeting last night to
discuss the Council's request and what he is requesting and what the district I think was in
agreement with is to bring forward next week an MOU that would only address the fiscal
year 16-17 -- or, excuse me, fiscal year'16. The desire of the district -- and if the Council
is in agreement -- we need to workout a few other issues that are in this MOU, besides the
information that's provided, as well as what the Council had recommended last week.
There is some other issues about property and ownership and a variety of other issues.
Mr. Fitzgerald's request and the district's request is see if we can iron out all of it, so that
we aren't coming back with piecemeal addendums or amendments to that. So, if you
would be willing to move this over for one week we will bring back the changes for fiscal
year '16 only and, then, we will work on over the next few months with the district's
attorney hopefully an MOU that we can all agree to and move forward at a later date on
that.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions at this point? I would ask for a motion to
continue this item.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 51 of 57
Borton: Move that we continue Item 9-A, Legal and Fire Department MOU with Meridian
Rural Fire Protection District until June 23rd.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 9-A until next week. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Works: Roadway Lighting Policy
De Weerd: Item 9-13 is under our Public Works, roadway lighting policy
Petersen: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good evening. Nice to have you, Austin.
Petersen: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the
Council. Thank you. For taking the time to hear me today. Earlier this year I gave a
presentation to the transportation commission regarding street lighting policy and gave
them a brief overview of the benefits of street lighting, as well as national standards. The
commission recommended that a letter -- after reviewing these the commission
recommended that a letter be drafted and brought before City Council. The resulting letter
I believe was in your meeting packet. Now, a little road map -- and I'd like to give a little
road map for where I'm going with this presentation. First I'd like to talk about some of the
benefits of street lighting and give you guys some of the background I gave the
transportation commission, then, I'd like to give some background on the street lighting
policy and, then, move onto the reasons for writing the letter. So, the benefits of street
lighting. In a word safety. Adding continuous lighting to a roadway segment or to an unlit
intersection has been shown to improve safety for all roadway users. According to the
highway safety manual, a crash modification factor of providing continuous street lighting
to a roadway segment is 0.27 for injury crashes and .083 for noninjury crashes. That
correlates to a 28 percent reduction in injury and a 17 percent reduction in noninjury
crashes for nighttime accidents.
De Weerd: Austin, can you bring that a little closer to your mouth?
Petersen: Oh, sure.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Petersen: These numbers indicate that not only are there fewer nighttime accidents, but
that many of the accidents are also less severe. This is because drivers have more time
to react due to increased sight distance and less veiling luminance. Veiling luminance is
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 52 of 57
best described by the effects that you notice when you have -- when you're on a dark road
and you have a vehicle approaching you with their headlights and it's hard to see past that
vehicle's headlights until they get past you. Adding continue street lighting helps to
mitigate that problem. Street lighting often makes obstacles, pedestrians and cyclists
more noticeable. It encourages and facilitates multi -modal transportation and people --
people are much more likely to walk or bike or use transit during the night if streets are
well lit. Street lighting has also been shown to reduce crime. Now, the question often
comes up is it really needed or how much traffic is there really at night. In answer to that
I'd like to point out that the number of crash fatalities during the night are similar to that of
the day. However, there are only about 25 percent as many vehicle miles traveled during
the day as there are at night. So, if you look at the number of fatalities per vehicle mile
traveled the nighttime rate is three times that of the daytime, as illustrated in this figure
from the Federal Highway Administration's lighting handbook. Now let's look at the impact
of street lighting -- that street lighting has on nighttime conditions. This chart shows the
number of fatal crashes that occurred during darkness at each hour for the 2009 fatality
analysis. The blue bars show -- show streets without lighting and the reds are streets with
continuous lighting. As you can see the reduction is significant and is as high as 50
percent during some hours. The question also comes up as to where is lighting most
important and the answer is that it's important on both local urban streets and larger urban
arterials, it just plays a little different role in each. On arterial roadways street lighting
primarily benefits the motorists. According to the Green Book a well designed adequate
lighting system is more important to the optimum operation of an urban arterial than any
other street. Why is this? This is largely due to the higher speeds and traffic volumes
experienced on arterials and the limited sight distance provided by low beam headlights.
The average low beam -- beams provide only about 300 feet of illumination in front of the
vehicle. Stopping sight distance at 40 miles per hour is 305 feet on a dry roadway and
stopping sight distance is just the amount of time that it takes for you to see an object and
realize that you need to stop, take your foot off the gas, hit the brakes and come to as
quickly a stop as you can. So, greater -- in order to make a smooth transition or stop it
requires a greater sight distance. So, the great sight distance provided by lighting
minimizes undue fraking and swerving and helps to optimize traffic flow in addition to
reducing crashes. On local and collector streets lighting promotes and facilitates multi-
modal transportation. It also increases both perceived and the actual security of
pedestrians and it also increases the driver's peripheral vision, which helps reduce vehicle
and pedestrian conflicts and here we have -- just to give you an idea of what continuous
lighting looks like versus a road that's not lit, this first picture on the left is Linder Road just
north of Cherry Lane before lighting was installed and the picture on the right is Linder
Road south of Cherry Lane near the high school where lighting -- continuous was installed
per AASHTO recommendation. As you can see there is quite a difference. These were
taken with the same camera on the same day.
De Weerd: And were the -- the car lights on that car or --
Petersen: Yeah. I did -- when I took it I did forget to turn off my headlights there, but if
you look further down the road you can just get a -- an idea of how great your sight
distance is.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 53 of 57
De Weerd: You drive down Ten Mile you already see that.
Petersen: So, now that I have gone over a few of the benefits of street lighting, I'd like to
go ahead and talk a little bit about streetlight policy. According to the state statute that
describes the responsibility of a county wide highway district within a city, one of the
responsibilities of the highway district is to procure and install highway lighting where it is
of primary -- where it is primary benefit to the motorists. The statute also mentions that
the energy cost and maintenance is the responsibility of the city. Change the slide.
ACHD's policy is to install streetlights at all four corners of a signalized intersection and to
install lights at nonsignalized intersections with reconstruction and widening projects and
normally when they do that it's only one light at each intersection. This policy does not
address any need for continuous or transition lighting. So, now I will talk a little bit about
what it actually says in the most recent edition of the Green Book. The Green Book -- the
2011 edition of the Green Book states that lighting on urban arterials should be
continuous. In the event that it is impractical to provide continuous lighting, consideration
should be given for intermittent lighting. And intermittent lighting is just installing light at
intersections and conflict points and it also mentions that where only intersections are
lighted a gradual lighting transition from dark to light should be provided, so that drivers
have time to adapt their vision. ACHD's policy for installing lights at intersections and with
roadway widening and improvement projects does not conform with this AASHTO policy.
The Green Book also mentions that looking at a roadway's functional class is not enough.
Pedestrian and vehicle volumes, night and day crash ratios, roadway geometry, emerging
lanes, and curves are all factors that need careful consideration when establishing
illumination levels and warrants on lighting. These items are also not addressed by
ACHD's currently policy. So, reasons for writing a letter to ACHD are enumerated on
page one of the letter from the transportation commission. The letter -- the main goal of
the letter is to spur change in ACHD's street lighting policy. ACHD staff has recognized
the value of continuous lighting and has coordinated with the city to obtain grant funding to
light Cherry Lane between Linder and Meridian Road. Grant funding like this is great for
existing deficiencies, but more -- but the most effective times to install lighting is in
conjunction with roadway improvement projects. There are over 70 road widening
projects and over 40 intersection improvement projects that are listed in ACHD's 2012
capital improvement plan that are within the City of Meridian's impact area. A large -- a
number of those will include curb, gutter, sidewalk and bring things to a full urban section.
ACHD has been more than happy to install continuous lighting with improvement projects
if the city pays for the additional cost. Now, according to state statute they are the ones
responsible for installing lighting where it's to the primary benefit of the motorist. In order
for ACHD to include the additional cost of continuous lighting in their capital improvement
budget or to use impact -- or to collect impact fees for that cost, there has to be a change
in their policy. Such a policy change will need to be approved by the ACHD commission.
After reviewing the information that I have presented, the transportation commission
recommended that City Council request that Ada County Highway District update ACHD
Policy Manual Section 5107 to include installation of continuous transitional lighting with
roadway and intersection improvement projects per AASHTO recommendations. So, also
a couple notes on that. I think that if we do write a letter it would be important to -- oh,
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 54 of 57
forgot to change the slide. Sorry about that. That it would be important to detail the
reasons detailed by the transportation commission for making such a change and, then,
also to perhaps have a time frame for ACHD to come and give a presentation back to the
Council with their decision to upgrade or update the policy or their reasons not to. And I
think that we should also encourage other cities in Ada County to send similar letters to
make this change. I will now stand for any questions that you have. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Austin. And amazing research went to that. We appreciated all
the examples and the statistics and it was a great presentation. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Austin, do you know if -- if their -- the state statute or the ACHD's deal -- ordinance
allows impact fees to pay for lighting? Do you know if that -- if the impact fees are allowed
to pay for it?
Petersen: So, after talking with Gary Inselman at ACRD, my understanding of their impact
fee policy is that they can only assess impact fees for what is in the capital improvement
plan and right now intersection -- four lights at an intersection and approximately one light
at unlit intersections is within their policy. So, when they do a roadway widening
improvement project, they do collect impact fees for those lights, but any additional
lighting for it to have continuous lighting or transition lighting at a main intersection, would
not be eligible for impact fees.
Bird: Follow up?
De Weerd: Because of policy?
Petersen: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Austin, then, in other words, they -- as you have stated, we need to make sure they
change their policy that includes the rest of the lighting that we need within the block, mile,
or whatever it is be right in there so that impact fees can pick it up, which the state statute
says they should; right?
Petersen: Correct.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 55 of 57
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Austin, do you know if ACHD has adopted by policy the AASHTO guidelines?
Petersen: Yes. In their policy manual it does specifically state documents that are their
standards and the AASHTO Green Book is the primary one.
Rountree: So, they are not following policy.
Petersen: Correct. And part of this, I believe, is also that their policy has not been
updated for a long time. I do not -- the previous editions of the Green Book -- the latest
one is 2011 and that's what I referenced here -- did not have as strong of language about
whether you needed to have continuous lighting on urban arterials or not, but I think that's
where -- when they originally wrote the policy they didn't include that.
De Weerd: Interesting.
Petersen: But a lot of research has come out in the past about ten years showing that
continuous lighting does have a major impact on reducing nighttime crashes.
Bird: Safety. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Just a statement. Common sense tells me that if you're going to put sidewalks in
you should put some lighting along the sidewalks for safety for pedestrians, if nothing
else.
De Weerd: Well -- and ACHD is concerned about vehicle safety.
Bird: But they put in sidewalks for people to use; right? Don't they put sidewalks in?
De Weerd: I assume that's why a sidewalk goes in, but --
Bird: I know.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments and direction for Austin --
Rountree: Direction or question is do we send a letter.
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: And --
Zaremba: I think it's a good idea.
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 56 of 57
Rountree: Well, not even send a letter.
Bird: Send the letter.
Rountree: I don't know that it necessarily needs to be just by the Council. Probably ought
to reflect the Mayor's opinion as well. So, I would suggest we all sign it.
Bird: Write it up.
Petersen: So, what will be the process for drafting this letter? Should I write a letter and
bring it to you and, then, you will review it or --
Rountree: If you want a letter out that's probably the best way.
De Weerd: So, the process -- if you will draft the letter we can put it on the Council
agenda next week and get Council approval on the letter and I would also recommend
cc'ing all the -- the cities and the mayors and we will get it sent out.
Petersen: All right.
De Weerd: Okay?
Petersen: Sounds good. Thank you.
Item 10 Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Thank you, Austin. Council, under Item 10, any topics for future meetings?
Bird: I have none.
Item 11: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(b)(d): (b) To
Consider the Evaluation, Dismissal or Disciplining of, or to Hear
Complaints or Charges Brought Against, a Public Officer, Employee,
Staff Member or Individual Agent, or Public School Student; AND (d) To
Consider Records that are Exempt from Disclosure as Provided in
Chapter 3, Title 9, Idaho Code
De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is Executive Session.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) (b) and
(1)(d).
Meridian City Council
June 16, 2015
Page 57 of 57
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (8:55 p.m. to 11:35 p.m.)
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:35 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
/% /is
DATE APPROVED
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #813: Silverwater Subdivision No. 3 (FP -15.012)
Application(s):
➢ Final Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 17.22 acres of land, is currently zoned R-8, and is located
south of E. Victory Road (south of the Ridenbaugh Canal) and east of S. Meridian Road.
Summary of Request: A final plat is proposed that consists of 42 building lots, 6 common lots and 1 other lot consistent with the
approved preliminary plat.
Written Testimony: Shawn Brownlee, Applicant's Representative — in agreement w/staff report except for condition #5b which
requires a minimum 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk to be constructed off-site along the frontage of the out -parcel with the property
owner's consent, per a provision of the DA. If the construction and easement for the sidewalk is not allowed in writing by the owner of
the out -parcel, the applicant shall bond or provide another City -approved method for providing assurance that the pathway
improvements in that area are constructed when the out -parcel redevelops. The applicant requests Council remove this condition of
approval.
Staff recommendation: Approval w/conditions
Notes:
JUN 16 201S
CITY OF
CiTYCLERVS OFFICE
Item #8C: Three Corners Rezone (RZ-15.006)
Application(s): Rezone
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 12.65 acres of land, zoned C -C, R-8 & R-4
located on the SEC of E. Chinden Boulevard & N. Locust Grove Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Chinden Boulevard & SFR (Banbury Subdivision), zoned R -1-P in the City of Eagle
East: Private school & church, zoned C -C and R-8
South: SFR (Three Corners Subdivision No. 2), zoned R-4
West: SFR (Fuller Ranchettes Subdivision), zoned R1 in Ada County
History: In 2013, the property received rezone; preliminary plat and development agreement modification (MDA -13-017) approval to
develop 54 residential lots, 8 commercial lots and 6 common lots on the site.
The property is subject to 2 different development agreements.
The City Council has approved 2 phases of the final plats.
Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for a rezone of 12.65 acres of land from the C -C, R-8 & R-4 zoning districts to the C-
C (9.38 acres), R-8 (2.76 acres) and R-4 (0.51 acres) zoning districts. With the previous approvals in 2013, the current zoning districts
& the subdivision were deemed consistent with the MU -C designation of the Comprehensive Plan.
