Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2015-12-01
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA AMENDED AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, December 01, 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 by Boy Scout Troop 62 3. Community Invocation by none 4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 5. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of October 27, 2015 City Council Meeting B. Approve Minutes of November 4, 2015 City Council Special Meeting C. Approve Minutes of November 10, 2015 City Council Workshop Meeting D. Approve Minutes of November 17, 2015 City Council Meeting E. Christmas in Meridian 2015 Sponsorship Agreement Between Mountain America Credit Union and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $1,500.00 F. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 15-009 Trilogy Subdivision by Viper Investments Located near the southeast corner of W. Chinden Blvd and N. Black Cat Road. G. Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Leon and LaRue Johnson Family Trust Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 01, 2015 — Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. H. Approval of FootGolf Addendum to Lakeview Golf Course Lease I. Settlement and Release Agreement for the CVAH, Inc. Bankruptcy Adversary Action J. Approval of Task Order 10023.k to JUB ENGINEERS, INC. for the "2016 MERIDIAN SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE" Project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $222,300.00 K. Resolution No. 15-1100: Resolution to Adopt 2016 Initial Point Gallery Schedule L. Resolution No. 15-1101: Authorizing the Destruction of Records of the Community Development Department, Building Services Division M. Resolution No. 15-1102: Authorizing the City Clerk to Destroy Certain Semi -Permanent Records of the Meridian Mayor's Office; and Providing an Effective Date N. Final Order for Approval: H-2015-0002 Woodland Springs Subdivision by Woodland Springs, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat for Woodland Springs Subdivision in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on the Second Phase Final Plat O. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an Acre from R-8 to R-4 Zoning District P. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 168 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN- R Zoning Districts 6. Department Reports A. Other Government: FY2016 Budget Amendment for Various Meridian Arts Commission Projects for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $40,946.00 Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 01, 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. 7. Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned City planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they are allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Continued from October 27, 2015: Shelburne Subdivision No. 1 (H-2015- 0004) by Shelburne Properties, LLC Located 1/4 Mile East of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Amity Road 1. Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Eight (48) Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 19.42 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District Continued to December 15, 2015 B. Public Hearing Continued from November 17, 2015 for Easy Jet Subdivision (RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, and CUP 15-017) by Reginald Jones Located 2750 S. Eagle Road Remanded back to P & Z Request: Rezone of 6.55 Acres of Land from the R-4 to the R-15 (4.93 Acres) and L -O (1.62 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Multi -Family Residential Building Lots, Two (2) Commercial/ Office Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 5.41 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-15 and L -O Zoning Districts 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of Sixty -Four (64) Residential Dwelling Units in an R-15 Zoning District and Office Uses in an L -O Zoning District C. Public Hearing for Village Apartments (AZ 15-012, CUP 15-019 and MDA 15- 011) by DevCo Located at 2600 and 2700 N. Eagle Road 1. Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Property and to Remove the Requirement for Detailed Conditional Use Permit Approval of Future Uses Approved 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.38 of an Acre of Land with a C -G Zoning District Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 01, 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. 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of 336 Dwelling Units on 16.68 acres of Land in a C -G Zoning District Approved D. Public Hearing for Sundial Circle Subdivision (PP 15-018) by Conger Management Group Located 2250 W. Whitelaw Drive 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Eleven (11) Single Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.54 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District Approved E. Public Hearing for Bull Ranch (AZ 15-013 and PP 15-017) by Gem State ER, LLC Located at 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane Denied 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.06 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat (PP 15-017) Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 10.06 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District F. Public Hearing: Proposed Winter 2015-2016 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department G. Resolution No. 15-1103: A Resolution Adopting the Winter 2015-2016 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Approved H. Public Hearing: Proposed Updates to Meridian Police Department Fee Schedule I. Resolution No. 15-1104: Adopting Meridian Police Department Fee Schedule Approved 8. Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 15-1665: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian Repealing and Replacing Title 1, Chapter 15 Discrimination Prohibited of the Meridian City Code; Providing a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing and Effective Date Approved 9. Future Meeting Topics Adjourned at 11:32 p.m. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 01, 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 December 1, 2015 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 1, 2015, by Mayor Tammy Rountree. Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, David Zaremba, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Josh Beach, Kyle Radek, Mike de St. Germain, Perry Palmer, Jake Garro 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 __X__ Lucas Cavener __ X_ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Thank you for being here this evening. We will just launch right into our City Council meeting. Again welcome. For the record it is Tuesday, December 1st. It's 6:00 o'clock. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance by Boy Scout Troop 62 De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. Tonight we will be led by Boy Scout Troop 62. We have Kyle Smith, Ryan Butler, Corbin McLaughlin and Elan Stubblefield-Allen. If those young men could come forward and we will wait for your instruction on when to stand up. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we do not have anyone here to lead us in that. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: So, I will move to Item 4, adoption of the agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 2 of 93 Rountree: On the agenda this evening under Item 5-K the resolution number is 15-1100. On 5-L the resolution number is 15-1101. And on 5-N the resolution number is 15-1102. Item 7-A has been requested by the applicant to continue until December 15th, 2015. And Item 7-G, the resolution number is 15-1103. On 7-I the resolution number is 15-1104. And Item 8-A the ordinance number is 15-1665. And with those additions, Madam Mayor, I move we approve the agenda. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as noted. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of October 27, 2015 City Council Meeting B. Approve Minutes of November 4, 2015 City Council Special Meeting C. Approve Minutes of November 10, 2015 City Council Workshop Meeting D. Approve Minutes of November 17, 2015 City Council Meeting E. Christmas in Meridian 2015 Sponsorship Agreement Between Mountain America Credit Union and the City of Meridian for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,500.00 F. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 15-009 Trilogy Subdivision by Viper Investments Located near the southeast corner of W. Chinden Blvd and N. Black Cat Road. G. Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Leon and LaRue Johnson Family Trust H. Approval of FootGolf Addendum to Lakeview Golf Course Lease I. Settlement and Release Agreement for the CVAH, Inc. Bankruptcy Adversary Action J. Approval of Task Order 10023.k to JUB ENGINEERS , INC. for the “2016 MERIDIAN SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE” Project for a Not-To-Exceed amount of $222,300.00 Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 3 of 93 K. Resolution No. 15-1100: Resolution to Adopt 2016 Initial Point Gallery Schedule L. Resolution No. 15-1101: Authorizing the Destruction of Records of the Community Development Department, Building Services Division M. Resolution No. 15-1102: Authorizing the City Clerk to Destroy Certain Semi-Permanent Records of the Meridian Mayor's Office; and Providing an Effective Date N. Final Order for Approval: H-2015-0002 Woodland Springs Subdivision by Woodland Springs, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat for Woodland Springs Subdivision in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on the Second Phase Final Plat O. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN-R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an Acre from R-8 to R-4 Zoning District P. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 168 Single-Family Residential Building Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN-R Zoning Districts De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as amended, authorizing 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. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 4 of 93 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: Department Reports A. Other Government: FY2016 Budget Amendment for Various Meridian Arts Commission Projects for the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $40,946.00 De Weerd: Item 6-A under Other Government, we have Hillary here with us from the Meridian Arts Commission. Welcome, Hillary. Bodnar: Thanks. You guys have a busy night. I'm here to present the Meridian Arts Commission proposed budget amendment. They are requesting 40,946 dollars. The Meridian Arts Commission has been allowed to track their end of year balances which show that they have been good stewards of both city allotted and donated monies. The budget amendment in front of you is requesting spending authority for the purchase of Out-On-The-Town by Daniel Borup, one of the proposals submitted for consideration at the Fairview and Main public art call to artists. The second item that we are requesting funds for is additional funds for training the commissioners on MAC and the final allocation that we are requesting is to support five traffic box wraps in 2000 -- or FY-16. All of these expenses would take place in FY-16. The total amount for each of those split out -- Out- On-The-Town is 36,100 dollars. Training MAC requests 1,000 dollars. And the five traffic boxes would be 3,846 dollars. And I'm here to stand for any questions you have regarding that budget amendment request. De Weerd: Thank you, Hillary. Council, any questions from Hillary? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Hillary, did you mention where the Out-On-The-Town was going to go, since it's not going at Fairview and Main? Bodnar: Oh, sorry. No, I didn't mention that. We want it to go on the City Hall plaza, out near the sidewalk by the clock, between the clock and the lawn, but on the concrete out there. So, it would -- it wouldn't have to tear up any existing grass or any of the existing brick that's out in the plaza, and that way it's pretty accessible to both the street traffic, but also the people walking by coming into City Hall. Milam: Thank you. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 5 of 93 Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Question. And I apologize for missing this. Why is it not going at Fairview and -- any longer? Bodnar: The Arts Commission recommended a different art piece for the Fairview and Main intersection. This art piece received a lot of public -- a lot of positive public comment, but one of the -- or many of the public comments were related to the scale and the nature of the piece. They are lifesize children and they actually l ook like pedestrians and so we thought them being at an intersection where it's kind of busier traffic, rather than slower traffic and the scale of the site itself, MAC determined that a larger scale piece might be better suited for that location, but because of all of the favorable comments from the community MAC was led by City Council to follow up with the artist and see if they would be willing -- or see if he would be willing to negotiate a lower price and that we could make it an additional installation. Cavener: Okay. De Weerd: It was also viewed to be something that people would want to touch and this brings it closer to the appropriate location for that type of art. Anything further from Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Briefly describe the training. I don't think I understood that. Bodnar: So, the training was requested as an additional -- we already had budgeted -- MAC has already budgeted a portion of their city allocated funds for training. They sent five commissioners to the NoWPAC, which is the northwest regional art conference, but of those commissioners that attended that conference actually thought that it would be beneficial, now that they have got nine members, to bring in one specialized training -- like professional in the industry of public arts administration to talk to the arts commission about what that process is like and they did this I think it was two years ago and it was about 900 dollars to bring in someone. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 6 of 93 Milam: I move that we approve the budget amendment for various Meridian Arts Commission projects for the not to exceed amount of 40,946 dollars. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 6-A. Any questions or discussion? 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. Bodnar: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I would let our audience in the back that do not have a seat know that we do have an overflow in the conference rooms as you came through the front door. It's just to your immediate right -- or your left as you walk towards the doors. You can hear everything that's being said. We have the videotape on -- on the front, so if you signed in to testify when your name is called you can make it to this room. At least it gives you a place to sit down. So, if you would like to do so, we do have that for your convenience and your comfort. So, just wanted to let you know you don't have to the stand. Item 7: Action Items A. Continued from October 27, 2015: Shelburne Subdivision No. 1 (H-2015-0004) by Shelburne Properties, LLC Located 1/4 Mile East of S.Eagle Road and North of E. Amity Road 1. Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Eight (48) Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 19.42 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District De Weerd: We are under seven. Action Items. Item 7-A has been requested to continue to December 15th. Council, that's certainly your -- your purview. Staff, anything you want to comment on? Watters: No, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 7 of 93 Bird: I move we continue Item H-2015-0004 to December 15th, 2015. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-A to December 15th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Public Hearing Continued from November 17, 2015 for Easy Jet Subdivision (RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, and CUP 15-017) by Reginald Jones Located 2750 S. Eagle Road Remanded back to P & Z 1. Request: Rezone of 6.55 Acres of Land from the R-4 to the R- 15 (4.93 Acres) and L-O (1.62 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Multi-Family Residential Building Lots, Two (2) Commercial/ Office Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 5.41 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-15 and L-O Zoning Districts 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of Sixty-Four (64) Residential Dwelling Units in an R-15 Zoning District and Office Uses in an L-O Zoning District De Weerd: Item 7-B is a public hearing continued from November 17th. It was not heard at that time. It was requested to be continued until this date. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The applications before you are a request for a rezone, a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. This site consists of 5.4 acres of land, zoned R-4, located to 2750 South Eagle Road at the southeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Easy Jet Drive. A little history on this project or this property. In 2002 a conditional use permit for a planned development was approved, which conceptually approved offices and high density multi-family housing on this property as a land use exception in the R-4 zoning district. Detailed approval of the planned development through a conditional use permit was required prior to development. There were no restrictions on the number of units, square footage of structures, building height or number of stories that could be constructed. Of the 11 office, multi-family lots that were approved for such uses to the north of this property across Easy Jet and also on the subject property, only the subject parcel remains for such uses. The other seven lots were approved through two separate conditional use permit modifications to develop with single family homes and a self-service storage facility. The applicant has requested an application for a rezone of 6.55 acres of land from R-4 to the R-15, which is 4.93 acres, Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 8 of 93 and L-O zoning, which is 1.62 acres consistent with the mixed use community future land use map designation and the uses approved with the planned development. This is a copy of the future land use map. The brown indicates the mixed use community land use designation. A preliminary plat is requested for three multi-family building lots, two commercial office building lots, and one common lot on 5.41 acres of land. Two accesses are proposed via East Easy Jet Drive, one to the office development and one to the multi- family development. Cross-access between the properties is also proposed. No access via South Eagle Road is proposed or approved. Staff recommends a cross-access easement is provided to the property to the south on the L -O zoned property, which is this area right here, for future connectivity and to reduce access points to Eagle Road. A minimum 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Eagle Road and a ten foot wide buffer is required along East Easy Jet on the L-O zoned property. A 25 foot wide buffer is required on the L-O zoned property to the residential property to the south. A solid vinyl fence with lattice top exists along the southern boundary of the L -O portion of the site on the adjacent residential property. The Commission recommended matching fencing to be installed along the remainder of the southern boundary of the site. A solid vinyl fence exists along the east boundary of the site and a chain link fence exists along a portion of the north boundary that will be removed. The Commission recommended vinyl fencing be installed along the common areas adjacent to Easy Jet to enhance safety for children. Sidewalks exist along the street frontages of this site. Staff recommends a pedestrian pathway stub is provided at the south boundary of the multi-family portion of the site for future interconnectivity between developments. This is a copy of the most recent site plan that was submitted and, again, the vehicular cross-access is proposed right here where my pointer is and, then, the pedestrian connectivity should be provided somewhere in this area. A conditional use permit is requested for detailed approved of the office and multi- family development as required by the previously approved planned development that conceptually approved offices and multi-family development on this site and as required by the UDC for multi-family developments in the R-15 zoning district. Since the Commission hearing, based on their recommendation, the applicant has submitted a revised site plan as shown that depicts three two story structures, rather than the one two story and two three story structures originally proposed. The office portion consists of two buildings, 5,600 square feet in area that front on Eagle Road. The number of dwelling units in the multi-family portion was reduced from 64 to 48 with a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units. A 1,620 square foot clubhouse with exercise facility and children's play structure and a large open grassy area are proposed as amenities. Approximately half an acre of qualified outdoor common open space and 80 square foot of private usable open space is proposed for each unit consistent with UDC standards. With the revised plan the number of parking spaces were reduced and open space was increased. On street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the multi-family structures and clubhouses, but not for the garages, carports, or office buildings. Construction materials for the multi-family structures consists of horizontal hardy plank lap siding and vertical hardy board, board and batten siding, with rough sawn stained wood detailing, in a combination of three different colors on each building. Materials for the clubhouse consist of the same types of siding with the addition of stone accents on the columns. Staff recommends stone masonry accents are applied to 50 percent of the available wall length at a minimum height of 24 inches on the -- are Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 9 of 93 added to the façades of the multi-family structures and clubhouse visible from the street to match the front elevation of the clubhouse and compliment adjacent residences. Summary of the Commission public hearing. Lisa Bachman testified in favor. There were several people that testified in opposition. Those are listed in the public record and in the recommendation document. Again for the written testimony same thing and all written testimony is included in the public record. The key issue of discussion by the Commission was the appropriate density and building height for this site. Commission changes to the staff report. At the request of staff the Commission added a condition that vinyl fencing be installed adjacent to the common areas abutting Easy Jet to enhance safety for the children playing in the open lawn and playground areas. To include a condition that limits the building height of the apartment structures on the site to two story and the inclusion of a condition requiring fencing to be installed along the southern boundary of the site to match the existing fencing. There are no outstanding issues for Council. Again, written testimony has been received since the Commission hearing and it is all part of the public record that you have been copied on. The Commission recommended approval of the proposed applications per the staff report, with the changes previously noted. Staff is requesting a modification to condition number 1.1.10E and it is noted there on your outline as follows: The multi-family stairwell shall be integrated with the building design and provide residents protection from the weather. Internal circulation and stair wells to access individual units are encouraged. This is straight out of the design manual. Staff will stand for any questions the Mayor and Council may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Council, I did want you to know I have talked to several of the neighbors as I knocked on doors in October. So, we talked about process. I also had a couple neighbors come to a town hall that I hosted. So, just wanted to put that on the record. Okay. I will ask if the applicant is here and would like to come and make comments. Bachman: Thank you, Mayor and Council. For the record Lisa Bachman with JUB Engineers. Address 250 South Beachwood Avenue, Suite 201, Boise, Idaho. 83709. De Weerd: Thank you. Bachman: Get the PowerPoint. Don't we love it when it makes that sound? Watters: Yeah. What? Bachman: The beeping. Am I able to change the slide? Watters: Select a color at the top and, then, you can advance it. Or write on it. Bachman: I also have Kristi Watkins here. She's a planner that's worked on this project and was also involved in the neighborhood meeting. Scott Wonders was the project engineer and he's actually not here tonight, but, hopefully, we can answer any questions that you might have. So, some topics tonight that I'd like to discuss -- I'm going to go ahead and go over the conditions of approval. I think staff did a really good job in Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 10 of 93 outlining that, so I don't want to reiterate too much, but I will go over those. Also I'd like to make two additional points about the project, then, stand for any questions. As staff had indicated, the Planning and Zoning recommendation was for approval with some conditions. Regarding the stair wells, we had requested that they could be -- did not have to be internal to the buildings, as long as we put in some decorative treatments around there and they seemed okay with that and staff modified that -- that condition of approval, so we are good with that. They also requested that we -- or recommended that we reduce the buildings to two story maximum and we are amenable to that. We have submitted a site plan with that change and also installation of the vinyl fencing in the location that staff had indicated and they are both outlined here in the PowerPoint. So, the two points that I would like to make tonight is that this project is a high quality development. It fits within the neighborhood esthetically from a building form standpoint, a color standpoint. We have improved the project based on both the neighborhood concerns, staff concerns and also Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. So, a little bit about the high quality development. As staff has indicated and as you have seen in your staff report, it's a mixed use project. It implements the city's Comprehensive Plan, complies with city code, it fits into the Eagle-Overland area where you see a lot of commercial development and mixed use, housing, offices, those types of things. It provides a nice living space for empty nesters, retired folks, and people looking for convenient living options. We provided ample open space and amenities within the project. It exceeds the minimum required open space, nearly double of what is required for the density that we are proposing, as your staff report shows and staff has outlined. We are providing open grassy areas, courtyards for shared use, a transitioning area between the commercial and the residential area courtyard, to kind of bring that together and, then, a common play area with a clubhouse and also a fitness center. And, again, ample parking that exceeds the minute requirements. This slide just shows the elevations, which you have already seen. This is from the three story, which actually will be two story, so I wanted to make that note on this. But we will be providing stone accents with earth tone colors, matching trim styles. Landscaping around the foundations to fit within the -- the neighborhood and throughout the development. Going into the improved project based on neighborhood and P&Z input, we had two neighborhood meetings for this project dating back to summer. The initial proposal when we first started out with this project was for 76 units. We didn't ever submit that to the city, but that's conceptually what the project started out as. In calculating the density based on the overall project, since it is a mixed use, we were thinking we could get that many units out of it, but after the first neighborhood meeting and talking with staff and looking at it very closely, we went ahead and reduced that down to 64 units and that's what we went ahead and proposed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and it did include three story buildings, as well as two story buildings, with the two story buildings adjacent to the Sutherland Farms Subdivision. But tonight, as staff has indicated, since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and what we are proposing tonight is for approval of 48 units, which brings us down to 11.29 dwelling units per acre and that we would still maintain the two commercial lots. We have brought this density down quite a bit from the original proposal. The development now includes two -- it's all two story multi-family buildings, so there will be three total and also the additional fencing. Just a few points here to point out. I think staff briefly went over it, but to go in a little more detail, the required open space is 16,000 square feet. We are Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 11 of 93 actually providing 39,000 square feet with the new site plan. The required parking is 90 spaces with 48 covered and we are providing 115, with 70 covered spaces, required bicycle parking and this is just for the multi-family area -- is eight spaces and we are providing 20. For the commercial, two one story commercial buildings. They are about 5,600 square feet apiece. And, again, the required parking is 25 spaces, we are proposing 56. The bicycle parking required at four we are providing ten. Well, that was quick and easy now, wasn't it? So, with that I will stand for any questions that you have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Lisa, the staff report indicates that their recommendation is to provide masonry to the front of the dwellings and are you amenable to that? Bachman: Yes. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: And -- can you hear in the back? Okay. So, Council, if you would, please, pull your -- your microphones and eat them. Okay. Any questions at this point? Thank you very much. Bachman: Thanks, Mayor and Council. De Weerd: We had a number of you sign up to -- to indicate your support or opposition. When I read your name if you would like to provide testimony at that time I would invite you forward. If you would not like to , I will indicate how you indicated on the paper and so just to say I probably will mutilate some of your names. So, I apologize in advance. Fred Thompson signed up against. I'm glad we started with a name I can say. Thank you for being here. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Thompson: Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Dr. Fred Thompson. My wife Sandy and I have lived at 2853 South Nephrite in Meridian, 83642, for the past ten years. De Weerd: Thank you. Thompson: Having purchased our home in the area, because it fit our lifestyle. The proposed development lays just three houses to our north and I want to make three points I believe, in my opinion, that the project as proposed is incompatible with the present character of the surrounding neighborhoods, which are single family, maximum two story residences. The second one is despite the assertion in -- in the Planning and Zoning meetings that ACHD has approved the -- the traffic flow, I think that they -- they must have been looking at a different property, because when the new signal light at Eagle and Easy Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 12 of 93 Jet was installed in conjunction with the widening of Eagle, we had a highly increased amount of traffic being diverted through our -- through the Sutherland Farms Subdivision, causing there to be a necessity for a -- some temporary speed bumps on both my street on Nephrite, as well as Bay Star, and that -- people are -- have a tendency, if they run into a roadblock, to go around that roadblock and in this case going around the roadblock includes passing through Sutherland Farms. Either they are going through Sutherland Farm, taking Knapp Avenue over to the Silverwood complex or moving on -- straight on through to Muir Woods Subdivision or turning south on Bay Star and ended up on Victory. The traffic generated by the addition of this proposed multi-family housing will exacerbate the existing traffic conditions. Right now traffic often backs up at the corner of Easy Jet and Eagle during -- during going to work and coming home times. The third point that I want to make is there exists the possibility, given the structure of the property, that future owners of the proposed development could, in times of economic down turn, choose to request a change of status to allow conversion of their property to HUD housing, with the attendant loss of nearby property values. Council, you have it in your power to deny this -- this request if you will and we ask that you do so. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Fred. Albert Castagnola. Castagnola: Castagnola. De Weerd: There you go. Thank you for being here. If on the record you will state your name and address. Castagnola: Albert Castagnola. 2611 South Tristram. De Weerd: Thank you. Castagnola: Thank you, Mayor, Council. I believe that this is a travesty, because we are talking about increasing the density of this R-4 zoning and the increased density is to the profit of the property owner, who has a right to a profit, and a decrease of the value of hundreds of homes and, of course, the decisions made here should be made the greatest good for the greatest number of people and we can't have this development under those conditions. This -- this decision should have been made prior to the last election and it was postponed and postponed until we are here now after the election. I believe that I would have had greater faith in the outcome had it been held -- had the decision been made prior to the election and not impugn anyone here. I'm sorry if you think I'm doing that. There is going to be people from this new development as proposed would be trying to use the park, which is a private park in the subdivision and the Meridian Police Department will be getting many phone calls to that area for something that should never occur. It's a problem that could be avoided just by denying the request to change from R-4. The R-4 development does allow a profit for the developer and it was acceptable to the developer -- to the owners of that property at the time that the zoning was made originally. So, I see no reason why it should change now and thank you for your time. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 13 of 93 De Weerd: Thank you. Ed Williams signed up against. Okay. Thank you, Ed. Nadia Pippin? Thank you. Signed up against. Elizabeth Criner. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Criner: Thank you, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Elizabeth Criner and I own a home at 4173 East Raja Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. In the Sutherland Farms neighborhood. De Weerd: Thank you. Criner: I'm here to speak against the proposal as it currently exists. I still think that there are some additional changes that could occur to address concerns of residents who own property around the parcel. One of the things -- and I actually had a bunch of notes that I had put together and I think I'm going to speak a little bit extemporaneously, because I think one of the challenges with all of this is -- I built a home in the neighborhood. I bought the property, I looked into the neighborhood CC&Rs, the HOA, I did my due diligence. I looked online to see what I could find about what would happen with that empty property, because it sits at the front of our neighborhood and the only thing that I could find -- and I am not a development expert, but what I found was R-4. What my real estate agent was able to determine was what the game plan is, they are going to do more small business commercial development out there probably or maybe more patio homes and I think even when you try to do your due diligence, the fact that all of these changes can occur once your investment is made and your home is built down the road that will impact your decision, your lifestyle, your investment, and for most of us this house -- the house that we own in this neighborhood is the single largest investment that we have and I think that's why you see the kind of concern that you do. This parcel is an integrated part -- it's at the entrance of our neighborhood, it's not across the street, it's not down at the corner, it is literally the entrance to our neighborhood and as such, you know, I personally think that if anything moves forward it needs to be integrated with the requirements that we all had to fulfill for building our homes with respect to the types of color and siding and stone, et cetera. Also I'm very concerned that if you all decide to approve this change to R-15, that suddenly six months from now the developer decides, well, we are going to make some more changes and if there aren't enough appropriate conditional requirements for it, that we will, again, be seeing three story buildings, that we will, again, be seeing additional buildings potentially on the property and reduction of any sort of transitional barriers between the single family homes, the agricultural parcel, et cetera. And so I would just ask that as you go through this that you keep those things in mind and insure that whatever is approved -- because we have got a better situation than we started with, but that we don't see six months from now suddenly additional buildings, higher buildings, and other changes that, again, take us further down the road of degrading what I felt was a great neighborhood when I bought my property and hope it stays that way. Thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity. De Weerd: Thank you. Charles Carlson signed up against. Carlson: I am Chuck Carlson and I live at 2706 South Petty Avenue in Sutherland Farms. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 14 of 93 De Weerd: Thank you, Charles. If you will pull the microphone a little closer so your neighbors can also hear you. Carlson: Can you hear me now? De Weerd: Yes. Carlson: Can you hear me now? De Weerd: Thank you. Carlson: I would like to touch briefly on two subjects, livability and expectation. Livability. Idaho is a great place to live. Livability is what convinces companies to bring their business and employees to Idaho. There is a common city government view that residential costs our local city money and commercial makes our city government money. City governments chasing high density projects for tax revenue in homeowner communities not only decreases the livability of the communities, it also decreases property values. If you approve this proposed project, you will be killing the golden goose that lays the golden eggs. Expectation. The homeowners is Sutherland Farms, Sutherland Downs, Muir Woods, Thousand Springs had the reasonable expectation when they purchased their homes that the surrounding areas would be developed in a manner that would enhance the livability and property value of their investment and the homeowners of the properties between Easy Jet and Victory on Eagle had a reasonable expectation to enjoy their properties without the encroachment of high density multi-family and commercial projects. Did you know that there are already several individual homeowners along that stretch of land? And the owner of the proposed Easy Jet project has a reasonable expectation to develop his property. He knew it was zoned R-4 when he purchased the property, just like the homeowners in the surrounding neighborhoods knew the zoning of their property when they purchased, just like the previous speaker said, and the owners of the surrounding properties has a reasonable expectation that other property owners will not develop nor maintain their property in a manner that deceases their livability or property value. It is reasonable for surrounding homeowners to expect the Meridian City Council to conduct themselves in a manner that is best for the community, not just one developer. Zoning codes were written several years ago. During that time the City of Meridian and the local communities have grown. It is far past time for the zoning to be reviewed and updated to reflect the wants and needs of the current citizens and communities. You, the City Council, now have the opportunity to make this right. Please, no apartments on Easy Jet and keep the proposed Easy Jet project zoning at R-4. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Emil and Linda Berry signed up against. Thank you. Joanne and Charles. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. St. Charles: Joanne St. Charles. 3482 East -- Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 15 of 93 De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was Joanne and Charles. I apologize. St. Charles: That's quite all right. -- Yesternight Street in Meridian and I'm speaking for, myself and my husband and my neighbors Kathy and Vince Licari and I have some illustrations. I'm not sure how to -- how to use this machine. But the Sutherland Farms planned apartment was conceptually approved with office and multi-family housing in balance, with a land use exception in the R-4 zoning district and that was under a different code at the time, but at that time the developer was specific about where the multi-family housing was proposed, saying specifically in the eastern end of the office area adjacent to the townhomes, which would be in here. Okay. That was consistent with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, because it did allow for a buffer -- these townhomes were a buffer between the residential area and what would be these multi-family homes. And, then, down here where we are proposing to build the apartments now was another buffer to the single family residential and that was going to be light office commercial. Okay. In 2004 the developer -- and there is a second illustration -- oh. So, in 2004 the developer amended the plan seeking to achieve density goals by adding 47 more R-8 density lots. So, he more than doubled the R-8 density at that time and he got a special variance to reduce the minimum land area frontage required in an R-8 zone and at that time the developer's application said -- and I quote: No other variances or waivers are required or requested and so they had a special deal under City Code 12-6-3 from 2002 and it seems to me they already exercised that . This design also met the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, because it still included a buffer for the single family homes and these served as a transitional area between the commercial and single family. So, now the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations to limit the apartment to two stories is helpful, we still feel that an apartment complex in this location conflicts with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan in these ways: Mixed use areas are typically developed under a master conceptual plan during an annexation or a rezone request, which was the case here as well, but the area now proposed to have apartments had been planned as an office area, which would have provided and transitional buffer to those single family homes. The location that had been excepted for the proposed multi- family has already been used at this point. The City of Meridian plan states: Within residential areas the following policy shall apply. In residential areas the density can only be changed to one step and we have gone from R-4 directly to R-15 without a transitional buffer in between. The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan has a number of figures that demonstrate substantial buffers between R-4 and other uses. If you scroll down, I believe, there is an example. This is just one of the examples to see how they use the local collector road as a buffer and to quote the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, alleys and roadways shall be used to transition from dissimilar land uses and between residential densities and housing types. The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of mixed use community designations is to allow areas where community serving uses and dwellings seamlessly are integrated into the urban fabric. Building a complex immediately next to single family residences without a transitional buffer doesn't serve the community or integrate seamlessly. There is little in the way of any commercial services in this area -- this immediate area without accessing Eagle or Victory or Overland. There are no grocery stores for miles. There is no transit service. So, putting a high density Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 16 of 93 R-15 development in this location where the only access to the arterial is by making a left to Easy Jet at a point where the traffic is already queued up to Eagle Road is going to force those residents to make a right and travel through the existing residential streets, which weren't designed to handle arterial traffic and don't provide visibility and safety needed to handle that traffic. And, finally, the last -- if you would scroll up one, please. Back up one. The last point I wanted to make is that this decision is going to set a precedent and there are 14 homes that stretch along that unplatted land and so if we -- if we put apartment buildings here, I'm concerned that they are going to continue to stretch along the back -- the backyards of those 14 homes. We knew the remaining land was R-4. We knew that it had been part of the initial overall development to be planned to use as light office and we knew that the City of Meridian had a requirement for transitional buffer to protect our quality of life . So, we ask that you, please, not make an exception to Meridian's published design to the detriment of an established community and the community surrounding it. De Weerd: Thank you. St. Charles: Thank you. De Weerd: Al Chelli signed up against. Chelli: You're close. De Weerd: Now you know why I prefaced my -- my introduction with I apologize in advance. Chelli: No apology needed. De Weerd: Thank you for being here. If you will state your name and address for the record. Chelli: My name is Al Chelli. I live 2799 South Nephrite in Meridian and it is the neighbor to this new development. I have a lot of concerns. I agree with everything that everybody has said tonight so far, but my concerns are the noise, lighting, and possible parking problems that will occur on Nephrite. From what I have seen of the schematics, I have not seen what the wall will be like separating my property from the complex. If I had a say in it, I would like to see an eight foot masonry wall, which would be a good sound barrier between my property and theirs. Two. The lighting. Bedrooms in my home are in the rear and if I'm going to be disturbed all night or have to buy blackout shades in order to keep the light out, I don't believe that's fair for to me as a homeowner. You know, my wife and I we looked around, I checked to see what the zoning was for that property before I bought this home ten years ago and it was R-4 and as far as I'm concerned it should maintain that at this point. I believe I am the most affected person on this property so far, so with that I thank you. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 17 of 93 De Weerd: Thank you for being here. Joan Rocha. Signed up against. Thank you for being here. Rocha: My name is Joan Rocha. De Weerd: Rocha. Rocha: And I reside at 3788 East Girdner Drive, Meridian, Idaho, and I have these concerns. The original Sutherland Farm planned development was approved and intended to provide 19.4 acres of offices. This met certain goals that were stated and included within the development agreement dated November 4th, 2002, such as goal three, to encourage the kind of economic growth and development which supplies employment and economic self sufficiency for existing and future residences. Reduces the reliance on Boise and strengthens the city's open space character. Goal nine. To encourage a balance of land use patterns to insure that revenues pay for services. City staff found that the 2002 planned development will bring additional employment opportunities. The approved planned development provided 97 acres of residential development and 19.4 acres of potential office development, which is 15.5 percent of the overall project. In 2004 6.8 acres were removed from the office portion of the project and included in the residential portion of the project with rezone 04-006. In 2014 an additional 4.8 acres of the potential office development were excluded from the Sutherland Farm planned development for the Citadel storage facility. This leaves only five acres of potential office development within the Sutherland Farm planned development, but only 1.5 acres is devoted to the construction of offices within the Easy Jet Subdivision. To date there has not been one office constructed as part of the approved Sutherland Farm planned development, with a potential approval of the Easy Jet conditional use permit the promised 19.4 acres of offices is reduced to 1.5 acres of offices. The original ratio of the 15.5 percent office is now less than one percent of potential offices to provide economic self sufficiency for existing and future residences. Should the City Council approve building apartments in lieu of office buildings on the entirety of this property, the stated goal three and nine in the approved 2002 planned development will no longer be met. Approving the Easy Jet Subdivision conditional use permit will create a violation of the existing approved and recorded development agreement for the Sutherland Farm planned development. Does approving the Easy Jet project make the existing development agreement invalid? It is the job of the City Council and city attorney to enforce existing legal agreements that have been approved and entered -- they have approved and entered into. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you, Joan. Now, we printed on this, but I'm not sure what this printing is. So, maybe it's Eugene. It begins with an E. So, Eugene? Hochhalter. Signed up against. Thank you, Eugene. Deborah, his wife. Thank you. Signed up against as well. Karen Spaulding. Signed up against. Thank you. Patricia -- I'm sorry. What was the last name? Thank you for being here. Signed up against. Pam Judy. Signed up against. Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 18 of 93 Judy: My name is Pamela Judy and I reside at 4046 East Raja Drive in Sutherland Farm Subdivision. De Weerd: Thank you. Judy: Mayor and Council Members. Under Section 11-7-5C for planned unit developments it states that the arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage, hazard or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. We find that it will cause damage to the adjacent property owners. They will lose their privacy due to the close proximity of the apartment buildings to their property. These buildings will have balconies that will look into their homes and backyards. This project is only requiring a 15 foot setback to the south property line. That is the exact distance from where I'm standing to where you're sitting. So, can you imagine what it would be like if you're the homeowner in your backyard and these buildings are right there? Right there. And imagine going shopping for a home with your life savings or a 30 year investment. Will you personally choose a home directly adjacent to this apartment project? Keep in mind that you will no longer be able to see sunsets from your home if these are built. But you will see a large scale building and people on their balconies. If you were to buy this home would you expect to buy it at a lower rate because of the buildings that are in your backyard or would you choose to buy somewhere else where the community is not within site of this apartment complex? You can see this project, if approved, would have an impact on both the privacy, quality of life, and value of investments for the property owners adjacent to this property, especially the home that is directly next door. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I think this is Guy. It could be Gene Haw -- or Haws. Might be in the other room. Signed up against. It could be. If you're close to a G and an H come on up. Thank you for being here. If you will state your name for the record. Howard: My name is George Howard. De Weerd: George, thank you. Howard: And I live at 4012 East Raja. De Weerd: Thank you. Howard: Officially I go on record against the project, but I realize that it's a -- it's a like piece of property that needs to be developed. To see it right now it -- it looks pretty sad and it is going to be developed in the future at some particular point and I would like to thank JUB for reducing the size of the whole project. That does help out. My basic concern is that if the project is granted to go forward, that you hold them to 48 units and in their drawings they state the maximum height is 29 feet, four inches. So, under 30 feet. Which is pretty compatible with the rest of the homes that are two story or single story with a bonus room and I'd like to kind of hold their feet to the fire. They are requesting an R-15 and the density, as they state, is R-9, which is good. I mean I don't think you're going to Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 19 of 93 expect much more and if you had R-8, that's for -- like in Sutherland Downs, that's what it would be. So, I would almost say why not drop it to R-8 and make an exception for the extra person or two that's in the -- that's in the -- it goes over. It's only going to an R-9. So, just something to think about anyhow. It's been mentioned a number of times about the R-4 designation. We moved from an area that had almost the same problem. We had an apartment complex built at the end of our road in a subdivision. Only two ways out and we were on one of the roads. Okay? For the first four or five years, okay, pretty good, more traffic, but doable. It's okay. It got worse and worse and worse and pretty soon the police were there about, oh, I would say once a week, once every other week, and I got to the point where I could spot detective cars and the fire station was there about once a month and, then, the trash wouldn't be picked up and, then, vehicles started being abandoned or left out and it kind of went downhill from there. The trash ended up being on the street. Fast food wrappers primarily. And it got to be a real problem. So, we are real sensitive to this. We did some research when we bought our house, because we -- on this issue. So, we went to the -- where most people go I think is to the tax assessor's website, because you can see what the zoning is. Yeah. It's R-4. We looked at the Silverstone plaza and the rest of the surrounding area. It l ooked pretty good. They were at least reasonable. And I might suggest as a -- to help things out. I don't know how to manipulate this. But on that website if you have a zoning -- it's not you, it's Ada County. That it has R-4 maybe with an asterisk or a flume or some -- some designation by this rating that tells you that, hey, what does this mean? So, you can carry it a little bit further to find out, well, that could be R-15. That can be an apartment complex. That could be a commercial business. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, George. Howard: Appreciate it. De Weerd: Mary. Signed up against. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Gary Lee signed up against. Thank you. Pat Minegar. Signed up against. Yes. Thank you. Marlene. Signed up against. Minegar. Okay. Thank you. Yes. We know that. John and Renee -- Rebecca Tucker signed up against. Thank you. Fred -- with a K. Signed up against. Would you like to come forward? Please. I'm sorry, Fred, I couldn't read your handwriting. If you will just come on forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Kiperis: My name is Fred Kiperis. I live in 3415 East Quin Drive in Sutherland Downs. De Weerd: Thank you. Kiperis: And I was looking at this last revised site plan here and since we have started this whole process it's changed two or three times already and I was kind of surprised to see it again today -- instead of like 64 apartments, we have 48 listed on this plan here and now there is two -- it looks like there is two common areas there along Easy Jet Road that it doesn't appear to be a building other than maybe a clubhouse and what I'm looking at this, it seems to me -- and I think the lady brought it up once before that the initial plan we Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 20 of 93 were going to see three apartment buildings going in here and, then, all of a sudden, along Easy Jet, you know, when things get a going there is going to be changes made. I mean -- and to me this is nothing but a -- you know, a camouflaged plan of what we are actually going to be seeing here further down the road. You know, the developer, you know, he knows how to play these games I'm sure and so you can see that all of a sudden, you know, we are pacified now, because we see two of these empty big common areas here, but there is nothing in those common areas that says that's the way they are going to stay and so how do we know that if this site plan is approved by the Council that this is the way it's going to end up? I mean how do we know that? Is there -- Councilman Bird, do we know that that's the way it's going to end up? No. The answer is no. De Weerd: Yes, we do. Kiperis: You do? How do you know that these two common areas are going to be common areas? De Weerd: We will have our attorney address that and so he can explain when an approval is made that's -- Kiperis: That's the way it is. De Weerd: -- that's what they are entitled to. Kiperis: Well, you know, I -- my wife and I have lived in different places and we have seen that what was approved and what happens further down the road. It is not how -- how this whole thing works. You know, pretty soon there is changes made and all of a sudden you will see another two or three story building popping up right there and then -- that's just the way it's worked in the past and so we just want to be sure that this is the way it's going to end up. If you approve it that that's -- this is -- there will be common areas here and not all of a sudden be another two or three story building popping up right there in that empty spot, so -- you know, we also had -- my wife and I have concerns about the traffic. There is significant traffic. It's already been brought up that the traffic -- and if you see right here all of a sudden we only have like the parking in spots when -- per unit and -- and I'm looking at this and I'm thinking why is there so many parking spots over there and -- because initially there was just one and a half per household and I think there isn't anybody in here -- and I'm sure that you all -- that there is not one and a half cars in your household. You know, there is more than one and a half -- De Weerd: Sir? Kiperis: -- sometimes if you have children -- De Weerd: Sir? Kiperis: -- there is one for each child. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 21 of 93 De Weerd: Sir? Kiperis: You know, you will have four or five or -- De Weerd: Fred? Kiperis: Yes. De Weerd: Can you summarize your testimony, please? Kiperis: Okay. My testimony -- I'm just concerned that this is not the way it's going to end up and -- you know. I want to be sure that if -- if you approve this plan that there will not be two more apartment buildings going in there along Easy Jet in that common area. De Weerd: Thank you. Kiperis; You're welcome. De Weerd: Robert Neilson. Signed up against. Good evening, Bob. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Neilson: Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Robert Neilson. I live at 3508 East Quin Drive in Meridian and as you mentioned I am opposed to the Easy Jet Subdivision as proposed. A two step increase to medium high density residential zoning, R-15, with multi-family housing as proposed are not compatible with this small in-fill development, which is directly about medium low density R-4 single family homes. With this small property it's not possible to have transitional densities with the adjacent residential neighborhood and the site plan does not have an adequate landscaping buffer. More desirable will be to do something with the entire property where it might have professional offices or services or to rezone the property so that it could look at something like R-8 residential properties, say patio homes, townhomes or condos. These options would provide jobs and/or services to the local area consistent with the original plan for Sutherland Farm development or medium density housing more consistent with the existing residential area. The developer is finally listening to the residents' concerns and the unanimous recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to eliminate the three story multi-family buildings and to lower the number of dwellings to 48. This is great. It reduces the scale, the building mass, and the dwelling unit density, but it doesn't completely eliminate neighborhood concerns as you're hearing, although it is a step in the right direction. I would like to see something different, but what I would like to also ask is that if the plan as presented tonight is accepted, that you should also require that the residential buildings on the east end of the property conform with the design appearance of exterior materials in the existing neighborhood. For example, you heard that we are talking about two foot high stone at 50 percent of the front area. I believe in the housing developments the requirement is four feet high. I ask that you also require substantially more than the number of parking spaces the city code requires. Since with nontraditional occupants, where two bedrooms -- where bedrooms, excuse me, are often subleased to Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 22 of 93 save money, two bedroom apartments can usually have four vehicles associated with it and despite the statement that Lisa Bachman made in the beginning where the number of parking spaces are almost doubled, the actual increase in parking spaces from 115 to 171 for both the commercial and residential properties is an increase of 48 percent, where the increase was doubled in the commercial side, but not in the residential side. Still this is a substantial increase in the number of parking spaces, but it's also consistent with what we have been hearing from the developer in neighborhood meetings and the Planning and Zoning meetings where we hear things that are partially correct, but not a complete reflection of the truth. Finally I would ask that you require a staffed on-site maintenance office for the apartment complex. Thank you for your consideration. De Weerd: Thank you. Ken Morey signed up against. Okay. Joy Morey signed up against as well. Cheryl Freman. Signed up against. Freman: Hi. I'm Cheryl Freman. I live at 3511 East Shergar Court. I'm right on the corner of Bay Star and Victory Roads. We have so much concern about the traffic on Victory Road. It's backed up. We can't get in our subdivision, either section of our subdivision and it's just hard to get in there, so -- and with the traffic and with all the kids coming in -- I have problems with the kids, too, so -- but they will be coming my way from Easy Jet and coming through our subdivision. So, it's just going to make it really bad for our subdivision. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Paul and Kathy Hosford. Signed up against. Hosford: Good evening. My name is Paul Hosford. I live at 2711 South Knapp adjacent to Easy Jet in the Sutherland Farm Subdivision. I'd like to talk about the precedent this is setting for South Eagle Road south of the Silverstone plaza. This will be the first high density that I can imagine on South Eagle Road. What kind of precedent is that going to be for the rest of the lots here. You're opening up a traffic bottleneck -- and yet another bottleneck in Meridian and you have to stop this here. The solution for this density -- to place this is right down the street. It's Overland. It's Franklin. You widened Franklin. You have these lots. On Overland there is corn fields that are for sale right now that have the services, that have the -- that have businesses that want the traffic, not South Eagle. This is just going to be a bottleneck. You know you're going to put this development in there, you will see 48 units -- you're going to keep adding 48 and 48 and 48. They will continue on down. This is the time to stop it. This is the place. Be bold. Make the call here. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. John and Nancy Beaudreau. Beaudreau. Yes. Against. I figured you would come forward and share that. Thank you for being here. If you will, please, state your name and address. Beaudreau: Yes. My name is John Beaudreau. I live at 2727 South Halo Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 23 of 93 Beaudreau: And one of the things listening to all of this is I heard the word several people objected to that. Well, you know, I deal with words a lot in my prior careers and several means two, three, four, five, not hundreds that have been against this right from the start. So, when you start using words like several, that diminishes us and the whole community. Why don't you put the number of people that actually are against it versus the number that are for. Then we have an idea of the numbers, the several verses the one or the many or what. That's my first point. The other point is when we bought not too long ago -- let's see, six, seven months ago -- we bought because it was zoned R-4. If we would have known, then, that it was zoned for something else, but the record said R-4, which meant to me that there would only be four homes per acre and now it's 15. It was more. Well, where does the buffer zones go, which you require to have buffer zones. Those went out the window. Even your planned development plan said R-4 and now you're going to change it to R-8, R-15, R-300 -- we don't know. You keep changing everything when it's convenient. That's all I have to say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Elaine Anderson signed up against. Thank you. Bruce Waag. Yes. Signed up against. As did Linda. Thank you. Casey Butterfield signed up against. Okay. Erik Gabrielson. Signed up against. Gabrielson: My name is Erik Gabrielson. I reside at 4231 East Easy Jet Drive, Meridian, in Sutherland Farm. I'd like to thank the Council and the Mayor and the staff for allowing myself and others to speak on the Easy Jet apartments. I'd also like to thank everyone for their service to the City of Meridian and to our community. My wife and I live near the corner of Easy Jet Drive and Tristram Way. Easy Jet is a main street through Sutherland Farms and we are less than a block away from Hollandale, which connects our subdivision with Muir Ridge Drive. Our immediate concern with building of the proposed apartments is the increase in traffic that will be generated by this complex. It is not unreasonable to estimate that there will be at least two cars per apartment unit. With the latest platting of 48 units that would equal 96 cars. It is also not unreasonable to assume that there will be at least one trip through our subdivision each day. That alone will be a use increase in the traffic to our subdivision and in Muir Wood as well. If apartment residents are going to the grocery store or just heading towards Boise on Overland, they will come down Easy Jet, turn on Hollandale and, then, down Muir Ridge to Cloverdale. People don't like to wait long at the light at Overland and Eagle Road, so unless they are going to the freeway or heading north on Eagle or heading west on Overland, they tend to choose an alternate route, which takes them through our subdivision. The fact that two accesses to the development are via Easy Jet Drive also raises concern for the peak hour traffic. With our current traffic intersection at Easy Jet and Eagle is often congested as people wait to make the turn onto Eagle, apartment residents who have difficulty going west on Easy Jet will choose to head east through our subdivision to access either Victory to the south or Cloverdale to the east. They may utilize the entrance to the business park on Pine Bluff to the north. There is tremendous amount of building currently underway on both sides of Eagle between Victory and Amity. The traffic on Eagle will continue to increase. As this occurs the congestion at Easy Jet and Eagle will increase at peak traffic hours. We are very concerned that the big increase in the traffic from the apartment complex could adversely affect our property value and affect our quality of life. We also Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 24 of 93 have many children in our neighborhood who ride their bikes and scooters to Pepper Ridge Elementary School. It is very likely that these children will encounter increased traffic as they come down Easy Jet, turn onto Hollandale, on over to Muir Ridge. I was very surprised to see that there is no concern from the Meridian Police Department. There is no doubt in any of our minds that there will be a traffic problem rising from this dense of a development. I think the impact has been underestimated. I am completely against this project. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Carole Gabrielson. Signed up against. Good evening. C.Gabrielson: My name is Carole Gabrielson. I live at 4231 East Easy Jet Drive and I'm speaking against the proposed apartment complex. My husband and I have serious concerns over the long-term impact this apartment complex will have on our neighborhood. Within a three mile radius of Sutherland Farm there are 854 apartment units. These units range from high end apartments with many amenities to low end units with few amenities. The Easy Jet Apartments are towards the lower end of these units. Those of us who have lived in the valley all of our lives have seen times when vacancy rates for rental units drop to very low levels. This lasts for a period of time and, then, the vacancy rates climb again. At the rate that we are building rental units in Meridian the vacancy rates may start to climb sooner than we think. High end complexes in our area, such as Gramercy Village, the Fields at Gramercy, and Red Tail Luxury Apartments will weather the increases in vacancy rates better than lower end complexes, such as the Easy Jet Apartments. Renters will choose to spend their dollars at complexes with many luxury amenities. When apartment buildings are no longer profitable there are very few available options. The owner can either lower the rates to appeal to lower income renters or let the buildings deteriorate and use it as a tax writeoff. Neither of these options have a desirable income -- outcome for our subdivision. We are fully aware that if this apartment complex is approved the Meridian Comprehensive Plan will allow developers to put the remaining acreage from Easy Jet to Victory into more apartments. The staff report asks for several things to be added at the south end of the parking lot for the commercial buildings and also at the south end of -- at the roundabout entrance for the apartment complex. This is a clear indication that future complexes may be built. Those of us who commute daily out of Easy Jet on Eagle know that traffic will be pushed into our subdivision because of the gridlock. The property value of the homes on the main exit routes will be impacted. The lot upon which the Easy Jet apartments will be built is a long narrow lot with several homes on Nephrite in close proximity. There is no question that the property value of these homes will be affected. When parts of this subdivision are adversely affected it spreads to the rest of the subdivision. My husband and I have already experienced this in our previous Meridian subdivision where we lived for 30 years. We not only lost property value, but we lost our quality of life. When you lose the ability to feel safe and secure in your own home you never want to experience it again. The City of Meridian has an obligation to protect its homeowners. We pay property taxes. We volunteer. We attend churches. Our children and grandchildren attend Meridian schools and many of us work or have worked in Meridian. We have invested in this community and we deserve to be protected from those who simply want to make a quick profit. Our HOA expressed concerns about the fact that each apartment building is built on a Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 25 of 93 separate lot and can be multiple owners -- and there can be multiple owners of the complex. Lisa Bachman from JUB acknowledged that this practice is common. So, it seems that this is likely to occur. We have some big concerns over how this is going to be managed. We would like to have some say if this apartment complex is approved as to what the requirements are for management. We are very concerned that improper management could also affect our property values. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. De Weerd: Thank you. Alene Galyen. Signed up against. Thank you. Ken Galyen signed up against. Noted. Bonnie Carter. Signed up against. Thank you. Clayton Carter. Signed up against. Thank you. Jacob Mulkey. Signed up against. Thank you. Glenda Morton signed up against. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record. Morton: Good evening, Mayor and Council. This is -- I am Glenda Morton. I live at 2866 South Nephrite Way in Meridian with my husband Robert and I just want to go on record as saying that we agree with everything that's been stated and in consideration of your time and patience tonight I'm just going to skip a lot of what I was going to say, but I am uniquely qualified to address one issue that has not been brought up. I am an apartment building manager in Boise. I have managed that building for almost 20 years when it was my parents' property and now my -- mine and my sisters that live in California. I do not want to say one single thing about being young, because I used to be, but I know the nature of apartment dwellers. To demean them would be wrong. But they are in a different station in life. Their comings and goings are frequent. Their hours are varied. I would say that many are college students. I have got grandchildren that are college students. It's admirable and it's desirable. But when we stand here person after person and talk about zoning and quality of life and the impact that a massive amount of people on a small parcel of land is going to do for our community -- I'm here to tell you they are telling the truth, because these young people don't have their whole life invested into their homes. They don't pay homeowners insurance. They don't pay property taxes. I have seen our tenants at our building race in and out of the parking lot -- they are not teenagers. They are not all college students. They are young and it's just a completely different lifestyle. It doesn't mean they have tailgate parties every weekend. Many of them are young families, but I would challenge the assertion that they are empty nesters. Most are not. Some may be. But we can talk about the compatibility of brick and mortar and esthetics. What about lifestyle? Are we and Sutherland Downs, Muir Wood to be thrown under the bus for the sake of this development? It's just a compatibility issue. They are not wrong. We are not right. It's a bad blend. It's a bad mix and it won't wear well. So, I ask the Council to, please, consider the fact that you're opening the gate to all those other properties all the way from Easy Jet all the way down to Victory that will be developed in a likewise manner and I also know the pressure that I get as a property owner and manager of a multi-family unit development. The pressure to go into HUD homes because of the needs of our community is great upon the property owner of this type of development. We recently put two veteran people -- units open for veterans, because we want to do our part. There is a need. But it's dicey and it deserves a lot of consideration. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 26 of 93 De Weerd: Thank you, Glenda. Morton: Thank you. De Weerd: Jason Altinger. Alsinger? Signed up against. Sorry. Well, welcome. Attinger: My name is Jason Attinger. I live at 2626 South Tristram Way. I just want to go on the record for myself. My wife can't be here tonight. The house that I live at is actually between my neighborhood Sutherland Farm and Muir Wood. So, I'm the single point -- Hollandale is the road that goes through my house -- or, excuse me, next to my house and connects the two neighborhoods and the things I want to speak on real quick -- first I want to thank everybody on what they said and I strongly agree with the -- the comments from the neighbors -- the several neighbors -- the hundreds of neighbors here and there are several neighbors that they had -- they couldn't make it tonight. I have seen a huge amount of traffic since we started construction on 84 and, then, we had a little construction going on with the other apartments that were just put on Overland. A lot of people cut through the neighborhoods and I spoke to one of the officers last time I was here and he came up to me after the last meeting because of the traffic situation, because a lot of people run that stop sign by my house and my kids are out there playing. I put up an IP camera so I can videotape it so when m y daughter gets hit when she's a teenager when she gets rear ended or hit in the rear end as she's backing out after she's checked three times, but we have proof for the insurance company that somebody did run that stop sign. But I see lots of traffic and I totally agree with -- they are going to make a right out of there and want to cut through by my house through Muir Wood to get out to the Overland area or to Victory area, because that makes more sense than going up to Eagle and the light. And they are not going to want to make a left. Everybody is making a left. There is a bottleneck there during school hours, to and from -- you know, work hours. So, that's a huge thing. So, that's the one thing I just wanted to point out. The next thing was a precedence. The previous slide that you had with the -- all the homes going down around -- or all the, quote, developing land -- I mean people already live there that weren't developing -- I don't know, you know, that makes it sound better that you're taking people's homes away from them, they are single family lots, and turning them into something massive. You know, come into your neighborhood and knock down three houses or four houses and build up 15, am I developing it or am I ruining your life. So, I like how that word is thrown around. The last thing that I want to say is -- nothing against Lisa. I know she's got a hard time. She comes in here and there is a compromise that's being made, right? I mean I know the private -- or, excuse me, the property owner has a right to develop that land. But the original intention was R-4; right? We all know that. So, they have -- the only reason they have compromised, JUB, is because of the pressure of the several people in this room, so they have gone down to 48. But it's a minimalist attitude. It's not -- it's not -- they are not advertising high priced, high end fancy apartment buildings, it's minimalistic. Anything -- any improvements they do it's just to satisfy us to shut us up so you will pass it. Now, I ask you as an elected Mayor, as an elected Council -- you know, I'm the district prescintman myself with the Ada County Republicans and a military member. You represent the people. You represent these several people here Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 27 of 93 and the hundreds of people that couldn't make it tonight. Make a decision in accordance with what's on your website, what you preach, which is build the matter of community first, Meridian and City of Meridian and the people. So, support them, support the greatest good, support all these people and listen to what they are saying, not just one -- one person's profiteering interest and one company's profiteering interest. Thank you. De Weerd: I'm sorry. Please don't do that. No matter how great of a spokesperson he was, I ask you to, please, refrain. And I will -- I don't know if I used the word several, but if I did I apologize. Okay. Well, please, don't take that literally. I'm sure they did not mean to minimize the -- the concern among the neighbors. So, please, allow me to correct that and, you know, you don't need to quote it anymore. Tammy Eslinger. Signed up against. Gary VanAcker. Aucker. Thank you. Gary, please, join us. Thank you for being here. VanAcker: Thank you for making that clarification for us. My name is Garry VanAcker and I live at 3967 East Raja Drive in Sutherland Farm and representing myself and my wife. I'd like to thank City Council for your time and hearing us out tonight. I once heard -- and I will piggy back on this -- that for every single person who writes their elected official or representative there are 10,000 people who didn't have -- who have the same view and were afraid or who are afraid to speak up. I hope that with the presence tonight you take that into consideration in your decision and recognize the neighborhood residents. Well, a lot of work has been put into this -- put in by JUB Engineering. I believe that this high density does not meet fit, form or function of our neighborhood. This not a not in my backyard case, it is just not the right parcel for this project. JUB has tried to tell you that this is a high quality building project. This is not true. Our request is a requirement that all buildings and garages be composed of stucco and stone in greater than 50 percent aggregate to better fit the neighborhood as our homes were required. I would like a conditional requirement made such as the site plan be revised to allow for an entrance on Eagle Road by modifying the site plan to restrict the business parcel from two buildings down to one or increasing the size or duplex to allow for the entrance. This is like the existing driveway from the existing residence that was there. The curb had already been cut for that. I would love to address the concerns of the school impacts, traffic impacts, safety impacts, lack of public transportation. However, from the Planning and Zoning meeting they indicated it was not their jurisdiction or within their power to change these. Please know that this is not true. Your vote is exactly the control to keep the type of development -- this type of development and growth within a reasonable framework. This is not reasonable for this parcel. Congratulations on being on Forbes fastest growing city in America. Most companies that grow at exponential rates have an extremely high probability that they will fail. They will outgrow themselves, meaning that they will fail. Who will pick up the pieces five, ten, 15 years from now? Approving the request before you is a recipe for disaster. I ask you tonight to reject this request as it is set before you. If you approve it, please, require that no more than two story buildings be allowed as recommended unanimously by Planning and Zoning. Maintaining an R-4 density greater than 50 percent stucco and stone to meet the neighborhood, entrance on Eagle Road, independent management offices to be required for each separate apartment parcel on site with each building. Unless you restrict the subdivision of the apartment properties and require them to be divided -- require them from being divided and maintained as one Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 28 of 93 parcel. As a side note, do you know that buses drive through our subdivision to avoid the main arteries, because they can't get through and I just want to -- one real quick thing. We did have vandalism in our park this weekend. Somebody decided in the middle of the night to drive their car or truck up through the park. We got -- you know, we are going to have young kids, we are going to have teenagers. The density is too high. If you extend that all the way to Victory at the same density, that's more density than our entire neighborhood put together. Thanks for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Timothy Norris. Signed up against. Do we have anyone in the other room? Yeah. Can you? Michelle Skelton. Signed up against. Art and Pam Voorhis. Signed up against. Okay. Thank you. Catherine Valent. Signed up against. Thank you, Catherine. Jenny Staples. Signed up against. Thank you. Brian Parker. Signed up against. Thank you. Gene Montgomery. John. I'm sorry. John. Montgomery: Usually my handwriting is pretty legible. De Weerd: It might be my eyes. Montgomery: Good evening, Mayor Tammy. De Weerd: Good evening. Montgomery: Nice to see you again. Th ank you for having us. And Members of the Council. This project is part of -- I live at 2560 South Teddy Avenue in Meridian with my lovely bride Beverly. The project is a part of Sutherland Farm planned development approved in 2002, which was a good deal of time ago. A lot of things have -- were approved then and that we seem to not be discussing this evening, which I find rather interesting. The following information was specifically pulled from that development agreement. City staff requested that the park eliminate the houses that were proposed to be built around the park, so that it would be open and accessible, especially for the proposed future commercial office and multi-family uses. As stated that the reduction of -- or elimination of the houses would create a larger open and usable park for the entire subdivision. Staff found that the office, multiple family, townhouse uses will be within convenient walking distance of the park and open space provided within the residential development. Staff also found that it would be a burden for the homeowners to maintain in the future. The city recognized that there are maintenance costs for the park and pathways for the homeowners of Sutherland Farm and that the proposed Easy Jet development will be utilizing these amenities. When other citizens outside our development use our park and pathways they disregard protecting them as they don't have an impact on their personal pocketbook to maintain. They break fountains, sprinkler heads, disrupt wildlife habitat and drive vehicles through the park destroying the grass and they do not pick up the waste after their pets. So, I'm asking you to deny or at the very least do a minimum order to reduce the impact caused by additional use of these facilities. The Easy Jet project is not contributing to any maintenance cost and our homeowners are bearing the entire burden. Thank you. Say hello to Jan and to all of you happy holidays. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 29 of 93 De Weerd: Thank you, John. Bev also signed up against. Hey, I was counting on that one, John. B.Montgomery: We came for marriage counseling. De Weerd: I'm sorry, I can't help you with that. I can't even read his name. B.Montgomery: Okay. That's all right. I'm Bev Montgomery. I live at 2560 Teddy Avenue in Meridian and I am happy to see my Council -- Council members and my Mayor face to face, so I can kind of put a name and a face together. Mayor Tammy and our Meridian Council, thank you for serving. I know that people think that you get big perks and vacations and you fly off here and there and all kinds of things, but I will give you thumbs up for some pretty darn hard work and lots of -- very few thanks letters and, in fact, some very hostile people and some of them might even be here tonight. I don't know. I will say that we -- John and I did deliberately choose to move here for a variety of reasons, not on into Boise, but to be here because we saw the potential of some wide open space and some real exemplary building that can be done that really does serve old people, too, not just young ones. I have in my mind been developing one of these projects for years, I just can't -- I haven't got anybody to listen yet. But, you know, I think tonight that we should talk about setting precedence and as I talk to people who represent JUB as lobbyists and so on and people who have had them do their work, including Meridian people, they have high regard for them and so I know why you would -- you have had a good experience. But I say let's set a precedent tonight. Put something in that whole big section that really is an exemplary model, not just an apartment house that is starting to be on every corner and the brickwork only comes to my knees. Two feet. So, let's go on to say that there was some things I was supposed to say tonight. When I -- when we looked at the 2002 schedule -- Sutherland Farms planned development, I saw all that business, so I thought it would be a good place to bring my retired husband and get him a job, but doesn't know I -- that was part of my plan. But, anyway, that certainly hasn't been developed, but because on that plan it says that any entrances to the city -- and I don't think you consider the entrances to city just right down here, I think you consider us clear out there on -- on Easy Jet to be part of your city and it is to enhance and emphasize some really good features about our city. Encouraging beautification of streets and parking lots. We are near I-84, which is a plus and we don't want to make it a minus. We don't want to be quite as busy as our friends on North Eagle. That is quite a hassle. And we -- and the plan does promote the design of attractive roadway entryway areas into Meridian, which will clearly identify the community. We had a hard time getting here on time tonight and my time is up, but let's do look at doing something as friends and neighbors and wonderful volunteers in our community. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Jannette Mascone. Signed up against. Mascorro: Hello. My name is Jannette Mascorro and I reside at 2827 South Nephrite and I will be speaking for my husband Adrian and I. We are the second house that will be directly affected by this development and ten years ago we bought our first home about a mile away from where we are at now and it took us ten years to be able to buy our dream Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 30 of 93 home and that is what we thought we had. Sorry. We moved December 29th, 2014. About three weeks later we received our notice of the proposed development. Since then we have tried to make the home our own, but knowing that this is a possibility has definitely deterred us from continuing to make this our forever home. We have three children who attend nearby schools. All of our bedrooms face -- are in the back of our house, which will face the development and, you know, you think, oh, well, you can put up trees in the backyard to help obstruct the view, which I love my view and, yeah, we can plant trees for thousands of dollars, but I have a big garden in my backyard that I tend to every summer and with this new home I have been able to make a bigger one and if I put trees I can't grow. So, yes, I can put up patio blinds around my patio to get more privacy and, then, what, we sit in the box where we have 48 or probably double that windows looming in our backyard and so I guess we can move to the front yard and play out there. But, guess what, we are going to have tons of traffic coming down our street because we are that first street and the only street to get out back onto Victory. So, as this project keeps furthering, I feel this box coming around our little -- you know, our total life investment where we thought we would spend the rest of our lives and, you know, yes, we are just one home, but we are great citizens to this community and we would like to continue to live here and keep being great citizens and contributing. So, thank you and please take that into consideration. De Weerd: Thank you. Dudley Parker. Signed up against. Amy Parker. Signed up against. Bryce -- thank you. Susan Sims. Signed up against. William Sims -- oh. Thank you. Sorry I didn't pause there. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Sims: Yes. I am Susan Sims and I live at 2867 South Groom Way in Meridian. 83642. I am here -- I won't reiterate everything, but I agree with a lot of the concerns here. I have -- we have made our life investment in this home, in this neighborhood, that we have lived in for ten years. I did see in the record that there was a letter from the school district stating that there was overcrowding of schools and I do know that firsthand, as my son being in an elementary school. I do know for sure that in our neighborhood and this property there is no busing available to Pepper Ridge and that it is because we are in the 1.5 mile zone and so we do not get any transportation, which is going to increase the traffic for parents in the apartment buildings if it's permitted to come through our neighborhood, which is going to leave them and the kids wanting to play at the park and they are not going to be allowed to play at the park, so it's going to increase the tension there and add to the traffic and we have a lot of kids on bikes that go to Pepper Ridge, even though we are over a mile away. The other point I wanted to make is that there was a public transportation suggestion when you build apartments that it's close to public transportation. This is not near a bus stop. Any city bus is over a mile away. We have a concern for the commercial buildings that are existing there in Southstone that traffic is going to cut through this commercial, because Easy Jet and South Eagle back up so much that they will be cutting through the commercial -- the existing commercial to get through to Easy Jet and that the parking that is going to be overflowing this proposed apartment building will go into that commercial area there. The other thing I wanted to say is that if this is approved as it is, that the office buildings need to match the architectural Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 31 of 93 style and building material as the apartment buildings and as they are proposed the apartment buildings are only wood and plank siding and not -- and none of the existing office buildings directly across the street have any wood on them. They are stucco and stone and we feel that requiring wood siding on the offices would make those buildings compatible with the vicinity and the existing commercial on the north side of Easy Jet. We would ask that you require the apartment buildings to have more stone and stucco to enable the office building architecture and facades to be compatible with the surrounding development. So, I would just ask that you take a really good look at what we are required in our neighborhood to -- to provide when we build and that make it compatible or better than what we are supposed to do. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you, Susan. William Sims. Signed up against. Okay. Thank you. Todd Harper. Signed up against. Good evening. Harper: Thank you. Todd Harper at 2839 South Nephrite. Here to speak for myself and my wife Jennifer. Just real brief. I'm just very concerned about all the traffic that as is we have too much traffic cutting through our neighborhood, overcrowding of schools and just in general lack of infrastructure, that traffic getting to work is a nightmare, traffic coming home from work is a nightmare, that basically adding to the congestion is just not something I look forward to and also the way the complex is designed with the access for future properties to have access to Easy Jet, for them to cut through will exacerbate the problem. So, just lack of infrastructure is my biggest problem and the way the current design is with, you know, basically a seed for future apartment complexes to the south of it -- just not looking forward to it, because I live three houses away from the proposed development and it doesn't blend with the neighborhood well. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Todd. Donna Dillree. Signed up against. Todd Schafer is in the other room. He didn't want to testify, but he signed up against. Jeff Baster -- I don't know how to say your last name. But maybe you will say it. I don't know how to say that last name. I don't even know anyone with that last name. Basterrechea: I promise I won't roll my Rs like my brother. First of all I want to thank Mayor -- De Weerd: I was very concerned that there might be a relationship there. Basterrechea: Well, f irst, let me say what I say does not reflect upon him, so -- first of all, I want to thank the JUB Engineers for the compromise they did. I think it was sort of splitting the baby down the middle to come to this type of agreement. However, I think it comes to -- the point I want to make is this the right project at the right time. I am not anti- family, I am not against low income housing, I'm not against young people. But I think if you look around the room most everybody here is well over 35 and the issue I think a lot of us have here is not the fact that they there is an apartment complex being built or a business complex, it's -- as people have stated what's this going to be like in ten and 15 years, 20 years down the road when a lot of us, including me, are still living in my neighborhood? I have lived in Idaho my whole adult life. I have worked in law Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 32 of 93 enforcement for 30 years, 27 of those with Boise city. During that time I saw a lot of great apartment projects come to life. Alpine Apartments. Overland Park Apartments. Lake Harbor Apartments. All those -- Glenwood Apartments. All those were great ideas during the time. But over the years I saw those apartments start deteriorating. I saw the absentee landlords. The people who didn't care anymore about what their apartment complex looked like, didn't care that the siding or the paint was coming off, that the asphalt was all potted and had huge potholes in it. What happens with apartment people is if they can't afford a home they are going to move on to the next great apartment complex and all these apartment complexes had all these great, you know, side bars in -- with them. Gyms. Close to businesses. That's the concern I think all of us have here is what's it going to be like when a new apartment complex gets built someplace else here in Meridian? Are those anchor businesses going to be there? Are they going to be boarded up? I think we have to look around and say do we want half empty, you know, mixed living use spaces, stuff like that. Also I think another aspect -- I won't even go into the Easy Jet portion of the roadway, because it's been covered immensely -- is what about Mountain View? Mountain View is getting dumped on continually by overcrowding. They are concurrently up to I believe six portables and if we bring more people in that's more portables they are going to have in there. We just passed another school bond for our school, because they are overcrowded. Our schools are overcrowded. And Mountain View, I hate to tell you, my son goes there, is taking the brunt of this growth. When Mountain View first started it was well known for parents who were putting their kids there, that there were probably 20 to 30 percent of the kids there did not live in the district and now we are going to add to this problem? That's all I have to say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Could I make -- Mr. Basterrechea. Basterrechea: Yes. Cavener: If you would just add your name and address for the record. You didn't get a chance to do that. Basterrechea: Oh, I'm sorry. It's Jeff Bast errechea and I'm at 2882 South Groom Way in Sutherland Farm. Cavener: Thank you. Sorry, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: That's all right. Mike Divine. Signed up against. Thank you. Bonnie -- okay, Bonnie. Come on up and tell me your name. She signed up against. Broussard: Hello. My name is Bonnie Broussard. I live at 2662 South Teddy Avenue. What I'd like to do is bring to your attention the requirements of the findings that you have to make tonight, Section 11-5-B6, for conditional uses. It says that the commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following -- and it has items one through nine. Nine has A and B. So, there is ten items here. And I'd like Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 33 of 93 to argue that eight out of the ten findings are not met with this project or they cause impacts. So, I'd like to go through each one of those, so this will help you make your decision tonight. That the site -- one. The site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. They have met that requirement should you approve the rezone. So, we will give them that item number one. Item number two. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Well, we have stated tonight how skipping a step in zoning does not meet the goals in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. And not providing a buffer. Item three. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of this same area. This is very subjective, but you can understand that all these people are here tonight and have testified because it does not -- it is not compatible with the area and, actually, you will find that the Planning Commission also found that the project that was proposed was not compatible and it had -- that's why they had to reduce the height requirements and the density and that they were concerned with the buffer areas of the homes and they were concerned about the traffic and school impacts. Number four. That the proposed use as it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Well, as we have spoken tonight that it will, that adjacent properties -- they will probably have a value loss with their property and it will have an impact on the traffic and with our school density. Number five. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police, fire protection, et cetera. Well, we know that the school district actually sent a letter that stated that they do not have room for the students that they anticipate coming from this project, that there was approximately a 60,000 dollar impact to them where they will have to provide two additional portable buildings to fit new school children from this project. Number six. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional cost for the public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Well, the -- taxes will have to be raised to provide those school rooms and there is an economic impact. Number seven. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, material, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person's property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic noise, smoke, fumes, glares or odors. Well, we know that it will provide traffic impacts. Eight. That the -- De Weerd: Bonnie? You will need to summarize. Broussard: Okay. So, that -- we don't want this to set a precedent. Number nine says that it -- that this project should not set a precedent and we are -- it's spoken that it has -- that it will and that -- B, it also says that -- 9-B. That this should have a greater level of conformity to the development standards set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. So, this project needs to exceed what's already existing in our area. We have found that this project does not. So, we just want to ask how many of these ten findings must be met in order for you to approve this project and what is your threshold. Thank you. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 34 of 93 De Weerd: Thank you. Janet Atkinson signed up against. Good evening. Thank you for being here. If you will state your name and address. Atkinson: I'm glad you called me. I'm so tired I have to go home. It's past my bedtime. My name is Janet Atkinson and I'm speaking for myself and my husband Patrick Flaherity, who was not able to be here tonight. We live at 4097 East Raja. I just want to -- we are against this and I just want to state something that was stated earlier at the very beginning by the JUB representative that said this project was fitting with the neighborhood. This project is not in fitting with the neighborhood. If you look at the parcels around it you have a subdivision across Eagle of nice one family homes. You have our neighborhood that comes up against the back of it of one family homes. You have a small -- smaller -- Sutherland Farms that's right next to it and you have small businesses after that fact. In fact, I was sitting here tonight and I can't think of one multi-family development on Eagle Road that actually is on Eagle Road. There certainly is not one from Victory or Amity all the way to Overland. There is nothing like that on Eagle Road. There is some things that are a little bit off Eagle Road, but not right off Eagle Road and those that are slightly off Eagle Road closer down by The Village or something, they are not in the entrance road to a subdivision. Unlike something that happened on Overland not long ago by Pepper Hills, they built four-plexes there, but those plexes are completely separate from Pepperhill Subdivision. There is no road that connects those. This is on the road that enters into our subdivision. We live in expensive homes that most of us invested our life savings into that we believe that it was going to -- we moved here, as everybody does, into subdivisions that they do for a certain type of lifestyle. This doesn't fit with anything around it and like others I am concerned about precedence, but if you haven't driven down Eagle Road and looked at this particular section, I would really ask you to do that. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Bryce Hayman. I think. I think it's Bryce. It could be something different. Come on up. If haven't called your name it might be you. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for being up front to correct me in my pronunciation. Herder: Okay. Well, my name is Bryce Herder. De Weerd: Thank you. Herder: I live at 2860 South Groom Way in Sutherland Farm. De Weerd: I think I'm just going to start naming you guys what I think you -- it might be and so my apologies. Herder: Not a problem. Thank you, Mayor and City Council. The proposed Easy Jet Subdivision lies within the area of the -- and within the Sutherland Farm planned development which was approved in 2002. The d evelopment agreement I believe is a legally binding document to the property and property owner and to the City Council and its staff and within that agreement there was certain findings that need to be applied to any development that is within that agreement. One of those is to establish compatible Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 35 of 93 and efficient use of land to the use of innovative and functional site design. Design and performance standards should be applied to in kind development in order to reduce impact upon existing adjacent development and some of the staff comments included that they are consistent, harmonious throughout the development. Our standards in our subdivision require a minimum of four feet of stone work on the buildings and the corners must be wrapped and three types of building materials, including stone, stucco, wood siding and/or brick. Multi-pitched roofs and certainly any railings are iron railings. The Commission and City Council should determine what, if any, architectural design concepts and/or commercial should be incorporated into all buildings within this development. I believe it is your job to enforce the architectural standards as required by the existing Sutherland Farm planned development on the Easy Jet Subdivision or to completely exclude Easy Jet Subdivision through your motion from the Sutherland Farm planned development altogether. Within the City Code 11-5B-6E -- and I don't know this by heart. conditional uses require that you base your determination on the conditional use permit on ten findings that the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title. I would ask , as a member of the board of Sutherland Farm Homeowners Association that you would place upon any project the conditions that the standards architecturally are greater than the Sutherland Farm architectural standards and I would also propose that perhaps you would include an advisory or inclusive capacity for the Sutherland Farm architectural committee to be included in that review process when considering architectural standards of any proposed project such as Easy Jet. De Weerd: Thank you. Herder: Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Katheryn Nicholas. Signed up against. Thank you. And Joyce Clark. Signed up against. Thank you. Those are the -- well, it was. She said that she spoke for you, so I didn't call it out, but you are against. Sure. I apologize for leaving you out. I just listened to your wife who said she spoke for you. Moscarro: Right. Which is good and that's what it should do. Hi. My name is Adrian Moscarro. I live at 2827 South Nephrite Way, two homes south of the proposed development, and as my wife mentioned earlier, other than the residences to the north of us, it affects us significantly and we will be able to see this development from our backyard. I mean it's from here 60 feet away we will have the first apartment building. But I just want to bring something up. A couple of weeks ago -- and the gentleman mentioned this before me briefly earlier. I saw on the news a couple of weeks ago it was very interesting and awesome to me -- the City of Meridian, Idaho, is the number one city in the -- in America to live in, you know, for varying reasons, you know, some -- you know, reasons such as livability, you know, amenities, crime, traffic, cost of living, et cetera , you know, and I'd like to add to that that I would say that we, you know, here in the City of Meridian -- number one city, because we have elected officials that will hear their citizens and their concerns, such as what we have here. That being the case, I would like to discuss also what this development will cause as far as the concerns that -- one thing that Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 36 of 93 I heard by the planners and the developer was that this development would not decrease the property values and I think that that's not true. We have only been in this house for just about a year at the end of this month and about three weeks after we moved in, like my wife said, we got a notice that said that this development was going to be planned. Had I known that ahead of time I would have never moved into this subdivision, because I would not want to live adjacent to an apartment complex. That's not where we would plan to build our -- or live in our dream home. So, if we wanted to move out -- I know that's just how I feel that way, there would be others that would not want to move in adjacent to an apartment complex and it would be very hard for us to sell our home. So, we would most likely have to drop the property value in order to sell this home. So, yes, it does affect the property. I echo everything that everybody has mentioned here today and, you know, one of the things, too, is what people have said before is the traffic is -- one of the exits to this subdivision is right adjacent to the commercial areas, really close to the intersection of Easy Jet and Eagle Road and with that proximity I mean you can hardly -- it's already congested as it is, but more congestion is going to occur there and, you know, multiple concerns is where is that traffic going to go? People are going to get tired of trying to get out at that intersection right there, they are going to be forced to go out on the eastern exit and go right through our subdivision and cut to the east towards Cloverdale or to the south towards Victory. I do it and I live there. So, I mean people that are going to be living in this apartment complex will do the same thing, especially if they don't have to work north along Eagle or west of Eagle on Overland, they are just going to cut right through the subdivision. So, a lot more traffic concerns that we are going to have. And another thing I would mention, too, is the park. That is owned and operated by the homeowner association. How are we to control the people that are going to be living there from coming to the park? So, the City of Meridian is -- should expect a higher volume of complaints from the citizens for people coming in that shouldn't be there. So, thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Adrian. Those are the people who have signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to add to the testimony here tonight? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Pascal: My name is Cheryl Pascal. I'm speaking on behalf of my husband Ron. 2523 South Jeblar in Sutherland Downs -- or Sutherland Farm. What I want to do is for the record tell you what was said in the planning meeting, basically, and according to Yearsley, he said: Our job is to work to mitigate with the issues so the property owners can come up with a reasonable solution. Now, we always knew that there was going to be an apartment complex -- a planned development on this location, but he said, you know, the traffic is bad, we understand that, but for him what it comes down to is density, what's appropriate density for this location and I have struggled with that most of the evening. So, at this point I'm kind of leaning to requiring only two story apartments to help mitigate the density and the bulk and the mass . I think three stories will stick out quite a bit on that location. Fitzgerald said: I have seen density done in places where it's allowed, but I'm a little concerned about this one because of how close that first house is. There is no buffer. So, R-4 houses into a high density level, I tend to agree with you wholeheartedly that a three story house in the backyard of that -- those several houses is difficult and too much density too close to a residential neighborhood. I'm opposed to that. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 37 of 93 McCarvel said: There are problems with the traffic and the problems with the schools and we do what we can with the schools, but I agree that the three story thing just seems out of place. It does not seem to fit with single and maximum two story homes and I guess most of them are single. It's just not a fit. Wilson said: I'm glad my fellow Commissioners are kind of in the same sort of mind set, the appropriateness of this development, and I think their requiring two story, we can make this more appropriate by making it two stories, recommending two stories I think I would support that. Oliver said: After taking copious notes, it's really a gut check to make you think about what's appropriate and that looking at having a three story building is not something I would want to be looking at, so I agree as well. That was from the planning committee. On a personal note, I am an empty nester. I wouldn't live in that apartment building. Not with the three bedroom apartment. Who is going to be there? Kids. It's not going to be an empty nester. So, I think that's totally ridiculous. Thank you for your time. Thank you for being here and thank you for listening. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like provide testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to -- to have their summary remarks and address some of the questions? If you will restate your name for the record. Bachman: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Lisa Bachman with JUB Engineers representing the applicant tonight. Appreciate all the comments and concerns brought up tonight. Thought they would make it a little easier on me tonight than last time, but they didn't. So, we will practice and go through the various points that they brought up and I wi ll try not to reiterate too much. I took down some notes as the testimony occurred. So, I will do my best to kind of summarize a response. So, the biggest thing here is the density, I think, and the surrounding use and compatibility and buffers. And also the zoning and compliance with the comp plan and -- and those type of things. They all kind of go together. So, I will speak to those. Also the site plan change. As we talked about before, the site plan has changed based on the concern from the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff and, then, also the neighbors. So, whatever site plan, just for clarification, gets approved tonight will be the site plan that the property would be entitled for. If there would be a change in the site plan that exceeds -- I think -- I think there is just a little bit of wiggle room, but not very much. We would have to go back through the public hearing process, through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council as I understand it. Is that correct? Does that sound -- okay. As far as the R-4 zoning. This is one of those projects where it was a planned development. It was zoned R-4. Kind of with a blanket condition in the development agreement that said as the pieces of property that develop that are not single family residential, need to come in and request a rezone and a conditional use for anything that's not a single family. So, that's exactly what we are doing today is we are requesting that zoning to match the land use that we are proposing to do. The land use and the development, the layout, the features, the esthetics reflect what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use development. It's a mixed use. It's -- we are proposing multi-family and commercial. One of the suggestions I made at the last meeting is this -- because this mixed use designation in the comp plan actually carries to the south quite a bit and everyone asking is this what we are going to continue to see and the answer is probably so. So, unless the future land Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 38 of 93 use designation is changed to something different than mixed use it would be hard to imagine anything else being proposed. So, I just wanted to point that out, so if -- they are an organized group of people, if they want to come in and request a change for that I would highly recommend it for future projects to come in. I think I talked a little bit about this reduction in density, zoning the property, calls for mixed use. As far as the buffering goes -- is there any way you could bring up the vicinity map showing the surrounding parcels? Okay. It's kind of hard to see here, but if you look at the site in relation to the surrounding area, to the east we have Nephrite Way that buffers the project between the single family residential area and the multi-family. We also have Easy Jet to the north and to the south that's undeveloped property. So, the roads act as buffers. We are also putting in landscaping around the vicinity of the site. Really, the only property adjacent to the site is the one that you see -- see if I can do this pen thing. This property right -- I don't know if you can see right -- can you see that? The property here and along here. This all right here is future mixed use in the comp plan. This is our project right here and, then, this is the single family. So, really, the only abutting property is the one here with this remark and, then, we are buffered all the way around with landscaping and open space. We have open space all along the frontage of Easy Jet and, then, two two story buildings along the south boundary here. The houses within the development are one story and two story. So, when they look out they are not going to see anything different than what they are seeing in the single family neighborhood portion of the project. That's why we made the change. That's why the Planning and Zoning Commission required that because of those concerns. Traffic was another concern that was brought up. The Ada County Highway District staff report was written -- we are okay with the conditions of approval. Back when this development was originally proposed it required -- it had a traffic study that required signalization of the intersection with Easy Jet and Eagle Road and that has been put in place. There was a recent analysis done on that intersection during peak hours and determined that it's operating at a level of service A or B at that intersection right now. Let's see here. There is currently about 582 trips on Easy Jet according to ACHD's report. The proposed project we have taken away about 200 trips with the density reduction that we proposed. If it were all changed to commercial there would actually be quite a bit more traffic going through the development. I guess going back to the traffic and the buffering and the uses, one of the things I thought of as people were talking about the transitioning areas. Well, what do you transition from the single family to commercial? Typically that's multi-family. So, with this being two story multi- family buildings between single story and two story single family, that's what we consider a transition. So, just wanted to bring that up. That popped in my mind as I was talking about traffic. Sorry about kind of going off track there, but see where I'm going? As far as the maintenance and ownership goes, there will be an office in the clubhouse. There will be contact information for the management company that will oversee the property. I know that was a concern. As far as the HOA fees and the shared open space, that is a civil matter of whether or not, you know, they pay HOA dues and coordinate with this development. That can be worked out outside of the public forum and kind of at the final plat stage when we submit our CC&Rs. As far as the school overcrowding goes, actually, it's -- the development developed as single family residential there would be actually more children on this parcel of land than with what we are proposing. Typically there is 64 students per one hundred single family detached homes and for multi-family it goes all the Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 39 of 93 way down to 20 per one hundred units for multi-family. So, it's a difference of about three kids. So, if it were developed into single family development, you would have approximately 13 children. With multi-family you're looking at about -- well, since you can't have 9.6, about ten. So, it's pretty comparable in terms of what the impact would be to schools between single family and multi-family and the whole thing about -- I don't want to say against apartments or renters, because I think in the testimony they did a good job at, you know, not discriminating or making it sound like they don't want those kind of people in their neighborhood. They went about it, you know, saying it in a more politically correct manner. But, actually, this development -- the rates aren't going to be cheap. They are going to range from 750 dollars to 1,050 a month. It's going to range from one bedroom to three bedroom apartments. They are not going to be low income apartments. Let's see. Going back to -- I was going to talk about the three story versus the two story, but I think I covered that okay. Like I said, Sutherland Farm is one story and two story housing and we are proposing two story housing. As far as the property value decease goes, there actually isn't any evidence to support any reduction in property values as a result of being near multi-family. One of the comments brought up by one of the people was that -- it's a question livability. Actually, a very big component of livability in a community and one of the reasons why Meridian has that aspect to it is because there is housing choice. That's a huge component of livability. And as far as the esthetics goes -- is my time up? Sorry. De Weerd: We would like to hear about esthetics. Bachman: Okay. I will cover that and that should be my last point. So, with the conditions, what we are proposing is kind of a mix of what you see in Sutherland Farm development, as well as the commercial development to the north . With staff's condition and P&Z's recommendation to add stone accents and stucco to two feet of the building around, I believe it's 50 percent of the building -- it kind of brings in both of those elements together from what you see in the surrounding area and we don't have a problem with that condition of approval. One thing I would like to point out as well is that we will be required to go through design review before we apply for any building permits. So, staff will be looking at that very closely and making sure that it is compatible with the area, that it does compliment what's going on out there and that we have delivered what we have indicated in our elevations. So, with that I think I can leave it at that, unless you have anymore questions for me. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Certainly. I want to follow up with questions on issues that were brought up. The issue of lighting was proposed. Bachman: Okay. Well, the lighting along Easy Jet -- there is existing lighting. It's decorative. And as far as lighting within the development, it can be night sky lighting. It's not going to be anything out of the ordinary. It's going to f it within the neighborhood. It's Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 40 of 93 going to be pointing downward in the -- in the parking lot area and on the buildings. It will be minimal, but not minimal enough to created a safety issue. Rountree: There was some speculation that there would be off-street parking. Do you anticipate that with the number of parking spaces you're providing? Bachman: Oh. Good point. So, as far as the parking goes, like I said, we are proposing above and beyond the minimum required parking. Currently Easy Jet is signed for no parking. Nephrite Way there -- I suppose there could be parking, but it will be fenced on that side, so I don't know why people would park on Nephrite Way and walk all the way around onto Easy Jet and go into the subdivision that way. Rountree: There was mention about the fence on the -- on the neighboring side to be something more than a vinyl fence, but something on the line of a masonry wall to -- both for visual, as well as noise. Bachman: Thank you for bringing that up. I was having a hard time understanding where exactly they were talking about. If it's the property along Nephrite Way or -- I would need clarification on -- on where that would be located, but in the area it's vinyl fencing, so we would be matching what's out there and bringing that in. Rountree: There were several suggestions about this particular project being in compliance with the CC&R's architectural requirements that are in the surrounding area, which, apparently, is more than what's anticipated and the staff has recommended. Bachman: I'm not completely familiar with what their architectural requirements are within Sutherland Farm, but I would guess that it's pretty much in line with what we are proposing. They have wood. They have stone accents. There is stucco. You know, all of the things that we are proposing. Rountree: And, finally, on the plots that you show on your preliminary plat along Easy Jet Way -- or the one large lot I guess, is that proposed to be a common area and stay as a common area? Bachman: Along Easy Jet? Rountree: Yes. Bachman: Yes, that would be the common area, parking and open space. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Additional questions? I know Mr. Bird indicated his questions had been answered. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 41 of 93 Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would like Bill to address the question that came up about how can we be sure that some of these -- coming from our legal counsel it might be better. De Weerd: He has asked our attorney to answer the question about once the Council makes a decision and approves the preliminary plat, how that is enforced. Nary: After the Council's decision is made a findings are created by the planning staff that are also incorporated into a development agreement, which is a contract between the city and the developer. So, those findings and those -- the development agreement are recorded against those properties. So, any property owner knows what's supposed to be built there, what it's supposed to look like, which includes the site plan. When a person wants to build a building, they must, then, come in and get a certificate of zoning compliance that what they are building is compliant with what's required and, then, they have to submit the plans for that. Those are, then, reviewed and if they comply with what's allowed, then, a building permit is issued and they can build the building. If they build a building that isn't allowed or don't come in and get a building permit and just build the building without any approvals of any kind, between the ability to enforce it civilly we also have the ability to enforce it criminally under our code enforcement regulations. So, we have two different means in which to enforce someone building something outside of what's approved and also a way to enforce something -- someone building something without any approval permit of any kind. Either way the city knows what's getting built and the city has means to address it if it doesn't meet the requirements in the development agreement. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I have two different questions and the first one actually may be a repeat of something that Councilman Rountree asked, but would you go to the revised site plan, please. Okay. I don't know if this is what he asked, but the two areas closest to Easy Jet that are defined by dashed line rectangles, what are those going to be? Bachman: Councilman Zaremba, open space. Zaremba: And they will always be open space? Bachman: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Second, would you go to the area view. That one. Thank you. I appreciate a lot of the research that many of you did and particularly the young lady who studied the planned development ordinance very thoroughly and spoke to that. Let me make a comment before I go on, just to clear up some confusion. In 2002 the city had a planning and zoning ordinance and we had a separate landscape ordinance and a separate sign ordinance and I think we had a separate parking ordinance, and we had a separate planned development ordinance for anything that didn't fit into the planning and zoning ordinance in the size of two or three buildings. If it was going to be bigger than Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 42 of 93 that we had a separate planned development ordinance. In practice in that planned development ordinance an entire project was zoned with one zone. This entire development was zoned R-4. It was. But the other piece of the planned development -- and some have touched on this -- was what we called a use exception. In other words, even though the underlying zone was R-4, the developer was entitled to develop -- my recollection was ten percent of it into something else and usually was discussed before the planned development was approved, but one of the difficulties with that, as many of you have found out, is that when somebody goes to do their due diligence to find out what else is on this property the answer comes up R-4 and there wasn't -- even then there was confusion about how do you know when and where and what the use exception is going to be? So, again, I appreciate the lady that did some study here. If we are looking at the -- what we are looking at now, you can see pretty much the development and I think there is more to the east that we are not seeing. The point that she brought up is according to her research this was not given a ten percent use exception, it was given a 15 and a half percent use exception. Her point is the piece that is already developed as R-4 and L-O and C-C are 14 or more percent of that 15 percent and the question is the use exception has already been used up, how -- how can this not be the underlying R-4, then, because the use exception isn't available if -- if that math is correct. Bachman: Thank you, Councilman. And if staff can correct me on -- on this. I believe the use exception was for the property to maintain the R-4 zoning designation and be able to have different uses. Do I understand that correctly? Watters: Madam Mayor and Council, if I may respond. Yes, it was actually 20 percent was the percentage of the site could develop with different land uses than the R-4 district or whatever -- whatever district it was -- it was zoned. So, this -- this property -- there were 11 lots on the original preliminary plat that were approved to develop with office slash multi-family uses. This property consisted of four lots on the preliminary plat. The remainder of the lots were to the north across Easy Jet. The remaining six. Those -- seven. Excuse me. They came in and did a modification to the conditional use permit, the planned development, a couple different times and changed those land uses that were -- that were approved for office and multi-family to other residential and commercial uses. So, what the applicant is requesting is in line with the approved planned development for the site. Zaremba: I would just add for everybody's benefit, we don't do it this way anymore. A few years after this we wrote a Unified Development Code we call it that incorporated it all. We found with the previous code sometimes one of them would require something that another one contradicted and by putting them all together in the Unified Development Code, not only did we get rid of some of those conflicts, but we got -- also established a precedent that when the developer annexes and zones their land they actually identify each different piece. There is no just -- it's all R-4, but there is an exception somewhere. They identify what those are. So, unfortunately, this is a leftover ghost from the past, but I will say we aren't doing it this way anymore. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 43 of 93 Watters: Madam Mayor, if I may add to Councilman Zaremba's thought on that. These particular lot numbers were called out in the approval for the office and the multi-family uses. This isn't just a random -- we were allowed to do X amount of percentage of the site this way. It was actually called out on this property by the lot numbers on the preliminary plat. De Weerd: You know, I understand that maybe it's called out on these particular lots, but when the other ones came in and changed, that should have been of consideration. You know, I do understand that we tried to find all of these older planned developments, so we could clean them up, so they actually reflected what the use was intended when the planned development came through. This one apparently was missed. But when the other lots came in I thought Joan's testimony was very compelling, to see the history of the office space and the decline from the 19.4 to the -- or, yeah, I didn't write all the numbers down, but I do believe that as the other ones were redeveloping it should have had an impact on these four lots and what uses they should have. The impact should have been readjusted as we look at our whole planned development. I don't know how you unring the bell and what the entitlement on this land is, but I do have a better understanding of the concern from those that have done the research and what they believe their property rights are as well and what -- what they should be entitled. So, with that said I'm not sure what you can do with that as Council grapples with should this be approved? Is it -- is the intensity too much? And what is appropriate in this area. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Can you pull up your -- I guess it's your newest site plan? Sorry. I will use the mike. Can you -- on the -- on the right-hand side on -- excuse me. Can you outline where the fence -- propose -- where you would propose to put the fence along that. You had indicated the vinyl fencing and I'm just curious as to where -- if it's that solid black line. If it's the -- the dashed black line along the sidewalk. I'm trying to gauge where this fence would be proposed to be. Bachman: Thank you, Councilman. It would actually be along the eastern property boundary. There is an existing fence out there that's -- I think it's three -- three feet tall. Does that sound right? Yeah. Three feet tall. So, we could put -- and we are not proposing a fence on the eastern boundary, but we can put one there if so desired. Cavener: But you had indicated that there was a -- a fence there? Bachman: A three foot vinyl fence. Correct. Cavener: Can you outline where your -- where the three foot vinyl fence currently is? Bachman: She's actually pointing to that right now. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 44 of 93 Cavener: Thank you, Sonya. Follow-up question, then, I guess. Sonya, maybe you can run that line one more time for me and -- it seems to me there is some space where -- so, it's really just right there and there. Okay. Thank you. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I just have a question, Lisa, regarding the school children statistics that you used. Are those Meridian statistics? Because it seems to me that Meridian families have two to eight children per single family households. I'm not sure about apartments. Bachman: Well, it's actually from the Urban Land Institute. I didn't look at Meridian's numbers. But I guess even if we -- if we just use a straight-across comparison it would still be about the same number of kids per -- per hundred units if it was developed with single family or multi-family. Typically people that live in apartments are people that don't have kids or they have less kids, one or two, maybe, tops and with it being limited to three bedrooms and more of the one bedroom and two bed room, there is just not going to be as many children. Milam: Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any other questions for Lisa? I did want to know -- on your traffic study -- did you do a whole new traffic study, considering all the different changes from 2002 or did you just do an intersection analysis? Bachman: Good question. Thank you, Mayor. Actually, we didn't even meet the threshold to do a new traffic impact study. The original request -- I think it was expected to generate about 1,100 trips. That was the 76 units. And with our updated development we are under a thousand. So, we don't even meet the threshold to do a traffic impact study, nor did we originally. The level of service analysis that was done was actually done by Ada County Highway District and that's reflected in their report. So, that didn't come off of the study that we did, that came off of their analysis. De Weerd: Okay. Any response to the letter that the school district sent? I know these are suggestions, that the district can't require it and neither could the city in terms of the -- the cost impact and the amount that -- in revenue this kind of development would need to -- to add. I'm sorry, this is the first letter I have seen that's been written like this, so I'm not really sure how to take it. Bachman: Uh-huh. De Weerd: But any response to this? Bachman: Mayor and Council, it is pretty unique to put a number to it like that and talk about the impact, but the -- the revenue that this project would generate in property taxes Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 45 of 93 would likely exceed the property taxes that would generated by a single family development. So, really, when you're -- when you're looking at what -- what they are asking for to come in with a single family development, it's like comparing the same. De Weerd: I think they are asking for what looks like a donation, because they cannot ask for an impact fee, because the state doesn't allow that, but -- and that it is something that we hope the legislature will start addressing. But in lieu of that they are trying to figure out -- all this tells me is they -- the schools in that area are overcrowded and that anyone in this development would have a possibility of being in their home school district would have to be accommodated somewhere else, which, again, is an additional cost to the schools to do that. So, what is your answer to that? Bachman: Mayor, actually, I don't have an answer to that, because if they are going to require that of every development that comes in the city, just indicate that they are overcrowded and that they are going to -- there is going to be a donation amount set -- I don't know. And I can't really speak on behalf of the client and give you a definitive amount and let you know, yes, we can donate this much towards this cause. Like I said, the impact to schools on the development that we are proposing versus a single family development would be very similar. It is a unique letter and indication from the school, I agree. De Weerd: Well -- and they raise some really important points, too, that unfortunately our state hasn't given any -- any tools to address. Bachman: Agreed. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Lisa, I mean we don't know what they are going to do, but my guess is that as full as they are, overcrowded -- yeah, this is probably going to be a lot more common type of letter that we are going to receive from them, because they don't have anywhere to put the kids until they can grow some more schools. De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor. De Weerd: You want to move your microphone up -- Borton: I will. Lisa, was there discussion with regards to some of the other mixed use community uses to the south and connectivity through the -- through this particular project? There is no access to Eagle and there is no access basically east or west. So, everything that is south also will be funneled through these two parking lots. How does the plat address that future problem? Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 46 of 93 Bachman: Thank you. Councilman Borton. It's actually a requirement of both Ada County Highway District and city staff to provide that stubbed connection and to reduce the access points along Eagle Road. It carries a lot more traffic, it's closer to that -- the intersection with Easy Jet and it's actually a lot safer to have it off of Easy Jet, as opposed to Eagle Road. Borton: Madam Mayor? Follow up. I agree with that, but I'm just trying to gauge your comfort with this particular design adequately allowing all of that traffic to flow through the way it's designed here with the round about and the office parking up front. And there is a variety of ways it can be designed, I'm just gauging if you think this is the most appropriate way to accommodate what's going to a lot of traffic to the south, accessing Easy Jet through this project. Bachman: Mr. Borton, I -- I could see another access coming off of Eagle Road and not everything relying upon this parcel for access south of Easy Jet along Eagle Road, but there is really no telling as those properties come in what -- where they would propose access. You know, I think it's good. You see the stub street there to the -- I'm going to try this pen thing again. Did somebody else draw that on there? Well, there is another stub street right here. This is the mid mile, so I could see another acc ess coming in on Eagle Road -- oops. The pen is a little bit slippery. Winding up here somewhere and connecting into the parcel. Borton: Okay. Bachman: But we do feel like the design and the layout does accommodate the -- the site layout -- it was actually pretty challenging to design and to get the circulation through there, as we went down to the two story and the open space and all that good stuff, so as far as traffic goes and connectivity, this is what we would typically do is stub to adjacent properties to reduce the amount of access of a road such as Eagle Road. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Council, any other questions? And I guess, Mr. Nary, while the applicant is still at the podium, I would ask can you maybe give an overview of what the choices are here tonight? This is an entitled piece of property that's part of a planned development that was already approved in 2002. It's in front of Council tonight because of the rezone to clean it up. The CUP is typically something that the Plannin g and Zoning Commission does, but it was also brought forward because of the rezone. What is in front of Council tonight in terms of some of the decisions or opportunities for discussion? Nary: The issue on the zoning to me is really -- the original zoning that was approved -- and Council Member Zaremba was correct, as was Sonya, the zoning was approved at a particular level with an exception by agreement and so the planned development process allows for this level of development now. The zoning is intentional by the city in the request for the rezone to match it up for the future, so everybody knows what's allowed Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 47 of 93 there, but even if you don't approve the zoning I don't believe they can't ask for the same density based on the original PUD. Now, planning may disagree and I certainly suggest you ask them, too, when we are done, but I don't believe the zoning is really the issue. It is a CUP, which does require compatibility with the neighborhood. So, you do have the ability -- the one that's most common -- and some of you may recall was the discussion we had regarding the Sellway Apartments in north Meridian. Very similar circumstances. Housing was developed -- was approved. The adjacent parcel was to be multi-family. Multi-family doesn't always have to be apartments, but multi-family doesn't always have to be duplexes. But multi-family is anticipated on a portion and commercial is anticipated on a portion. What the Council did in that case -- and I was re-reviewing the district court's opinion on that case that we had, and, basically, the Council has the ability to condition the approval based on some of the concerns. Not a concern necessarily that we don't want it, but it could only make sense if it worked in this way or -- excuse me -- compatible with our -- our building standards. Now, in the Sellway case we didn't have building standards then, but we do now. That was one issue and the Council wrestled with that in 2005 -- was building standards, lighting, buffering, fencing, all of those things to make it truly as integrated as realistically possible into the neighborhood. But it was always anticipated in that case, as well as this case, that some density and some multiple buildings would be built on this site. They are proposing something different. It's the Council's decision on is that different, still compatible, or could it be compatible based on additional conditions that may be necessary. P&Z made the decision on three story versus two -- sorry. De Weerd: I'm sorry, I purposely made him talk a lot. Nary: You have the ability to grant additional -- or require additional conditions that the developer can then decide either that's incompatible or un reasonable or that they can live with those conditions and proceed forward with the project.. Does that answer your questions? De Weerd: I think it lays out same options for the discussion. Sonya, do you have anything you would like to add to that what Mr. Nary has said? Watters: Yes, Madam Mayor. I would just add to what Mr. Nary said about the use in the zone. The whole point of the land use exception that we have spoken about is that they are allowed to do a multi-family use or some other land use in the R-4 district. So, a rezone is not necessary for them to go forward with the multi-family development. A conditional use permit, however, is required because of the original planned development. It required them to come back for detailed approval of a conditional use permit prior to development. So, a conditional use permit is required. And, then, our UDC also -- because they are requesting a rezone at the request of staff, we asked them to rezone the property to clean up, like you said, more or less the zoning in this area. Because they are requesting a rezone then it also requires conditional use approval for the use in the zone. But primarily the CU is for the -- the detailed approval. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 48 of 93 De Weerd: So, if they -- if this was just a development of office buildings they would not have had to come through a CUP, they would have just -- would they have had to? Watters: Yes. They would have to. De Weerd: Okay. Watters: Whatever development goes in here, office or multi-family or both, had to come in for detailed approval, because they only received conceptual approval. Really, the only thing before you tonight -- I mean, like you said, this property is entitled to develop with office and multi-family uses. You do have a say in how it develops. Density. Building type. Height. That kind of thing. De Weerd: Okay. Council, is that helpful? Do you have any further questions for Lisa? Do you have any further comment? Bachman: I don't. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bachman: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Unless the Council wants some discussion -- unless the Council wants some discussion while the public hearing is open, I will move that we close the public hearings on RZ 15-012, PP 15-016 and CUP 16-017. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-B. Any -- all those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment. We are trying to undo the past here and we are not going to be very smooth and it's not going to be very easy, but one option we have is to deny the rezone and, then, that takes that out of the equation. It still doesn't solve the issue, but it puts us in a situation where we can, then, condition the entitled use of the property, which is office and multiple family; am I correct? Watters: Yes. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 49 of 93 Rountree: And we can condition it in whatever way we desire. So, we can c ontinue it in whatever way we desire and not have to contemplate the rezone. That's one option. And that condition can be based on density, it can be based on architecture. It cannot be based on we don't want apartments. We can affirm that what's been said here this evening will be encompassed in the development agreement, which is a contractual document between us and the developer that can be enforced both civilly and criminally. Watters: Madam Mayor? Excuse me, Councilman Rountree. If I may just clarify. There is already an existing development agreement on this property that was -- went effect with the annexation. And change to that is not proposed tonight. Rountree: That would be in the Findings of Fact? Watters: It would be in the Findings for the conditional use permit, yes. In order to change -- let me just add to that. In order to change any of the provisions that were approved, if you choose to tonight, they would have to go back and modify that original conditional use permit planned development. Rountree: Thank you. So, just food for thought. This is a tough one. And I apologize for whatever past action might have created this, having been here for far too many years, but be that as it may, we have to deal with it. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: A couple of comments to Councilman Rountree. First, thank you all for being here tonight at 9:00 o'clock. I know you probably have other things you would rather be doing tonight. But this is -- this is local government in action. This is what makes Meridian so great. We have a developer who has a plan and they bring forth that plan and, then, you as our citizens get to comment on that. It's just incredible. I know it's 9:00 o'clock and we all want to be home, but this is fascinating. So, thank you all for being here tonight and you shared really comments about your home. You know, from a Council perspective we always look at housing as a sign and you really brought an art piece to it and so I'm grateful for you guys being here tonight. To the comments. I think this proposed project can be complimentary. It's not the same as your neighborhood, but I think it can be complimentary and we can handle that. I think the buffering we can handle. I think the site plan we can handle. The multi -family, I don't have a problem with multi- family. It's part of what makes, aga in, Meridian so great. For me the biggest issue is the zoning and I think that -- in light of Councilman Rountree's comments, that's something that we could handle and address here tonight. T hat's something I'm in favor of. My two bits. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 50 of 93 Rountree: With -- with the compatibility question, it seems that we have had multiple comments -- I don't want to use the word several, but multiple comments. I'm not going to count them. About quality, structure, design, whatever and some specific suggestions that it be -- this development be consistent with the standards that are in place in the surrounding neighborhood, which I don't have those, I don't know what the specifics are. We have what staff and the developer has recommended, but apparently that's not quite there. It sounds like more masonry, more stucco. I'm leaning that way as one of the ways to help this be more compatible. Certainly want the buffering to be of the type that will, in fact, buffer. The lighting -- in fact, the night sky type lighting, which is down lit and the minimized, but yet providing the safety for all of the folks in the neighborhood. Those are a few thoughts I have right now. Hopefully the rest of you will have a few more. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I like the idea of -- of, you know, denying that rezone and keeping it R-4, because if it goes to an R-15, even if we -- this preliminary plat is approved, in my years of being on here I have seen it changed when by changing of ownerships and an R-15 zone is quite a bit -- it allows a little more than the R-4 and they don't -- wouldn't have to come back in for a conditional use; am I not right? If it's R-15? Watters: I am not sure I understand your question, Mr. Bird. Bird: If -- if we -- if this is zoned R-15 they wouldn't be here for a conditional use; would they? Watters: Yes, they would. Bird: They would. Okay. Thank you. Watters: Because of the conceptual approval previously. Bird: Okay. Because of the planned -- yeah. But once we get that -- so, my thought is deny that. The preliminary plat, make sure that that's set in stone with the common lots up there next to Easy Jet and, then, we can put the conditional -- we can put conditions on the conditional use permit as far as everything we want to do. That would be my suggestion. De Weerd: So, I -- no, I don't have a vote, but I have a voice and I have -- I think I have already said a little bit about my concerns. Certainly if a planned development comes in and even though it was years ago, there -- there are many that have noted a lot has changed since the original approval came in. Even the corner of South Eagle and Victory has changed in the Comprehensive Plan since that time, if I recall right. The stubs to the south and how that's going to flow and I know I quoted one of my favorite City Councilman Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 51 of 93 last meeting that we are not in a hurry and some of these things really need to be further looked at, but how will traffic flow in that area and what is the plan for the two stubs to the south and how is that going to work? I know it's hard to clean up something that we have already approved, but the things change. If the buildings were -- we have opened up the -- the two lots on the north side and we are on the east side that apartment complex could have been in one of those two areas that would have minimized some of the -- the direct impact or maybe it's a buffer compatibility opportunity there. But it still begs the question how are -- is the traffic? Are the lots to the south going to interacted with whatever we put here and -- and how is that going to work so that you're not going to have a negative impact on the rest of the already built environment in that area. That is a concern and even the stub that -- that Lisa had pointed out to the east, it stubs into a residential area that has access directly to those streets where cars are backing out on their driveway and that -- that is a concern, because people will be going there to -- to access Victory when South Eagle Road is -- is congested. There were a lot of good points that were brought up today in testimony that I think does need further consideration. I just don't know what -- what options are in front of the Council because this has an entitlement already. Watters: Is that a question, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: It's a perplexed question, yes. Watters: You can choose -- Mr. Nary, correct me if I'm wrong, but I will try to speak for you, since you're losing your voice. If you choose to deny the conditional use permit you would need to include reasons for your denial and what they could do to gain your approval. Especially since there is an entitlement on this property. But it is in your purview to -- if you don't like the site design, if you don't like the density. If you don't like the building locations or open space locations to -- to direct them to do something different with it. You might even suggest or -- you know, a continuance of the project for them to redesign. You know, you might -- you might require some landscaping adjacent to that end residence. There is a lot of things that you could condition it or just request a redesign or include some ideas where they can redesign to gain your approval. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Sonya, I got another question for you. Down there on the -- on the northeast corner of Amity and Eagle Road. Didn't we -- when they come in didn't we make them rezone to R-4? Didn't they -- didn't we zone that to R-4, that development that come in? Watters: Are you referring to Victory and Eagle or Amity and Eagle? Bird: Amity and Eagle. Watters: I am not sure, Councilman Bird. I don't have that on my zoning map and I can't think off the top of my head what that piece is. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 52 of 93 De Weerd: I think it's an R-8. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I'm having a really hard time with the density of this project backed up to R-4, which is the reason why all these folks are here today. They did the research. It's zoned R-4. My heart goes out to you guys. I wish there was more that we could do. But as far as -- you know, there is not enough of a transition, if it was duplexes, possibly. Just something with less density that will have less impact on traffic, on schools, on -- you know, the views in their backyard, I just don't see the compatibility myself, so that's where I stand. De Weerd: Yeah. It's the northeast corner I think he was asking about. Zaremba: Where the roundabout is. De Weerd: I believe those are R-8. Watters: The Nesting Swan off the corner. I believe it's R-8. Bird: Did we -- I thought it was R-4 we -- Watters: It -- I don't believe the development agreement has been approved yet or if it has it was just recently approved. It hasn't officially been annexed yet, but -- Bird: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I understand the rezone merely to be administrative to the extent that it's -- whatever the final decision is the rezone is to, then, match that final decision for the office and for the density of the multi-family. Approving it or not approving it doesn't change -- it doesn't seem to make sense to not approve a rezone because if there were to be an approval of the other applications the rezone should naturally follow to match it. The question as I see it does the plat and the CUP make sense and one of the primary concerns that a lot of the neighbors have hit on and the Mayor hit on as well, is that the connectivity to the south and the lack of a public roadway through the center versus the two private -- private road that we can anticipate being wholly inadequate to funnel traffic through as the properties to the south develop and the access to Eagle Road as those properties develop is unknown and as the Mayor pointed out, the access heading east to the residential neighborhood isn't necessarily the route that you want to funnel this if and Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 53 of 93 when that develops. So, that's one of the primary concerns I have with the plat and I think it also addresses some of the -- the concern that the public has with compatibility and the proportion of this project that is multi-family and the type of multi-family, meaning the density of the multi-family in proportion to the office component, which is a much smaller piece. So, I struggle with the plat as it's designed as being set up for -- for failure and in particular having that traffic funnel through these private roads and a roundabout about adjacent to open space that we intend these residents to utilize. Watters: Madam Mayor, excuse me. If I may make another clarification. There is a lot of misinformation floating around and so I'd just like to clarify while we are there. The staff report only recommends one vehicular cross-access to the south. The other was pedestrian. So, if you do choose to go forward with this tonight and, then, you are thinking that you want two vehicular connections, please, make that part of your motion. This is not a cross-access right here. Only -- only this over here. De Weerd: It's not? Watters: No. That's just a backup area for their parking. I just wanted to clarify that. Borton: And I appreciate that. And I think that makes the problem and the concern even greater. De Weerd: Me, too. Bird: Yeah. Borton: Unfortunately. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: On the same subject in the same area, the other views that we have been seeing only have that center curb cut on Easy Jet. The curb cut that's over by the office buildings doesn't exist. Is that being requested and would it be approved by ACHD that close to Eagle Road? Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, ACHD has approved the accesses. I believe the reason that you see the cut out here is because that's already right of way owned by ACHD, whereas this isn't. De Weerd: I'm sorry, that -- that clarification on the traffic does make it even worse. To have someone funnel through areas that are also parking stalls that people will be backing out of is crazy. I'm sorry. It's -- but -- yeah. So, one of the options, I would imagine, is you could totally deny the CUP and the rezone and with specific reasons why or remand it back to Planning and Zoning with specific criteria of what the concerns in terms of Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 54 of 93 materials used in the -- the design of the units, certainly the traffic flow and the connectivity to the south, the placement and perhaps placement of the apartment buildings and putting more of the open space to buffer the -- the single family homes. You can even look at the -- an R-8 is also multi-family if you go to the duplex designs. There is several different options I think Council could choose to -- to go. And now I think I will probably just shut up. But I can't make a motion, so you guys will just have to -- and gal. Milam: I'm a guy. De Weerd: Now you know how to make sausage. You get to see us make it. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Sonya. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: The parcels to the -- to the south, have they been annexed, any of them? Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, no. Those are all in the county right now. Rountree: That's helpful. Thank you. De Weerd: In the Comprehensive Plan is that neighborhood mixed use commercial -- or community? Watters: It is mixed use community. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm still struggling to find enough to make sausage, so I'm going to throw a couple things out here. We are kind of going -- let's help design this, which we never want to do. We don't want to practice that, because we are not very good at it, but there are some things that I think this project lacks and some things that have been pointed out that the project creates in addition to compatibility with the existing uses around it. Again, there is the school capacity issue . But this traffic flow, traffic access is a real issue. Properties that are yet to be annexed into the city, with this property one of the key ones that will provide access to those -- those properties until such time as there is an additional access off of Eagle Road. Without knowing -- without adequately analyzing what can happen to the south and applying that to the concept that's going to be on this property, I have a difficult time approving any cross-access without knowing what -- what's the potential future impact on that southern property and issues. That's one thought. I'm still trying to find some more things to think about here. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 55 of 93 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Could we reopen the public hearing to allow the application to address some of the comments that they have heard from the Council tonight? Perhaps they want to continue this for a couple weeks and allow them to make some changes and come back to us, come up with a -- a better plan? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener, I think even if they came back with a change, it would be -- it would be substantial enough that it should be remanded back to Planning and Zoning for any changes to be done first at that level. Unless you want to see it, discuss it before you remand it back, but -- Cavener: Fair enough. De Weerd: That's my opinion. I believe I'm speaking in line with procedure. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, absolutely. I don't know if Ms. Bachman has been able to hear all of your concerns and would say -- you know, if they have a preference. Sometimes the applicants would prefer you deny it and deal with it in a different forum. You have Mr. Lucas here from ACHD. He's talking a lot about access. I don't know whether they have a future plan or whether a roadway system like the Records Drive extension that exists now off of Eagle Road between Ustick and River Valley Way is a solution that's even considerable. I don't have any idea. But, you're right, I mean it's really -- if you think they are significant enough that really a change at this level is not appropriate, but to remand it back at least -- I think as Sonya stated -- give them enough for the Planning and Zoning Commission to know what you want. And I think, again, I was just suggesting that maybe Ms. Bachman has a preference as well. Maybe she thinks they can't do anything that we are talking about. I don't know. I hate to waste everyone's time if they can't do anything that you have suggested up here, so -- Cavener: I will make a motion that we reopen the public hearing to allow the applicant to come up and address some of the comments that -- De Weerd: I think that was a motion. Cavener: I thought I said -- yeah. I make a motion we do that. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing on Item 7-B. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Lisa, we have had some substantial discussion up here and Mr. Cavener suggested that we get your comments. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 56 of 93 Bachman: Yes. Thank you, Mayor and Council. For the record Lisa Bachman with JUB Engineers. You guys talked about a preference. If you're looking for specific changes, for us to do some addition research, looking at the future roadway connectivity to the parcels to the south, things of that nature, specific layout changes you would like to see, I would recommend that you remand it back to P&Z to have them review it, because I think it would be significant enough change to where they should be able to make a recommendation off of the updated site plans. Not that we want to keep coming to hearings and doing this over and over again -- De Weerd: I'm sure everyone behind you would agree to that. Bachman: Right. But that would probably be the right thing, rather than trying to redesign everything. However, like I said, we would need some guidance on what exactly we would be doing between now and being remanded back to P&Z. We have reduced the density. We have taken it down from three to two stories. What else would you like to see? So, if we can get some guidance that way, we can go back and see what we can do and work that through the P&Z and, then, be back before you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I know I have concern about the traffic circulation and considering the properties to the south. De Weerd: Is your microphone on? Zaremba: It is, but I'm not very close to it. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Would you consider coming up with a design -- the current apparent central access that as the bump on most of these drawings, would you consider making that a public street that connects to the south as a stub street? Bachman: Councilman, we would have to talk to the client about that and look at doing that. That could further increase the issue and the concern that some of the neighbors have with having everybody coming onto Easy Jet and using that -- using that access to access their properties from the south. Zaremba: To me that doesn't change your suggestion, it only changes what driveway they come out of. If I understood what you're proposing, everybody would come out of the curb cut. If everybody to the south that uses this as an access would come out of the curb cut that's closer to Eagle -- and I'm not changing the quantity of people that would come Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 57 of 93 and go, I'm just trying to make it easier. I think being farther away from the Eagle intersection would be better and I would suggest making it a public road. Bachman: Okay. So, what you're saying, just so I understand correctly, make it a public road, the center access -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. Bachman: -- where we are showing the circle and, then, would you want the access to be closed on the commercial area or have that connect? Because what we are doing if we close that off, then, we are going to be pushing all of the access out onto Eagle Road and there isn't a signalized intersection until you get to Victory Road. Easy Jet is a signalized intersection and as properties develop to the south it would -- have you ever gone into a commercial development and you had to go around and out -- go around -- you're smiling. Some people know what I'm talking about, so -- I mean anything that we can do to improve the traffic circulation we can definitely look at. As far as making that a public road, I can't -- I can't answer that, but that's something I can take back and talk to the client about. Zaremba: Appreciate that. Bachman: But I'm not sure that that would address the concern. Zaremba: But I'm not sure that's a solution and, actually, trying to imagine what is going to happen on those properties to the south -- it's too soon to even go there, I guess. Bachman: That's the thing. And it's not annexed in. It's still in the county. So, really, all that we can go by is the mixed used designation that's in the comp plan. Zaremba: Well -- and my recollection is the people of those properties all got together and had some input to the Comprehensive Plan . The designation there is something they have already asked for. Bachman: Right. Zaremba: But how that's going to design out I don't know and how that would impact the access through your property I don't know. De Weerd: At least it would allow you to work closer with ACHD and even know what the access opportunities are on -- on those properties to your south, so you can better answer some of the questions and -- and tell Council whether it makes sense having a public road there or not. Bachman: Mayor and Council, might I suggest -- I don't know if Justin Lucas is familiar with what the approved access is, but my guess is -- as I pointed would be at the quarter Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 58 of 93 mile, probably, to align with that access to the southwest. Would it be okay if he came up to -- to speak to that if he has anything to add? De Weerd: Council, do you want to have that information out? Is it going to impact what you do or do you want that for future information as the consideration for other -- I just -- it's not Justin that I don't want to hear from, it's just -- do we need to prolong the misery. Bachman: So, Mayor and Council, just so I understand correctly, you would like us to go back, work with ACHD, find out what the future access plan is for this remaining area and, then, at least report that back in our next -- or reflect any changes in our site plan if it doesn't -- because it might not impact the site plan. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I think my question would be how does that work into the circulation of traffic through your property. Bachman: Okay. Zaremba: And I'm willing to hear yes or no, on the -- on the public street, but I'm suggesting that. Bachman: Mayor and Council, I think if that's -- if I'm limited to that issue I don't know that we would need to be remanded back to P&Z, depending on the outcome. Maybe we could do it that whatever we find in our research and coordination with ACHD, if that does impact the site plan, then, we would be remanded back to P&Z. Is there any way that we could work something out that way or -- De Weerd: I have heard it's not just the connectivity to the south and public or private. There is concerns about density and material, compatibility -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: -- buffering. Zaremba: -- I was not intending that to be the whole list of questions, but I'm just getting my foot in to get that one question in. Bachman: Okay. Thank you. I apologize. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: So, I will put in my two cents, if that's what we are all going to do right now. Whether it's worth two cents or a nickel. But what I would like to see is -- and this is a fine development, I just don't think this is a fit. So, I would like to see R-8 zoning, I think that's a proper transition, and whatever multi-family that you can fit in there and, then, as the Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 59 of 93 neighbors were wanting it to be the same design in accordance with the subdivision t hat it's in. There were my main things. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Well, I think the -- De Weerd: Do you want to talk into your microphone? Cavener: Oh, yeah. Sorry. I think engaging the architecture committee from the homeowners association, what their standards are -- again, my assumption is that you're going to be really close on that, but if I'm wrong it gives you an opportunity to have that discussion. De Weerd: And since we are just giving you ideas to consider, in light of the school district's letter, you might even think about mirroring Sutherland Downs in terms of the 50 and older or maybe it's 45 and older. Don't want to offend anyone. But that you address some of the concerns of the impact it will have on the school overcrowding and that sort of thing and certainly the compatibility of a more mature audience or neighborhood that would be more synergistic to the development across the street. Just a suggestion. Watters: Madam Mayor -- excuse me. If I may clarify again. I have heard this mentioned a couple different times on the R-8 zoning, multi-family. The UDC does not allow multi- family developments in the R-8 district. You could still -- without the rezone do the multi- family as it sits today, but I would not recommend rezoning to an R-8 for a multi-family development, as it's a prohibited use. Milam: Thank you. Watters: However, you could restrict the density to the R-15 district. De Weerd: Using the R-15 with a specific density -- Watters: Yeah. De Weerd: Any other comments from Council as the applicant looks for that feedback on -- and certainly the -- the suggestion was to work with the neighbors and maybe get some additional ideas as well. Anything further from Council? We did reopen this to have a conversation with the applicant. Anything further? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I suggest to Lisa to get the -- a copy of the transcript and review that. De Weerd: Okay. We opened it to address the applicant. Unless Council wants to open it up for further -- okay. Okay. Anything further from Council? Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 60 of 93 Cavener: All right. I'll move we close the public hearing then. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? Question. A continuance or a remand? It seems to me a remand might be in order. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we remand this item back to Planning and Zoning to hear the applicant's approach to the comments that they have received this evening and start it over through the process. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, we probably need a little bit more than that. Nary: Because there has been so many comments, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean if you could at least summarize that I think that would help. What I heard was access to the south, I heard compatibility with the neighborhood in regards to design. I think you talked about buffering between the neighborhoods, the density between these two neighborhoods and what's the appropriate zone. I think you also mentioned whether a CMU wall might be appropriate in a section and, again, the access to the south. Whether an alternative street or collector street or neighborhood street needs to be created to be able to provide access, not just to this property to the south, but also access to the southern properties -- between this property and Victory Road. I don't know if I have missed any, but something like that would be helpful, I think, to the applicant and to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Rountree: And I concur. And thank you, Bill, for that summary. And I will add that to my motion. Bird: Second agrees, too. De Weerd: So, that was his motion and second agreed? Bird: Amen. De Weerd: Yes? That was a yes, Mr. Bird? Bird: Yes. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 61 of 93 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. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate all of you bearing with us this evening and the action just taken by Council is pretty much they don't agree that this is compatible and have remanded it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, so the applicant has an opportunity to redesign what they are looking for approval for and so it will be reposted for a public hearing when that time occurs. So, Council, I'm going to call a recess for ten minutes. Watters: Madam Mayor, are you assigning that a specific date back to the Commission or do we need to? Bird: No. Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you -- is it all right to have a specific date? I don't know what the Commission's schedule is, but if you do that you wouldn't have to renotice, but there is a lot of interest here and renoticing may be more appropriate. De Weerd: I think renoticing is more appropriate and I think they have a good network, they will get it out to -- not to several, but many. So thank you. (Recess: 9:42 p.m. to 9:58 p.m.) C. Public Hearing for Village Apartments (AZ 15-012, CUP 15-019 and MDA 15-011) by DevCo Located at 2600 and 2700 N. Eagle Road 1. Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Property and to Remove the Requirement for Detailed Conditional Use Permit Approval of Future Uses 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.38 of an Acre of Land with a C-G Zoning District 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 336 Dwelling Units on 16.68 acres of Land in a C-G Zoning District Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 62 of 93 De Weerd: Okay. Council, we will reconvene and move to Item 7-C, a public hearing for the Village Apartments, AZ 15-012, CUP 15-019 and MDA 15-011. We will open these public hearings with staff comments. Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications before you are a request for a development agreement modification, annexation and zoning, and a conditional use permit. The overall site consists of 16.62 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-G and RUT in Ada County and is located at 2600 and 2700 North Eagle Road. The majority of this site -- the red area here, 16.44 acres, was annexed in 2003 as a pathway for annexation for Redfeather Estates Subdivision to the east. The site has remained a residential, agricultural property since that time. The existing development agreement requires any future uses on the property to be approved through the conditional use permit process and for a backage street to be provided parallel with Eagle Road. A conceptual master plan is required that demonstrates interconnectivity, transitional uses, and access points. The applicant is requesting a development agreement modification to remove the requirement for a conditional use permit on all future uses and to include a conceptual development for this site as required. And this is a copy of the proposed concept plan. Annexation and zoning is also requested of the .38 of an acre of land property. That's this little tiny one here that runs on Eagle Road this way. With a C-G zoning district, consistent with a future land use map designation of mixed use regional for this property. A conceptual site plan was submitted as shown that shows this portion of the overall site developing with a retail, commercial building pad and that's approximately in this area right here. The applicant requests this site be included in the existing development agreement for the larger portion of the site. However, because the current development agreement also includes the property to the south where the Great W all Restaurant is located, staff recommends a new development agreement is required for the subject property to include the surrounding land that is included in the conditional use permit request. A conditional use permit is requested for the development of a retail, commercial, and multi-family residential uses on the subject 16.62 acre property in the C-G district as required by the current development agreement and the UDC for a multi-family residential development in the C-G district. A concept plan for the overall site shows three retail commercial building pads, consisting of 3,500, 4,000 and 7,000 square feet along the frontage of North Eagle Road and one 14,000 square foot retail building east of the building pads on a total of 5.23 acres of land and that is this whole area right here, if you can see my pointer there, fronting on Eagle. The commercial portion of the site is proposed to develop with phase two. The multi-family residential development is proposed to consist of a total of 336 dwelling units. That's 136 one bedroom units and 200 two bedroom units within 11 four story structures , ten of those being 32 plexes and one being a 16 plex on 11.39 acres of land on the eastern portion of the site fronting on North Records Avenue. Associated garage and carport structure and two 18 bay storage unit structures are also proposed. Parking complies with UDC standards for multi-family developments and for the clubhouse building. A minimum of 1.92 acres qualified open space and site amenities proportionate with the number of units in the development is required to be provided in accord with UDC standards. A total of 2.15 acres is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Proposed amenities include a Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 63 of 93 clubhouse with an exercise room and enclosed bicycle storage. A bicycle -- let me back up for a minute here. Which is easier to see? This plan right here. Center of the development is where all the common area is proposed, if you can see my pointer here, this is the clubhouse, swimming pool, playground area and, then, a large open space area. The clubhouse contains an exercise room, an enclosed bicycle storage. There is an external bicycle repair area right here. A swimming pool and a tot lot with play equipment, two shade structures, one within the pool area and one by the playground and a 50 by 100 open grassy area north of the pool in accord with UDC standards. Only one public street access is proposed to the site via North Records Avenue. That is right here. Other accesses are proposed via cross-access driveways between adjacent properties with access via Eagle and Records. The adjacent site -- you can see here at the northeast corner of the site will have a cross-access to Records and there will also be a cross-access to the north here. And, then, cross-access is proposed to the south also. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer with a ten foot wide multi-use pathway and pedestrian lighting is required along Eagle Road, an entryway corridor with the second phase of development and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along North Records Avenue, a collector street, with a five foot wide detached sidewalk with the first phase of development. Records Avenue is anticipated to be constructed by Center Cal, the developer of The Village at Meridian in t he near future. However, if the property develops first this developer will be responsible for extending the road. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for the multi-family structures and the clubhouses -- excuse me -- clubhouse, garages, carports, storage buildings and garage maintenance building. No building elevations were submitted for the future commercial buildings. Building materials for the multi-family -- in the clubhouse consist of fiber cement board, horizontal lap siding and stucco, with architectural laminated fiberglass roof shingles. All structures on the site are required to comply with the design standards in effect at the time of application for certificate of zoning compliance. So, this is the clubhouse that you're looking at here and the multi-family structures. Commission did recommend approval of these applications. Jim Conger, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition. Folks that commented were Martin McWilliams, Brenda Ross, Dick Ross, Mark Rogers and Ann Sorenson. Written testimony was received from Jim Conger in response to the staff report. The key issues of discussion by the Commission was a concern in regard to the project compliance with open space standards. The applicant has since the hearing submitted a revised open space plan to me with calculations that do demonstrate compliance with the UDC minimum standards. Key Commission changes to the staff recommendation. The first was to modify condition number 1.1.5 to require the street buffer and associated pedestrian pathway and lighting along Eagle Road to be constructed with the second phase of development, rather than the first phase and to include a new condition requiring the existing structures on the site to be rem oved prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the site. And that is condition number 1.1.9. There are no outstanding issues for City Council and there has been no written testimony received since the Commission hearing. Staff will sta nd for any questions Mayor and Council may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 64 of 93 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Sonya, why would we want to remove the CUP approval for all uses on that front out there when you could add drive-thrus and everything else getting onto Eagle Road? Lights and stuff. Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, we used to do that a lot, require conditional use approval before we had specific design standards, so that we had some contr ol over what was built on a property. A drive-thru, for instance, would still require a conditional use if it's within 300 feet of a residential use, a residence, or another drive -thru facility. And a conditional use would still be required for any uses in the UDC that would still require conditional use in the C-G district. Bird: That's what I'm trying to get across, because if you read that -- but like I said, in our deal if -- of all CUP approval for all uses. Okay. Watters: Yeah. No, it did not mean for all uses. Bird: But it means for -- what requires conditional use permit still is in effect. Watters: Yes. Correct. Bird: Okay. Thank you, Sonya. Watters: Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Conger: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Jim Conger with Devco, 4824 West Fairview. Thank you for allowing us to be in front of you tonight again. We are super excited to be here with this multi-family project. First, thanks to your planning team. We have gone through a lot and we appreciate their insight and code experience to get us to where we are at this point with this approval process and we are grateful that we do -- do have recommendation for approval on this project. I'm going to skip the details and things that I had to present. It's been a very busy night and Sonya was very thorough and I think detailed. If you do have questions on some of our amenities, like our spectacular community center and coffee shop environment and hip things of that nature, more than happy to go into it. Moving -- there we go. We are both driving. That's still on me. So, first and foremost we are pleased to be here with our approval at the -- approval for recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and their unanimous complimentary feedback on the architecture. I think that's one of the important items to the success of this project. The design is a fresh, modern look that will differentiate our apartments from some of the other apartment homes that are currently on the market. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 65 of 93 Our typical resident is going to be a little more -- or a little more urban with a similar profile to a condo buyer, with the proximity to The Village and the Kleiner Park and things of that nature. To further illustrate our community I'm going to just quickly go through this 30 second video and I might need Sonya's help starting this. And I promise it's 32 seconds or less. Kind of give you a feeling of our layout, our open space, and our middle programs. If you would put your cursor on it it should fly. I can't run a cursor, for some reason off this end of it. There we go. Bottom left. Watters: Oh. Sorry. Conger: Yeah. Thank you. Watters: It's late, Jim. Conger: It is late and I keep coloring red on it. Will it let you play? I have only tested it about 14 times between yesterday and today. How do I get the marker off? Watters: Erase it. Conger: No dice. Watters: Let me try something here real quick, Jim. Conger: It is spectacular, however. But we just may not be able to watch it. There it is. Put your mouse on it one more time, would you? Well, go back to that oth er frame. Now go down and put your mouse over it, it will show up. There we go. Watters: There it is. Conger: It better be spectacular, it was a long wait. Thank you, Sonya. So, our setbacks of record match the existing Regency or exceed -- most of them exceed their setbacks from Records and our open space, the big emphasis is in the center and, then, our buffers to the outside perimeters, with single car garages and, you know, no structures at all. And this project is trying to bring the four story or the density into that Village core area where I think you have enough restaurants and other items to preserve it. Sorry, Sonya, I will get back to the -- yeah, that little bar that disappeared on me. One more slide. There we go. Now I'm in control. I'm with you. So, in closing we have one condition of the staff report that -- that we are all in agreement with, I guess just needs to be finalized, which is the 20 foot buffer, as Sonya indicated, will go with the phase one multi-family, the construction of it. The 35 buffer -- or 35 foot wide buffer that goes to Eagle Road with the phase two of the commercial, the condition that was put on us from the Planning and Zoning Commission, their recommendation was to clean up the ugliness along Eagle Road, which is the existing house, the existing structures, and all of that is going to be forced upon the phase one multi-family, which we are in total agreement with and should be done and we would want to do that anyhow. So, that added layer of condition is certainly acceptable and with that I would stand with any -- for any questions. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 66 of 93 De Weerd: I'm not sure if this is a question for you or for Perry. What is the secondary access of, you know, you have the primary access out onto Records, what is your emergency backup? Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, our emergency is we have emergency to the north, either west of Norco through our commercial and a temporary and we also have it to the project that you just previously approved that is direc tly north of us, which is more of a townhouse type environment neighborhood, but it was all rental type units. So, we have -- De Weerd: Okay. So, those are existing -- they are existing -- Conger: Existing easements. De Weerd: Thank you. Conger: Thank you. De Weerd: Any questions for the applicant at this point? Okay. Thank you. I'm glad you got your fly over working. Conger: I feel a lot better. Thank you. De Weerd: I did have a couple of people that did sign up. When I call your name if you would like to provide testimony I would invite you forward at that time. Steve Smiley. Signed up as neutral. Nice to see you, Steve. Smiley: Good to see you, Mayor Tammy. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Smiley: For the record my name is R. Steve Smiley. I live at 3662 East Granger, directly behind this. But my concern is -- I'm not here speaking in opposition, but, you know, as I looked more closely at the design, I do have a couple of concerns about the design and I'm not quite sure the correct way to address them. I will just say them, since the hour is late. A couple of things is, number one, we have a very large development of well over 300 units. With all of that traffic easing in and out of one single contact point on Records, which will dramatically increase the traffic into Redfeather Subdivision and I am very interested that adequate traffic mitigation procedures be put into place, because as the people in the previous hearing indicated, that would create -- with all of the traffic from The Village, all of the traffic from these apartments, all of the traffic coming into the residual businesses there, plus the park and if there was a concert into the park or anything like that I can imagine that hit is going to be bumper to bumper traffic of everybody taking shortcuts to avoid Fairview and Eagle coming right by our doorway and that really has me concerned and I -- I would like to see what exactly will be done to prevent people once Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 67 of 93 Records is put through from basically using our subdivision as a thoroughfare to avoid Eagle Road and I know that having Records there will be a great advantage, because the access will be easiest to get to to either use River Valley to access Eagle or to co me down to Ustick or to come through The Village and through the roundabouts to get back out to Fairview. But I do worry about the access to Eagle Road and the single access only going out to Records. I would much prefer some kind of an access that would get us into that shopping area there on Eagle Road to prevent possible bottlenecks. The second concern I have is just one of mitigation. When the Regency apartments were constructed we had quite a bit of problems with people -- construction workers getting started at 6:00 in the morning and playing loud music until 10:00 o'clock, 11:00 o'clock at night and that went on all summer and I know that they are not supposed to do that, but we know they do. And also the -- the whole issue of landscaping, sound mitigation, I think it's really important that we have adequate landscaping on the frontage that would mitigate the sound, mitigate some of those things, so that we can have the peaceful enjoyment of our property as well. We don't want to have a noisy, bang, bang, engines going off and things like that going on in the middle of the night. There is enough residual sound from Eagle Road . So, those are concerns and I would really like to hear the developer address those concerns, especially the idea of access and the idea of sight, sound, and visual mitigation there, so that we don't have people up on the fourth floor looking into our bedrooms. De Weerd: Thank you. Reed and Linda Hansen signed up against. Okay. And Patrick Flaherty signed up against as well. Is there anyone here who would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant or for staff? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Could we look at -- De Weerd: Are you turned on? Zaremba: Could we look at a site plan? That -- yeah. That's what I was looking for. Excuse me. Between the commercial area and the residential area at the very north end, is that an access point? It looks to me like that's a continuous roadway. Is it going to be gated or is it going to be open so people can use it? Watters: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, if it's right here where you're referencing, that will be open. Zaremba: Here to the left. Is that a drive-thru? I mean driveway or pass through or whatever? Watters: This is all a driveway here. Zaremba: Okay. With no obstructions. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 68 of 93 Watters: No obstructions. Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Zaremba, yes, the -- there will be a secondary -- not just a fire, but a secondary access -- this machine is -- we are going to have to maintain the machine here. But that -- it's not letting me draw on it, which is kind of like my mouse, it doesn't want to stop and I always want to draw. But back on the site plan, we have a secondary access out and a cross-access to the existing commercial that's there. So, we will have more than one -- putting fire aside, from a daily access point there will ultimately be more than one point. The other would go out to Eagle Road. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Thank you, Jim. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, now that he has gotten seated, I do have another question. The four story buildings -- I realize are set back beyond a driveway, beyond the garages. Would you be able to give me an idea of -- what is the distance from closest four story building to a house that would be on the other side of Records? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Zaremba, that's an excellent question and was a point of confusion at the first part of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing from neighbors and the Commission. So, it is imperative that everybody understands that you have already approved the Regency apartments, which are the black -- the three black buildings that are four stories tall that are approximately 22.9 feet behind the back of curb of the future Records Road that's not built yet that backs up to the existing Redfeather. Our project, which is north of Redfeather, does not back up and we took a little different approach from the neighborhood meetings and other things about a different buffer. We are not closer than 120 feet to our four story structure versus the 22.9 feet that you have previously approved that backs up to the Redfeather homes. We have these county residents besides us that are on very large lots, their closest home is 645 feet away. So, we aren't adjacent to Redfeather. Zaremba: Thank you. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Jim, I have a question similar to what was asked of the last applicant. As far as the -- the letter from the school district, do you have a response? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Milam, I don't know that I have a response. I feel that that letter is getting written a lot and that helps the bond measures and passing bonds for future schools, so I believe we should always worry about our schools and continue to push bonds and I think that's a standard letter that we are seeing, not only in Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 69 of 93 Meridian, but in Boise. So, I don't know how to response to that. But it seems like we are always over capacity and continue to educate our children, which is a wonderful thing. Milam: Thank you. De Weerd: It is a wonderful thing and it is a growing concern of our residents that have bond fatigue and would like to see additional tools developed that help growth pay for the impact they have on the necessary services. So, it is a discussion and one that has no answers right now, because the state doesn't give us any tools to answer it. But we are hoping that the state will enter into that dialogue, because they are not adequately funding our schools and so I think our schools are -- are trying to make a statement. Conger: Madam Mayor, I couldn't agree more on the funding statement and how everything is somewhat managed, but we probably don't have enough time to solve that for sure. De Weerd: Yeah. I guess we can't expect you to stand there and solve that -- Conger: I would love to. I'm not sure everybody would love my ideas. De Weerd: I will let Mr. Smiley -- Conger: Yeah. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: What's the timing on phase two? Conger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, that is a great question. We are working through -- of course we control it as well, so it's not like we are looking for a separate developer or something of that nature. We have -- we need two key end users for us to be able to pull the trigger on that and get come comfortable enough to finish the site plan to bring it in front of you the conditional use permit. Short term is the answer. With commercial is that six months or is that ten or 12 months? We don't believe it's years, but we believe it's very near in the short term for sure. De Weerd: It's kind of funny you use pull the trigger considering what's in that area right now. You are cleaning that up. Is that what I understood? Conger: Yeah. Yeah. Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, that condition was recommended with Planning and Zoning and we actually have no issue at all with that. We will clean it up even for ourselves and our multi-family, so we don't have to look at it. But we are removing houses and structures, cleaning it up, tremendous amount of cars, they will all be gone. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 70 of 93 De Weerd: And maybe you might want to have our public safety officials tell you what has been found there in the past that you might want to be aware of. Conger: I don't think we would want to know. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Just saying. Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: On the request -- or the direction from Planning and Zoning to defer the landscape buffer on Eagle Road to phase two, I'm a little uneasy with that. I would like to see some time certain that if by time X it's -- you don't have phase two ready to go that you get the buffer and landscaping done. I'd like see that for the benefit of the future folks in the apartments, if that moves forward, as opposed to being in a situation where you get half the apartments built and things do what they did a few years ago and, then, all of a sudden we have got that wasteland out there yet on Eagle Road. I'd like to see it done. So, I guess your comments on that. Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, we have a strong opinion on that and part of our issue with -- with this is this canal has got to be tiled, we have got to get our vertical -- first things first. We have got to get a couple anchors to figure out our site plan, which we don't have figured out with the commercial. That will help us set whether or are getting buildings towards the front or parking towards the front, working through your UDC code. We have vertical elevations that got to get figured out, you know, past that buffer. So, between vertical elevations we have several gravity irrigation pipes, we have the giant tiling, which is going to require basically a bridge, but it's tiling, but you can see the box in the back. We have a significant amount of abnormal improvements. It's not as simple as just putting a sidewalk across that, because our frontage is relatively short. We probably wouldn't be sitting here having -- I still have problems with the vertical grade and making it work. But we have some very significant issues that we have to have a commercial site plan in place to do that. Not sure we quite own to where the last sidewalk ends, but I know why they ended it there. But we will have to tie into it at our expense. So, I guess with all due respect, we don't think we are that far away with commercial and the commercials needs to be planed, everything needs to be appropriate. If we scab in a sidewalk that's not right, the next you know we are tearing it back out and the people are used to walking and now they don't have it to walk on. So, I guess we would -- with all due respect we would love to clean the site , but we really need to have the proper plan and we have to spend a tremendous amount of money to actually get that sidewalk in . Rountree: So, I guess my question is are you opposed to s etting a date certain at some point in time -- for some point in the future or not? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, we are opposing that and that was why I used the respectfully opposed, because we are respectfully opposed to that time frame. While we think it's very soon, but it -- but even if it is 12 months, instead of six Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 71 of 93 months or 14 months, it's still not getting in until someone goes and drops about a 90 to 110 grand in the tiling of the ditch and several other items and that's not g oing to -- that's quite a burden to get that in. Rountree: I don't mind a candid answer. If it's no it's no. Conger: It's no. Yeah. I beat that bush, didn't I. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just a sideways observation. If the building that's -- that seen to the right of the canal in this picture, the Great Wall Restaurant, when they were approved their access to Eagle was made temporary, meaning that when they had a backage road or something that they can access, that Eagle access was supposed to go away. I think it was always expected that they would access south. You're saying you're going to have to tile this canal. Are you going to cross-access with them? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Zaremba, no, there is no intention to cross- access with them. They don't have any existing easements and we know we have got to design and take all our access to the north. We are saying tiling, because it -- even though that would be our buffer and the commercial could come over it, we are assuming we are going to have to tile that just from an esthetics and safety an d everything that goes with that. It's one of the last stretches that's not tiled. Zaremba: Okay. So, the only thing you're going to bridge is to get a sidewalk, not to get a vehicle access behind these buildings? Conger: Very much correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: I think that water amenity for your pad to the south would be -- you could improve it to have a water feature. Conger: We might not be opposed to that. We like that. De Weerd: Outdoor dining. Conger: There you go. De Weerd: Enjoying the traffic of Eagle Road. Bird: You could do something with that water. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 72 of 93 De Weerd: Just thought I would plant the seed . Conger: Madam Mayor, we appreciate that and when we start getting one more anchor we are going to site plan it and maybe we will leave that portion open. That would be nice. Nice on the budget. De Weerd: Everyone is looking for fine dining. Fine dining. Conger: Fine dining. De Weerd: Any other questions, design suggestions, anchor tenant ideas? Okay. If there is nothing further -- thank you. Conger: Thanks for your time. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 15-012, CUP 15-019 and MDA 15-011. Milam: Second. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-C. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Question for Mr. Nary. We would go with the MDA and, then, the zoning and the CUP, in that order, or do you do the zoning, CUP and the MDA? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Bird, I think the zoning is such a minimal part, I think you do the development agreement first and, then, the others. Bird: That's what I thought. Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve MDA 15-011 and to include all staff and public -- applicant comments. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 73 of 93 Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve this application. So, we are starting with the development agreement. Bird: Yeah. The modification. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion 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. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve AZ 15-012, the annexation and rezoning of .38 acres of land to C-G zoning district. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-C-2. Any discussion? 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. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve CUP 15-019, the approval of the multi-family development, consisting of 336 dwelling units on 16.68 acres of land to C-G zoning and include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-C-3. Would this be where the modifications -- are we approving everything as suggested by -- Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 74 of 93 Bird: Staff? De Weerd: -- staff? Bird: Applicant. De Weerd: Oh, staff and applicant. Are you on the same page? Watters: Madam Mayor, is the Council recommending any changes to the staff report? Bird: No. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any discussion from Council? Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing for Sundial Circle Subdivision (PP 15-018) by Conger Management Group Located 2250 W. Whitelaw Drive 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Eleven (11) Single Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.54 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-D is a public hearing on PP 15-018. I will turn this -- I will open the public hearing and ask for staff comments. Beach: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Counc il. This before you is an application for a preliminary plat. The location of this specific project is south of West Ustick and west of Linder. A little history on the project. In 1994 the subject property was annexed and zoned as R-4 as part of the Turtle Creek Subdivision. At the time the subject property received preliminary plat approval for 40 lots as part of the Turtle Creek preliminary plat. Also in 1994, at the time of annexation of the subject property, a development agreement was entered int o for this -- for this area. The first application submitted by the applicant was approved in March of 2007 as preliminary plat 06 -060. The final plat was approved in May of 2008 and the applicant had until April of 2009 to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat and failed to do so. The preliminary plat expired at that time. Although this preliminary plat is new, the development agreement provision tied to annexation of the subject property are still in effect. A summary of the request. The applicant, Conger Management Group, has submitted an application for preliminary plat consisting of 11 single family building lots and one common lot on 2.54 acres of land in the current R-4 zoning district for the proposed Sundial Circle Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 75 of 93 Subdivision. Qualified open space and site amenities are not required to be provided for developments below five acres in size, as per the UDC. However, the applicant is proposing to construct a micropath lot -- which I will show you here on the site plan. The applicant is proposing to construct a micropath lot here that will connect to the already existing path that's going to stub from the Sundial Subdivision as it currently exists. Access for the development is proposed from West Whitelaw Drive via West Turtle Creek Drive, which is a residential collector street and any proposed roadway will terminate in a cul-de-sac. You can see there is some -- some architectural renderings that were provided by the applicant as to the -- the architectural style and material to be used as part of the development. A summary of the -- the Commission recommended approval. Summary of the Commission's public hearing -- Penelope Riley, acting as the -- the agent responded in favor. Received a letter from Mike Heubschmann in opposition. Jon Lewellen commented and we received written testimony from, again, Mike Heubschmann and Penelope Riley, the applicant. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the pathway connection to the existing Sundial Subdivision. The number of proposed lots in the subdivision. And the proposed lot sizes. There were no key changes from the Commission and there are no outstanding issues for the City Council. And written testimony since the Commission hearing was received by Michael Hopp. Are there any questions for staff? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, if I may. The reason this funny little circle in the middle of a developed subdivision exists is that when it came through for development we prohibited development in the circle, because there was a significantly tall radio tower there and we said they couldn't develop within twice the fall height of the tower. Can you confirm that that tower has been removed now? Beach: Yes, I can. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Would the applicant like to make comment? And I will tell you that tower was the beacon light of when we were almost home for my kids for years. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address. Riley: Of course Riley Planning Services -- Penelope Riley. Riley Planning Services. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. De Weerd: Thank you. Riley: Thank you for your time this evening. I'd like to begin by stating that the applicant and the project team would like to extend their thanks to Bill and Joshua for all their assistance. As always they were very professional and helpful and insightful. The applicant has reviewed the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 76 of 93 Sundial Circle preliminary plat completes the Sundial development. As provided in the application packet, a conceptual plan was submitted to the City of Meridian. Previously it was Sundial Subdivision No. 1. The proposed subdivision plat is for 11 residential lots and one common lot. As Josh mentioned, the common lot is to provide a connection to the existing path that's to the north and west of our site. This subdivision will be Sundial Subdivision No. 3 at final platting. A revised plan was submitted to include density information. With Sundial Circle we captured some of the unused density that was part of the previous two phases of Sundial. So, even with -- with the capture we are still at 3.69 units per acre across the entire Sundial Subdivision. This is consistent with the R-4 zone designation. I have to apologize, in the time I have been sitting here this evening I have felt this really magnificent sore throat starting, so I'm a little wonky. I apologize. These lots will be consistent with the surrounding residential lots and conform with the development agreement stipulations from 1994. All the lots exceed the 8,000 square foot minimum area. The cul-de-sac complies with the ACHD and fire department standards and the setbacks will match the setbacks in the adjacent subdivision. Photographs submitted with the application show the applicant's intent to use varying roof and wall plains, window placement and attractive color combinations to create a subdivision that blends with and compliments the surrounding residential development. With Sundial Circle the empty lot will be replaced with residences and the new owners will contribute to the existing HOA. Now that the cell tower has been removed, the Sundial development can be completed. At our neighborhood meeting -- and I missed my notes I guess. We had a neighborhood meeting on August 17th and the neighbors that came were very adamant about their interest in this -- these 11 lots becoming part of the Sundial Homeowners Association and the applicant agrees with that. The burden for making that happen lies with the HOA. We can't make it happen. They have to agree as a group to accept the 11 new lots. So, I will let them know again what my understanding of the process is and I have offered my assistance as a notary to walk around and help them with that if it's necessary. Anyhow -- so, we are going to join the HOA if we can. The fees right now, according to the numbers in Sundial, are a little bit on the burdensome side. So, the 11 new residences will help soften their burden a little bit. The existing PI system will be extended into the site and the pump will be upgraded by the applicant to accommodate the additional demand. The proposed subdivision meets the standards for, R-4 and will fill in an empty lot at the center of a large residential area . Thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? Just a quick question regarding the CC&Rs and joining the neighborhood association. Riley: Yes, sir. Cavener: If you're unable to come to an agreement with the other neighborhood, is your plan then to just to mirror the CC&Rs of the other HOA? Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 77 of 93 Riley: Yes. Some of it is carried forward from the development agreement in 1994. That's 8,000 square foot lots. I think the houses need to be a minimum of 1,400 square feet. So, yes, I have actually pulled the CC&Rs from Sundial and included that in the application packet. So, the continuity would be a good idea. Cavener: Great. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Borton: I have nothing. Riley: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I did have one other sign up. James Ellington. Signed up for. Would you like to provide testimony? Okay. It's noted that you are in agreement. You're for this project. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this item? James, thank you for sticking around to say you're for this application. You will need to come up and now provide testimony. If you will, please, state your name and address. Ellington: James Ellington. 2618 North Marburg. De Weerd: Thank you. Ellington: I'm actually the HOA president and I am working with getting a letter to the other members of the HOA homeowners to try and get this third phase to join us, but I have been busy the past two months dealing with some personal issues, so I'm a little behind. De Weerd: Well, we appreciate that you took the time this evening and you have that point of contact, so thank you so much for joining us. Ellington: Appreciate it. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is no one who would -- no one else who would like to provide testimony, Council, any further questions for the applicant or for staff? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Since it doesn't seem like anybody does, I would like to move that we close the public hearing on PP 15-018. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 78 of 93 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. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I move that we approve the preliminary plat PP 15-018 with all staff and applicant comments. Public -- sorry. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-D-1. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavene r, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. Public Hearing for Bull Ranch (AZ 15-013 and PP 15-017) by Gem State ER, LLC Located at 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane Denied 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.06 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat (PP 15-017) Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 10.06 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District De Weerd: Item 7-E is a public hearing for Bull Ranch. AZ 15-013, PP 15-017. I will open this public hearing with staff comments and my apologies to those who have actually stuck around this long, that our City Council has lasted as long as it has, so -- but thank you for sticking with us. So, staff. Beach: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the -- an application for annexation and zoning and a -- for Bull Ranch Subdivision. The site is located at 6168 North Elk Ranch Road, just south of Chinden and ea st of North Meridian Road, as you can see in the zoning map and the aerial here. Excuse me. This is an application for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. So, this is the preliminary plat here. This is -- a little history on this. The subject property was platted as part of the Blythe Estates Subdivision that was in Ada County and the applicant Gem States ER, LLC, has submitted an application for annexation and zoning of 10.06 acres of land within a Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 79 of 93 proposed R-8 zoning district. A preliminary plat is also proposed consisting of 48 single family residential building lots and nine common lots on, again, 10.06 acres of land for the proposed Bull Ranch Subdivision. There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the site that will remain and become part -- the majority of which will remain and become part of the proposed subdivision, which is Lot 25, Block 3. Access to the site today, as I mentioned, is from North Elk Ranch Road, which is -- my mouse there. Which is here, which actually provides access to the proposed Bull Ranch Subdivision and another proposed subdivision that we just received application for and as part of this we have asked that they terminate that access and take access through the Hightower Subdivision and the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the south and, then, Hightower to the east. The -- the applicant is proposing that the existing residence be allowed to continue to the Chinden access until the second phase of development. And this is the proposed phasing plan for the development. This being phase one and this section here with the existing home to remain being part of phase two. Staff believes the applicant should amend the phasing plan and include the existing home as part of phase one, so the existing access to Chinden will cease and the private road easement can be vacated as shown on the submitted preliminary plat in accordance with the USC. At this time there is an existing six foot tall privacy fence along the south and east boundary of the proposed development. Based on the area of the preliminary plat, which is 10.06 acres, a minimum of 1.01 acres or ten percent of open space is required to be provided and the applicant has proposed 10.2 percent open space or 1.02 acres in accord with UDC. Because the open space is an integral part of the development and the irrigation facility must be relocated to accommodate the subdivision design, staff believes the applicant should develop Lot 1, Block 4, with the first phase of development, which is this lot here. Amenities for the development include a picnic area and a community garden and a micropath connection to the church property to the north, which they are pro posing here. There is a singular common drive proposed for access to these lots here, as well as to the existing home and, again, here for these homes that eventually will stub through. The Commission did recommend approval. We received written testimony from Tamara Thompson, who is the applicant for The Land Group . And summary of the Commission public hearing. Jason Densmer was in favor. In opposition were Leann Major, Paul Workman, Barbara Clark and Virginia -- I'm probably going to butcher the last name, but Carutey. Commenting were Karen DeGracia, John Montieth, Jim Monteith and Jason Densmer. And, again, written testimony was received by Tamara Thompson. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were removal of access to Chinden Boulevard by way of access easement on Elk Ranch Lane. A phasing plan and when to require utility connections to the existing home. The requirement to install fencing on the west boundary of the proposed subdivision and, then, discussion of two story homes being constructed on the boundary to the Hightower Subdivision, which is the subdivision to the east. And Key Commission changes to the staff recommendation. They removed condition 1.1.1A, which is requiring removal of Elk Ranch Lane. They removed condition 1.1.2C, which is to revise the phasing plan to include the existing residence in the first phase. They altered condition 1.1.2D to read require the applicant to vacate the access easement along Elk Ranch Lane prior to signature on the final plat. And the y added a condition to submit the revised plat showing the redesigned entrance to the subdivision from the south, which they have done, as is shown here. And alter condition 1.1.3C to Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 80 of 93 require the fence on the west boundary of the subdivision with phase two of the development. There are no outstanding issues for City Council and written testimony was received by Michael Hoff. Staff will stand for any -- these are the proposed building elevations submitted by the applicant and the mix of materials. Staff, will stand for any questions. De Weerd: So, I can't find the summary for this one, so I -- and you had a lot listed there. Did everyone else get -- get that? Okay. What are the densities of the subdivision -- the existing subdivision -- I think you said Highgate -- Hightower? Beach: The zoning for the surrounding subdivision? De Weerd: Yeah. Beach: R-4 to the south and R-8 to the east. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Beach: You're welcome. I will note that we received an application that will be coming to P&Z soon for the property, the 10.6 acres to the west, and they are requesting R-4 zoning there, so -- De Weerd: And as I understand it, those are more like half acre lots, so -- okay. Thank you. Any other questions from Council at this point? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I wasn't able to locate the -- the written testimony from Michael Hoff. Beach: I had that written incorrectly. That was a testimony received by -- for Sundial Subdivision, so -- Cavener: Okay. Beach: Apologize. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, good evening. My name is Tamara Thompson and I'm with The Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I'm r epresenting the property owner tonight for the Bull Ranch Subdivision and to keep things short and sweet, I won't reiterate everything that Josh went through. I do want to list that we are in support of the conditions. We have read the staff report and the applicant is in support of the conditions, other than those that deal with phasing of the existing home, where the Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 81 of 93 access points are coming into the site is at the far southeast end of the property and -- if I can draw on this. There is a stub here and here and the existing home access is clear -- this isn't even as far left as what it is, so on the far site -- northeast -- northwest side of the property. So, it is completely diagonal across from where this first phase would be. So, we are -- Planning and Zoning Commission changed the condition and we are in agreement with -- with the changes that they made. The other item deals with the phasing of the utility and the sewer -- the septic system for the existing house is on the south side. It is in that area there. It's not that great of a burden to connect to the sewer, so we are proposing that we connect to sewer with phase one, but that the water -- the current well and water for the home is, again, on the northwest side and that is much further. So, everything on the north side of the house is a considerable burden to connect with phase one. So, our conditions, again, were in support of the conditions and the only condition that we are asking for relief from is 1.1.1C and that we are asking to read that the existing home be connected to the City of Meridian sanitary sewer system with the first phase of the development and that the existing home be connected to the City of Meridian domestic water system with the second phase of development. And just to make sure everyone understands is that the existing access for that home to Chinden, that would be the only home that the access has. The roadways would not be to that area, but any of the other subdivisions would be able to get to that area. So, there is just that one home that would maintain their existing access until phase two. With that I will stand for questions. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: What's going on in the northeast corner -- and guess that would be in phase two. It looks like there is two lots -- yeah. Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, that is -- that is correct. There is a common driveway there and three houses would access off of that driveway and just the -- the dark line is phase one -- phase one. So, everything on the east side -- everything on the east side of that line is phase one. The west side is phase two. With our accesses coming in here and there. De Weerd: Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: When the development just to the east -- on the east border of this was being discussed they had issues with flooding and I don't know if the grading -- the flooding before they developed. After they developed I don't know how they solved that, but have you been aware of any problem spilling over onto this property? Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 82 of 93 Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, no, that's -- I have not heard that. Zaremba: Well, hopefully, they solved the problem. De Weerd: Any other questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Tamara, would -- would you consider R-4, because the one to the west is going R-4 and your whole south end is all R-4. I realize that your east side is an R-8, but I -- I would certainly like to see you consider going R-4. Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, if you -- Josh, could I get you to put up the future land use map, please? Do you have that right there? Beach: No, but I can get it. Thompson: Councilman Bird, I believe the way that -- and I think we will see it when -- when we put that up there -- is the density gets higher as you move away from Chinden and with the R-8 to the east of us and the R-8 where we are at, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, then, it moves to lower density as you move south. So, it is a buffer, if you will, from -- from Chinden as you -- as you move south. The overall density is just under five per acre and -- Bird: What's your average lot size? Thompson: Yeah. So, we need to -- the 4.77 dwelling units per acre is where we are at right now. So, the R-4 would not -- would not work with that. Bird: What is your average lot size? Madam Mayor? What's your average lot size? Thompson: The average lot size is -- I believe forty -- I'm sorry. Fifty-six hundred. Right in that area. De Weerd: Have you provided a transition from the R-4 to the south by adjusting lot lines that are more compatible to Saguaro Canyon densities? Thompson: Yes, Madam Mayor. The -- the lots on the south property line are -- are wider than the ones on the north property line. We did ma ke those wider and, then, the lots on the south -- I'm sorry. On the east side we lined up to property lines as much as we could with the ones that are to the east there. But they are a little wider on the -- on the south end and they are deeper also. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 83 of 93 De Weerd: What are your lot sizes on -- on that stretch that abuts Saguaro? I can't read that, so -- Thompson: Madam Mayor, we are -- let's see. I think our -- well, our average is probably skewed due to the one acre lot that we have for the existing home. On the south end they range from just under 5,300 square feet to right -- a little above 5,000 -- 5,014 for some of those. De Weerd: How are they -- the compatibility to materials used? Saguaro is a very nice subdivision and, you know, I think that's why I asked with carrying on the theme of our first public hearing. Thompson: Madam Mayor, the -- the materials would be comparable. Josh, if you could put the elevations back up. They are -- they are nice looking homes. They are -- they are going to be smaller homes, because of the R-8 instead of the R-4. But they -- they do have the nice -- the features and the gables and different colors and materials. And these -- these were submitted. These are some of the homes that those would be with the development agreement. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions at this point from Council? Okay. Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. De Weerd: Did have a couple of people that signed up. Connie Johnston. Signed up against. Again, I apologize for the late our, but thank you sticking with us. Johnston: That's okay. My name is Connie Johnston and I live at 598 East Pasacana Street, which is in the Saguaro Canyon neighborhood. I do want to make a couple of points in opposition of this development, because it does affect me directly and I mean there is not as many properties that this affects the reason there is not as many of us here, so I hope you will give my point some -- some weight. It says in the Meridian Unified Development Code that your Comprehensive Plan of the city is to provide a variety of dwelling types and densities and on this block where we live we have several building projects going on. In north Meridian there are many projects. As you know, there is lots of open land and lots of projects going on. We have the Ventana neighborhood, which is zoned R-8. We have the -- the Tustin Subdivision, which is R-4, but they are small lots on R-4. We have the Hacienda Subdivision, which is R-8 and we have the Jericho Subdivision, which is R-8, and between -- and, then, we have the Westburough Townhomes, which are going in just on the city block and between all of those lots that are being developed, we have over 250 easy lots that are no going in. This b lock goes towards -- the student population goes to Prospect Elementary and I have five children, my children have all gone there, I have three there right now, and this will impact them. You asked about student population before. In Meridian we can count -- based on census data, we can count for one student per household. That's the average. So, no matter if it's a townhome or a patio home or whatever, that's the average you can count on. So, this few lots on this little piece of property is going to add another 50 to the already 250, Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 84 of 93 which are already going in just on my block. The schools, Prospect Elementary, Heritage Middle School, and Rocky Mountain are all over enrollment. Prospect is over 50 over enrollment. Heritage is almost 200 over enrollment and Rocky is over 300 over enrolled. And so this will just add to what is already been approved and is already being built. This will continue to add. I do want to say also that the property that's right next to it, which is coming for approval in a couple of weeks -- I know the developer and I just got the postcard in the mail for the hearing -- is going in as R-2. So, that's what's going in next to it. Not R-4. I also want to say just as a personal note that it says in the Meridian Unified Development Code that in approving the development the Council shall find that the arrangement of structures in the development does not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. The proposed plan that backs up to Saguaro Canyon, because their lot sizes are so small compared to ours and especially mine, because I have a corner lot and it kind of goes like this. My back fence line is really long and so when they build these I will not just have a -- not just a back neighbor, I'm going to have three back neighbors along my back fence and that makes it really frustrating for us, not only privacy wise, but we won't be able to enjoy our backyard as much, but just dealing with neighbors and you have all those fence issues and things that you deal with and that -- that's our personal main concern, our overall concern for the city in general is just overpopulation of this area and the density. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I had a Darrell Gallup signed up against. Thank you for sticking with us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Gallup: My name is Darrell Gallup. 554 East Pasacana Street. De Weerd: Thank you. Gallup: I would like to just reiterate what Mrs. Johnston has said. We believe that the density of homes in this plan are too great, especially because of congestion that's going to be caused by the number of cars that have to exist out of the southwest -- or southeast corner of the -- of the development and most of those cars are going to want to try to get onto Chinden Boulevard, which means, then, they have to go to Saguaro Hills Road, which has no stoplight or stop sign and so when we are trying to turn either left or right onto Chinden, it's almost impossible and so most people drive through the neighborhood and access Chinden through a different route and so I just am concerned about the -- the high density that Councilman Bird expressed and that you intimated. We believe that R -4 would be much more amenable to the -- the area. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Glenn Lake left a letter. Madam Clerk, can you read that? Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Sorry. Grabbed the wrong piece of paper. It says: To Whom It May Concern. We had a prior commitment and are not able to attend the meeting tonight. Please know that we are very much against you zoning the property behind our own -- behind our home R-8 and building Hubble homes in these lots. Thank you. Glenn and Susan Lake. 576 East Pasacana Street. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 85 of 93 De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this item? Fremgen: Madam Mayor and City Council, I'm Bill Fremgen. 5262 North Papago Place. Boise, Idaho, and I'm the developer that she was just speaking for, so I wanted to speak on behalf of this development. I think this development is key for that area in that when you're looking at Hightower they have alley load and very high density and there is even some townhomes to the east of them. We are going to be more medium density and, then, we are going to basically be estate homes, you know, 600,000 dollar homes to R-8, which is going to connect through to Meridian Road, so I think that's going to help mitigate a lot of the traffic concerns that people were -- were speaking to earlier, but I think we need to make sure that we have a variety of housing in this neighborhood, so the fine public servants that work in this very building can afford to live in this town and not have to move out of it, because if we went to R-4, you know, you would be talking 350,000, 375,000 dollar homes. We are going to be in the mid two hundred thousand dollar range. So, I think it's very important to keep that type of variety of developments in there so people -- average working people can afford to buy homes and not just the polo cr owd. If you have any other questions about the development I have been spearheading it. De Weerd: Council, any questions? No. Thank you. Fremgen: Thanks. Appreciate your time. De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony? Would the applicant like to make any final comment? Okay. Council, any further questions for applicants or staff? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: For clarity -- and while we are in public, so Tamara can correct me if I'm wrong -- they are -- we are proposing 10.6 acres, which one acre is being taken out by the existing home, am I not right? And we are -- we have got one point -- 1.01 for green space being taken out, so that's -- that's two acres. That gets us down to eight acres and we are going to put on 48 single family homes and by the time you take out all of your roadways and stuff like that, you're going to be -- you're pretty dense. You're pretty dense. Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, the density -- the gross density as defined by the Uniform Development Code at 4.77, dwelling units per acre, and the net density is 7.24 dwelling units per acre and that's -- you know, there is two different definitions when you -- is how you do that math, how you take all of the roads and that kind of thing ou t of the -- out of the equation. Bird: But you -- and what is your -- what is the minimum square footage of the houses? Do you have any -- 1,400? Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 86 of 93 Thompson: I'm sorry. Yeah. Councilman -- Bird: And you -- of course your setbacks are -- in R-8 is, what, four? Property line four, five? What's the setbacks on R-8? Beach: So, the side yard setbacks or the rear setbacks or -- Bird: The side setbacks. Beach: Five feet. Bird: That's what I thought. De Weerd: Okay. Council, anything further on this? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If not, I would move to close the public hearing on Item 7-E, AZ 15-013 and PP 15-017. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7 -E. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we approve Item 7-E, AZ 15-013 to include staff and applicant comments and in particular with regard to condition 1.1.1C that the applicant be allowed that the existing home connect to the city sewer service in phase one, be permitted to connect to domestic water service within phase two. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Bird: Madam Mayor, I will second it, but I want a clarification now. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: What did you say on the condition C, to have it at -- to do it during phase one? Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 87 of 93 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Sewer on phase one and water on phase two. Bird: Okay. That's what I thought I heard, but -- De Weerd: Well, just for discussion purposes, I do think that the density is too much. We have a lot of R-8 in that area. I do believe that we need a choice of housing and we have it in that area. It is abutting a nice subdivision that this is going to drive right through it. I just don’t think it's the right development at the right time. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: This is one of those that you often quote me on and I think it's applicable, I don't think we are in that big of hurry to annex what can be an issue and I say that for a couple reasons. One, we have a special request for a property to be on the sewer but not the water. I don't know how to charge them for that, since the sewer rates is based on water consumption. I know it can be worked out, but it's another hassle. The word lane came up. That always gives me great amounts of grief and I will tell you it will bring great amounts of grief to you all if you allow access via a lane to any property in the City of Meridian. So, I -- my position is not to support the motion and I would not support this application. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird. Bird: While I seconded it, I agree with Councilman Rountree, there is too many negatives on this to me in that area and I think he hit it on the head on the density and I just think that this isn't the product we want right now. So, I will be voting no. De Weerd: Council, any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Rountree, nay; Bird, nay; Zaremba, nay; Borton, yea; Milam, nay; Cavener, nay. De Weerd: The motion fails or -- yeah. The motion fails. MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. FIVE NAYS. De Weerd: So, do me another motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 88 of 93 Rountree: I move that we deny the request for annexation and zoning for Item 7 -- one and preliminary plat. 7-E-2. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny approval of Item 7-E, one and two. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Rountree, yea; Bird, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. F. Public Hearing: Proposed Winter 2015-2016 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department De Weerd: Item 7-F is a public hearing on -- through our Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Just seeing if you're still awake over there. Garro: Barely. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of City Council. I stand here, excuse me, tonight before you seeking approval of our parks and rec fee for winter-spring 2016, highlighted by an additional senior trip. We will be taking a McCall Winter Carnival day trip and offer that to the seniors in our community, just up to McCall for a day, take in the ice sculptures and hop on a bus and hurry back. So, with that being said I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Do you have to be a senior? Garro: Yes. Bird: You're not there yet. De Weerd: A senior in high school? Garro: Fifty-five and over. Active senior. We are calling them active. Bird: You're getting there, but you got a few years. De Weerd: Any further questions for Jake? Thank you. Garro: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this item? Seeing none. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 89 of 93 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearing on the proposed winter fee schedule for the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-F. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. G. Resolution No. 15-1103: A Resolution Adopting the Winter 2015- 2016 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date De Weerd: Item 7-G is Resolution No. 15-1103. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve 15 -- Resolution No. 15-1103. This is the resolution adopting the winter of 2015-2016 fee schedule for the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, authorizing the Meridian Park and Recreation Department to collect such fees. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7 -G. And have we provided an affective date? Bird: Yeah. That was automatic. De Weerd: Okay. It's automatic. 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. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 90 of 93 H. Public Hearing: Proposed Updates to Meridian Police Department Fee Schedule De Weerd: It's getting late. Item 7-H is a public hearing on the proposed updates to the Meridian Police Department fee schedule. De St. Germain: I don't know anything about that. At our command staff meet ing they said there is nothing on there for you to even certify. I think it's talking about fee increase for public records. Bird: Madam Mayor, this is the -- De Weerd: Trust me. I am the police department. Bird: Jeff come before us last meeting on this. You weren't here, but -- De Weerd: Oh. Bird: -- he brought this and presented it and we told him to bring it back with a resolution, am I not right? Nary: You are correct. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on the public -- on the public notice there is a few fees that have changed, mostly in relation to public record s. They are all related to personnel costs. We haven't updated for a couple of years, because the incremental amounts are so small, but now they have jumped significantly and the law has changed, so these were just changes in regards to fees collected for public records or when officers are hired for a particular event that we require that they be hired for. So, that's all it is. De Weerd: Thank you, Lieutenant. De St. Germain: You're welcome. De Weerd: Is there any further discussion on this? If not I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Milam: Madam Mayor? Cavener: Madam Mayor, actually, a comment. Sorry. I know we are itching to get out of here. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: And -- question and a comment. Comment first. Comment. I'd like to see this brought back on an annual basis, as opposed to -- as my dad calls it -- type of a willy-nilly time of year. I think annual is more prudent. And, then, the question is previous we Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 91 of 93 provided a credit if it went over and above the allotment from the state. Is that still in here or has that been removed? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, the waiver of the ten dollars is still there. So, that still exists. If you recall what Chief Lavey said, we will get some data and, then, come back and have that conversation. Cavener: Okay. Nary: So, we have what the state requires that we give without charge, we have the additional ten dollars that you have authorized for us to go over. So, this is only once it exceeds both of those. Cavener: Great. Thank you. De Weerd: And just for Mr. Cavener's information, the departments do review the fees annually. If it's a minute change they don't bring a fee update to Council. Cavener: A comment then. When you look at fee change from where it was and where it is today it's significant and so rather than do this as needed with a significant burden, I think that it needs to be reviewed annually and give Council the opportunity to decide if we want to approve that or hold off. De Weerd: And that's very fair. But I think that Mr. Nary did explain one of the cause for the big fee increase and that's a piece of legislation and so I just want you to know that the departments do look at those and we will take your words back again. Cavener: Appreciate it. De Weerd: Because I have had those words. Cavener: They are good words to have. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I move that we close the public hearing. De Weerd: Thank you. Do I have a second? Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-H. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 92 of 93 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. I. Resolution No. 15-1104: Adopting Meridian Police Department Fee Schedule Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam. Milam: I move that we approve Resolution No. 15-1104, adopting the Meridian Police Department fee schedule. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7 -I. If there is no discussion, 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 8: Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 15-1665: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian Repealing and Replacing Title 1, Chapter 15 Discrimination Prohibited of the Meridian City Code; Providing a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing and Effective Date De Weerd: Item 8-A is Ordinance No. 15-1655. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this by title. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 15-1665, an ordinance repealing and replacing Title 1, Chapter 15, Sections 1 through 3 of the Meridian City Code, regarding administration, discrimination prohibited, providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: I don't see anyone who would like to hear this read in its entirety, so Council? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 15-1665 with suspension of rules. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 1, 2015 Page 2 of 2 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (5:03 to 5:59 p.m.) De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye? Any opposed? We are out of Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Motion to adjourn? Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:59 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) //d- _s MAYOR MY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _F VLSI, 1 �� oW 17 City of J CE OLM"CITYCLER EI�ID�IAIV c 10/LHO J.d1AL `�y ti f ti hyo 0�P �l/+c Th E:15UF Meridian City Council December 1, 2015 Page 93 of 93 Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. 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 9: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Council, anything under Item 9? If not I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:32 P.M. (AUDIO REC—ORDIN-G-ON_FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR MY De WEERD DATE APPROVED 0 O)Aue ATTEST: °ss° CEE,NiOLMAN, CITY CLE City of 11S to 110 SEAL Item #713: Easy Jet (RZ-15-012; PP -15.016; CUP -15.017) Application(s): ➢ Rezone ➢ Preliminary Plat ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.4 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 2750 S. Eagle Road at the southeast corner of S. Eagle Road & E. Easy Jet Drive. History: In 2002, a CUP for a planned development (PD) was approved which conceptually approved offices & high-density multi- family housing on this property as a land use exception in the R-4 zoning district; detailed approval of the PD through a CUP was required prior to development. There were no restrictions on the number of units, square footage of structures, building height or number of stories that could be constructed. Of the 11 office/multi-family lots that were approved for such uses, only the subject parcel (preliminary platted as 4 lots) remains for such uses; the other 7 lots were approved through two separate CUP modifications to develop with single-family homes & a self-service storage facility. Summary of Request: The applicant has submitted an application for a rezone of 6.55 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 (4.93 acres) and L-0 (1.62 acres) zoning districts consistent with the MU -C FLUM designation and the uses approved with the PD. A preliminary plat (PP) is requested for 3 multi -family building lots, 2 commercial/office building lots and 1 common lot on 5.41 acres of land. Two accesses are proposed via E. Easy Jet Drive; one to the office development & one to the multi -family development — cross - access between the properties is also proposed. No access via S. Eagle Road is proposed or approved. Staff recommends a cross - access easement is provided to the property to the south on the L-0 zoned property for future interconnectivity & to reduce access points to Eagle Road. A minimum 25' wide landscaped street buffer is required along Eagle Road and a 10' wide buffer is required along Easy Jet on the L-0 zoned property. A 20' wide buffer is required on the L-0 zoned property to the residential property to the south. A solid vinyl fence w/lattice top exists along the southern boundary of the L-0 portion of the site on the adjacent residential property - the Commission recommended matching fencing be installed along the remainder of the southern boundary of the site; a solid vinyl fence exists along the east boundary of the site; and a chainlink fence exists along a portion of the north boundary that will be removed — the Commission recommended vinyl fencing be installed along the common areas adjacent to Easy Jet to enhance safety for children. Sidewalks exist along the street frontages of this site. Staff recommends a pedestrian pathway stub is provided at the south boundary of the multi- family portion of the site for future interconnectivity between developments. A CUP is requested for detailed approval of the office & multi -family development as required by the previously approved PD that conceptually approved offices & multi -family development on this site; and as required by the UDC for multi -family developments in the R-15 district. Since the Commission hearing based on their recommendation, the applicant submitted a revised site plan that depicts (3) 2 -story structures rather than (1) 2 -story & (2) 3 -story structures as originally proposed. The office portion consists of (2) buildings approximately 5,000 s.f. in size that front on Eagle Road. The number of dwelling units in the multi -family portion was reduced from 64 to 48 with a mix of 1, 2 & 3 bedroom units. A 1,620+/- s.f. clubhouse with a fitness facility, a children's play structure, and a large open grassy area are proposed as amenities; approximately % an acre of qualified outdoor common open space; and 80 s.f. of private usable open space is proposed for each unit consistent with UDC standards. With the revised plan, the number of parking spaces were reduced and open space was increased. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the multi -family structures & clubhouse but not for the garages, carports or office buildings. Construction materials for the multi -family structures consist of horizontal hardiplank lap siding and vertical hardiboard board & batten siding with rough sawn stained wood detailing in a combination of 3 different colors on each building. Materials for the clubhouse consist of the same types of siding with the addition of stone accents on the columns. Staff recommends stone/masonry accents (applied to 50% of the available wall length at a minimum height of 24 inches) are added to the facades of the multi -family structures & clubhouse visible from the street to match the front elevation of the clubhouse & complement adjacent residences. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Lisa Bachman ii. In opposition: Dr. Thompson, Bonnie Carter, Erik Gabrielson, Robert Neilson, Kathy Valenti, Glenda Morton, Don Burton, Dr. Casey Butterfield, Bev Montgomery, Inger Mascorro, Carol Gabrielson, St. Charles, Art Caldwell, Kathryn Nicholas, Chuck Carlson, Albert Castignola, John Boudreaux, Melece Williams, Russ Holder, Ruland Stocking, Jason Attinger, Janet Atkinson, Dr. James Bartolino, John Montgomery, Terrell Williams, Paul Hosford, Tad Schafer, Jennifer Huver, Bonnie Broussard, Susan Sims, Gary Vanackern, Annell Allen, Todd Harper, Joan Rocha, Nancy Boudreaux, George Howard, and Bryce Hergert. iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: See public record Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Appropriate density and building height (i.e. 2 vs. 3 stories) for this site. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. At the request of Staff, the Commission added a condition that vinyl fencing be installed adjacent to the common areas abutting Easy Jet to enhance safety for children playing in the open lawn and playground areas (see condition #1.1.8k in Exhibit B). ii. Include a condition that limits the building height of the apartment structures on the site to 2 -stories (see condition #1.1.14 in Exhibit B). iii. Include a condition requiring fencing to be installed along the southern boundary of the site to match the existing fencing (see condition #1.1.81 in Exhibit B). Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: See public record Commission Recommendation: Approval per the staff report with the changes previously noted **Staff requests a modification to condition #1.1.10e as follows, "The multi -family stairwells shall be integrated with the building design and shall have internal GirGulation and aGGess individual residential units, rather than open stairwells ec propesed provide residents protection from the weather. Internal circulation and stairwells to access individual units are encouraged." Notes: Item #7C: Village Apartments (AZ -15.012, CUP -15.019, MDA -15.011) Application(s): ➢ Development Agreement Modification ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The overall site consists of 16.62 acres of land, is currently zoned C -G and RUT in Ada County, and is located at 2600 & 2700 N. Eagle Road. History: The majority of this site (16.44 acres) was annexed in 2003 as a pathway of annexation for Redfeather Estates Subdivision to the east. The site has remained a residential/agricultural property since that time. The existing DA requires any future uses of the property to be approved through the CUP process and for a backage street to be provided parallel w/Eagle Road. A conceptual master plan is required that demonstrates interconnectivity, transitional uses, & access points. Summary of Request: The applicant requests a DA modification to remove the requirement for CUP approval of all uses and to include a conceptual development plan for the site as required. Annexation & zoning is also requested of 0.38 of an acre of land with a C -G zoning district consistent with the FLUM designation of MU -R for this property. A conceptual site plan was submitted that shows this portion of the overall site developing with a retail/commercial building pad. The applicant requests this site be included in the existing DA for the larger portion of the site. However, because the current DA also includes the property to the south where the Great Wall restaurant is located, staff recommends a new DA is required for the subject property to include the surrounding land that is included in the CUP request. A CUP is requested for the development of retail/commercial & MFR uses on the subject 16.62 acre property in the C -G district as required by the current DA and the UDC for a MFR development t in the C -G district. A concept plan for the overall site was submitted that depicts (3) retail/commercial building pads consisting of 3,500, 4,000 and 7,000 square feet (s.f.) along the frontage of N. Eagle Road and (1)14,000 s.f. retail building east of the building pads on a total of 5.23 acres of land. The commercial portion of the site is proposed to develop with phase 2. The MFR development is proposed to consist of a total of 336 dwelling units [(136) 1 -bedroom units & (200) 2 -bedroom units) within (11) 4 -story structures [(10) 32-plexes and (1) 16-plex] on 11.39 acres of land on the eastern portion of the site fronting on N. Records Avenue. Associated garage &carport structures and (2)18 -bay storage unit structures are also proposed. Parking appears to comply with UDC standards for multi -family developments and for the clubhouse building. A minimum of 1.92 acres of qualified open space & site amenities proportionate with the # of units in the development is required to be provided in accord with UDC standards. A total of 2.15 acres is propose in accord with UDC standards. Proposed amenities include a clubhouse with an exercise room and enclosed bicycle storage, a bicycle repair area, swimming pool, a tot lot with play equipment, (2) shade structures (1 within the pool area and 1 by the playground) and a 50' x 100' open grassy area north of the pool in accord with UDC standards. Only one public street access is proposed to the site via N. Records Avenue; other accesses are proposed via cross -access driveways between adjacent properties with access via Eagle and Records. This site is required to grant cross -access easements to the properties to the north & south. A 35' wide landscaped street buffer with a 10' wide multi -use pathway & pedestrian lighting is required along Eagle Road, an entryway corridor with the 2nd phase of development; and a 20' wide buffer is required along N. Records Avenue, a collector street, with a 5' wide detached sidewalk with the 1St phase of development. Records Avenue is anticipated to be constructed by CenterCal, the developer of The Village at Meridian in the near future; however, if this property develops first, this developer will be responsible for extending the road. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for the multi -family structures, clubhouse, garages, carports, storage buildings and garage/maintenance building. No building elevations were submitted for the future commercial buildings. Building materials for the multi -family and clubhouse structures consist of fiber cement horizontal lapped siding & stucco with architectural laminated fiberglass roof shingles. All structures on the site are required to comply with the design standards in effect at the time of application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: L In favor: Jim Conger, Applicant's Representative v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Removal of access to Chinden Blvd by way of an access easement on Elk Ranch Lane ii. The phasing plan and when to require utility connections to the existing home. iii. The requirement to install fencing on the west boundary of the proposed subdivision. iv. Two-story homes being constructed on the boundary to the Hightower Subdivision. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Removal of condition 1.1.1A, requiring removal of Elk Ranch Lane (See condition 1.1.1A). ii. Remove condition 1.1.2C iii. Alter condition 1.1.2D to read require the applicant to vacate the access easement along Elk Ranch Lane prior to signature on the final plat. (See condition 1.1.2D) iv. Add a condition to submit a revised plat showing the redesigned entrance to the subdivision from the south. (See condition 1.1.2E) v. The Commission reaffirmed that the elevations be part of the recorded development agreement as proposed in DA provision 1.1.1a. vi. Alter condition 1.1.3C to require the fence on the western boundary of the subdivision with phase two of the development. (See condition 1.1.3C) Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Michael Hoff Notes: ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Martin McWilliams, Brenda Ross, Dick Ross, Mark Rogers, & Ann Sorensen iv. Written testimony: Jim Conger Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: L Concern in regard to the project's compliance with open space standards. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: L Modify condition #1.1.5 to require the street buffer and associated pedestrian pathway & lighting along Eagle Road to be constructed with the 2nd phase of development rather than the 1St phase. ii. Include a new condition requiring the existing structures on the site to be removed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site (see condition #1.1.9). Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Item #71): Sundial Circle Subdivision (PP -15.018) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The site is located at 2250 W. Whitelaw Drive, in the NE'/4 of Section 2, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. (Parcel No.: R8222230020) Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Single-family residential property zoned R-4 (Sundial Sub. No. 1) East: Single-family residential property zoned R-4 (Sundial Sub. No. 1) South: Single-family residential property zoned R-4 (Sundial Sub. No. 2) West: Single-family residential property zoned R-4 (Sundial Sub. No. 2) History: In 1994 the subject property was annexed and zoned to R-4 as part of the Turtle Creek Subdivision. At that time the subject property received preliminary plat approval for 40 lots as part of the Turtle Creek Preliminary Plat. Also, in 1994 at the time of annexation of the subject property a development agreement was entered into for this area (instrument #94108841). The first application submitted by the applicant was approved in March of 2007 (PP -06-060). The final plat was approved in May of 2008 (FP -08-009). The applicant had until April of 2009 to obtain the City Engineers signature on the final plat, and failed to do so. The preliminary plat expired at that time. Although this preliminary plat is new, the development agreement provisions tied to the annexation of the subject property are still in effect. Summary of Request: The applicant, Conger Management Group, has submitted an application for a preliminary plat (PP) consisting of eleven (11) building lots and one (1) common lot on 2.54 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district for Sundial Circle Subdivision. Open Space and Site Amenities: Qualified open space and site amenities are not required to be provided for developments below 5 acres in size per UDC 11-3G. Because the site consists of 2.54 acres, the applicant is not required by the UDC to provide open space or a site amenity. However, the applicant is proposing to construct a micropath lot (Lot 8, Block 1) that provides interconnectivity with a previous phase of the Sundial Subdivision. It is the desire of the applicant to incorporate the proposed development as part of the existing Sundial CCR's. With the submittal of the final plat, the applicant should provide a landscape plan that shows the landscaping proposed for Lot 8, Block1. Access: Access for the development is proposed from W. Whitelaw Drive, via W. Turtle Creek Drive a residential collector street. The proposed roadway will terminate as a cul-de-sac. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Penelope Riley ii. In opposition: Mike Huebschmann iii. Commenting: John Llewellyn iv. Written testimony: Mike Hueschmann, Penelope Riley (Applicant) v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The pathway connection to the existing Sundial Subdivision ii. The number of proposed lots in the subdivision iii. The proposed lot sizes Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Michael Hoff Notes: Item #7E: Bull Ranch Subdivision (AZ -15.013) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The site is located at 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane, in the NW'/4 of Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East. (Parcel #: R1002730200) Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Church, zoned RUT (Ada County) East: Single-family residential properties in Hightower Subdivision, zoned R-8 South: Single-family residential properties in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, zoned R-4 West: Residential and Agricultural, zoned RUT (Ada County) History: The subject property platted as part of the Blythe Estates Subdivision in Ada County. Summary of Request: The applicant, Gem State ER, LLC, has submitted an application for annexation and zoning (AZ) of 10.06 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A preliminary plat (PP) is also proposed consisting of 48 single-family residential building lots and 9 common lots on 10.06 acres of land for Bull Ranch Subdivision. Existing Structure(s): There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the site that will remain and become part of the proposed subdivision (Lot 25, Block 3). The existing home will need to be connected to city services with phase one of the development and will be required to abandon the existing septic and well that service the property. Access: Access to this site today is from Elk Ranch Lane to Chinden Boulevard. Access to this site is proposed on the plat via two existing stub streets, one in Hightower Subdivision to the east and one in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the south. Access to E. Chinden Blvd via Elk Ranch Lane is prohibited. The applicant is proposing that the existing residence be allowed to continue to use the Chinden access until the second phase of development. Staff believes the applicant should amend the phasing plan and include the existing home as part of phase 1 so the existing access to Chinden will cease and the private road easement can be vacated as shown on the submitted preliminary plat in accord with UDC 11-3H-4. Fencing: At this time, there is existing 6 -foot tall privacy fencing along the south and east boundary of the proposed development. The applicant shall provide 6 -foot tall privacy fencing along the border of the subdivision. Open Space & Site Amenities: Based on the area of the preliminary plat (10.06 acres), a minimum 1.01 acres (or 10%) of open space is required to be provided on the site per UDC 11 -3G -3A in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3B. The applicant has proposed 10.2% open space (1.02 acres) in accord with the UDC. Because the open space is an integral part of the development and the irrigation facility must be relocated to accommodate the subdivision design, staff believes the applicant should develop Lot 1, Block 4 with the first phase of development. Amenities for the development include the following: 1) a picnic area, 2) a community garden and 3) a micropath connection to the church property to the north. Staff is supportive of the proposed amenities. The applicant shall comply with the open space and amenities as proposed. Written Testimony: Tamara Thompson (applicant) Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jason Densmer ii. In opposition: Leanna Majors, Paula Workland, Barbara Clark, Virginia Currurcte iii. Commenting: Karen De Grazia, Jim Montieth, Jason Densmer iv. Written testimony: Tamara Thompson (applicant) v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: L Removal of access to Chinden Blvd by way of an access easement on Elk Ranch Lane ii. The phasing plan and when to require utility connections to the existing home. iii. The requirement to install fencing on the west boundary of the proposed subdivision. iv. Two-story homes being constructed on the boundary to the Hightower Subdivision. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Removal of condition 1.1.1A , requiring removal of Elk Ranch Lane (See condition 1.1.1A). ii. Remove condition 1.1.2C iii. Alter condition 1.1.2D to read require the applicant to vacate the access easement along Elk Ranch Lane prior to signature on the final plat. (See condition 1.1.2D) iv. Add a condition to submit a revised plat showing the redesigned entrance to the subdivision from the south. (See condition 1.1.2E) v. The Commission reaffirmed that the elevations be part of the recorded development agreement as proposed in DA provision 1.1.1 a. vi. Alter condition 1.1.3C to require the fence on the western boundary of the subdivision with phase two of the development. (See condition 1.1.3C) Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Michael Hoff Notes: Item #7E: Bull Ranch Subdivision (AZ -15.013) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The site is located at 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane, in the NW'/4 of Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East. (Parcel #: R1002730200) Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Church, zoned RUT (Ada County) East: Single-family residential properties in Hightower Subdivision, zoned R-8 South: Single-family residential properties in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, zoned R-4 West: Residential and Agricultural, zoned RUT (Ada County) History: The subject property platted as part of the Blythe Estates Subdivision in Ada County. Summary of Request: The applicant, Gem State ER, LLC, has submitted an application for annexation and zoning (AZ) of 10.06 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A preliminary plat (PP) is also proposed consisting of 48 single-family residential building lots and 9 common lots on 10.06 acres of land for Bull Ranch Subdivision. Existing Structure(s): There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the site that will remain and become part of the proposed subdivision (Lot 25, Block 3). The existing home will need to be connected to city services with phase one of the development and will be required to abandon the existing septic and well that service the property. Access: Access to this site today is from Elk Ranch Lane to Chinden Boulevard. Access to this site is proposed on the plat via two existing stub streets, one in Hightower Subdivision to the east and one in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the south. Access to E. Chinden Blvd via Elk Ranch Lane is prohibited. The applicant is proposing that the existing residence be allowed to continue to use the Chinden access until the second phase of development. Staff believes the applicant should amend the phasing plan and include the existing home as part of phase 1 so the existing access to Chinden will cease and the private road easement can be vacated as shown on the submitted preliminary plat in accord with UDC 11-31-1-4. Fencing: At this time, there is existing 6 -foot tall privacy fencing along the south and east boundary of the proposed development. The applicant shall provide 6 -foot tall privacy fencing along the border of the subdivision. Open Space & Site Amenities: Based on the area of the preliminary plat (10.06 acres), a minimum 1.01 acres (or 10%) of open space is required to be provided on the site per UDC 11 -3G -3A in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3B. The applicant has proposed 10.2% open space (1.02 acres) in accord with the UDC. Because the open space is an integral part of the development and the irrigation facility must be relocated to accommodate the subdivision design, staff believes the applicant should develop Lot 1, Block 4 with the first phase of development. Amenities for the development include the following: 1) a picnic area, 2) a community garden and 3) a micropath connection to the church property to the north. Staff is supportive of the proposed amenities. The applicant shall comply with the open space and amenities as proposed. Written Testimony: Tamara Thompson (applicant) Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jason Densmer ii. In opposition: Leanna Majors, Paula Workland, Barbara Clark, Virginia Currurcte iii. Commenting: Karen De Grazia, Jim Montieth, Jason Densmer iv. Written testimony: Tamara Thompson (applicant) Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes Approve Minutes of October 27, 2015 City Council Meeting MEETING NOTES 9 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5b 03f;**- l�Ju = ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes Approve Minutes of November 4, 2015 City Council Special Meeting 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes PROJECT NUMBER: Approve Minutes of November 10, 2015 City Council Workshop Meeting 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes PROJECT NUMBER: Approve Minutes of November 17, 2015 City Council Meeting 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5e PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Christmas in Meridian Christmas in Meridian 2015 Sponsorship Agreement Between Mountain America Credit Union and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $1,500.00 MEETING NOTES rte✓ Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ehiristmas in EKIDIAN CHRISTMAS IN MERIDIAN 2015 SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT This CHRISTMAS IN MERIDIAN 2015 SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made on this I day of R<<e^'�- 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Idaho, whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ("City"), and Mountain America Federal Credit Union, whose address is 55 E. Franklin Road, Meridian, Idaho ("Sponsor"). For good and valuable consideration and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, City and Sponsor agree as follows: 1. Sponsorship. Throughout the term of this Agreement, Sponsor shall be, and shall be recognized as, a 2015 Sponsor of City's Christmas in Meridian events. The specific sponsor position and benefits insured to Sponsor throughout the term of this Agreement shall be attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Payment. By 5:00 p.m. on November 20`h, 2015, Sponsor shall prepay to City one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00). In the event the Sponsor fails to pay this amount in full in a timely manner as provided herein, City may terminate this Agreement in the manner therefor as set forth herein. In the event that the Christmas in Meridian program is discontinued or shortened for any reason, no portion of the amount prepaid shall be refundable. 3. Promotion. a. City's efforts. With regard to Christmas in Meridian, City shall undertake the promotional and advertising efforts enumerated for sponsors in the Christmas in Meridian 2015 Sponsorship Packet, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. Term. The term of this agreement shall be from the Effective Date through December 31, 2015, unless earlier terminated by either party by the method established herein. 5. Cancellation; scheduling. The parties acknowledge that the 2015 Christmas in Meridian schedule shall include the Winter Lights Parade, Downtown Business Decorating Contest and Children's Winterland Festival events, but cancellation of any or all may be necessary due to weather or other conditions or circumstances. City shall have sole responsibility and discretion in scheduling and/or cancelling Christmas in Meridian events and activities related thereto, including any and all related activities by Sponsor. 6. Insurance Sponsor's responsibility. City shall not provide insurance to cover loss, theft, or damage of any equipment, materials, or personnel used or employed by Sponsor in the furtherance of this Agreement, or to cover any activity undertaken by Sponsor in the exercise of the rights or the furtherance of the obligations described herein. Any and all insurance of each party's CHRISTMAS IN MERIDIAN SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 1 of 5 respective property and personnel shall be the sole responsibility of that party. Sponsor shall obtain all necessary insurance as may be required in order to protect Sponsor's insurable interests for Sponsor's rights and obligations described within this Agreement, including, but not limited to, liability insurance, automobile insurance, worker's compensation insurance, and/or property insurance. 7. Use of City's name, logo. City hereby conveys to Sponsor permission to use City's name for purposes of advertising, marketing, and public information, without violation of City's rights of privacy or any other rights City may possess under this Agreement, provided that Sponsor shall not use City's logo for any purpose without the express, written permission of the Mayor's Executive Assistant. 8. Termination. a. Termination for cause. If either Party determines that the other has failed to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement, violated any of the covenants, agreements, and/or stipulations of this Agreement, engaged in any act of misconduct in the performance of this Agreement; or if either Party willfully or negligently defaults in, or fails to fulfill, its material obligations under this Agreement, the other Party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement by giving written notice to the defaulting party of its intent to terminate, and shall specify the grounds for termination. The defaulting party shall have two (2) days after such notice is sent to cure the default. If the default is not cured within such period, this Agreement shall be terminated upon written notice of such termination by the terminating party. b. No compensation upon termination. In the event of termination, neither Party shall be entitled to compensation or damages for any equipment or materials provided pursuant to this Agreement or obligations incurred in furtherance of the rights conveyed by this Agreement. 9. Photography and recording. City shall be authorized to photograph, record, video tape, reproduce, transmit, or disseminate, in or from Christmas in Meridian, all related activities for educational and public information purposes. City shall not be responsible for the actions of persons who are not under its employment or control. 10. Relationship of Parties. It is the express intention of Parties that Sponsor is an independent contractor and not an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Sponsor and City or between Sponsor and any official, agent, or employee of City. Both parties acknowledge that Sponsor is not an employee of City. Sponsor shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement. Sponsor shall have no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in City. The selection and designation of the personnel of City in the performance of this agreement shall be made by City. 11. Indemnification. Sponsor specifically indemnifies City and holds City harmless from any loss, liability, claim, judgment, or action for damages or injury to Sponsor, to Sponsor's personal property or equipment, and to Sponsor's employees, agents, or volunteers arising out of or resulting from the condition of City's real or personal property or any lack of maintenance or repair thereon, and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its employees. Sponsor further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any loss, liability, claim or action from damages or injuries to persons or property in any way arising out of or resulting from the use of CHRISTMAS IN MERIDIAN SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 2 of 5 City's real or personal property by Sponsor or by Sponsor's employees, agents, volunteers, or invitees and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its employees or volunteers. 12. Waiver. Sponsor shall, and hereby does, waive any and all claims and recourse against City, including the right of contribution for loss and damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to Sponsor's performance of this Agreement, whether such loss or damage may be attributable to known or unknown conditions, except for liability arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its officers, agents or employees. 13. Taxes. Sponsor shall be solely responsible for the payment of taxes owed for any income realized as the result of activities undertaken pursuant or related to this Agreement. 14. Time of the essence. Sponsor acknowledges that services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to this Agreement, 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. 15. Compliance with law and event rules. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Sponsor shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Sponsor shall also comply with all written rules and regulations that govern Christmas in Meridian events in which they are participating including but not limited to Winter Lights Parade rules and regulations. 16. Non-discrimination. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Sponsor shall not discriminate against any person as to race, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation or any physical, mental, or sensory handicap. 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. 18. Costs and attorneys' fees. If either party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded. 19. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada County, Idaho. 20. Cumulative rights and remedies. All rights and remedies herein enumerated shall be cumulative and none shall exclude any other right or remedy allowed by law. Likewise, the exercise of any remedy provided for herein or allowed by law shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy. 21. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. CHRISTMAS IN MERIDIAN SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 3 of 5 22. No assignment. Sponsor shall not assign, sublet, subcontract, or transfer its rights or responsibilities hereunder without the express written consent of City. Should Sponsor cease to exist in its current form, this Agreement and all rights granted to Sponsor hereunder shall be void. 23. Notice. Any and all notice required to be provided by either of the Parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed communicated upon sending an e- mail message, addressed as follows: Sponsor: City: Jamie Boyer Colin Moss 208-493-0198 208-888-3579 jboyer@macu.com cmoss@meridiancity.org Either party may change its e-mail address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change in the manner herein provided. 24. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein. 25. Warranty of authority. The undersigned expressly warrants that, to the extent set forth herein, he is duly authorized to act as the representative and agent of Sponsor. The undersigned further warrants that he is authorized to bind Sponsor to the obligations set forth herein, and to accept the liabilities as established herein on behalf of Sponsor. SPONSOR: Authorized Representative Signature Svuv�&l Please Print Name CITY OF MERIDIAN: i Tammy dp'Werd, Mayor 0,000, .. J1G • I- Date ATTEST: r City ff,T I T)1 ��:1'� I.�� !`JAVO ;J.�Yce o1 �\ SEill-I L ;J City Clerk CHRISTMAS IN MERIDIAN SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 4 of 5 Exhibit A 2015 CHRISTMAS IN MERIDIAN SPONSORSHIP PACKET Winter Lights Parade Fireworks Presenting Sponsor For $1,500 you will receive: • Recognition in all media and in -event mentions as the Fireworks Presenting Sponsor for the Winter Lights Parade. Positioned as "Winter Lights Parade presented by [Overall Presenting Sponsor] with fireworks presented by [Business Name]." • The opportunity to submit one parade entry at no additional cost ($100 value). This entry will be the second official entry in the parade line-up (after the Overall Presenting Sponsor) and will include an illuminated walking banner identifying you as the parade's Fireworks Presenting Sponsor. Sponsor must provide banner carriers. All parade entry rules and regulations will apply to this entry. • Your logo with a link to your website on the Christmas in Meridian website recognized as the Fireworks Presenting Sponsor. • Your logo and a link to your website in all Christmas in Meridian e-mail blasts sent to our distribution list of over 9,000 e-mail addresses. • Your logo and a link to your website on the Christmas in Meridian event listing on the Meridian Parks and Recreation page on Facebook. • Special recognition from the event emcee immediately following the fireworks display. CHRISTMAS IN MERIDIAN SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 5 of 5 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 51 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Development Agreement Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 15-009 Trilogy Subdivision by Viper Investments Located near the southeast corner of W. Chinden Blvd and N. Black Cat Road. 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 f k i ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2015.107894 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=8 VICTORIA BAILEY 11/25/2015 09:47 AM MERIDIAN CITY NO FEE 111 11111111111 111111 111111 11111 111 111111111 III EI 00168961201501078940080081 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Viper Investments, Owner/Developer THIS DIVELOPMENT AGREEMENT(this Agreement),is made and entered into this al day of N 0' l , 2015, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho ("CITY"), whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 and Viper Investments, ("OWNER/DEVELOPER"), whose address is 1977 E. Overland Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, Owner is the sole owner,in law and/or equity,of certain tract of land in the County of Ada,State of Idaho,described in Exhibit"A",which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the Property; and 1.2 WHEREAS,Idaho Code§67-6511A provides that cities may,by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of zoning that the Owner/Developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject Property; and 1.3 WHEREAS, City has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Section 11-5B-3 of the Unified Development Code ("UDC"), which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re-zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer, or subsequent Owner/Developer entered into a Development Agreement (Inst. # 107025553) on 2/22/07 on the property described in Exhibit"A". The original Development Agreement (Inst. # 107025553) is hereby replaced with this Agreement. 1.5 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer submitted an application for the a preliminary plat consisting of one hundred forty-four(144)single-family lots and nine (9) common lots on approximately 28.16 acres of land in the R-8 (Medium Density Residential)zoning district(as described in Exhibit"A"); and, and a request to modify the recorded development agreement (Inst. #107025553)for the purpose of updating certain sections ofthe Development Agreement to reflect the design changes to the proposed subdivision under DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—TRILOGY SUBDIVISION(MDA—15-009) PAGE 1 OF 8 3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian,a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 OWNER/DEVELOPER: means and refers to Viper Investments,whose address is 1977 E.Overland Rd.,Meridian,Idaho 83642,the party that owns and is developing said Property and shall include any subsequent owner(s)/developer(s)of the Property. 3.3 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain parcel(s)of Property located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit "A" describing the parcels as Medium Density Residential (R-8) and attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 5.1.1 Access to Chinden Boulevard shall be prohibited for this site. The applicant shall be required to dedicate the right-of-way, construct landscaping, pathway(s), and noise mitigation along Chinden Boulevard, as required by Idaho Transportation Department and the City of Meridian. 5.1.2 Provide a utility easement to the Janicek property to the northeast;construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk to the north side of Ramblin Court from N.Exeter Ave. to N.Black Cat Road;the 120 foot of the 5-foot wide sidewalk to the east of N. Exeter Street is not required. 5.1.3 Future development of this site shall be consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan (including all proposed/shown amenities) and building elevations attached in Exhibit A of the attached Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with attached Staff Report(Exhibit"B"). 5.1.4 N. Exeter Ave. shall be designed and constructed so that Parcel # R7330160010 will have continuous frontage on N. Exeter Avenue and between W. Lava Springs St. and W. Broadbent St. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-TRILOGY SUBDIVISION(MDA-15-009) PAGE 3 OF 8 5.1.5 Any future subdivision,uses,dimensional standards and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of permit submittal. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD This Agreement must be fully executed within six (6) months after the date of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Preliminary Plat or it is null and void. 7. DEFAULT/CONSENT TO DE-ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: 7.1 Acts of Default. Either party's failure to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement shall constitute default under this Agreement. 7.2 Notice and Cure Period. In the event of Owner/Developer's default of this Agreement, Owner/Developer shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of written notice from City to initiate commencement of action to correct the breach and cure the default,which action must be prosecuted with diligence and completed within one hundred eighty(180)days;provided,however,that in the case of any such default that cannot with diligence be cured within such one hundred eighty(180)day period,then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 7.3 Remedies. In the event of default by Owner/Developer that is not cured after notice as described in Section 7.2,Owner/Developer shall be deemed to have consented to modification of this Agreement and de-annexation and reversal of the zoning designations described herein, solely against the offending portion of Property and upon City's compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances and rules, including any applicable provisions of Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511. Owner/Developer reserves all rights to contest whether a default has occurred. This Agreement shall be enforceable in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County by either City or Owner/Developer,or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 7.4 Delay. In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either Owner/Developer or City is delayed for causes that are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include,without limitation,acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-TRILOGY SUBDIVISION(MDA-15-009) PAGE 4 OF 8 7.5 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by Owner/Developer of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the default and defaults waived and shall neither bar any other rights or remedies of City nor apply to any subsequent default of any such or other covenants and conditions. 8. INSPECTION: Owner/Developer shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this Agreement or by City ordinance or policy,notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all other ordinances of the City that apply to said Property. 9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, and submit proof of such recording to Owner/Developer,prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re-zoning of the Property by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby,the City shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 10. ZONING: City shall,following recordation of the duly approved Agreement,enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein. 11. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit,cash deposits,certified check or negotiable bonds,as allowed under the UDC, to insure the installation of required improvements, which the Owner/Developer agree to provide, if required by the City. 12. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the City,or sufficient surety of performance is provided by Owner/Developer to the City in accordance with Paragraph 11 above. 13. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owner/Developer agree to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian unless otherwise provided by this Agreement. 14. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail,registered or certified mail,postage prepaid,return receipt requested,addressed as follows: CITY: with copy to: City Clerk City Attorney City of Meridian City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. 33 E.Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, ID 83642 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-TRILOGY SUBDIVISION(MDA-15-009) PAGE 5 OF 8 OWNER/DEVELOPER: Viper Investments 1977 E. Overland Rd Meridian, ID 83642 14.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 15. ATTORNEY FEES:Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted,to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default,termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 16. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term,condition and provision hereof,and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 17. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the Owner/Developer,each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof,except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees,upon written request of Owner/Developer,to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that Owner/Developer have fully performed their obligations under this Agreement. 18. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 19. DUTY TO ACT REASONABLY: Unless otherwise expressly provided,each party shall act reasonably in giving any consent,approval,or taking any other action under this Agreement. 20. COOPERATION OF THE PARTIES: In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including a governmental entity or official) challenging the validity of any provision in this Agreement, the parties agree to cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-TRILOGY SUBDIVISION(MDA-15-009) PAGE 6 OF 8 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements,condition and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between Owner/Developer and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant,with respect to City,to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City. 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re-zoning of the subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT:This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. [end of text; signatures, acknowledgements, and Exhibits A and B follow] ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. OWNER/DEVELOPER: Viper Investments By: CITY OF MERIDIAN By: C C C ,'1 , At r,„ ATTEST: < °' C0 u, / /sQI` i. tt4Z I DI AL J: -cee 6—Holman, or Clerk SEAT <F� P DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—TRILOGY SUB I`Ts.iON(NPA -009) PAGE 7 OF 8 STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss: County of Ada, ) On this I )tday of K1 OV. ,2015,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared C.Or-e j ,c-to, ,known or identified to me to be the M t"Jo er' of Viper Investments and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of such company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. M f.i a • Y o •b ld ` ` (SEAL) a 4 , ®l s,�'cJ>R - . v1 . Notary Public for Idaho . s Residing at: N A n.,pA, .LSA a �• •�`` ZG;�� MyCommission Ex fires: • STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss County of Ada ) On this . ._`.1 daof 0 ' s' , 2015, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared' :Ili 1-r ‘: ', r ' . •ifd Jaycee L.Holman,know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City,and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. logbigA (S14) i Notary 1 blic •r Idaho • ; ; • Residing at: e,Ar-\ 1 c — 1 '� • ' l ;.�j,9��1J�,1G ;��; Commission expires: Oln v`0. `� . aU 0 'OF+IV • • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—TRILOGY SUBDIVISION(MDA—15-009) PAGE 8 OF 8 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5g PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Sanitary Sewer Easement Sanitary Sewer Easement between the City of Meridian and Leon and LaRue Johnson Family Trust 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_ 025$ BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 VICTORIA BAILEY 12/03/2015 02:44 PM MERIDIAN CITY NO FEE IIIIIIIillllllllliillillllllllll11111111IIIIIIIII 00171434201601102680060066 SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this day of Qsteber, 20 /6'-betweenLeon and LaRue Johnson Family Trust, the parties. of the first part, and hereinafter called the GRANTORS, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the GRANTEE; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the GRANTORS desire to provide a sanitary sewer 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. j i 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-I5-13.doc i i 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: ce Trustee - C. Leon Job on Trustee Rue, Johnson AddressA q63 6' 11A e STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On thisAda of y 20 � , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared C. Leon Johnson and E. LaRue Johnson, known or identified tome to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, as trustees of the Leon` and LaRue Johnson. Family Trust dated February 13, 2003, and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ROBERT T. SMITH (S AL) NOTARY PUBLIC N TARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO STATE OF IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: l/ Sewer Main Easement EASMT SEW 11-15-13.doc GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de rd, ayor .m t,�LD AIDC CiS!":., v city of ttest by yeee L. Holman,City Clerk� Ali � i'�1t �Ajyj Approved By City Council On: � 1'A1 s STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada ) On this l dayof Pte, 20, before me, the undersigned, a Notaiy Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L. Holman, known to me to be the Mayor and City Cleric, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and aclalowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written: (SEAL) .•••••.. NOTARY UBLIC FO DAHO ®• JN JO ® Residing at: ® 0" O ® Commission Expires: Ca ce n q 0 •'fit .� • ii w Sewer Main Easement EASMT SEW 11-15-11doc EXHIBIT A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT DESCRIPTION FOR GREEN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT INC. An easement located in the. SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 31, Township 4 North; Range1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap monument marking the southeasterly corner of said SE 1/4 of the SE '/4, from which an aluminum cap monument marking the northeasterly corner of the SE I/4 of said Section 31 bears N 0°31' 11" E a distance of 2659.05 feet; Thence N 0'31'11" E along the easterly boundary of said SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 a distance of 1329.52 feet to the northeasterly corner of said SE 1/4 of the SE 1/a; Thence leaving said easterly boundary N 89'46'17" W along the northerly boundary of said SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 a distance of 7.51.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing N 89°46'17" W a distance of 20.05 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 3°38'57" E a distance of 85.67 feet to a point; Thence S 43°1723" W a distance of 43.84 feet to a point; Thence N 89'46'17" W a distance of 24.27 feet to a point; Thence S 0'34'10" W a distance of 224.50 feet to a point; Thence S 89046' 17" E a distance of 20.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0'34'10" E a distance of 194.50 feet to a point; Thence N 45°23'56" E a distance of 14.18 feet to a point; Thence S 89'46'17" E a distance of 47.89 feet to a point; Thence N 3°38'57" W a distance of 137.82 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 8,553 square feet (0.196- acres) acres and is subject to any other easements existing or in use. PR Prepared by: Glenn K. Bennett, PLS _ Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated p: 5.08 August 24, 2015 1� 114 �t QUENZER COMWONS R' t SUBDIVISION N0. 6 N 89'46'17" W 751.39' J _...-------- -- (20.05 q I ---_.POINT OF BEGINNING V (�p co a � LQ N 89'46'17" W �, � � I < h 24.27' S 8946'17Lid," E �., I 47.89' �N 45°2356" E 6 5 14.18' `, C OR hi SCALE.- l'-50' tt? V, Q) _ Oma � (o (� U co 0" of" 20, 00} O co S 89'46'17" E u> : N HFNJTACE ,RL�i/F 50801111S1Q1V N0, 3 PROPOStD1 C Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM TITLE: Approval of Lakeview Golf Course Lease Approval of FoofGolf Addendum fo Lakeview Golf Course Lease 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 ADDENDUM TO CITY OF MERIDIAN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FOOTGOLF OPERATIONS DECEMBER 1, 2015 RECITALS 1. Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC ("Lessee") and the City of Meridian ("City") entered into that certain Lease Agreement ("Agreement") dated May 17, 2005. 2. The Parties desire to enter into this addendum to set forth the following reasonable terms and conditions for operation of FootGolf at the Lakeview Golf Club ("FootGolf Addendum"). NOW, THEREFORE, the AGREEMENT shall be modified by adding the following particulars: 1) Definitions: As used within this Addendum, the following definitions apply: a) "FootGolf' is a combination of the sports of soccer and golf. The game is played with a regulation #5 soccer ball at a golf course facility on shortened holes with 21 -inch diameter cups. The rules largely correspond to the rules of golf. At Lakeview, Footgolf will be played within the Golf Course, but its holes (and in some, but not all instances, tees) are separate and apart from golf tees and holes. Footgolf as a game is played throughout the world as a sport and is regulated by the Federation for International FootGolf (FIFG). The American FootGolf League (AFGL) is the exclusive member of the FIFG and governing body for FootGolf in the US. b) "Golf' or "Traditional Golf' is a sport where players ("Golfers") use various clubs to hit balls into a series of holes as originally intended in the May 17, 2005 Lease Agreement. 2) Term a) The initial term for FootGolf shall begin upon the execution of the FootGolf Addendum by City and shall continue until the end of the City's fiscal year on September 30, 2016. b) The term shall be extended each successive fiscal year that the Lease Agreement is in effect, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to the terms of this FootGolf Addendum. ADDENDUM TO CITY OF MERIDIAN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FOOTGOLF OPERATIONS 3) Course Lgyout a) The location of the tee box areas and greens to be used for FootGolf shall be limited to the area of the premises known as the "Front Nine" and more particular as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto. b) If the Lessee determines that due to unforeseen circumstances when the original location and layout were prepared as provided herein, changes become necessary for improved operations of FootGolf and/or Traditional Golf, Lessee shall notify the City of such changes in advance. 4) Rules a) FootGolf play shall be regulated by the rules promulgated by the Federation for International FootGolf (FIFG) and the American FootGolf League (AFGL). b) Prior to initiating play at on the course, each FootGolf player shall watch a short introductory video regarding rules and etiquette, or shall verify that said player has watched such video. The Lessee shall be allowed to select the video and update as required. c) Local FootGolf Rules shall be printed on a Lakeview FootGolf Score Card provided to each group of players, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The local FootGolf rules shall include: i) Please respect all golfers and the course. ii) Do not walk on Traditional Golf Greens or kick ball from these greens. You may kick the ball on or from only the FootGolf Greens. iii) Wear appropriate clothing. Golf apparel is preferred. iv) Soccer Cleats are not allowed at any time. v) Please be aware of your "speed of play" to keep up with the group in front of you or not impede the group behind you. vi) Please rake bunkers and observe other golf etiquette. vii) Keep golf carts on designated paths at all times. viii) No trespassing on private property to retrieve ball or for any reason. 5) Operational Requirements a) The FootGolf program shall be conducted in such a manner that FootGolf play does not unreasonably or materially interfere with Golfers or Golf Course operations. The Lessee ADDENDUM TO CITY OF MERIDIAN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FOOTGOLF OPERATIONS shall be required to take reasonable actions to enforce the rules of FootGolf and more specifically provide reasonable assurance that FootGolf players: i) Do not exhibit unruly conduct. ii) Observe golf etiquette while on the course. iii) Do not trespass on private property. iv) Observe all of the Local FootGolf rules as set forth in this Addendum. b) No FootGolf tee times will be allowed before 3pm. c) Maximum of four players allowed per group for each tee time. d) No FootGolf tee times will be allowed during Traditional Golf tournaments, Traditional Golf league play, and other Traditional Golf events scheduled by the Men's and Ladies Associations. e) In the event of a conflict between FootGolf players and High School players of Traditional Golf, in scheduling available tee times, High School players of Traditional Golf shall be given priority. f) When FootGolf is being played, the tees and holes shall be clearly marked so that they can be avoided by others on the course playing Traditional Golf. g) When FootGolf is not scheduled the FootGolf holes shall be properly covered so that they do not present a hazard to anyone authorized to use the course. 6) Termination a) The Parties may mutually agree to terminate this addendum at any time during the Term. b) In the event that the City believes the FootGolf program as provided herein is unreasonably or materially interfering with Golfers or Golf Course operations, the Lessee shall be provided a written notice detailing the specific facts that are being alleged. i) If Lessee resolves such allegations after receiving written notice, there shall be no further actions taken by the City. ii) If Lessee allows such actions to continue, City shall cause a hearing to be set at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. a. Lessee shall be provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations in writing or at the hearing. b. After notice and hearing, the FootGolf program may be terminated if the City Council finds that the FootGolf program unreasonably or materially interferes with Golf Course operations. Facts constituting unreasonable or material interference ADDENDUM TO CITY OF MERIDIAN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FOOTGOLF OPERATIONS with Golfers or Golf Course operations include but are not limited to Lessee's failure to take reasonable efforts to enforce the Rules and Operational Requirements as set forth in this Addendum. c. After notice and hearing, in the event that City makes a finding that the FootGolf Program shall be terminated, Lessee shall remove all FootGolf tees, holes, and other FootGolf materials from the Golf Course within 15 calendar days following the date that the City Council makes the finding, unless conditions require additional time. The City will not be unreasonable in granting a request for a time extension. c) In the event that a third party brings legal action regarding the FootGolf program as provided herein and receives a valid judicial order requiring that the FootGolf program cease and desist in the leased premises, the City reserves the right to terminate this addendum. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties do execute this Addendum the day and year first above written. CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO eerd, Mayor c;cy of lb" Attest: � ' ° A'' ° aJaycetl. Holman, City ' lerk SEAL T J. LAKEVIIW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC an Idaho limited liability company by OAAS & LANEY, Inc, an Idaho corporation ADDENDUM TO CITY OF MERIDIAN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FOOTGOLF OPERATIONS ADDENDUM TO CITY OF MERIDIAN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FOOTGOLF OPERATIONS EXHIBIT A APPROVED COURSE LAYOUT ADDENDUM TO CITY OF MERIDIAN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW MERIDIAN INVESTORS, LLC TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR FOOTGOLF OPERATIONS EXHIBIT B SAMPLE SCORECARD Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5i 6141�Cil�li�il= ITEM TITLE: Bankruptcy Adversary Action Settlement and Release Agreement for the CVAH, Inc. Bankruptcy Adversary Action 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approval of Task Order Approval of Task Order 10023.k to JUB ENGINEERS, INC. for the "2016 MERIDIAN SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE" Project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $222,300.00 MEETING NOTES 9 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, Garrick Nelson Date: 11/24/2015 Re: December 1' City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the December 1St City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration. Approval of Task Order 10023A to JUB ENGINEERS, INC. for the "2016 MERIDIAN SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE" prosect for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $222,300.00. Recommended Council Action: Award of Task Order 10023X to JUB Engineers, Inc. for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $222,300.00. Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 CONTRACT / AGENDA CHECKLIST Date: 11/17/2015 REQUESTING DEPARTMENT Public Works Fund: 60 Department: 3500 GL Account: 55000 Project # 10023A Construction: Task Order x PSA Equipment i I Project Name: 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update I Project Manager: Garrick Nelson Department Representative: Contractor/Consultant/Design Engineer: JUB Engineers Budget Available (Attach Report): yes Contract Amount: $222,300.00 i i I Will the project cross fiscal years? Yes No Budget Information: FY Budget: FY16 Enhancement #: Grant #: Other: Type of Grant: I CONTRACTCHECKLIST BASIS OF AWARD Low Bidder Highest Rated Master Agreement x (Bid Results Attached) (Ratings Attached) (Category) 1d Typical Award Yes X No If no please state circumstances and conclusion: Debarment Status (Grant/Federal Funded Projects Only) na Date Award Posted: na 10 day protest period: PW License # na Expiration Date Corporation Status G oodsta nd i ng Insurance Certificates Received (Date): September 15, 2015 Payment and Performance Bonds Received (Date): Builders Risk Ins. Req'd: Yes na No na (Only applicabale for projects above $1,000,000) na (Type in date verified and the status) na Expiration Date: August 1, 2016 Rating: A+ Rating: na If yes, has policy been purchased? na Date Submitted to Clerk for Agenda: November 24, 2015 Approval Date By: Purchase Order No.: Date Issued: WH5 submitted N a (Only for PW Construction Projects) NTP Date: (Only for non Public Works Project) E IDIANt- Public IDAHO Works Department TO: Keith Watts FROM: Garrick Nelson Staff Engineer DATE: 11/16/15 Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members# Charlie Rountree Keith Bird toe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam David Zaremba SUBJECT: TASK ORDER 10023 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES WITH JUB ENGINEERS, INC. PURSUANT TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT CATEGORY 2E APPROVED OCTOBER 22, 2013 FOR THE 2015 SEWER MASTER PLAN FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $222,300. I. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Garrick Nelson, Staff Engineer 489-0358 Clint Dolsby, Asst. City Engineer 489-0341 Warren Stewart, City Engineer 489-0350 Tom Barry, PW Director 489-0372 II. DESCRIPTION A. Background The Sewer Master Plan completed in 2010 served as a guide for the sizing and location of collection lines and lift stations. An update to the Sewer Master Plan is required every five years as outlined in the State of Idaho Wastewater Rules. This plan is in need of an update to incorporate recent construction and development priority areas and also needs to work in concent with the sewer modeling software for the City. Without an updated Sewer Master Plan the department will risk providing inaccurate information to the public with regard to sewer sizing and depths for the trunklino sewers in the City. Additionally, priority areas for future development will not be identified and the Department will not have a map of where to guide development for the future. B. Proposed Project This project will update the existing system model and committed service model. Modeling assumptions, land use designations and unit flow will be updated. The master plan model will be updated to incorporate impact boundary flexibility. In Page 1 of 2 addition, modifications to the Master Plan will be made in areas where development has taken place. The updated Master Plan will provide the conceptual layout of the sewer trunk lines 10" and larger. JUB will work with City staff throughout all phases of the Sewer Master Plan Update, such as estimating growth patterns for the next five years, estimate of build -out densities and total build -out population projections. A Capital Improvement Plan will be developed to provide a prioritization for capital improvement projects based on the results of the existing system analysis and the growth projections. III. IMPACT A. Fiscal Impacts Funding is available in the Sewer Master Plan enhancement for this task order. The value of the task order with JUB Engineers is $222,300 and the enhancement value is $225,000. Project Costs: r---------------------------------- r---------------------------------- r--------------------- -_----_--___-_� Fiscal Year 2016 L--------------- - ---- - - — -------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- - --—- ---------------- Total -Project Cost ----------- ----------------------- - - -----------------------------$222 300 Project Funding --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year : Account Code / Codes : - -- ------------------------------------------------ ----- ' Available Fundin - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------$225,000_: -----------------------;---------------------------------- ;------------ Total Funding Required a_--- - - $222,300 ----------------------------------- B. Time Constraints This project consists of multiple tasks dependent upon timely receipt of information, field investigations and survey and review comments between the City and JUB Engineers. The final deliverable will need to be submitted to DEQ upon completion of this task order. Approval of this task order in a timely manner will ensure the project remains on schedule. Departmental Approval: D Page 2 of 2 TASK ORDER NO. 10023.k Pursuant to the MASTER AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF MERIDIAN (OWNER) AND JUB ENGINEERS, INC (ENGINEER) This Task Order is made this day of December, 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", and accepted by (JUB ENGINEERS. INC), hereinafter referred to as "Engineer" pursuant to the mutual promises, covenant and conditions contained in the Master Agreement (Category 1d) between the above mentioned parties dated October 1, 2014. The Project Name for this Task Order 10023.k is as follows: CITY OF MERIDIAN 2016 MERIDIAN SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SECTION 1 — PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Meridian (City) has requested J -U -B Engineers, Inc. (J -U -B) to provide engineering services to assist in updating the City's Sewer Master Plan. The previous Sewer Master Plan Update was completed in 2010. The City has experienced growth since then and has addressed many of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects identified in the previous plan. This project will update the existing system model and committed service model. Modeling assumptions, land use designations and unit flows will be updated. The master plan model will be updated to incorporate impact boundary flexibility. In addition, modifications to the Master Plan will be made in areas where development has taken place. The updated Master Plan will provide the conceptual layout of the sewer trunk lines 10" and larger. J -U -B will work with City staff throughout all phases of the Sewer Master Plan Update, such as estimating growth patterns for the next five years, estimates of build -out densities and total build -out population projections. A Capital Improvement Plan will be developed to provide a prioritization for capital improvement projects based on the results of the existing system analysis and the growth projections. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 1 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC Upon City review and approval of the updated Sewer Master Plan Report, J -U -B will submit it to Idaho DEQ for review and approval. In general, the outline of the report will be as follows: Executive Summary Chapter 1 — Introduction and Background Chapter 2 — Existing System Summary Chapter 3 — Existing Model Chapter 4 — Committed Model Chapter 5—Growth Projections and Planning Information Chapter 6 — Master Plan Model Chapter 7 — Capital Improvement Plan Chapter 8 —Summary SECTION 2 — OWNER INFORMATION, RESPONSIBLITIES and PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS; The following data and/or services are to be provided by the City, as applicable, without cost to J -U -B: A. Provide on-going review of J -U -B's work and timely considerations of policy issues within a time acceptable to the City and J -U -B. B. Provide updated GIS layers of all existing sewers in the City system. Provide guidance on model compatibility with asset management software. C. Provide pump station information that is not in the current model, including pump curves. Provide SCADA information from regional lift stations. D. Provide winter water meter data for use in the sewer model. Water meter data will contain a geo-referenced link to the parcel it is associated with. E. Provide latest flow monitoring data. F. If any critical inverts on trunks are unavailable and necessary, provide that information to J - U -B through field surveying (J -U -B is available to conduct any necessary surveying under Task 8.1, Additional Services). G. Provide record drawings of new existing collection system components (trunk sewers 10 inches or larger) that may be required for modeling. We anticipate that most of the information on the existing trunk lines is contained in the City's current GIS layer. H. Provide design plans of any City Capital Improvements that are currently in the planning or design phases. I. City will maintain a current license of the most recent version of InfoSWMM modeling software. J. No additional draft deliverables will be produced other than those specifically listed in the Tasks in Section 3. K. Other items that may be necessary that are not in the scope of services and are not assigned to J -U -B as additional work. L. Refer to Section 3 individual tasks for additional project assumptions. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 2 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC SECTION 3 — SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY J -U -B J -U -B shall furnish the services specifically limited to the following: Task 1 — Project Manaaement and Meetings 1.1 Project Administration, Tracking and Management: Monitor team progress and resources, action item lists, task deadlines, and items needed from the City. Provide documentation, and regular updates on a monthly basis or as needed. Prepare monthly written project updates, progress reports and invoicing. 1.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan: Develop a QA/QC plan to manage the quality review of all work activities and project deliverables. Distribute QA/QC plan to project staff. 1.3 Meetings: Participate in bi-weekly or monthly project coordination meetings, workshops and conference calls. The purpose of these meetings will be to exchange information, receive progress updates and discuss other coordination with the City. For the purpose of budgeting 50 hours are allotted for this sub -task. Assumptions: Duration of this Task Order is 15 months Execution of the QA/QC Plan will be on-going and completed under the appropriate Tasks Deliverables: • Monthly Invoicing & Project Status Reports • QA/QC Plan • Meeting Minutes Task 2 — Existing Model Update 2.1 Data Collection and Modeling Assumptions Update a) Obtain and review updated GIS information from the City for all sewer lines, including rim and invert elevations where available. b) Obtain and review flow data for the Meridian WWTP and recent flow monitoring by others. Identify up to 3 significant recent rainfall events that led to noticeable increases of flow. c) Obtain and review hourly flow data for up to 3 events identified above from available sources, including the Meridian WWTP and lift station SCADA. d) Lift Stations — Obtain and review pump curves, SCADA pumping data, operation set points and record drawings. e) Obtain permit information for all permitted/significant users, including current permit limits and future permit limits. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 3 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC f) Obtain and review water meter data from Meridian Utility Billing for use in developing existing sanitary flows. One meeting with Utility Billing will be held to discuss exact data needs and coordinate data transfer. g) Draft a technical memorandum summarizing the modeling assumptions to be used in the InfoSWMM model. h) Submit one electronic copy (PDF) of the draft Modeling Assumptions TM to the City for review. Meet with the City to review comments. i) Address comments received through internal QA/QC and City review of the draft Modeling Assumptions TM. Incorporate the revised Modeling Assumptions TM into the Master Plan document as an appendix (see Task 2.8). 2.2 Update Existing Collection System Layer a) Using GIS information provided by the City (sewer lines and manholes), update rim elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes in the model collection system layer. Rim and invert source information will also be maintained in the system layer. The collection system layer will be updated with the best available data for trunk lines z 10 -inches in diameter. Pipes smaller than 10 -inch in diameter will be considered non-critical, but those in the existing GIS layer will be included in the model to facilitate flow routing. b) Identify critical information gaps (>_ 10 -inches) that require field survey or record drawing information. Provide a list of needed record drawings and/or needed survey information to the City. c) Discrepancies, missing data and questions on rim and invert elevations will be discussed with the City and resolved with one of the following: field survey by City staff, record drawings, straight grading or interpolation. d) Non-critical information gaps (<10 inches) in rim and invert data will be approximated in the model using straight grading or interpolation. e) Based on record drawings or field survey information provided by the City, add information to the collection system layer. 2.3 Collection System Condition Assessment Coordination a) Meet with City staff to review and document the City's current condition assessment program. This information and City guidance will be used as part of the capital improvement programming in Task 6. Two (2) meetings are assumed for budgeting purposes. b) Obtain and review condition rating data for all collection system assets the City has already rated. Document the current condition rating of all collection system assets the City has already rated. Document the collection system assets still in need of assessment by the City. 2.4 Update Existing Flow Generation Layer a) Update existing land use layer using type to each parcel within City limits using parcel characteristics found in the county parcel GIS data. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 4 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC b) Develop sanitary unit flows by analyzing average winter water meter data from each parcel from Dec 2015, Jan 2016, and Feb 2016. c) Summarize unit flows for each land use type for use in future model scenarios. d) Determine the infiltration influenced by seasonal irrigation for each major sewer basin in the system (gallons per acre per day, GPAD). Based on recent flow monitoring data collected by others and recent WWTP data. Values will be calibrated in Task 2.6. e) Evaluate flow data received from the City, as well as any previous flow monitoring, for up to 3 recent storm events identified in Task 2.1. Determine inflow volumes that reached the sewer and develop draft inflow parameters for each basin to apply to the InfoSWMM model. Values will be calibrated in Task 2.6. 2.5 Update InfoSWMM Model a) Load the updated layers and parameters into the new model, including the collection system layer, sanitary flows, infiltration flows and inflow parameters. b) Develop the following modeling scenarios: Scenario infiltration + Inflow ` Sanitary Flows Average 2015-2016 winter water meter Calibrate—Dry Peak Irrigation No Storm Event usage Average 2015-2016 Events identified winter water meter Calibrate Wet n/a in Task 2.1 usage Average 2015-2016 winter water meter Existing Calibrated INF Design Storm usage c) Run the model for each scenario and resolve any errors, inconsistencies or issues identified. 2.6 InfoSWMM Model Calibration a) Calibrate the model for the Calibrate—Dry scenario using flow monitoring data provided by the City and collected by others. Use initial infiltration values determined in Task 2.4 as a starting point for calibration. This model calibration will identify the peak infiltration in each basin and confirm diurnal curves used in the model. b) Calibrate the model for the Calibrate—Wet scenario using flow data collected in Task 2.1 and previous flow monitoring data. Use initial inflow parameters determined in Task 2.4 as a starting point for calibration. c) Draft a technical memorandum summarizing the InfoSWMM model calibration. Include graphs for each calibration point for both calibration scenarios. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 5 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC d) Submit one electronic copy (PDF) of the draft Model Calibration TM to the City for review. Meet with the City to review the model calibration. Identify any model assumptions to refine or modify. e) Address comments received through internal QA/QC and City review of the draft Model Calibration TM. Revise model calibration, if necessary. Incorporate the revised Model Calibration TM into the Master Plan document as an appendix (see Task 2.8). 2.7 Existing System Capacity Analysis a) Confirm the appropriate design storm for use in wet weather scenario analyses based on the wet weather calibration and discussions with the City. b) Analyze the model for the 'Existing' scenario. c) Identify collection system bottlenecks or trunks showing stress with respect to recommended design parameters in the existing collection system for existing flows. d) Summarize flows into existing lift stations and the remaining capacity. 2.8 Chapters 1-3 Documentation and Review a) Prepare a draft of chapters 1-3 of the Master Plan document (1 -Introduction and Background; 2 -Existing System Summary; 3 -Existing Model). Figures associated with these chapters include maps of the service area, existing land use designations, existing collection system pipe size, existing reserve capacity, and existing depth over diameter. The draft Modeling Assumptions TM and draft Model Calibration TM will be included as appendices. Incorporate additional lift station information into chapter 2 from the previously complete Energy Assessment Evaluation. Prepare an outline of the Master Plan document and correlate with the Idaho DEQ Facility Plan requirement checklist. b) Submit one electronic copy (PDF) of chapters 1-3 of the Master Plan document to the City for review. Meet with the City to review chapters 1-3. Identify any model assumptions to refine or modify. c) Address comments received through internal QA/QC and City review of Chapters 1-3 of the Master Plan document. Revise as necessary. 2.9 Task 2 QA/QC a) Perform an internal review of all deliverables in this task by senior level staff. All QA/QC comments will be reviewed and addressed before deliverables are finalized. Assumptions: It is anticipated that a secondary GIS update of sewer lines will be needed to capture development that happens during the update to the existing collection system layer (October 2015 — March 2016) and before the end of winter water meter time period (December 2015 — February 2016). Individual water meter usage can be linked to the corresponding parcel and used for sanitary flow generation. Wet weather calibration is likely not possible for all individual basins due to limited flow monitoring data during wet weather events. No additional flow monitoring will be Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 6 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC conducted with the intent to capture the impacts of wet weather events on the collection system. • The City will continue to develop their condition assessment program internally. Task 2.3 coordination is only to document the current program. • Compilation of final documentation and submittal to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is covered under a separate task (see Task 7.2). Work Products; • Draft Modeling Assumptions TM — PDF • Draft Model Calibration TM — PDF • Draft Master Plan Report Chapters 1-3 — PDF Task 3 — Committed Model Update 3.1 Update Committed Flow Generation Layer a) Develop the 2016 committed flow layer for sanitary flows. Based on the most recent city limits as defined in the Ada County GIS. Unit flows developed in Task 2.4 will be used to estimate committed sanitary flows. b) Update the expired plats list and remove these parcels from the 2016 committed flow layer. c) Develop the associated infiltration flows for the 2016 committed flow layer. Infiltration values from the calibration will be applied to similar areas nearby. d) Estimate the difference between the existing service area and the committed model service area and the corresponding flow. e) Coordinate with the City to update the City's WWTP benchmarking spreadsheet with the 2016 committed flow layers. 3.2 Update InfoSWMM Model a) Load the updated committed flow layer into the model. b) Develop the following modeling scenario: Scenario Infiltration Inflow Sanitary Flows Committed Calibrated INF Design Storm Committed Flows c) Run the model for the scenario and resolve any errors, inconsistencies or issues identified. 3.3 Committed Model Capacity Analysis a) Analyze the model for the 'Committed' scenario. b) Identify collection system bottlenecks or trunks showing stress with respect to recommended design parameters in the existing collection system for committed flows. c) Summarize committed flows into existing lift stations and the remaining capacity. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 7 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC 3.4 Task 3 QA/QC a) Perform an internal review of all deliverables in this task by senior level staff. All QA/QC comments will be reviewed and addressed before deliverables are finalized. Assumptions: • A parcel is included in the committed model if it has been annexed into City. Parcels with expired preliminary plats are not included in the committed model. • A separate Committed Flow Layer will not be developed for the beginning of the FY2016 in October as has been done in recent years. The previous base committed flow layer will be utilized by the City until the 2016 Committed Flow Layer is completed in the spring or summer of 2016. Work Products: • 2016 Committed Flow Layer — GIS shape file • Updated WWTP Benchmarking Spreadsheet — Excel spreadsheet Task 4 — Demographics and Land Use 4.1 Data Collection a) Obtain and review planning documents including the current comprehensive plan, specific area plans and associated updates such as Ten Mile, Downtown and the Fields District, and other current City planning documents. b) Meet with the Planning Department to review current planning documents and discuss vision for future buildout of the City. Review and define the ultimate service area boundary in coordination with City staff. Assumes one (1) meeting with City staff. The current Area of Impact will be used as the starting point for this analysis and discussion. 4.2 Demographics a) Determine populations and sewer availability for the existing service area. Utilizing the existing sewer model, City utility billing data and Ada County GIS parcel data; determine parcels where sewer is available, parcels that are connected to the sewer, developed parcels not connected to the sewer, undeveloped parcels and associated populations. b) Determine current and recent development density trends in the existing service area. For budget purposes it is assumed that up to ten (10) recent developments will be analyzed to determine current land development densities. Current development densities will be used to project future development densities for similar land use types. c) Compare current densities to Comprehensive Plan densities and establish future land use densities for use in the Master Plan. Review downtown Boise City development trends for reference and use in future density assumptions for downtown Meridian. d) Develop build -out population projections for the ultimate service area based on Comprehensive Plan designations. e) Meet with the City to review densities, land use assumptions/generalizations and population projections. f) Revise and update densities and population projections based on discussions with the City. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 8 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC 4.3 Task 4 QA/QC a) Perform an internal review of all deliverables in this task by senior level staff. All QA/QC comments will be reviewed and addressed before deliverables are finalized. Assumptions: City will provide direction on growth patterns to assist in future land use and demographic assumptions. Task 5 — Master Plan Model Update 5.1 Update Master Plan Collection System Layer a) Update conceptual horizontal and vertical alignments, as well as pipe size, for future trunk lines 10" and larger in diameter required to serve the City's Impact Area. Incorporate modifications to the Master Plan System Layer made through on-call analyses since the 2010 Master Plan. Modify the Master Plan System Layer to account for expansion of the existing system and recent development. b) Examine current Master Plan routes for constructability and improved routing efficiencies. Incorporate any current City capital improvement projects. c) Field survey flow lines of drains/creeks where master plan sewer crossings are proposed to confirm viability of the vertical alignment. d) Develop an alternate Master Plan System Layer that utilizes scalping plants to reduce the size of downstream master plan trunk lines. Identify preliminary re -use and/or disposal sites. 5.2 Update Master Plan Service Area Layer a) Update Master Plan service areas and injection points that define how an area is provided sewer service. Incorporate modifications to the Master Plan Service Area Layer made through on-call analyses since the 2010 Master Plan. Modify the Master Plan Service Area Layer to account for expansion of the existing system and recent development. 5.3 Update Master Plan Flow Generation Layer a) Update future land use type assignments to each parcel in the City's Impact Area using the current comprehensive plan. Include land use types from area specific plans such as Ten Mile, Downtown and the Fields District. Unit flows developed from the water meter analysis will be used to estimate flows. Densities developed during the demographic analysis will also be utilized. Existing and Committed Flows will be maintained as developed in the Existing Model and Committed Model except for areas identified for redevelopment. b) Meet with the City to confirm future land use types and discuss alternate increased density layer (see Task 5.3.e). c) Revise future land use based on comments from review meeting with City. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 9 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC d) Expand the infiltration flow layer used in the Committed Model to cover the City's Impact Area. Infiltration values from the calibration will be applied to similar areas nearby. e) Develop an alternate Master Plan Flow Generation Layer that examines increased densities for specific areas of the City. This scenario will be defined through discussions with the City. 5.4 Update InfoSWMM Model a) Load the updated layers and parameters into the model. b) Develop the following modeling scenarios: Scenario Infiltration & inflow, Collection System Sanitary Flows & Densities Unit Flows from Calibration MP 1a MP Layout Densities from Demographics Unit Flows from Calibration MP 1b Increased Densities Unit Flows from Calibration MP -2a MP Layout with scalping WWTP's Densities from Demographics Unit Flows from Calibration MP 2b r Calibrated INF Design Storm Increased Densities Unit Flows from Calibration MP -3a MP Layout without Mason Creek Densities from Demographics Unit Flows from Calibration MP 3b Increased Densities Unit Flows from Calibration MP -4a MP Layout with scalping WWTP's, Densities from Demographics without Mason Creek Unit Flows from Calibration MP 4b Increased Densities c) Run the model for each scenario and resolve any errors, inconsistencies or issues identified. 5.5 Master Plan Model Capacity Analysis a) Analyze the model for each of the eight (8) Master Plan scenarios. b) Identify collection system bottlenecks or trunks showing stress with respect to recommended design parameters in the existing collection system for master plan flows; c) Summarize master plan flows into existing lift stations and the remaining capacity. d) Evaluate the impacts that increasing densities has on model results. e) Evaluate the impacts that adding scalping WWTP's has on model results. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 10 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC f) Evaluate the impacts that removing the Mason Creek trunk shed from the master plan has on model results. Under this scenario the Mason Creek trunk shed would be provided sewer service by others. g) Compare model results to the 2010 Meridian Sewer Master Plan. Discuss any significant differences in Chapter 6 (see task 5.6). 5.6 Chapters 4-6 Documentation and Review a) Prepare a draft of Chapters 4-6 of the Master Plan document (4 -Committed Model; 5 - Demographics; 6 -Master Plan Model). Figures associated with these chapters include maps of the committed model service area, future land use designations, committed model reserve capacity of existing pipes, committed model depth over diameter of existing pipes, master plan collection system pipe size, master plan reserve capacity of existing pipes, and master plan depth over diameter of existing pipes. The draft Modeling Assumptions TM and draft Model Calibration TM will be included as appendices. Prepare an outline of the Master Plan document and correlate with the Idaho DEQ Facility Plan requirement checklist. b) Submit one electronic copy (PDF) of chapters 4-6 of the Master Plan document to the City for review. Meet with the City to review chapters 4-6. Identify any model assumptions to refine or modify. c) Address comments received through internal QA/QC and City review of Chapters 4-6 of the Master Plan document. Revise as necessary. 5.7 Task 5 QA/QC a) Perform an internal review of all deliverables in this task by senior level staff. All QA/QC comments will be reviewed and addressed before deliverables are finalized. Assumptions: • Results and maps will be based on the 'MP_1 a' scenario. Maps of alternative scenarios will not be included, only discussions in the master plan report. • Development of an alternate system layer utilizing scalping WWTP's will only include the downstream gravity impacts. Analysis and sizing of pressure piping related to the re -use or disposal system is not included. City to jointly assign locations of potential satellite WWTP's. • The preferred alternative from the Northwest Lift Station planning documents will be utilized in the Master Plan. • Compilation of final documentation and submittal to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is covered under a separate task (see Task 7.2). Work Products: • Draft Master Plan Report Chapters 4-6 — PDF Task Order 10023A 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 11 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC Task 6 — Capital Improvement Plan 6.1 Capital Improvement Plan a) Develop potential capital improvement projects to address the bottlenecks and capacity problems identified in the Existing, Committed and Master Plan model analyses. Includes potential capital improvements needed for alternative scenarios (Increased densities, scalping WWTP's). b) Develop example rehabilitation and/or replacement programming based age and material. c) Review the potential capital improvements with the City and select preferred improvements. Discuss yearly goals for replacement and rehabilitation projects and example programming. d) Prepare planning level opinion of probable capital costs for each of the preferred capital improvements and preliminary unit costs for replacement and rehabilitation projects. e) Develop and run a model scenario that contains all of the preferred CIP projects to confirm the capacity problems have been resolved. f) Develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that summarizes needed capital improvement projects, replacement and rehabilitation projects (see Task 2.3) and associated costs. Develop an implementation schedule for the CIP. Evaluate the current budget versus needs outlined in the CIP and the City's replacement and rehabilitation goals. Incorporate the downtown sewer realignment plan into the replacement and rehabilitation projects. g) Summarize the Southwest Phasing Plan outlining temporary inter -basin pumping in the southwest area. Also, summarize the Northwest Regional LS phasing plan. h) Include projects currently under construction and/or planned in the CIP. i) Identify CIP projects from the 2010 Meridian Sewer Master Plan that have been completed and document in chapter 7 (see Task 7.1). 6.2 Task 6 QA/QC a) Perform an internal review of all deliverables in this task by senior level staff. All QA/QC comments will be reviewed and addressed before deliverables are finalized. Assu=tions: • City will provide yearly programmed budget amounts for replacement and rehabilitation projects. Task 7 — Final Documentation and DEQ Submittal 7.1 Draft Master Plan Report for City Review a) Draft chapters 7-8 (7 -Capital Improvement Plan; 8 -Summary) and the Executive Summary. Combine with previously completed chapters 1-6. Assimilate into one document including all figures and appendices. Perform review of the complete Master Plan Report by senior level staff independent from the project. Task Order 10023.k 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 12 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC b) Submit one electronic copy (PDF) of the complete draft Master Plan Report to the City for review. Meet with the City to review. c) Address comments received through internal QA/QC and City review of the draft Master Plan Report. Revise as necessary. 7.2 DEQ Submittal a) Submit one electronic copy (PDF) of the complete draft Master Plan Report to DEQ for review and approval. Include outline of the Master Plan document correlated with the Idaho DEQ Facility Plan requirement checklist. b) Address comments received from DEQ. Document DEQ comments, resolutions and approval in an appendix. 7.3 Final Master Plan Report a) Finalize and seal the Master Plan Report and submit five (5) hard copies and a PDF file to the City. Work Products: • Draft Master Plan Report for City Review — PDF • Draft Master Plan Report for DEQ Review — PDF • Final Master Plan Report — Five (5) hard copies and PDF • GIS shape files for master plan service areas and pipes Task 8 — Additional Services 8.1 Additional Tasks as Requested: J -U -B will provide and/or perform additional tasks as directed by the City, under mutual agreement between both parties, as the need may arise in relation to the Master Plan Update. Potential additional tasks are listed below. An allowance for such tasks is budgeted and shown in Section 4. a) Additional Flow Monitoring: Targeted flow monitoring based on results on the capacity analysis to better define infiltration rates in specific basins. A scope and fee shall be prepared and approved by the City for each flow monitoring request prior to any work being performed. b) Surveying: Surveying will be provided by J -U -B as needed. A scope and fee shall be prepared and approved by the City for each surveying request prior to any work being performed. c) Other additional services as directed by the City. A scope and fee shall be prepared and approved by the City for each additional task prior to any work being performed. TIME OF COMPLETION and COMPENSATION SCHEDULE The following schedule is based on a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the City by December 2015 and resulting in Final Documentation being completed by January 2017. A NTP issued on a different date will change the schedule accordingly. Task Order 10023A 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 13 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC COMPENSATION AND COMPLETION SCHEDULE Task Description Due Date Compensation 1 Project Management & Meetings ■ Ongoing throughout project $13,300' 2 Existing Model Update ■ Three months from receipt of water meter data (anticipated end of March 2016) $73,500 3 Committed Model Update ■ One (1) month from completion of Task 2 $13,100 4 Demographics ■ One (1) month from receipt of planning documents $11,300 5 Master Plan Model Update ■ Four (4) months from the completion of Tasks 3 & 4 $61,000 6, Capital Improvement Plan ■ Two (2) months from completion of Task 5 $31,600 7 Final Documentation & DEQ Submittal • Submit to DEQ four (4) weeks from completion of Task 6 $13,500 8 Additional Services as Requested • As mutually agreed to by the City and JUB $5,000 TASK ORDER TOTAL: $222,300 The Not -To -Exceed amount to complete all services listed above for this Task Order No. 10023A is two hundred twenty two thousand three hundred dollars ($222,300.000). No compensation will be paid over the Not -to -Exceed amount without prior written approval by the City in the form of a Change Order. Any and all travel will only be reimbursed if pre -approved by the Project Manager, and only per the City of Meridian Travel Policy. Reimbursable expenses will be paid at cost and only if pre -approved by the Project Manager. Any travel and/or reimbursables paid will be paid as part of the Not -To -Exceed Task Order Total per the Compensation and Completion Schedule above. CITY OF MERIDIAN TAMMY de D, MAYOR JUBr NEERS, INC-- BY: t Dated: Dated: Approved by Council: ;ry(}O 7JJL„ JAYOEE GHOLMAN, CITY CL RK AlI Purchasing Approval '� ��� '�� Depar�rnint Approval KEITH W TS, Purchasing Manager WARREN STEWART, Engineering Manager r Dated: q ZI� Dated: ' Z_ City Project Manager Garrick Nelson. Task Order 10023A 2016 Meridian Sewer Master Plan Update Page 14 of 14 JUB ENGINEERS, INC JUBEN-1 OP ID: NW ACORO� CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE � DATE 0 911 412 01 5 09/14/2015 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 INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) 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 endorsement(s). PRODUCER The Hartwell Corporation -Cal PO Box 400(AIC,No CONTACT Jeremy Kroll PHONE FAX Ext :208-459-1678 AIc No): 208-454-1114 E-MAIL ADDRESS: Caldwell, ID 83606 Jeremy Kroll INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A: Travelers Indemnity of CT 25682 INSURED J -U -B Engineers, Inc. INSURER B: Travelers Casualty and Surety 31194 250 S Beechwood Ave, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709 INSURER C: Travelers Indemnity Cc of Am. 25658 INSURER D: XL Specialty Insurance Co. 37885 INSURER E: 08/01/2015 INSURER F: DAMAGE TO RENTED 1 000 000 PREMISES Ea occurrence $ s COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: 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, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SD SUBR D POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MMIDD/YYYY POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE X OCCUR X X 6807769N196 08/01/2015 08/01/2016 DAMAGE TO RENTED 1 000 000 PREMISES Ea occurrence $ s MED EXP (Anyone person) $ 10,000 X CGD381 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 POLICY [X] jEOT N LOC PRODUCTS- COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000 $ OTHER: AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 Ea Maccident BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ C X ANY AUTO BA7776NO68 08/01/2015 08/01/2016 ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE $ Per accident $ X CAT353 UMBRELLA LIAB OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS -MADE DEO I I RETENTION$ $ B B WORKERS COMPENSATIONPER AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETORWARTNER/EXECUTIVE YIN OFFICEER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in in NH) NIA UB0640T603 & WA STOP GAP 08/01/2015 08/01/2015 08/01/2016 08/01/2016 OTH- X STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE- EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE- POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 D Profes Liability DPR9721670 04/02/2015 04/02/2016 Ea Claim 5,000,000 $200,000 Deductibl INCL POLLUTION 04/02/2015 04/02/2016 Annl Aggr 5,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS! LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached If more space Is required) Master Agreements for the Professional Services CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION MERID04 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE City of Meridian THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, ID 83642 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE - / ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 002218 COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART A. The following is added to WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II): Any person or organization that you agree in a "contract or agreement requiring insurance" to in- clude as an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but only with respect to liability for "bodily in- jury", "property damage" or "personal injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omis- sions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: a. In the performance of your ongoing opera- tions; b. In connection with premises owned by or rented to you; or c. In connection with "your work" and included within the "products -completed operations hazard". Such person or organization does not qualify as an additional insured for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury" for which that per- son or organization has assumed liability in a con- tract or agreement. The insurance provided to such additional insured is limited as follows: d. This insurance does not apply on any basis to any person or organization for which cover- age as an additional insured specifically is added by another endorsement to this Cover- age Part. e. This insurance does not apply to the render- ing of or failure to render any "professional services". f. The limits of insurance afforded to the addi- tional insured shall be the limits which you agreed in that "contract or agreement requir- ing insurance" to provide for that additional insured, or the limits shown in the Declara- tions for this Coverage Part, whichever are less. This endorsement does not increase the limits of insurance stated in the LIMITS OF INSURANCE (Section III) for this Coverage Part. B. The following is added to Paragraph a. of 4. Other Insurance in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): However, if you specifically agree in a "contract or agreement requiring insurance" that the insurance provided to an additional insured under this Cov- erage Part must apply on a primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers such addi- tional insured as a named insured, and we will not share with the other insurance, provided that: (1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs; and (2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is sought arises out of an offense committed; after you have entered into that "contract or agreement requiring insurance". But this insur- ance still is excess over valid and collectible other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the insured when the insured is an additional insured under any other insurance. C. The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CON- DITIONS (Section IV): We waive any rights of recovery we may have against any person or organization because of payments we make for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your work" performed by you, or on your behalf, under a 'contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that person or organization. We waive these rights only where you have agreed to do so as part of the 'contract or agreement requiring insur- ance" with such person or organization entered into by you before, and in effect when, the "bodily CG D3 81 09 07 © 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services office, Inc., with its permission. COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "per- sonal injury" offense is committed. D. The following definition is added to DEFINITIONS (Section V): "Contract or agreement requiring insurance" means that part of any contract or agreement un- der which you are required to include a person or organization as an additional insured on this Cov- erage Part, provided that the "bodily injury" and "property damage" occurs, and the "personal in- jury" is caused by an offense committed: a. After you have entered into that contract or agreement; b. While that part of the contract or agreement is in effect; and c. Before the end of the policy period. Page 2 of 2 © 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. CG D3 8109 07 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., v4th its permission. IDSOS Viewing Business Entity IDAHO STATE w:.Viewing Business Entity Page 1 of 3 Lawerence Denney, Secretary of State [ New Search ] [ Back to Summary ] [ Get a certificate of existence for J -U -B ENGINEERS INC ] [ Monitor J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. business filings ] 1 -U -B ENGINEERS, INC. 250 S BEECHWOOD AVE STE 201 BOISE, ID 83709 Type of Business: CORPORATION, GENERAL BUSINESS Status: GOODSTANDING 21 Mar 1969 State of Origin: IDAHO Date of 21 Mar 1969 Origination/Authorization: Current Registered Agent: PAUL D. FISK 250 S BEECHWOOD AVE STE 201 BOISE, ID 83709 Organizational ID / Filing C40668 Number: Number of Authorized Stock 100000 Shares: Date of Last Annual Report: 22 Jan 2015 Annual Report Due: Mar 2016 [ Help Me Print/View TIFF ] Filed 21 Mar 1969 INCORPORATION View Image (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) Amendments: [ Help Me Print/View TIFF ] Amendment Filed 05 Jun STOCK View Image (PDF format) View 1973 CHANGE Image (TIFF format), Amendment Filed 23 Apr STOCK View Image (PDF format) View 1975 CHANGE Image (TIFF format Amendment Filed 07 Jun OTHER - View Image (PDF format) View 1979 APPT OF RA Image (TIFF format) Amendment Filed 02 Sep OTHER - CHG View Image (PDF format 1980 OF RA - ARLIN View Image(TIFF format) BROSKE, BOISE Amendment Filed 08 Dec ARTICLES View Image (PDF format) 1980 RESTATEMENT View Image (TIFF format) Amendment Filed 08 Dec STOCK View Image (PDF format) View 1980 CHANGE Image (TIFF format) http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/C40668.html 11/24/2015 IDSOS Viewing Business Entity Page 2 of 3 [ Help Me Print/View TIFF ] Report for year 2015 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2014 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2013 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2012 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2011 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2010 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2009 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2008 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2007 ANNUAL View Image( PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2006 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2005 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2004 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2003 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2002 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 2001 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1999 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1998 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1997 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1996 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image(TIFF format) Report for year 1995 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1994 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format), Report for year 1993 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1992 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1991 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1990 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) Report for year 1989 ANNUAL View Image (PDF format) View REPORT Image (TIFF format) http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/C40668.html 11/24/2015 IDSOS Viewing Business Entity Report for year 1988 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 1987 ANNUAL REPORT Idaho Secretary of State's Main Page Page 3 of 3 View Imaae (PDF format) View Imaae (TIFF format) View Imaae (PDF format) View Image (TIFF format) State of Idaho Home Page Comments, questions or suggestions can be emailed to: sosinfo@)sos.idaho.gov http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/C40668.html 11/24/2015 d° d� oW dP ole oW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G o 0 0 0 0 o O o o o 0 0 4-ja •r G b, -,i M ro U N w a a x rt x N N N N N O o m m m . m m N G o o m N N N N O o o m o 0 0 0 o m io w N a to •.1 O ro o un m in o 0 0 a N N rl iD Wto �O r-1 rl .1 ri N b O N a q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 q N N 113o 0 0 0 0 0 0 A m H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 wN a rn m w F �4 O V Ln ? 1D m o o m m m m m O O m N N N N 4) o o m o 0 0 0 w o o m w a o in 0 0 4) N N q m Ln o >N N N a' '� N l0 1D lD CQ ril .-i r -I ri O 4J G N N ro n +) N H C ro ,Ul ro p O a a v CD to a m o " H [ m a 4 a a �D N 0 Q4 v 0. Q z ro s4 0 3 0 � w W, '1 10P H0 O U �O X W to P'h'i a w w o 0 a F Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5k PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Resolution Resolution No. " � W : Resolution to Adopt 2016 Initial Point Gallery Schedule 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. i BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ACCEPTING THE 2016 INITIAL POINT GALLERY SCHEDULE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Meridian City Code section 2-2-2(2-4) charges the Meridian Arts Commission with stimulating awareness and appreciation of the importance of publicly accessible art and its benefits to the community, fostering the development of a receptive climate for the arts, and advising the City Council on the aesthetic aspects of works of art to be displayed by the City of Meridian; WHEREAS, the City desires that public art will be a component of Meridian City Hall, and to that end, the Meridian Arts Commission issued the Call to Artists attached hereto as ExhibitA, seeking proposals for the display of artwork in Initial Point Gallery; WHEREAS, on November 12, 2015, the Meridian Arts Commission reviewed all responses submitted to the Call to Artists, selected artists whose works are appropriate for display in Initial Point Gallery based on their respectively submitted proposals, including images set forth in Exhibit B, and recommends to the Meridian City Council that such artists' work be displayed in Initial Point Gallery in 2016; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find that display in accordance with the proposed 2016 Initial Point Gallery Schedule, as set forth in Exhibit C, will serve the best