During review of the 2nd phase of the final plat, it was discovered that the current zoning boundaries did not coincide with the
boundaries of the final plat. In order to expedite the approval of the final plat, the City Council approved the final plat with a condition
that the applicant obtains approval of a rezone application to correct the zoning discrepancy prior to City Engineer signature on the final
plat.
Because the subject rezone is only required to correct a zoning boundary error, Staff is not requiring additional conditions of approval
or a DA with the subject application. The applicant is still responsible to comply with all of the conditions of approval and the recorded
development agreements associated with the Three Comers Subdivision.
Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval at the May 7th P/Z hearing.
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Kent Brown
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Kent Brown in agreement with the staff report
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: None
Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Ken Brown, in agreement w/ the Commission's recommendations
Notes:
Item #8D: Pinebridge Subdivision (TEC -15.002)
Application(s):
➢ Preliminary Plat Time Extension
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 100+/- acres of land, is currently zoned C -G, and is located
south of E. Fairview Avenue & east of N. Locust Grove Road.
History: The preliminary plat for this site was approved in 2007 and consisted of 61 building lots and 21 common/other lots on 170
acres of land in the C -G zoning district.
Summary of Request: This is the fourth time extension requested for the subject preliminary plat. No final plats have been approved
by City Council for this site. However, Pine Avenue was widened, the round -a -bout constructed, Webb Avenue constructed, and new
public utility and municipal services and infrastructure have been installed, which facilitated the development of the Scentsy Campus
and the PKG Campus.
Approval of the subject time extension will allow the applicant to proceed with the platting process. If the subject time extension is not
granted, the entire property would need to be resubmitted for preliminary plat approval.
Written Testimony: Dan Torfin
Staff Recommendation: Approval with the conditions listed in Exhibit B which includes the requirement for compliance with current
Public Works construction standards and the improvement of the planter area in the middle of the round -a -bout in Pine Avenue. The
applicant requests additional time to complete the round -a -bout improvements as a water source has not yet been developed at this
time; he requests an extension from November list 2015 to November 1, 2016 to complete the improvements.
Notes:
Item #8E: Hill Properties/Century Farm School (CPAM-15.001)
➢ Amendment to the Future Land Use Map contained in the Comprehensive Plan
Item #8F: Hill Properties (AZ -15.004)
➢ Annexation & Zoning
Item #8G: Century Farm School (RZ-15.007)
➢ Rezone
Property location: This site is located off the SEC of S. Eagle Road & E. Amity Road.
History: The portion of the site proposed to be rezoned was annexed with the Hill's Century Farm property to the south.
Summary of Request: The applicant proposes an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM to change the land use designation
on 87.01 acres of land from LDR to MU -N. The applicant also requests annexation and zoning of 78.6 acres of land with R-8 (43.2
acres) and C -N (35.4 acres) zoning districts; and a rezone of 8.39 acres of land from the R-8 to the C -N zoning district, consistent with
the proposed MU -N designation. The applicant has requested a change to the configuration of the R-8 vs. the C -N zoning since
submittal of the application as shown.
A concept bubble plan was submitted that depicts how the property is proposed to develop with a mix of uses consisting of medium
density residential homes at densities of 4-8 dwelling units per acre; neighborhood scale retail, office, and professional convenience
uses; an elementary school, a YMCA, City Park, and potentially a library and health complex. This plan has been revised in accord with
the reconfiguration of the R-8 & C -N zoned property. A more detailed plan was submitted for the school/YMCA site as shown.
Approval of the rezone to C -N will allow the school parcel to be regulated under one zoning jurisdiction rather than two and will allow
the school to develop without approval of a CUP, which is required in the current R-4 district.
There are 3 existing homes on this site. The home along the center of the south boundary of the annexation area is proposed to be
zoned R-8 & is proposed to remain. The home at the SEC of the site is proposed to be included in the C -N zoned area and is proposed
to remain as long as the current owners live there; after which time, the YMCA will expand into that area. The home along the north
boundary of the site is also now proposed to be included in the R-8 zoned area and is proposed to remain until redevelopment of that
area occurs, at which time the home & outbuildings will be removed.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Mike Wardle
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Mike Wardle
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: None
Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. Modify DA provision #1.1.e to allow the 2 existing homes in the C -N district to remain until redevelopment occurs, rather than be
zoned R-8; and not require them to hook up to City services.
ii. Modify DA provision #1.1.b to allow an extension of the hours of operation in the C -N district for the YMCA to open at 5 am
rather than 6 am.
iii. Modify DA provision #1.1.g.viii to allow a net density in the R-8 zoned portion of the development to be 4-8 units/acre consistent
with the Hill's Century Farm development immediately to the south, rather than 6-8 units/acre.
iv. Include a provision in the DA that a landscape buffer to residential uses is not required adjacent to the Hill home at the southeast
corner of the site as buffering will be achieved through the adjacent City park, YMCA and school complex and the property will
eventually be part of the YMCA site (see DA provision #1.1.h).
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i. The Park's Department requests an additional provision is added to the DA as follows, "In order to provide appropriate visibility,
parking and emergency access to the future neighborhood park, a public street allowed on -street parking shall be required along
the north side of the park when the property north of the park is developed"
ii. Staff also recommends a provision is added to the DA that requires the annexation area to be subdivided prior to issuance of
any building permits beyond those required for the development of the school, YMCA and park site as shown on the concept
plan.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Mike Wardle
Notes:
Item #8H, I: Nesting Swan Ranch Subdivision (AZ -14.016; PP•14.018)
Application(s):
➢ Annexation and Zoning
➢ Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The annexation area for this site consists of 27.75 acres of land, is currently zoned
RUT in Ada County, and is located at 4617 & 4620 S. Martinel Lane and 3570 E. Amity Road,
History: This project was heard by Council on March 171h. The applicant had submitted a revised conceptual development plan prior to
that hearing based on the Commission's recommendation of denial based on their determination that it was a "leapfrog" development
and not an orderly expansion of the City limits and services; the location of the stub street to the north; and the impact on area schools.
The revisions to the plan included the removal of private streets on the northern portion of the annexation area, and the stub street was
relocated further to the west; Council determined these changes to be significant and remanded the project back to the Commission for
their review and recommendation. The Commission heard this project on May 21s' and recommended approval of the revised plan to
the Council. The staff report has been revised to reflect the changes.
Summary of Request: The applicant requests annexation & zoning of 27.75 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district, consistent with
the MDR FLUM designation.
A preliminary plat is proposed on the 10.37 acre property at the SWC of the annexation area consisting of 31 SFR building lots, which
includes a lot for the existing home, and 7 common lots. The gross density for the subdivision is 2.99 d.u./acre with an average lot size
of 6,926 s.f.
The property at the SEC of the annexation area is an assisting living facility that is currently receiving City services and is not included
in the plat. The property at northeast corner of the annexation area is not included in the plat either and will remain a rural residential
property; a conceptual development plan is proposed showing how the property may redevelop in the future along with the Luke parcel
and the parcel where the existing home is located within the platted area. Redevelopment of these areas will require a new preliminary
plat.
Access is proposed via S. Martinel Avenue from E. Amity Road. Private streets are proposed internally for access to the new
residential homes with a gated entrance off Martinel Avenue. Martinel Avenue stubs to the north property boundary for future
extension. Public street frontage is provided to the assisted living facility at the SEC of the site and is also required to be provided to
the parcel to the west owned by the Taylor's with redevelopment of the northern portion of the site. A cross -access easement is
required to be provided to the Luke out -parcel at the SWC of the site for access to the private street.
The applicant submitted photos of typical sample building elevations for future homes in this development as well as the future
development to the north; the 2 story elevations were submitted after the Commission meeting.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Tamara Thompson
ii. In opposition: Frank Shoemaker; Bradford Dedman; Dan Luke; Roger Taylor
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. The differences between the original concept pan and the revised one.
Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None
Notes:
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16. 2015
ITEM TITLE: Meridian Road
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Amended Cooperative Agreement for Improvements and Maintenance of the
Interstate 84 Meridian Road Interchange (ITD Project No. A010(939) Between the
Idaho Transportation Department and the City of Meridian
MEETING NOTES
9 APPROVED
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
AMENDED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE
OF THE INTERSTATE 84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE
ITD Project No. A010(939)
This Amended AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this ! F.0
day of �st12=_______. 2015, by and between the Idaho Transportation
Department (hereinafter, "State"), and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal
corporation, (hereinafter, "City") (collectively, the "Parties").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City has requested that the State approve the expenditure of
transportation funds for improvements associated with the State's Interstate 84
Meridian Interchange (IC), Project No. A010(939), at the junction of Interstate 84 and
Meridian Road, in Meridian, Idaho, near Mile Post 44 (hereinafter, "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to protecting the investment of these funds by
performing certain maintenance as agreed upon between the Parties; and
+' WHEREAS, authority for this Agreement is established in Section 40-317, Idaho
Code, which allows for cooperative agreements between the State and municipalities
for the construction of and improvements to bridges and state highways; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
herein contained, the Parties do mutually undertake, promise, and agree as follows:
I. Appropriation of Funds
This Agreement contemplates a) that the State will provide sufficient funds to design
and construct improvements included in the Project and specifically detailed in Exhibit
A, State Improvements, attached hereto and incorporated herein and b) that the City
will provide sufficient funds for the costs of the labor, materials and equipment to
perform the improvements specifically detailed in Exhibit A, City Improvements,
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
II. Responsibilities of State
2.1 State agrees it will pay for improvements for the Project, listed as State
Commitments on Exhibit A, in accordance with the Project construction plans and
specifications.
2.2 State agrees to notify the City of any future highway construction that would
impact the improvements covered by this Agreement, and to seek mutually agreeable
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 1
solutions to any such construction in order to minimize the destruction or removal of
the improvements covered by this Agreement. If a solution is not found, both Parties
understand and agree that the State shall be allowed to alter the improvements at its
expense and that the City's obligations under this Agreement shall cease. In such
event, State agrees to provide sixty (60) days written notice to the City prior to any
construction or other actions to alter the improvements.
2.3 State agrees to hold contractors/subcontractors responsible for any and all
damages to the improvements resulting from contracted work on the Project.
2.4 State shall maintain the Meridian IC bridge structure, including the irrigation
pipe sleeves provided for installation of the pressurized irrigation system through the
structure.
2.5 State will include the engineering and installation of railing art as part of the
Project as detailed in Exhibit A and coordinate with the City for approval of the work
as described in change order 27 to the Project for this work.
2.6 State will include the installation of landscaping as part of the Project as
described in Exhibits A and B and detailed in change order 31 to the Project for this
work.
2.7 Upon receipt of funds from the City paid to the State, as detailed and
summarized in Exhibit A, the State agrees that is will construct the Railing Art and
Landscaping described in paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 above.
2.8 State shall maintain complete accounts of all project funds received and
dispersed which will be used to determine the actual contract costs of the City's
Railing Art and Landscaping constructed with the Project.
2.9 Upon acceptance of the Railing Art and Landscaping by the City and prior to
project closeout, the State will meet with the City to reconcile the actual contract cost
of the Railing Art and Landscaping as compared to the estimated costs detailed in City
Commitments of Exhibit A. In the event that the amount paid by the City under
paragraph 3.4 exceeds the actual contract cost of the complete installation, the State
shall refund such amount to the City prior to project closeout.
2.10 State will coordinate with the City on future installations of MSE wall panel art
as long as the art meets the specifications provided by the State and attached hereto
as Exhibit C, including issuance of a permit and coordination of traffic control as
necessary. State will allow installation of rods/bolts for abutment art that meets the
specifications in Exhibit C.
III. Responsibilities of City
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 2
3.1 The City will have an opportunity to review and provide comment on the Project
construction plans and specifications, prior to approval of the Project plans by the
State.
3.2 Before the Project is advertised for construction, the City shall certify in writing
to the State that the right-of-way easements needed for the sidewalk extension east of
Meridian Road north to the Waltman/Commercial and Meridian Road intersection and
the new water line easement from Progress Avenue to the 1-84 westbound off -ramp
have been acquired.
3.3 Upon the State and City's acceptance of the Project, City will assume
responsibility for maintenance and care of the improvements in all irrigated areas
shown on Exhibit B including:
a. Remove trash, snow/ice and other roadside debris from sidewalk
areas adjacent to Meridian Road in Project area
b. Trim, prune, water and otherwise maintain the landscaping
features and plantings in an attractive and healthy condition
C. Operate and maintain the pressurized irrigation system, including
main and distribution pipes, valves, sprinklers, and control system,
after the Contractor warranty periods are complete
d. Maintain sprinklers so that they do not wet the roadways
3.4 Within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement, the City to pay to the State
the sum of four hundred and sixty nine thousand, six hundred and forty three dollars
and seventy five cents ($469,643.75), which is the estimated cost of the labor,
materials and equipment to perform the Railing Art and Landscaping as itemized in
Exhibit A. In addition, within 60 days of the City's acceptance of the work, and
completion of the cost reconciliation, pay to the State the amount that the actual
contract cost of the labor, materials and equipment that exceeds the estimated costs
itemized in Exhibit A.
3.5 City shall assume responsibility for maintenance and care of the railing art and
maintain the art features in an attractive condition.
3.6 As part of future action(s), City may elect to pursue and assume responsibility
for maintenance and care of additional enhancements described in Exhibit C, MSE wall
panel art.
3.7 If the City installs improvements in Exhibit C, City shall maintain the art features
in an attractive condition.
j 3.8 City shall perpetually maintain the areas within the Project site as shown on
Exhibit B, subject to annual appropriation of such maintenance cost by the City and in
conformity with the provisions of Article VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution.
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 3
3.9 Should the City desire additional enhancements after completion of the Project,
City will comply with the State's standard permitting and approval process for work
within the 1-84 and Meridian Interchange right-of-way.
3.10 City shall utilize State -approved highway safety procedures for City personnel
during all times maintenance is underway within the State retained right-of-way.
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 4
IV. Indemnity
Should any part of the improvements within the State retained right-of-way and
maintained by the City be damaged or destroyed though the wrongful or negligent act
of any third party, the State will make every effort to determine the identity and
whereabouts of the responsible party and the State will attempt collection of the costs
of the repair or replacement. If the State is able to collect the cost of repair or
replacement, it will advance the funds to the City, based on City estimates or repair
invoices.
City does hereby indemnify, save and hold harmless the State from and against any
and all liability, damages or costs, known or unknown, relating to or as a result of
City's maintenance of the Project site and not as the result of the negligence of the
State.
State does hereby indemnify, save and hold harmless the City from and against any
and all liability, damages or costs, known or unknown, relating to or as a result of
defects in the construction of the Project resulting in additional cost to the City to
plant, repair, replace or maintain the improvements which are the subject of this
Agreement and not as the result of the negligence of the City.
V. Term of Agreement
It is anticipated the term of this Agreement shall be perpetual, subject to annual
appropriation of such maintenance cost by the City and in conformity with the
provisions of Article VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution. Neither Party may
terminate this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party, other
than as set forth in this Agreement.
VI. General Provisions
6.1 Contact Information: The contact for the Idaho Transportation Department shall
be the District Three Engineer Manager at (208)334-8300. The contact for the City of
Meridian shall be the Director of Parks at (208) 888-3579.
6.2 Termination of Interagency Agreement/Nonappropriation: Nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to be an indebtedness or liability in violation of Article
VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution.
6.3 Attorney Fees: In the event of any controversy, claim, or action being filed or
instituted between the Parties to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
or arising from the breach of any provision hereof, the prevailing Party will be entitled
to receive from the other Party all costs, damages, and expenses, including reasonable
attorneys' fees. The prevailing Party will be that Party who was awarded judgment as a
result of trial or arbitration.
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 5
6.4 Choice of Law: This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of Idaho.
6.5 Exhibits: All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made
a part of this Agreement as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety in this
Agreement.
6.6 Entire Agreement: This Agreement and the exhibits hereto constitute the full
and entire understanding and agreement between the Parties with regard to the
transaction contemplated herein, and no Party shall be liable or bound to the other in
any manner by any representations, warranties, covenants and agreements except as
specifically set forth herein.
6.7 Acknowledgments and Modifications: No acknowledgments required hereunder,
and no modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement or consent to
departure there from, shall be effective unless in writing and signed by State and City.
6.8 Headings: The headings used in this Agreement are used for convenience only
and are not to be considered in construing or interpreting this Agreement.
t' 6.9 Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but both of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
End of Agreement
[Signature page follows.]
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the date first above written.
CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Mayor, City • eridian istrict Engineer, District Three
Attest: V-,osp, En4tic: j Recommended by:
/ citv
tL 1' ,r /
..0101°' t.�_i_ 1�ate- .TANk. l
City C"-rk �— —'� GARVEE Program Manager
°'54e TRE Abk,°.4�v
Approved As To Form:
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Transportation Department
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 7
EXHIBIT A
State Commitments:
1. Design for Area A and Area B as shown on Exhibit B
a. Irrigation design
b. Planting plan
c. Provisions for future well connection to irrigation system
2. Improvements of Area A (Ramp islands only) as shown on Exhibit B
a. Pressurized irrigation delivery
b. Surface distribution system
c. Mow strip and concrete adjacent to Meridian Road for
maintenance access/parking
3. Improvements of Area B as shown on Exhibit B
a. Pressurized irrigation delivery
b. Surface distribution system
4. Extend 7 -foot sidewalk on east side of Meridian Road to Waltman/Commercial/
Meridian intersection
5. Formliners
a. MSE wall panels
b. Center pier
c. Outer parapet
d. Inner parapet
6. Color treatment of concrete (stain/dye)
a. MSE wall panels
b. Center pier
c. Outer parapet
d. Inner parapet
7. SPUI raised island concrete pattern
City Commitments:
1. Estimated Landscape costs for Areas A and B as shown on Exhibit B and outlined
in change order 31 to the Project.
Item Number
Item Description
Est.
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Total
NC31-SP100
Landscaping Improvements*
1
LS
$111,000.00
$111,000.00
NC31-SP200
Topsoil*
1971
Ton
$73.00
$143,883.00
NC31-SP300
2" Crushed Basalt Rock*
514
Ton
$70.00
$35,980.00
NC31-SP400
Lava Basalt Dec. Boulders*
736
Ton
$120.00
$88,320.00
NC31-S904-
05N
Modify Irrigation * Irri System*
g y
1
LS
$740.00
$740.00
626-105A
Traffic Control Maintenance
120
HR
$55.75
$6,690.00
626-076A
Advanced Warning Arrow Panel
480
HR
$1.80
$864.00
630-005A
Flagging
240
HR
$53.00
$12,720.00
NC31-Sign
Welcome to Meridian Sign*
1
LS
$25,838.50
$25,838.50
NC31-Prime I
Prime Contractor Overhead and
1
CA 1
$7,392.08
$7,392.08
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 8
Profit
Net Estimated Increase $433,427.58
2. Estimated Railing Art costs for engineering and installation as outlined in
change order 27 to the Project and detailed below.
Railing Art Specifications:
• Art piece(s) may have 50% coverage of railing panels.
• Art piece(s) must not weigh more than 50 lbs. per linear foot.
• Art piece(s) must adhere to railing with no more than a 6" off -set from
railing panel.
Item Number
Item Description
lEst.Quantityl
Unit I
Unit Price
I Item Total
NC27-Engineering
Design Engineering*
1
LS
$2,247.20
$2,247.20
NC27-Art
Railing Mounted Art*
1
LS
$31,768.20
$31,768.20
NC27-Prime
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
1
LS
$2,200.77
$2,200.77
Net Estimated Increase $36,216.17
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 9
Legend:
Arcas'A
s�
•: Arens'B'
Irrigated Areas
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 10
�d
Legend:
Arcas'A
s�
•: Arens'B'
Irrigated Areas
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 10
EXHIBIT C
POTENTIAL FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS BY CITY
MSE Wall Panel Art Specifications:
1. Art work should be no larger than 12 feet in height and 25 feet in width.
2. Material should be steel — with a thickness of 1/4" to 3/8" with a maximum
weight of any one piece up to 5000 pounds,
3. Artwork connected to the panels require a minimum of 4 supports (3/4" bolts or
rods) which should be installed by drilling and epoxying following construction
and settlement of the wall panels. The support locations should be specified
once art work size is determined and supports installed with the artwork, not
with the overall project.
I-84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - 11
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Sewer Easement
Accommodations Subdivision on-site Sewer Easement
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2015-053635
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 NIKOLA OLSON 06/18/2015 12:55 PM
MERIDIAN CITY NO FEE
001112282201150005360636350050050
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
tCv
THIS INDENTURE, made this day of, iur , 20 (� between Dave Evans Construction, LLC.,
the parties of the first part, and hereinafter' aC lled the GRANTORS, and the City of Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the GRANTEE;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the GRANTORS desire to provide a sanitary sewer right-of-way across the
premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and
WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be
constructed by others; and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain, service and subsequently connect to said
pipeline from time to time by the GRANTEE;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the GRANTORS,
and other good and valuable consideration, the GRANTORS do hereby give, grant and
convey unto the GRANTEE the right-of-way for an easement over and across the following
described property'
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B)
The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sewer line
and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair, replacement and
subsequent connection 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, performing maintenance, replacements or subsequent connections
to the sanitary sewer mains, GRANTEE shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent
property to that existent prior to undertaking such procedures. 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.
Sewer Main Easement EASMT SEW 11-15-13.doc
THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed
any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area
described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the
purposes stated herein.
THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the GRANTEE that should any part of
the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the
boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby
granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and
become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the GRANTEE that they are lawfully seized and
possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and
lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title
and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their
signatures the day and year first herein above written.
GRANTOR:
Manager, Dave Evans Construction, LLC.
�7l�( 0 1ZNep-cid. r,4- She ( 00
Address 0611s , x,17 g s -i 114
STATE OF IDAHO )
: ss.
County of Ada )
On this 2 day of JkK 120/5 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared D, ZG aaA oy't"k S
, known or identified to me to be the President anti -
of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day
and year ftr%obr@voswyitten.
014DA 4'P
(SEA��tsOTk NOTARY PUBLIC FYR IDA
® � x Residing at: �a'H7Se
and p5Ax%e® gylC_ �� 0 Commission Expires: S
GRANTEE:
Sewer Main Easement EASMT SEW 11-15-13.doc
Tammy
by
Mayor
City Clerk
J1',liL �
°�Ide TRF ASUF' .d'
Approved By City Council On: t l �)oi'�
STATE OF IDAHO, )
: ss
County of Ada )
On this 1 G day of , � k,�-n+L , 20 jam_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and
,.SoreS
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)
MICClIoL, L. 4�td
NOTARY PU$j IaC_FO� IDAHO �
Residing at: LL"" G�f''
Commission Expires:
Sewer Main Easement EASMT SEW 11-15-13.doc
CJUB0"
J-U•B ENGINEERS, INC.
J -U -B COMPANIES
Accommodations Subdivision
On -Site Sewer Easement
Boundary Description
Project Number 10-14-105 May 15, 2015
TMELANGDGATEWAY
US
GROUP
M,CppiNG
An easement situated in Lot 6 of the Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of Golden Eagle Estates
(Book 37 of Plats at Pages 3127 and 3128, records of Ada County, Idaho), in the north half of the
northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian;
Thence S00°27'50"W, 1321.07 feet along the west line of the north half of the northwest quarter of
Section 28 to the southwest corner of the north half of the northwest quarter of Section 28;
Thence S89°30'18"E, 455.55 feet along the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of
Section 28 to the southwest corner of Lot 6 of the Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of Golden Eagle
Estates;
Thence N00°21'32"E, 102.51 feet along the boundary between Lots 5 and 6 of the Amended Plat of Lots
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of Golden Eagle Estates to the POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence continuing N00°21'32"E, 20.63 feet;
Thence N76°08'28"E, 110.29 feet;
Thence 20.20 feet on a non -tangent curve to the left, concave easterly, having a radius of 50.50
feet, a central angle of 22°54'52", a chord bearing of S18°22'39"E, and a chord length of 20.06
feet;
Thence S76°08'28"W, 116.93 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above-described easement contains 0.05 acres, more or less.
Page 1 of 1
a 2505. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise ID 83709 O 208-376-7330 j 208-323-9336 w www.jub.com
J
0
S. Eagle Road Basis of Bearing
o g S00'27'50"W 1321_07' No
� N N
N
0 >y
❑' 3 0
N �m N
N00
U1 OW
mNd
U ap
m❑o
m
um ❑ r
V N
N
N
N00'21'32"E
o
Noo'21'32"E
--
102.51'
ml 20.63'
- :----------------�--,
—�
11 1
1
V, it
1
1 1
1 1
41
1 c� 1 1
1a:
mr
NI r
J I 0 0
O
0 0
O
o
INO
V
.r. �;11
\ I m
1,,11N
f11
G7d
O 3rt
Aam
�'
�❑1
V
�
O
tomm
`°❑o
mor
D
11
11
y
N
y
a
C a
1
a3a 1
1
5. O O
W 1 C
1
❑ ❑
,oa 11
1
1
1
1,
111
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Approval Task Order
Approval of Task Order 10561.A to Jensen Belts Associates for the
"HILLSDALE PARK DESIGN" project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of
$66,658.00.
MEETING NOTES
mw-, APPROVED
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015
ITEM TITLE: Amendinq the Com
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Resolution No. kS - ib -4-j Amending the Community Development
Block Grant PY2014 Action Plan
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 1!5 - l o 41
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER MILAM,
ROUNTRE E, ZAREMBA
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM YEAR 2014 ACTION PLAN; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST THE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City is required to prepare and adopt a Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Action Plan for each year the City receives CDBG Entitlement funds; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) subsequently approved, a CDBG Action Plan for Program Year 2014
(PY2014); and
WHEREAS, the Community Center Fagade Improvement Project was funded by CDBG
for PY2014 and said project did not advance as planned and the project scope was reduced by
100%; and
WHEREAS, the City requires a HUD approved Slum & Blight plan and area designation
in order to justify future projects that meet that National Objective; and
WHEREAS, IIUD requires a substantial amendment when the project scope changes by
more than 25 percent (25%); and
WHEREAS, the City proposed a substantial amendment to the PY2014 CDBG Action
Plan to redirect the allocation from the Community Center project to three (3) new activities for
the PY2014; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan, the City held a public
hearing on the proposed substantial amendment to the PY 2014 Action Plan on June 9, 2015, and
held a public comment period on the same amendment fiom May 9, 2015 to June 12, 2015;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO:
Section 1. That the PY2015 Action Plan and the certification documents, incorporated
herein by reference, be, and the same hereby are, amended as described in Attachment 1.
Section 2. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be, and they hereby are, authorized to
respectively execute and attest, through this Resolution, this substantial amendment to the
PY2015 Action Plan for and on behalf of the City of Meridian.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
adoption and approval.
RESOLUTION AMENDING PY2014 CDBG ACTION PLAN —Page 1 of 2
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this1 Ea day of
June , dot S`
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day ofTebr
.
K """,
ATTEST:
B % �of
E1', (JDIANr>
Jaycee Ho ian, i
SLAL
RESOLUTION AMENDING PY2014 CDBG ACTION PLAN —Page 2 of 2
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction's Name: City of Meridian, Idaho
Priority Need: Suitable Living Environment—Public Facility
Project Title: Storey Park ADA Restroom Facility
Description:
The City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department will use the CDBG funding to design and upgrade
the existing restroom facility in accordance with ADA accessibility standards within Storey Park where
substandard restroom facilities currently exist.
Objective Category: ®Suitable Living Environment ❑Decent Housing ❑ Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category: 0 Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ® Sustainability
Location/Target Area
205 E Franklin Rd, Meridian, ID 83642
HUD Objective Number
Project ID
SL 3
HUD Matrix Code
CDBG Citation
03F
24 CFR § 570.201(c)
Type of Recipient
C DBG National Objective
Subreciplent
LMA — Presumed Benefit
Start Date
Completion Date
8/1/2015
12/30/2015
Performance Indicator
Annual Units
Public facility
1
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
1 public facility
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Funding Sources
CDBG
$80,000
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
$80,000
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total
$80,000
❑ The Homeless ❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS ® Persons with Disabilities ❑ Public Housing Needs
Jurisdiction's Name:
Priority Need:
Project Title:
Description:
Table X
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
City of Meridian, Idaho
Administration - Planning
Meridian CDBG Slum & Blight Plan
The City will contract with an agency to conduct a Slum & Blight study. This study will identify
contributing factors to blight, recommended strategies for eliminating these areas and restoring
the historicity of the Meridian core.
Objective Category: ®Suitable Living Environment ❑Decent Housing ® Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category: ❑ Availability/Accessibility ❑ Affordability ® Sustainability
Location/Target Area
City-wide as applicable.
HUD Objective Number
Project ID
HUD Matrix Code
CDBG Citation
13
24 CFR § 570.205
Type of Recipient
C DBG National Objective
Entitlement
NA
Start Date
Completion Date
8/1/2015
12/30/2015
Performance Indicator
Annual Units
NA
NA
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
NA
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Funding Sources
CDBG
$19,5000
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
$19,500
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total
$19,500
❑ The Homeless ❑ Persons with HIV/AIDS ❑ Persons with Disabilities ❑ Public Housing Needs
Table 3C
Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects
Jurisdiction's Name: City of Meridian, Idaho
Priority Need: Affordable Housing
Project Title: Boise City / Ada County Housing Authority— Home Ownership
Description:
The City will provide funding for the Ada County Housing Authority to provide direct
homeownership assistance to help LMI individuals purchase homes.
Objective Category: []Suitable Living Environment ®Decent Housing ❑ Economic Opportunity
Outcome Category: ❑ Availability/Accessibility ® Affordability ❑ Sustainability
Location/Target Area
City-wide as applicable.
HUD Objective Number
Project ID
DH 2.2
HUD Matrix Code
CDBG Citation
13
24 CFR 4 570.201(n)
Type of Recipient
C DBG National Objective
Subreclplent
LMH
Start Date
Completion Date
8/1/2015
12/30/2015
Performance Indicator
Annual Units
Housholds
2
Local ID
Units Upon Completion
2
The primary purpose of the project is to help:
Funding Sources
CDBG
$50,000
ESG
HOME
HOPWA
Total Formula
$50,000
Prior Year Funds
Assisted Housing
PHA
Other Funding
Total
$50,000
❑ The Homeless 0 Persons with HIV/AIDS ❑ Persons with Disabilities ❑ Public Housing Needs
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5F
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Approval of Purchase of Motion Tables
Approval of purchase of Motion Tablets from CDW-Government, LLC. for
the Not -To -Exceed amount of $56,669.00 and authorize the Purchasing
Manager to issue and sign a purchase order to CDW-Government, LLC for
the Not -to -Exceed amount of $56,669.00.
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
I il� L:4 "-Sec,
To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk,
From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager
CC: Jacy Jones, Dave Tiede
Date: 6-8-2015
Re: June 16, 2015 City Council Meeting Agenda Item
The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the
June 16°i City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration.
Approval of purchase of Motion Tablets from CDW-Government. LLC. for the Not -To -
Exceed amount of $56,669.00
Recommended Council Action: Approval of purchase of Motion Tablets and
associated warranties and accessories from CDW Government, LLC for the
Not -To -Exceed amount of $56,669.00 and authorize the Purchase Manager to
sign the Purchase Order. This purchase is being made per Bid # IT -15-10547.
This purchase is part of the approved 2015 Budget.
Thank you for your consideration
• Page 1
SE IDR IAN;
�J
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST BROADWAY AVE.
MERIDIAN, ID 83642
(208)888-4433
Vendor Address:
CDW GOVERNMENT
75 REMITTANCE DRIVE, SUITE 1515
CHICAGO, IL 60675-1515
Description
Motion Computing Fm
Motion 5 year complete protection warranty
iKey Sealed Mobile Keyboard with Touchpad
Motion C5/F5 Mobile Dock w/ Key Lock
Motion 12v Adapter
Purchasing Manager:
Special Instructions
Purchase Order 6/16/2015
Attention:
Dave Tiede
Billing
Attn: Finance
Address:
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
Shipping
City of Meridian
Address:
IT Department
33 East Broadway, Ste. 304
Meridian, ID 83642
Shipping Method:
FOB:
Unit I Quantity
13.00
13.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
truck
destination
Unit Price
3,096.00
510.00
227.00
503.00
93.00
Purchase Order Total:
15-0383
Total
40,248.00
6,630.00
2,043.00
6,539.00
1,209.00
$56,669.00
Contract PO per Bid # IT -15-10547 dated 3-5-2015 by Brandi Steckel. Not to exceed: $56,669.00. 01-1510-15510-10547.
Case Mgmt46294
H
J
N
W
w
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Approval of Bid L2 Excavation, LLC
Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to L2 EXCAVATION, LLC for the
"WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT" Project for a Not -To -
Exceed amount of $76,995.30
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Memo
To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk,
From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager
CC: Jacy Jones, Dean Stacey/PM
Date: 06/10/2015
Re: June 16'' City Council Meeting Agenda Item
The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the
June 16'' City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration.
Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to L2 EXCAVATION LLC for the "WATER
I IMF RFPI A(:FMFNIT _ F AMTII I FC r r')l IRT" .,rr.Ie..+ f— n KI -4 T.. C.........J ...........+
Recommended Council Action: Award of Bid and Approval of Agreement to L2
EXCAVATION, LLC for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $76,995.30.
Thank you for your consideration.
0 Page 1
LO
0
N
Cl)
W
F-
D
J
p
0
O
MWM
It
L
Wo
e
W
N
0
0
0
0
O
O�
O
O
O
N
�
O
Ld
1U
N
N�
O
O
O
CA
N
(A
m
M
m
N
(()
d
d'
(D
(O
H3
Efi(q����
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
-�
16
=
s°
a
C
i
c
ro
o
L
0
c
Q.
U
U
-6 -t
O
U
x
W
m
U
cu
o
0
a)U
o
m
N
co
W
L
N
N
v
6
m
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CONTRACT/AGENDA REQUEST CHECKLIST
Date: 5/13/2015 REQUESTING DEPARTMENT Public Works
Fund: 60 Department: 3490
Construction: x
PSA:
GL Account: 95000 Project#
Task Order:
Project Name: Water Line Replacement - E. Antilles Ct. - Construction
Project Manager: Dean Stacey Department Representative:
Contractor/Consultant/Design Engineer: JUB Engineers / L2 Excavation
Budget Available (Attach Report): Yes Contract Amount: $76,995.30
Will the project cross fiscal years? Yes No x
Budget Information: FY Budget: FY15 Enhancement #: Grant #:
Other: Type of Grant:
CONTRACT CHECKLIST +
BASIS OF AWARD
Low Bidder x Highest Rated Master Agreement
(Bid Results Attached) yes (Ratings Attached) (Category)
Typical Award Yes x No
If no please state circumstances and conclusion:
10 Day Waiting Period Complete:
June 12, 2015
Date Award Posted: June 2, 2015
PW License If C -020467-A-4 Current? (attach print out) Yes
Corporation Status Goodstanding
Insurance Certificates Received (Date): June 5, 2015 Rating: A++
Payment and Performance Bonds Received (Date): June 5, 2015 Rating: A
Builders Risk Ins. Req'd: Yes na No na If yes, has policy been purchased? na
(Only applicabale for projects above $1,000,000)
Date Submitted to Clerk for Agenda: June 9, 2015 Approved by Council
Issue Purchase Order No. Date Issued: WHS submitted
Issue Notice of Award: Date: NTP Date:
(Only for non Public Works Project)
10439
AGREEMENT FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SERVICES
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT # 10439
THIS AGREEMENT FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SERVICES is made this
Co -20-day of JUNE, 2015, and entered into 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 Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and L2 EXCAVATION, LLC,
hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR", whose business address is 2817 Brandt Ave,
Nampa, ID 83868 and whose Public Works Contractor License # is C -020467-A-4.
INTRODUCTION
Whereas, the City has a need for services involving WATER LINE
REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor is specially trained, experienced and competent
to perform and has agreed to provide such services;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants,
terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Scope of Work:
1.1 CONTRACTOR shall perform and furnish to the City upon execution of this
Agreement and receipt of the City's written notice to proceed, all services and work,
and comply in all respects, as specified in the document titled "Scope of Work" a
copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by this
reference, together with any amendments that may be agreed to in writing by the
parties.
1.2 All documents, drawings and written work product prepared or produced by
the Contractor under this Agreement, including without limitation electronic data
files, are the property of the Contractor; provided, however, the City shall have the
right to reproduce, publish and use all such work, or any part thereof, in any
manner and for any purposes whatsoever and to authorize others to do so. If any
such work is copyrightable, the Contractor may copyright the same, except that, as
to any work which is copyrighted by the Contractor, the City reserves a royalty -free,
non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish and use such work, or
any part thereof, and to authorize others to do so.
1.3 The Contractor shall provide services and work under this Agreement
consistent with the requirements and standards established by applicable federal,
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 1 of 12
Project 10439
state and city laws, ordinances, regulations and resolutions. The Contractor
represents and warrants that it will perform its work in accordance with generally
accepted industry standards and practices for the profession or professions that
are used in performance of this Agreement and that are in effect at the time of
performance of this Agreement. Except for that representation and any
representations made or contained in any proposal submitted by the Contractor
and any reports or opinions prepared or issued as part of the work performed by
the Contractor under this Agreement, Contractor makes no other warranties, either
express or implied, as part of this Agreement.
1.4 Services and work provided by the Contractor at the City's request under this
Agreement will be performed in a timely manner in accordance with a Schedule of
Work, which the parties hereto shall agree to. The Schedule of Work may be
revised from time to time upon mutual written consent of the parties.
2. Consideration
2.1 The Contractor shall be compensated on a Not -To -Exceed basis as provided
in Attachment B "Payment Schedule" attached hereto and by reference made a
part hereof for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $76,995.30.
2.2 The Contractor shall provide the City with a monthly statement and
supporting invoices, as the work warrants, of fees earned and costs incurred for
services provided during the billing period, which the City will pay within 30 days of
receipt of a correct invoice and approval by the City. The City will not withhold any
Federal or State income taxes or Social Security Tax from any payment made by
City to Contractor under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Payment of
all taxes and other assessments on such sums is the sole responsibility of
Contractor.
2.3 Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor shall not be
entitled to receive from the City any additional consideration, compensation, salary,
wages, or other type of remuneration for services rendered under this Agreement
including, but not limited to, meals, lodging, transportation, drawings, renderings or
mockups. Specifically, Contractor shall not be entitled by virtue of this Agreement
to consideration in the form of overtime, health insurance benefits, retirement
benefits, paid holidays or other paid leaves of absence of any type or kind
whatsoever.
3. Term:
3.1 This agreement shall become effective upon execution by both parties, and
shall expire upon (a) completion of the agreed upon work, (b) or unless sooner
terminated as provided in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and Section 4 below or unless some
other method or time of termination is listed in Attachment A.
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 2 of 12
Project 10439
3.2 Should Contractor default in the performance of this Agreement or materially
breach any of its provisions, City, at City's option, may terminate this Agreement by
giving written notification to Contractor.
3.3 Should City fail to pay Contractor all or any part of the compensation set forth
in Attachment B of this Agreement on the date due, Contractor, at the Contractor's
option, may terminate this Agreement if the failure is not remedied by the City
within thirty (30) days from the date payment is due.
3.4 TIME FOR EXECUTING CONTRACT AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed, the Contractor shall have 60(sixty) calendar
days to complete the work as described herein. Contractor shall be liable to the
City for any delay beyond this time period in the amount of $500.00 (five hundred
dollars) per calendar day. Such payment shall be construed to be liquidated
damages by the Contractor in lieu of any claim or damage because of such delay
and not be construed as a penalty.
Substantial Completion shall be accomplished within 45 (forty-five) calendar days
from Notice to Proceed. This project shall be considered Substantially Complete
when the Owner has full and unrestricted use and benefit of the facilities, both from
an operational and safety standpoint, and only minor incidental work, corrections or
repairs remain for the physical completion of the total contract. Contractor shall be
liable to the City for any delay beyond this time period in the amount of $500.00
(five hundred dollars) per calendar day. Such payment shall be construed to be
liquidated damages by the Contractor in lieu of any claim or damage because of
such delay and not be construed as a penalty.
4. Termination:
4.1 If, through any cause, CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, or agents fails
to fulfill 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 prepared under this agreement, engages in
fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this
contract, or if the City Council determines that termination of this Agreement is in
the best interest of CITY, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this
Agreement by giving written notice to CONTRACTOR of such termination and
specifying the effective date thereof at least fifteen (15) days before the effective
date of such termination. CONTRACTOR may terminate this agreement at any
time by giving at least sixty (60) days notice to CITY.
In the event of any termination of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished
documents, data, and reports prepared by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement
shall, at the option of the CITY, become its property, and CONTRACTOR shall be
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily
complete hereunder.
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 3 of 12
Project 10439
4.2 Notwithstanding the above, CONTRACTOR shall not be relieved of liability to
the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of this
Agreement by CONTRACTOR, and the CITY may withhold any payments to
CONTRACTOR for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the CITY from CONTRACTOR is determined. This provision shall
survive the termination of this agreement and shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of
its liability to the CITY for damages.
5. Independent Contractor:
5.1 In all matters pertaining to this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be acting as
an independent contractor, and neither CONTRACTOR nor any officer, employee
or agent of CONTRACTOR will be deemed an employee of CITY. Except as
expressly provided in Attachment A, Contractor has no authority or responsibility to
exercise any rights or power vested in the City and therefore has no authority to
bind or incur any obligation on behalf of the City. The selection and designation of
the personnel of the CITY in the performance of this agreement shall be made by
the CITY.
5.2 Contractor, its agents, officers, and employees are and at all times during the
term of this Agreement shall represent and conduct themselves as independent
contractors and not as employees of the City.
5.3 Contractor shall determine the method, details and means of performing the
work and services to be provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor
shall be responsible to City only for the requirements and results specified in this
Agreement and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, shall not be
subjected to City's control with respect to the physical action or activities of
Contractor in fulfillment of this Agreement. If in the performance of this Agreement
any third persons are employed by Contractor, such persons shall be entirely and
exclusively under the direction and supervision and control of the Contractor.
6. Indemnification and Insurance:
6.1 CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and
for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons
or property and losses and expenses and other costs including litigation costs and
attorney's fees, arising out of, resulting from, or in connection with the performance
of this Agreement by the CONTRACTOR, its servants, agents, officers,
employees, guests, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising out of the
tortious conduct of CITY or its employees. CONTRACTOR shall maintain, and
specifically agrees that it will maintain, throughout the term of this Agreement,
minimum amounts as follow: General Liability One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per
incident or occurrence, Automobile Liability Insurance One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) per incident or occurrence and Workers' Compensation Insurance, in
the statutory limits as required by law.. The limits of insurance shall not be deemed
a limitation of the covenants to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY; and if
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 4 of 12
Project 10439
CITY becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance limits, herein
provided, CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold
harmless CITY from and for all such losses, claims, actions, or judgments for
damages or injury to persons or property and other costs, including litigation costs
and attorneys' fees, arising out of, resulting from , or in connection with the
performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or Contractor's officers, employs,
agents, representatives or subcontractors and resulting in or attributable to
personal injury, death, or damage or destruction to tangible or intangible property,
including use of. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with a Certificate of
Insurance, or other proof of insurance evidencing CONTRACTOR'S compliance
with the requirements of this paragraph and file such proof of insurance with the
CITY at least ten (10) days prior to the date Contractor begins performance of it's
obligations under this Agreement. In the event the insurance minimums are
changed, CONTRACTOR shall immediately submit proof of compliance with the
changed limits. Evidence of all insurance shall be submitted to the City Purchasing
Agent with a copy to Meridian City Accounting, 33 East Broadway Avenue,
Meridian, Idaho 83642.
6.2 Any deductibles, self-insured retention, or named insureds must be declared
in writing and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles, self-insured retentions or named
insureds; or the Contractor shall provide a bond, cash or letter of credit
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses.
6.3 To the extent of the indemnity in this contract, Contractor's Insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance regarding the City's elected officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City
or the City's elected officers, officials, employees and volunteers shall be excess of
the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with Contractor's insurance
except as to the extent of City's negligence.
6.4 The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the
insurer's liability.
6.5 All insurance coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
insurance and indemnity requirements stated herein.
6.6 The limits of insurance described herein shall not limit the liability of the
Contractor and Contractor's agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
7. Bonds: Payment and Performance Bonds are required on all Public Works
Improvement Projects per the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental
Specifications & Drawings to the ISPWC, which by this reference are made a part
hereof.
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 5 of 12
Project 10439
Warranty: All construction and equipment provided under this agreement shall be
warranted for 2 years from the date of the City of Meridian acceptance per the
ISPWC and the Meridian Supplemental Specifications & Drawings to the ISPWC
and any modifications, which by this reference are made a part hereof.
All items found to be defective during a warranty inspection and subsequently
corrected will require an additional two (2) year warranty from the date of City's
acceptance of the corrected work.
9. Meridian Stormwater Specifications: All construction projects require either a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or an erosion sediment control
plan (ESCP) as specified in the City of Meridian Construction Stormwater
Management Program (CSWMP) manual. The CSWMP manual containing the
procedures and guidelines can be found at this address:
10. 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
CONTRACTOR
City of Meridian
L2 Excavation, LLC
Purchasing Manager
Attn: Eric Bird
33 E Broadway Ave
2817 Brandt Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
Nampa, ID 83687
208-888-4433
Phone: 208-800-0330
Email: ericOl2excavation.com
Idaho Public Works License 4tC-020467-A-4
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.
11. 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.
12. 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 party so failing to
perform.
13. Assignment: It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto, that
CONTRACTOR shall not have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate or sell any
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 6 of 12
Project 10439
of its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior express written consent of
CITY.
14. Discrimination Prohibited: In performing the Work required herein,
CONTRACTOR shall not unlawfully discriminate in violation of any federal, state or
local law, rule or regulation against any person on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin or ancestry, age or disability.
15. Reports and Information:
15.1 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.
15.2 Contractor shall maintain all writings, documents and records prepared or
compiled in connection with the performance of this Agreement for a minimum of
four (4) years from the termination or completion of this or Agreement. This
includes any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photo static, photographic and every
other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or
representation including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols or any
combination thereof.
16. 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 CONTRACTOR'S records with respect to all matters covered by
this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall permit the CITY to audit, examine, and make
excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts,
invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and
other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement.
17. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material: No material produced in whole
or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or
in any other country. The CITY shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose
and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared
under this Agreement.
18. Compliance with Laws: In performing the scope of work required hereunder,
CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of
Federal, State, and local governments.
19. ACHD: Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating with the City to obtain
appropriate ACHD permit(s) and will reimburse the City for fees, fines, or
penalties City incurs due to Contractor's violation of any ACHD policy. City shall
certify to ACHD that Contractor is authorized to obtain a Temporary Highway and
Right -of -Way Use Permit from ACHD on City's behalf. The parties acknowledge
and agree that the scope of the agency granted by such certification is limited to,
and conterminous with, the term and scope of this Agreement.
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 7 of 12
Project 10439
20. Changes: The CITY may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Work
to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in
the amount of CONTRACTOR'S compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by
and between the CITY and CONTRACTOR, shall be incorporated in written
amendments which shall be executed with the same formalities as this Agreement.
21. 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.
22. Waiver of Default: Waiver of default by either party to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to be waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision
of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent
breach, and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this
Agreement unless this Agreement is modified as provided above.
23. Advice of Attorney: Each party warrants and represents that in executing this
Agreement. It has received independent legal advice from its attorney's or the
opportunity to seek such advice.
24. 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.
25. Order of Precedence: The order or precedence shall be the contract agreement,
the Invitation for Bid document, then the winning bidders submitted bid document.
26. Public Records Act: Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 9-335, et seq., information
or documents received from the Contractor may be open to public inspection and
copying unless exempt from disclosure. The Contractor shall clearly designate
individual documents as "exempt" on each page of such documents and shall
indicate the basis for such exemption. The CITY will not accept the marking of an
entire document as exempt. In addition, the CITY will not accept a legend or
statement on one (1) page that all, or substantially all, of the document is exempt
from disclosure. The Contractor shall indemnify and defend the CITY against all
liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, actions, attorney fees and suits
whatsoever for honoring such a designation or for the Contractor's failure to
designate individual documents as exempt. The Contractor's failure to designate as
exempt any document or portion of a document that is released by the CITY shall
constitute a complete waiver of any and all claims for damages caused by any such
release.
27. 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.
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT- CONSTRUCTION page 8 of 12
Project 10439
28. Approval Required: This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until
approved by the City of Meridian.
CITY OFMERIDIAN 1-2 EXCAVATION, LLC
TAMMY de WE. RD, MAYOR ERIC BIRD, Vice President
Dated: ( t b Qatedm SuwC J 7-0 t S'
3��,�ivnnerr,nu�os
Approved by Council: 1 %C7E
rc "Yoe
Attest:
JAYCEE L. OLM N; CITY -GL K
Purchasing Approval
BY:
KEIT ,WATTS, Purchasing Manager
Dated::
Project Manager
Dean Stacey
IUAfIO
5�t1Y, W
VP
ib iR [ASu�'�
1
Depar int App oval
WARREN STEVART, Engineering Manager
Dated:: & F
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 9 of 12
Project 10439
Attachment A
F10101a:1156NAT1+11.1:1
REFER TO INVITATION TO BID PW -15-10439
ALL ADDENDUMS, ATTACHMENTS, AND EXHIBITS included in the
Invitation to Bid Package # PW -15-10439, are by this reference made a
part hereof.
• PLAN SHEETS - WATER LINE REPLACEMENT— E. ANTILLES
COURT - BY JUB ENGINEERS, INC dated 8/17/2014 (6 pages)
• SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL
PROVISIONS by JUB ENGINEERS, INC dated 8/14/2014 (56
pages)
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 10 of 12
Project 10439
Attachment B
MILESTONE / PAYMENT SCHEDULE
A. Total and complete compensation for this Agreement shall not exceed
$76,995.30.
_w
Milestone 1
.E: -S:
Substantial Completion
45 (forty five)
days
Milestone 2
Final Completion
60 (sixty) da s
Contract includes furnishing all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals as required for the
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION per IFB PW -15-
10439
CONTRACT TOTAL ...................$7
CONTRACT IS A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT. LINE ITEM PRICING BELOW WILL BE USED FOR INVOICE
VERIFICATION AND ANY ADDITIONAL INCREASES OR DECREASES IN WORK REQUESTED BY CITY.
Item
No.
Description
Quantity
E -1:
Unit
Unit Price
202A.5.A.1
Unsuitable Material Excavation
20
Cy
$10.60
202.4.5.C.1
Unsuitable Material Repair
20
Cy
$20.70
307.4.1.A.1
Miscellaneous Surface Restoration (Landscaping)
1
LS
$2,070.00
307.4.1.F.3
Main Line Type "P" Surface Restoration (Asphalt Roadway)
730
LF
$28.20
310.4.1.A.1
Water Main Casing -16"
45
LF
$98.70
401.4.1.A.1
Water Main Pipe - 6"
47
LF
$21.30
401.4.1.A.1
Water Main Pipe - 8"
541
LF
$30.70
402.4.1.A.1
Valve - Size 6" Gate Valve
2
EA
$1,028.00
402.4.1.A.1
Valve - Size S" Gate Valve
0
EA
0
403.4.1.A.1
Fire Hydrant Assembly
1
EA
$3,060.00
404.4.1.A.1
Water Service Connection
10
EA
$997.00
405.4.1.A.1
Non -potable Water Main and Sewer Main Crossing
2
EA
$421.00
706.4.1.A.1
Standard 3" Rolled Curb and Gutter
60
LF
$23.00
706.4.1.8.3
Concrete Valley Gutter
4
LF
$69.0
706.4.1.E.1
Concrete Sidewalks, 4" thick
36
Sy
$23.00
1103.4.1.A.1
Construction Traffic Control
1
LS
$1,310.00
2010.4.1.A.1
Mobilization
1
LS
$5,550.00
SP -2125.4.1.A
ACHD Permit & License
1
EA
0
SP -2130.4.1.A
Connect to Existing Water Main
1
EA
$3,110.00
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 11 of 12
Project 10439
SP -2130.4.1.13
Connect to Existing Fire Hydrant
1
EA
$776.00
SP -2165.4.1.A.1
Abandon Existing Water Line
1
LS
$944.00
SP -2216.4.1.A.1
Stormwater Management
1
LS
$1,560.00
Travel expenses, if applicable, will be paid at no more than the City of Meridian's Travel and
Expense Reimbursement Policy.
WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - E ANTILLES COURT - CONSTRUCTION page 12 of 12
Project 10439
eTRAKiT
Home I Setup an Account I Login COnlfdefOf V Pasm%m0 LOGIN ❑ REMEMBER ME Forgot Password
Permits
Apply Public Works Search b'} Searcn Agahm Ds .. I.,,d Results Nittuble Vac,
Search
Pay Fres
L2 Excavation LLC 020467 02240,02195,02310,02404,02955,0 2230,02970,07570,02500 4
Licenses L2 Insulation, Inc. PWC -C-17622 0720, 07800, 07400, 09960, 07100 4
Search Trade Licenses
Search Public Works —<
Inspections
Sen Tule First; Pr_eJ Page: i ort NezS LLaso-'
Lensed ;Details - License Number: 020467
Elevators _
Search Elevators Licinro Fees $425.00
Violations
Search Registration M: 020467
Shopping Cart Issue: W26/2015
Pay All Fees
Contact Expire: 2 /2 812 01 6
Contmetus Type: PUBLIC WORKS
Sub -Type: A
Status: ACTIVE
Company: L2 Excavation LLC
Phone: (208)440-7900
Cell: (208) 440-7900
Pager:
Fax: (208)442-2572
Owner Name:
Page 1 of 1
A
cc
The [Lesson of franding Safely, makes every amen to produce and publish the most cams and accurate mpon allon Possible. No wananties, expressed or tripled. are meemd tonins data herein. its use, or
its In I arms (at ion, Lillzabon of this we has indiceles understand, and acceptance of this statement.
1-800-955-3044,1090 E Waletlower SL Suite 150 Mercian IB 83642
HpME I CONTACT
https://web.dbs.idaho.gov/eTRAKiT3/Custom/Idaho_PublicWorlrsSearchRslts.aspx 6/2/2015
IDSOS Viewing Business Entity
Page 1 of 1
IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE
.,r $ Viewing Business Entity
Lawerence Denney, Secretary of State
[ New Search ] [ Back to Summary ]
[ Get a certificate of existence for L2 EXCAVATION. LLC ]
[ Monitor L2 EXCAVATION. LLC business filings ]
L2 EXCAVATION, LLC
2817 BRANDT AVE
NAMPA,ID 83687
Type of Business: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Status:
EXISTING
State of Origin:
IDAHO
Date of 25 Jul 2014
Origination/Authorization:
Current Registered Agent:
KELLY RAY LANE
4203 S. HAPPY VALLEY RD
NAMPA,ID 83686
File Number:
W140450
Date of Last Annual Report:
21 May 2015
Annual Report Due:
Jul 2016
Original Filing:
[ Help Me Print/View TIFF ]
Filed 25 Jul 2014 CERTIFICATE OF View Image (PDF format)
ORGANIZATION View Image (TIFF format)
[ Help Me Print/View TIFF ]
Report for year 2015 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online
Idaho Secretary of State's Main Page State of Idaho Home Pace
Comments, questions or suggestions can be emailed to: sosinfo(d)sos.idaho.gov
http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp[W140450.html 6/2/2015
'4`CO� ��®
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE oa/o /20 s'
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES
BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURERS), AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder [son ADDITIONAL INSURED, the polioy(les) must be endorsed. if SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to
the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the
certificate holder In lieu of such ondonaemawtlsh.. s n a a sea.
PRODUCERNOAOMT
BALLENGER INSURANCE
P 0 BOX 450
NAMPA ID 83653
JUN0 5
FII®p�
2015
T BRENDA SCOTT
N M
PHONE .120111 466-8944 TP.15.c o • (20e1 465-0539
E- AILSS. b,IEJrenda@ballengerinsurance.com
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC#
INSURERAAUTO—OWNERS INSURANCE CO {
INSURED
L2 EXCAVATION LLC
4203 S HAPPY VALLEY RD
NAMPA ID 83686
—
LIMITS
INSURER B AUTO—OWNERS INSURANCE CO
_
INSURER c.UTO—OWNERS INSURANCE CO
INSURERD:ID STATE INSURANCE FOND
INSURERE:
INSURER F:
COVERAGES
CERTIFICATF NtIMRFR-
RFVIgInM MIIn IRWO.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.
EXCLUSIONSAND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
INTI
TYPE OF INSURANCEAUvL
SUM
POLICYNUMSER
POLICY EFF
DIYYYY
POLICY EXP
MMIDO
LIMITS
A
GENERALLIABILITY
y
57991743
09/15/2014
9/15/2015
EACHOCCURRENCE 5 1,000,000
X COMMERCALGENEMLLIABILITY
CLAIMS -MACE OOCCUR
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
PREMISES Eav .D. $ 300,000
MEDFXP(Anyvneperarn) $ 10,000
PERSONALSADV INJURY $ 1,000,000
GENERALAGGREGATE $ 2,000,000
GEMLAGGREOATE
LIMIT APPLIES PER
PRODUCTS-COMPIOPAGG $ 2,000,000
/ /
/ /
X POLICY
PRO- LOC
/ /
/ /
$
B
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
9-991743-00
09/15/2014
9/15/2015
CEOM Id UISNGLE IMIT S 1,000,000
1L ANYAUTO
/ /
/ /
BODILY INJURY(Puparmn) 6
ALLONMED SCHEDULED
AUTOS AUTOS
NONOMED
HIRED AUTOS AUTOS
/ /
/
/ /
/
BODILY INJURY Per scddenl 6
( )
PR PE ttDA GE $
per tlenl
C
UMBRELLA LIAR
X
OCCUR
9-991743-01
9/15/2014
9/15/2015
EACHOCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000
EXCESS LIAR
CLAIMS -MACE
/ /
/ /
AGGREGATE $ 3,000,000
DEO I I RETENTIONS
$
/ /
/ /
D
WORKERS COMPENSATION
ANDEMPLOYERS• LIABIMttIM
ANY PROPNETOR/PARTNEWE%ECUTIVE YIN
OFFICERJMEMBER F�(CWDEDi
(Mandatory In NH)
up 4esalbeundar
O�RPTION OF OPERATIONS below
NIA
646592
8/12/2014
/ /
/ /
8/12/2015
/ /
/ /
X OR ST T OTH-
E. L. EACHACCIDENT $ 100,000
EL DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE 5 100,000
EL. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT S 500,000
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS ILOCATIONS I VEHICLES (Aftach ACORD IOL Addifla"M Remarks Schadvia• If mom specs is requimd)
CITY OF MERIDIAN IS NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE GL ONLY
( ) — (208) 898-5501
ATTN: PURCHASING MANAGER
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 E. BROADWAY AVE STE 106
MERIDIAN ID 83642—
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
AU�THO�RIND REPRESENTATIVE
0
IRSUZ5 (201005I0d The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
JUN 0 5 2015
#A®
IA Document A312 TM .201 0 FINANCE DEPT
Performance Bond
CONTRACTOR:
(Name, legal status and address)
L2 Excavation, LLC
2817 Brandt Ave
Nampa, Idaho 83687
OWNER:
(Name, legal status and address)
City of Meridian
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, Idaho 83642
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Date: 06/23/2015
Amount: $76,995.30
SURETY:
(Name, legal status and principal place
of business) ty
Indemnity Company of California
Five Centerpointe, Suite 530
Lake Osweqo, Oreqon 97035
Description:
(Name and location) Project No. 10439
Water Line Replacement- E Antilles Court
BOND
Date: 06/23/2015
(Not earlier than Construction Contract Date)
Amount: $76,995.39
Modifications to this Bond; ® None 17 See Section 16
CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corporate Seal) Company: (Corporate Seal)
L2 Excavati Indemnity Company of California
Signature: SignaN
Nam& E V t C. i r(> Name Ka - I A ter, Attome do -Fact
and Title: J t Crc :rte` t O-yy j and Title:
(Airy &Mir nal signatures appear on the fast page ojthrs Performance Bond)
(FOR INFORMA770NONLy—Name, addressandrelephone)
AGENT or BROKER; OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE:
Allied Bonding (Architect, Engineer or otherparty:)
5605 Overland Rd.
Boise, ID 83705
Phone (208) 345.4177
Fax (208) 384-1677
Bond No. 756862P
This document has Important legal
consequences. ConautatIon with
an attorney Is encouraged with
respect to its completion or
modification.
Any singular reference to
Contractor, Surety, Owner or
other party shell be considered
plural where applicable.
ALA Document A312-2010
Combine& two separate bonds, a
Performance Bond and a
Payment Bond, Into one form.
This Is not a Single combined
Performance and Payment Bond,
Init A4 00ou111&ntA312--2010. The Amedran lneatute ofArchilacia. Willa
§ 1 The Contractor and Surety, jointly and severally, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors
and assigns to the Owner for the performance of the Construction Contract, which is incorporated herein by reference.
§ 2 If the Contractor performs the Construction Contract, the Surety and the Contractor shall have no obligation under
this Bond, except when applicable to participate in a conference as provided in Section 3.
§ 3 If there is no Owner Default under the Construction Contract, the Surety's obligation under this Bond shall arise
after
.1 the Owner fust provides notice to the Contractor and the Surety that the Owner is considering declaring
a Contractor Default. Such notice shalt indicate whether the Owner is requesting a conference among
the Owner, Contractor and Surety to discuss the Contractor's performance. If the Owner does not
request a conference, the Surety may, within five (5) business days after receipt of the Owner's notice,
request such a conference. If the Surety timely requests a conference, the Owner shall attend. Unless
the Owner agrees otherwise, any conference requested under this Section 3.1 shall be held within ten
(10) business days of the Surety's receipt of the Owner's notice. If the Owner, the Contractor and the
Surety agree, the Contractor shall be allowed a reasonable time to perform the Construction Contract,
but such an agreement shall not waive the Owner's right, if any, subsequently to declare a Contractor
Default;
.2 the Owner declares a Contractor Default, terminates the Construction Contract and notifies the Surety;
and
.3 the Owner has agreed to pay the Balance of the Contract Price in accordance with the terms of the
Construction Contract to the Surety or to a contractor selected to perform the Construction Contract.
§ 4 Failure on the pact of the Owner to comply with the notice requirement in Section 3.1 shall not constitute a failure
to comply with a condition precedent to the Surety's obligations, or release the Surety from its obligations, except to
the extent the Surety demonstrates actual prejudice.
§ 5 When the Owner has satisfied the conditions of Section 3, the Surety shall promptly and at the Surety's expense
take one of the following actions:
§ 5.1 Arrange for the Contractor, with the consent of the Owner, to perform and complete the Construction Contract;
§ 5.2 Undertake to perform and complete the Construction Contract itself, through its agents or independent
contractors;
§ 5.3 Obtain bids or negotiated proposals from qualified contractors acceptable to the Owner for a contract for
performance and completion of the Construction Contract, arrange for a contract to be prepared for execution by the
Owner and a contractor selected with the Owner's concurrence, to be secured with performance and payment bonds
executed by a qualified surety equivalent to the bonds issued on the Construction Contract, and pay to the owner the
amount of damages as described in Section 7 in excess of the Balance of the Contract Price incurred by the Owner as
a result of the Contractor Default; or
§ 5.4 Waive its right to perform and complete, arrange for completion, or obtain a new contractor and with reasonable
promptness under the circumstances;
.1 After investigation, determine the amount for which it may be liable to the Owner and, as soon as
practicable after the amount is determined, make payment to the Owner; or
.2 Deny liability in whole or in part and notify the Owner, citing the reasons for denial.
§ 5 If the Surety does not proceed as provided in Section 5 with reasonable promptness, the Surety shall be deemed to
be in default on this Bond seven days after receipt of an additional written notice from the Owner to the Surety
demanding that the Surety perform its obligations under this Bond, and the Owner shall be entitled to enforce any
remedy available to the Owner. If the Surety proceeds as provided in Section 5.4, and the Owner refuses the payment
or the Surety has denied liability, in whole or in part, whhout further notice the Owner shall be entitled to enforce any
remedy available to the Owner.
MR. AtAnOeameMAMM-4010. The Am dean lneatmedArchite .
§ 7I the Surety elects tow under Section 5.1, 5.2 or 5.3, then the responsibilities of the Surety to the Owner shall not
be greater than those of the Contractor under the Construction Contract, and the responsibilities of the Owner to the
Surety shall not be greater than those of the Owner under the Construction Contract. Subject to the commitment by the
Owner to pay the Balance of the Contract Price, the Surety is obligated, without duplication, for
.1 the responsibilities of the Contractor for correction of defective work and completion of the
Construction Contract;
.2 additional legal, design professional and delay costs resulting from the Contractor's Default, and
resulting from the actions or failure to act of the Surety under Section 5; and
.3 liquidated damages, or if no liquidated damages are specified in the Construction Contract, actual
damages caused by delayed performance or non-performance of the Contractor.
§ 8 If the Surety elects to act under Section 5.1, 5.3 or 5.4, the Surety's liability is limited to the amount of this Bond.
§ 9 The Surety shall not be liable to the Owner or others for obligations of the Contractor that are unrelated to the
Construction Contract, and the Balance of the Contract Price shall not be reduced or set off on account of any such
unrelated obligations. No right of action shall accrue on this Bond to any person or entity other than the Owner or its
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
§ 10 The Surety hereby waives notice of any change, including changes of time, to the Construction Contract or to
related subcontracts, purchase orders and other obligations.
§ 11 Any proceeding, legal or equitable, under this Bond may be instituted in any court of competent jurisdiction in
the location in which the work or part of the work is located and shall be instituted within two years alter a declaration
of Contractor Default or within two years after the Contractor ceased working or within two yam after the Surety
refuses or fails to perform its obligations under this Bond, whichever occurs first. If the provisions of this Paragraph
are void or prohibited by law, the minimum period of limitation available to sureties as a defense in the jurisdiction of
the suit shall be applicable.
§ 12 Notice to the Surety, the Owner or the Contractor shall be mailed or delivered to the address shown on the page
on which their signature appears,
§ 13 When this Bond has been famished to comply with a statutory or other legal requirement in the location where
the construction was to be performed, any provision in this Bond conflicting with said statutory or legal requirement
shall be deemed deleted herefrom and provisions conforming to such statutory or other legal requirement shall be
deemed incorporated herein. When so famished, the intent Is that this Bond shall be construed as a statutory bond and
not as a common law bond.
§ 14 Definl6one
§ 14.1 Balance of the Contract Prlcs. The total amount payable by the Owner to the Contractor under the Construction
Contract after all proper adjustments have been made, including allowance to the Contractor of any amounts received
or to be received by the Owner in settlement of insurance or other claims for damages to which the Contractor is
entitled, reduced by all valid and proper payments made to or on behalf of the Contractor under the Construction
Contract.
§ 14.2 Construction Contract. The agreement between the Owner and Contractor identified on the cover page,
including all Contract Documents and changes made to the agreement and the Contract Documents.
§ 14.3 Contractor Default Failure of the Contractor, which has not been remedied or waived, to perform or otherwise to
comply with a material tens of the Construction Contract.
§ 14.4 Owner Default. Failure of the Owner, which has not been remedied or waived, to pay the Contractor as required
under the Construction Contract or to perform and complete or comply with the other material terms of the
Construction Contract,
§ 14.5 Contract Documents. All the documents that comprise the agreement between the Owner and Contractor.
§ 151f this Bond is issued for an agreement between a Contractor and subcontractor, the term Contractor in this Bond
shall be deemed to be Subcontractor and the term Owner shall be deemed to be Contractor.
Ink. AIA DeOument A312--2010. The Am man Ineeluts ofArohaeels.
§ 16 Modifications to this bond are as follows:
None
(Space is provided below for additional signatures of added partles, other than those appearing on the cover page.)
CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corporate Seal) Company: (Corporate Seal)
Signature:
Name and Title:
Address
Signature:
Name and Title:
Address
CAUTION: You should sign an original AIA Contract Document, on which this text appears In RED. An original assures that
changes will not be obscured.
IntL r uaaumemwaez`aara. The Amenean inaabee etAabheea.
Inh-
R
JUN Q 5 2015
FINANCE ,.
*AIA Document A312TM
-2010
Payment Bond
CONTRACTOR:
(Name, legal status and address)
L2 Excavation, LLC
2817 Brandt Ave
Nama, Idaho 83687
OWNI R:
(Name, legal status and address)
City of Meridian
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, Idaho 83642
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Date: 0612312015
Amount: $76,995.30
SURETY:
(Name, legal status and principal place
of business)
Indemnity Company of California
Five Centerpolnte, Suite 530
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Description:
(Name and location) Project No. 10439
Water Line Replacement- E Antilles Court
BOND
Date: 06/23/2015
(Not earlier than Construction Contract Date)
Amount: $76,995.30
Modifications to this Bond: 90 None ❑ See Section 18
Bond No. 756862P
This document has important legal
consequences. Consultation with
an attorney Is encouraged with
respect to Its completion or
modification.
Arty singular reference to
Contractor, Surety, Owner or
other parry shell be considered
plural where applicable.
AIA Document A312-2010
combine& two separate bonds, e
Performance Bond and e
Payment Bond, into one to=,
This Is not a single combined
Performance and Payment Bond.
CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corporate Seal) Company: (Corporate Seal)
L2 Excavation, LLC a Indemnity Company of California
Signature: Signa G rU/ti7
Name �i2.t G.. '$ tp„j Name Ka IA ;hter, Afto ey-in-Fact
and Title: V1e �t2cSLfl hLi and Title:
(Airy additional signatures appear on the last page ojthis ay Bond)
(FOR 1NFORMA770NONLY— Name, address and telephone)
AGENT or BROKER: OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE:
Allied Bonding (Architect Engineer orotherparty)
5605 Overland Rd.
Boise, ID 83705
Phone(208)345-4177
Fax (208) 384-1677
�3Y1V. rM nrnen�m IMlllute W Archlleab.
Willa
§ 1 The Contractor and Surety, jointly and severally, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors
and assigns to the Owner to pay for labor, materials and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the
Construction Contract, which is incorporated herein by reference, subject to the following terms.
§ 2 If the Contractor promptly makes payment of all sums due to Claimants, and defends, indemnifies and holds
harmless the Owner from claims, demands, liens or suits by any person or entity seeking payment for labor, materials
or equipment furnished for use in the performance of the Construction Contract, then the Surety and the Contractor
shall have no obligation under this Bond.
§ 3 If there is no Owner Default under the Construction Contract, the Surety's obligation to the Owner under this Bond
shall arise after the Owner has promptly notified the Contractor and the Surety (at the address described in Section 13)
of claims, demands, liens or suits against the Owner or the Owner's property by any person or entity seeking payment
for labor, materials or equipment furnished for use in the performance of the Construction Contract and tendered
defense of such claims, demands, liens or suits to the Contractor and the Surety.
§ 4 When the Owner has satisfied the conditions in Section 3, the Surety shall promptly and at the Surety's expense
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Owner against a duty tendered claim, demand, lien or suit.
§ 5 The Surety's obligations to a Claimant under this Bond shall arise after the following:
§ 5.1 Claimants, who do not have a direct contract with the Contractor,
.1 have famished a written notice of non-payment to the Contractor, stating with substantial accuracy the
amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the materials were, or equipment was, furnished or
supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed, within ninety (90) days after having last
performed labor or last furnished materials or equipment included in the Claim; and
.2 have sent a Claim to the Surety (at the address described in Section 13).
§ 5.2 Claimants, who are employed by or have a direct contract with the Contractor, have sent a Claim to the Surety (at
the address described in Section 13).
§ 5 If a notice of non-payment required by Section 5.1. l is given by the Owner to the Contractor, that is sufficient to
satisfy a Claimant's obligation to furnish a written notice of non-payment under Section 5.1.1.
§ 7 When a Claimant has satisfied the conditions of Sections 5.1 or 5.2, whichever is applicable, the Surety shall
promptly and at the Surety's expense take the following actions:
§ 7.1 Send an answer, to the Claimant, with a copy to the Owner, within sixty (60) days after receipt of the Claim,
stating the amounts that aro undisputed and the basis for challenging any amounts that are disputed; and
171 Pay or arrange for payment of any undisputed amounts.
17.3 The Surety's failure to discharge its obligations under Section 7.1 or Section 7.2 shall not be deemed to
constitute a waiver of defenses the Surety or Contractor may have or acquire as to a Claim, except as to undisputed
amounts for which the Surety and Claimant have reached agreement. If, however, the Surety fails to discharge its
obligations under Section 7.1 or Section 7.2, the Surety shall indemnify the Claimant for the reasonable attorney's
fees the Claimant incurs thereafter to recover any sums found to be due and owing to the Claimant.
§ 5 The Surety's total obligation shall not exceed the amount of this Bond, plus the amount of reasonable attorney's
fees provided under Section 7.3, and the amount of this Bond shall he credited for any payments made in good faith
by the Surety.
§ 9 Amounts owed by the Owner to the Contractor under the Construction Contract shall be used for the performance
of the Construction Contract and to satisfy claims, if any, under any construction performance bond, By the
Contractor furnishing and the Owner accepting this Bond, they agree that all funds earned by the Contractor in the
performance of the Construction Contract are dedicated to satisfy obligations of the Contractor and Surety under this
Bond, subject to the Owner's priority to use the funds for the completion of the work.
Ink AIA Do MaatA312-- 2010. The Amerkan lneaMe ofAmhxeab.
110 The Surety shall not be liable to the Owner, Claimants or others for obligations of the Contractor that are
unrelated to the Construction Contract. The Owner shall not be liable for the payment of any costs or expenses of any
Claimant under this Bond, and shall have under this Bond no obligation to make payments to, or give notice on behalf
of, Claimants or otherwise have any obligations to Claimants under this Bond.
§ 11 The Surety hereby waives notice of any change, including changes of time, to the Construction Contract or to
related subcontracts, purchase orders and other obligations,
§ 12 No suit or action shall be commenced by a Claimant under this Bond other than in a court of competent
jurisdiction in the state in which the project that is the subject of the Construction Contract is located or after the
expiration of one year from the date (1) on which the Claimant sent a Claim to the Surety pursuant to
Section S. 1.2 or 5.2, or (2) on which the last labor or service was performed by anyone or the last materials or
equipment were furnished by anyone under the Construction Contract, whichever of (1) or (2) fust occurs. If the
provisions of this Paragraph are void or prohibited by law, the minimum period of limitation available to sureties as a
defense in the jurisdiction of the suit shall be applicable.
§ 13 Notice and Claims to the Surety, the Owner or the Contractor shall be mailed or delivered to the address shown
on the page on which their signature appears, Actual receipt of notice or Claims, however accomplished, shall be
sufficient compliance as of the date received.
§ 14 When this Bond has been furnished to comply with a statutory or other legal requirement in the location where
the construction was to be performed, any provision in this Bond conflicting with said statutory or legal requirement
shall be deemed deleted herefrom and provisions conforming to such statutory or other legal requirement shall be
deemed incorporated herein. When so furnished, the intent is that this Bond shall be construed as a statutory bond and
not as a common law bond.
§ 15 Upon request by any person or entity appearing to be a potential beneficiary of this Bond, the Contractor and
Owner shall promptly furnish a copy of this Bond or shall permit a copy to be made.
§ 16 Daflnillons
§ 16.1 Claim, A written statement by the Claimant including at a minimum:
.1 the name of the Claimant;
.2 the name of the person for whom the labor was done, or materials or equipment famished;
.3 a copy of the agreement or purchase order pursuant to which labor, materials or equipment was
furnished for use in the performance of the Construction Contract;
.4 a brief description of the labor, materials or equipment furnished;
.5 the date on which the Claimant last performed labor or last furnished materials or equipment for use in
the performance of the Construction Contract;
.6 the total amount earned by the Claimant for labor, materials or equipment furnished as of the date of
the Claim;
.7 the total amount of previous payments received by the Claimant; and
.6 the total amount due and unpaid to the Claimant for labor, materials or equipment furnished as of the
date of the Claim.
§ 16.2 Claimant. An individual or entity having a direct contract with the Contractor or with a subcontractor of the
Contractor to furnish labor, materials or equipment for use in the performance of the Construction Contract. The tern
Claimant also includes any individual or entity that has rightfully asserted a claim under an applicable mechanic's lien
or similar statute against the real property upon which the Project is located. The intent of this Bond shall be to
include without limitation in the terms "labor, materials or equipment" that par of water, gas, power, light, heat, oil,
gasoline, telephone service or rental equipment used in the Construction Contract, architectural and engineering
services required for performance of the work of the Contractor and the Contractor's subcontractors, and all other
items for which a mechanic's lien may be asserted in the jurisdiction where the labor, materials or equipment were
famished.
§ 16.3 Conatrucdon Contract The agreement between the Owner and Contractor identified on the cover page,
including all Contract Documents and all changes made to the agreement and the Contract Documents.
Int. AIA DoeumentA312--2010. The Amedun Inelaube Of Architects.
§ 16.4 Owner Delault. Failure of the Owner, which has not been remedied or waived, to pay the Contractor as required
under the Construction Contract or to perform and complete or comply with the other material terms of the
Construction Contract.
§ 16.6 Contract DocumeMe. All the documents that comprise the agreement between the Owner and Contractor.
§
17 If this Bond is issued for an agreement between a Contractor and subcontractor, the term Contractor in this Bond
shall be deemed to be Subcontractor and the term Owner shall be deemed to be Contractor.
§ 18 Modifications to this bond are as follows:
None
(Space is provided below for addittonarsignatiew ofadded parites, other than those appearing on the cover page.)
CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
company: (Corporate Seat) Company: (Corporate Seat)
Signature:
Name and Title:
Address
Signature:
Name and Title:
Address
CAUTION: You should sign an original AIA Contract Document, on which this text appears In RED. An original assures that
Changes will not be obscured.
Ink AIA DoounrntA212�-20ta. The AnWan lnstlWla dMhaecb.
POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR
DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
PO Box 19725, IRVINE, CA 92623 (949) 263-3300
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS that except as expressly limited, DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, do each
hereby make, constitute and appoint:
"`Karyl A. Richter, Janet K. Holthaus, jointly or severally"*
as their he and lawful A9omey(s)-in-Fac4 to make, execute, deliver and acknowledge, for and on behalf of said corporations, as sureties, bonds, undertakings and contracts of
suretyship giving and granting unto said Aeomey(s)-in-Fact full power and authority to do and to perform every act necessary, requisite ar proper to be done in connection therewith as
each of said corporations could do, but reserving to each of said corpora8ans full power of substitution and revocation, and all of the acts of said Aftomey(s)-in-Fact, pursuant to these
presents, are hereby ratified and confirmed.
This Power ofAttornay is granted and is signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the respective Boards of Directors of DEVELOPERS SURETY
AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, effective as of January 1st, 2008.
RESOLVED, that a combination of any two of the Chairman of the Board, the President, Executive Vic&President. Senior Vice -President or any Vice President of the
corporations be, and that each of them hereby is, authorized to execute this Power of Attorney, qualifying the attomey(s) named in the Power of Attorney to execute, on behalf of the
corporations, bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship; and that the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of either of the corporations be, and each of them hereby is, authorized
to all the execution of any such Power of Attorney;
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the signatures of such officers may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such
Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures shall be valid and binding upon the corporations when so affixed and in the future with respect to any bond, undertaking
or contract of suretyship to which it is attached.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA have severally caused these presents to he signed by
their respective officers and attested by their rreespeActi/ve Secretary or Assistant Secretary this January 29, 2015.
`� v/
BY .,I. ,nND,GYp"F OpbPAN Vpo
Daniel Young, Senior Vice-president,•'•yJ,•upPPeRgr� �iy :; �V OPPORgr �
OCT.
IA notary public or other omcer completing this certificate verifies only the Identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate Is attached. and not the truthfulness_ accurarm. nr vaeduv of mer decumenl
State of California
County of Orange
On _January 29 2015 —before me, . Lucille Raymond Notary Public
eels Hwa treat Nana wMlab oltla OR r �� —�
personally appeared _ Daniel You and Mark Lansdon
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons) whose remelt) hitare subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by hislhedtheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
LUCILLE RAYMOND which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Commletlan 0 2081945
Notary Public • CdlforMa
=Orange county
M Comm. Ex Iran Oct 13 2018+
Place Notary Seal Above
I witty under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
We and correcL
WITNESS my hand and official seal.&;A
Signature ,
Lucili y ond, Notary Public
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, as Secretary or Assistant Secretary of DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY or INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, does hereby
certify that the foregoing Power of Attomey remains In full force and has not been revoked and, furthermore, that the provisions of the resolutions of the respective Boards of Directors of
said corporations set forth in the Power of Attorney are in force as of the date of Ibis Certificate,
(/���Thiis�Ceificateis executed in the City of Irvine, California, this day of V_ �`ht
By: �Jc�i'!'W J
Cassie J. rdsford, Assistant Secifietary
ID-1380(Rev.01/15)
Fa
t<-
2 2G OCT. 6 T
By: // — :o€ 1936 :'o
w 1967
Mark Lansdon, Vice -President a`oat+,-
IA notary public or other omcer completing this certificate verifies only the Identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate Is attached. and not the truthfulness_ accurarm. nr vaeduv of mer decumenl
State of California
County of Orange
On _January 29 2015 —before me, . Lucille Raymond Notary Public
eels Hwa treat Nana wMlab oltla OR r �� —�
personally appeared _ Daniel You and Mark Lansdon
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons) whose remelt) hitare subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by hislhedtheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
LUCILLE RAYMOND which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Commletlan 0 2081945
Notary Public • CdlforMa
=Orange county
M Comm. Ex Iran Oct 13 2018+
Place Notary Seal Above
I witty under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
We and correcL
WITNESS my hand and official seal.&;A
Signature ,
Lucili y ond, Notary Public
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, as Secretary or Assistant Secretary of DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY or INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, does hereby
certify that the foregoing Power of Attomey remains In full force and has not been revoked and, furthermore, that the provisions of the resolutions of the respective Boards of Directors of
said corporations set forth in the Power of Attorney are in force as of the date of Ibis Certificate,
(/���Thiis�Ceificateis executed in the City of Irvine, California, this day of V_ �`ht
By: �Jc�i'!'W J
Cassie J. rdsford, Assistant Secifietary
ID-1380(Rev.01/15)
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015
ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: AP 15-002
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: AP 15-002 Franklin Mini Storage by
Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E. Franklin Road Request: City Council
Approval of a Reduction in the Buffer Width Required in the C -G Zoning
District to Residential Uses as Allowed by Unified Development Code
(UDC) 11 -3B -9C.2
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: SHP 15-001
ITEM TITLE: Newton's Nook Subdivision
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-001 Newton's
Nook Subdivision No. 2 by Penwood III, LLC Located 397 SW 5th Avenue Request: Short
Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on Approximately 0.26 Acres in the L -O
Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
a✓
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: SHP 15-002
ITEM TITLE: Newton's Nook Subdivision
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-002 Newton's
Nook Subdivision No. 3 by Penwood III, LLC Located 381 SW 5th Avenue Request: Short
Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on Approximately 0.20 Acres in the L -O
Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16. 2015
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: SHP 15-003
ITEM TITLE: Findinas of Fact/Newton's Nook
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Approval: SHP 15-003
Newton's Nook Subdivision No. 4 by Penwood III, LLC Located 397 SW 5th
Avenue Request: Short Plat Approval for Two (2) Commercial Lots on
Approximately 0.20 Acres in the L -O Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
�M�
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
&MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: FP 15-016
ITEM TITLE: Final Order for Approval/ Paramount Subdivision
Final Order for Approval: FP 15-016 Paramount Subdivision No. 29 by
Brighton Land Holdings, LLC Located West Side of N. Meridian Road and
the North Side of W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval
Consisting of Sixty -Two (62) Building Lots, Twelve (12) Common Lots and
Three (3) Other Lots on 18.42 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
APPROVED
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: FP 15-019
ITEM TITLE: Oak Leaf Subdivison
FP 15-019 Oak Leaf Subdivision No. 2 by Oak Leaf Development Company, Inc.
Located North of Chinden Boulevard and West of N. Jayker Way Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Eleven (1 1) Single Family Residential Lots on Approximately 7.99
Acres in the R-2 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
b
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: FP 15-013
ITEM TITLE: Silverwater Subdivsion
Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-013 Silverwater Subdivision No. 2 by Trilogy
Development Located at the South Side of E. Victory Road on the East Side of S.
Standing Timber Way, in the NW 1/4 of Section 30, Township 3N., Range 1 E., Request
for Final Plat Consisting of 2 Common Lots on 4.67 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning
District
MEETING NOTES
-__ 1
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Items moved From Consent
MEETING NOTES
.5 A Moved\
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: City Hall West Side Parking Lot
City Hall West Side Parking Lot -Temporary License Agreement with Ada
County Highway District (ACRD)
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
TO: PURCHASING
FROM: Max Jensen
DATE: 6/10/15
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird Joe Burton
Luke Cavener Genesis Milam
Charlie Rountree David Zaremba
SUBJECT: PROJECT INFO MEMO; City Hall West Side Parking Lot — Temporary
License Agreement with ACHD
I. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS
Max Jensen, Capital Projects Manager 489-0344
John McCormick, Deputy Director of Public Works 489-0378
Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372
II. DESCRIPTION
This Agreement is required by ACHD for landscape installation within the ACHD Right -
of -Way. As part of the City Hall West Side Parking Lot project, the City will be
installing landscaping along Broadway Ave and N. Meridian Rd and therefore is required
to execute a Temporary License Agreement with ACHD.
III. IMPACT
A. Fiscal Impact: There are no fiscal impacts associated with this Temporary
License Agreement
Approved for Process:6-1
Date:
Public Works Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 200, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-898-5500 . Fax 208-898-9551 . www.meridiancity.org
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Eagle Scout
Eagle Scout Project Presentation by Jacob Chambers
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
SAVING LIVES WITH EAGLES AND HAWKS
9' "r Event:
MEET LOCAL Boy SCOUT, JACOB CHAMBERS Dates:
Jacob Chambers is doing something unique for his
Eagle Project. He's saving lives, and HE NEEDS YOUR HELP.
Over 12,000 blood cancer patients each year need a Time:
marrow transplant to have a chance of survival, and 70% of Location
them don't have a matched donor in their family. They
turn to the Be The Match Registry° in hopes of finding a
matched unrelated donor.
YOU could be the one a patient is searching for right
now. YOU can join the Be The Match Registry® and
become part of the cure. IT'S EASY to become a registered
donor on the Be The Match Registry® and potentially save
a patient's life. It takes just a few minutes to fill out a little
paperwork and provide a DNA sample with a quick swab of
the cheek.
Jacob will be adding willing community members to
the Be The Match Registry' and raising money through a
silent auction to help Be The Match® support patients and
their donors at the Boise Hawks baseball games on July
91h, 101h and 11th. Please, join us in...
Saving Lives with Eagles and Hawks!
Proudly Sponsored By
Everett AquaSox @ Boise Hawks
Thursday, Friday and Saturday
July 9, 10 and 11, 2015
(Fireworks Saturday Night)
Gates open at 6:00 p.m.
Memorial Stadium
5600 N Glenwood Street
Boise, ID 83714
Or Join the Registry online at:
Join. BeTheMatch.ore/EagiesAndHawks
Participate in our Silent Auction at
the event or contribute online at:
BeThe Match Fou ndation.ore/goto/EagiesAndH awks
For more information, please contact
our Be The Match° representative:
John Philpott
(801) 520-1383
1ohn.Philpott@nmdp.org
NP00883, JAN 2014
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Ju
n
e
1
6
,
2
0
1
5
h2
Sl
i
d
e
1
h2
Ag
e
n
d
a
I
t
e
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
s
/
O
r
d
e
r
:
ho
o
d
c
,
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
0
6
It
e
m
#
8
B
:
S
i
l
v
e
r
w
a
t
e
r
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
N
o
.
3
Zo
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
t
It
e
m
#
8
C
:
T
h
r
e
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
R
e
z
o
n
e
–
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
Th
r
e
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
R
e
z
o
n
e
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
It
e
m
#
8
D
:
P
i
n
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
It
e
m
#
8
E
:
H
i
l
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
/
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
F
a
r
m
S
c
h
o
o
l
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
F
u
t
u
r
e
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
M
a
p
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
(
A
n
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
)
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
–
R
E
V
I
S
E
D (Annexation)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
z
o
n
e
A
r
e
a
It
e
m
#
8
F
:
H
i
l
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
–
A
n
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
It
e
m
#
8
G
:
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
F
a
r
m
S
c
h
o
o
l
-
R
e
z
o
n
e
Co
n
c
e
p
t
P
l
a
n
Co
n
c
e
p
t
P
l
a
n
-
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
Co
n
c
e
p
t
P
l
a
n
f
o
r
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
,
YM
C
A
,
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
,
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
,
&
H
e
a
l
t
h
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
YM
C
A
/
P
a
r
k
It
e
m
#
8
H
,
I
:
N
e
s
t
i
n
g
S
w
a
n
R
a
n
c
h
–
Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
An
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
Ar
e
a
Preliminary Plat Area
Ae
r
i
a
l
V
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
S
i
t
e
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ph
o
t
o
s
o
f
t
h
e
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: PY2015
ITEM TITLE: Community Development
Community Development Block Grant PY2015 Action Plan Draft
Prioritization Hearing
MEETING NOTES
S.A
9 APPROVED
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE June 16, 2015 ITEM # 8A
Number:
l:UUU F'YLU7b Action vian uratt
Project Name: Prioritization
PLEASE PRINT NAME
FOR
AGAINST
NEUTRAL
JUN 16 2095
CITY
CITY(; LR:<�3 C'IF ICE
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: FP 15-012
ITEM TITLE: Silverwater Subdivsion
B. Continued from May 26, 2015: FP 15-012 Silverwater Subdivision No. 3 by Trilogy
Development Located at the South Side of E. Victory Road Midway Between S.
Meridian Rd and S. Locust Grove Rd. in the NE 1/4 of Section 30, Township 3N., Range
1 E., Request for Final Plat Consisting of 42 Common Lots, 6 Common lots, and 1 Other
Lot on 17.22 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 15-006
ITEM TITLE: Sweet Land Development
Public Hearing Continued from June 2, 2015: RZ 15-006 Three Corners by Sweet Land
Development, Inc. Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden
Boulevard Request: Rezone of Approximately 12.65 Acres of Land from the C -C
(Community Business), R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and R-4 (Medium -Low Density
Residential) Zoning District to the C -C (9.38 Acres), R-8 (2.76 acres) and R-4 (0.51 Acres)
Zoning Districts
MEETING NOTES
mum
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: TEC 15-002
ITEM TITLE: Pinebridae Subdivision
Public Hearing: TEC 15-002 Pinebridge Subdivision by B.W. Meridian, Inc. Located East
Side of N. Locust Grove Road, South of E. Fairview Avenue and North of E.
Commercial Street Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in
Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat
MEETING NOTES
,,, �, , Oa wls
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: $E
PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 15-001
ITEM TITLE: Hills Properties/Century Farm School
Public Hearing: CPAM 15-001 Hill Properties/Century Farm School by Martin Hill, Hill &
Hill Properties and Brighton Investments Located East Side of S. Eagle Road and South
Side of E. Amity Road Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map to Change the Future Land Use Designation on 87.01 Acres of Land from Low
Density Residential to Mixed -Use Neighborhood
MEETING NOTES
VA
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
1
2
3
P&Z Commission 5.21.15
4
City Council 6.16.15
5
P&Z Commission 5.21.15
6
City Council 6.16.15
7
8
9
QUESTIONS?
10
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 15-004
ITEM TITLE: Hill Properties
Public Hearing: AZ 15-004 Hill Properties by Martin Hill and Hill & Hill Properties Located
East Side of S. Eagle Road and the South Side of E. Amity Road Request: Annexation of
78.62 Acres of Land with the R-8 (39.83 Acres) and C -N (38.79 Acres) Zoning Districts
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 15-007
ITEM TITLE: Century Farm School
Public Hearing: RZ 15-007 Century Farm School by Brighton Investments Located 1/4
Mile South of E. Amity Road and 1/2 Mile East of S. Eagle Road Request: Rezone of
8.39 Acres of Land From the R-8 to the C -N Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
-170-1
�,
K
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Swan Ranch
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 14-016
Public Hearing 2015: AZ 14-016 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located 4617
and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Annexation and Zoning of 27.75 Acres of Land with
an R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: PP -14-018
ITEM TITLE: Nestina Swan Ranch
Public Hearing: PP 14-018 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located 4617 and
4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -One (31)
Building Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other Lots on 10.37 Acres of Land in a
Proposed R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
2C\
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Legal and Fire Departments
Continued from June 9, 2015: Legal and Fire Departments: Memorandum
of Understanding and Agreement between the City of Meridian and the
Meridian Rural Fire Protection District
MEETING NOTES
�o r\Ar; n\jed 4-® (0/a3 -
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
•A
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Rb bt1C, www -Y-5 L qKh -in -p0U.CAT-
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
May 29, 2015
Mr. Charlie Rountree
City Council President
33 E Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Councilman Rountree and members of the Meridian City Council,
Mayor Tammy de Weer d
City Council Members:
Keith gird Joe porton
Luke Cavener Genesis Milani
Charlie Rountree David Zaremba
The Meridian Transportation Commission has reviewed current street lighting policy and
recommends the following action: City Council requests that Ada County Highway District
(ACHD) update ACHD Policy Manual section 5107 to include the installation of continuous and
transition lighting with roadway widening and intersection improvement projects per the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO)
recommendations. This request should be made for the following reasons:
1. ACHD's current policy of installing lighting only at the four corners of a signalized
intersection and at non -signalized intersections does not meet the current
recommendations of AASHTO, particularly in regard to urban arterials.
2. The most economical time to install roadway lighting is during roadway widening
projects.
3. Per Idaho state statute, ACHD is the agency responsible for installing street lighting
where it is beneficial to the motoring public.
4. Research has shown that continuous lighting reduces crash rates, helps to optimize traffic,
and facilitates multi -modal transportation.
5. ACHD obtains funding for transportation infrastructure improvements and is able to
assess impact fees and levy taxes for that purpose.
The roads within the City have changed, and are continuing to evolve, from two lane rural
arterials to multi -lane urban arterials. While ACHD's street lighting policy may have been
adequate at one time, it is not sufficient for the multi modal, high traffic volume, urban arterials
developing within the City. According to section 7.3.17 of AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets (7he Green Book), street lighting on urban arterials should be
continuous. Where installing continuous lighting is impractical, intermittent lighting (lighting at
only intersections and other critical junctions) should be considered. According to section 5.3.8
such intermittent lighting should include transition lighting to allow for drivers vision to adapt
(Green, 7-52, 5-22). ACHD's policy of installing street lighting only at the four corners of a
signalized intersection and at un -signalized intersections, with no respect to roadway
classification or geometry, does not comply with these guidelines.
Over the next 20 years many of Meridian's arterial roadways are scheduled to be widened to
what can be assumed to be their ultimate build out: five to seven lanes with curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and bike lanes per the ACRD Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). There will not be a
more practical time to install continuous street lighting than with these projects. Installing the
lights at a later date will result in additional cost due to impact with landscaping, sidewalks, and
other utilities. Installing the lighting with the roadway project will also avoid future lane closures
and impacts to traffic.
While the City has had some success with installing street lighting with new development,
particularly along local streets, in accordance with the Public Works Departments' Improvement
Standards for Street Lighting, State Statute 40-1415 lists the county -wide highway district as the
agency responsible for the procurement of highway lighting where it is installed to benefit the
motorist. While continuous lighting has been shown to encourage and facilitate multi -modal
traffic, there is no street on which lighting is more beneficial to the motoring public than on
urban arterials. According to The Green Book, "A well designed, adequate lighting system is
more important to optimum operation of an urban arterial than any other street (Green, 7-52)."
When drivers are provided with sufficient sight distance to efficiently make maneuvers, undue
breaking and swerving are minimized. This is especially important during inclement weather
when vehicle headlights provide a more limited vision.
It is well known that driving at night is more dangerous than driving in daylight. According to
the Federal Highway Administration, the fatal crash rate (the number of fatal crashes per vehicle
miles traveled) is three times higher at night than it is in daylight hours (Lutkevich, 4). The
installation of continuous lighting has been shown to significantly reduce crash rates and
severity. According to the AASHTO's Highway Safety Manual, the Crash Modification Factors
for installing continuous lighting on a roadway segment that previously had none is 0.72 for
nighttime injury crashes and 0.83 for nighttime non -injury crashes (Highway, 13-49). These
equate to an expected decrease of 28% for injury and 17% for non -injury crashes during non -
daylight hours.
As the local agency with the authority to levy taxes and impact fees for the improvement of
roadway infrastructure, it is fitting for ACHD to be the agency responsible for the installation of
street lighting on the City's major streets. Changing ACHD Policy Manual section 5107 will
allow ACHD to include the additional cost of illumination in their Capital Improvement Plan
estimates. This in turn will allow street lighting to become an impact fee eligible expense.
Without a change at the policy level, ACHD cannot include street lighting as an impact -fee -
eligible expense.
While the City has been exercising its ability to require development to install street lighting, this
process is not very effective at providing continuous lighting along arterial roadways.
Development is often fragmented and often occurs along roadways that have yet to be improved.
Lights along these arterials end up being installed in small patches and are sometimes not in the
ideal location once ACI -ID completes their roadway widening design. In some instances these
lights may need to be relocated with future roadway widening projects. Planning for and
installing the lighting as part of the larger roadway project ensures that lights are ideally placed
and that the whole corridor will be uniformly lit.
The Transportation Commission commends ACHD for their efforts to obtain federal grant
funding to install street lighting along portions of Cherry Lane and Fairview Avenue. While this
is a good solution for obtaining funds to install lighting along corridors where it is currently
deficient, it is not a long term solution for providing lighting on arterials as they evolve to urban
sections.
Considering ACHD's role as the local transportation agency, AASHTO's recommendations, and
the benefits of installing continuous lighting with upcoming road widening projects, the
commission recommends the following action: City Council sends a letter to ACHD requesting
that ACHD Policy Manual section 5107 be updated to include the installation of continuous and
transition lighting with roadway widening and intersection improvement projects per American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommendations. By
updating this policy ACHD will be able to provide urban roadways that are lit according to
national standards and can be used more effectively during non -daylight hours.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this proposal.
Sincerely,
y�
Tracy Hopkins
Transportation Commission Chairman
Bibliography
Lutkevich, Paul, Don McLean, and Joseph Cheung. FHWA Ligthting Handbook. WashiD.C.:
Federal Highway Administration, 2012.4 ngton
The Green Book A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 6th edition. Washington
D.C.: AASHTO, 20t 1. 3-4,7-52.
Highway Safety Manual, 1 st ed. Vol. 3. Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 2010. 13-49
EI
Meridian City Council Meeting
TE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Future Meetina T
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: June 16, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 11
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: Executive Session
Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(b): (b) To Consider the
Evaluation, Dismissal or Disciplining of, or to Hear Complaints or Charges
Brought Against, a Public Officer, Employee, Staff Member or Individual Agent, or
Public School Student `
p1, Amerldeo� o+�
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS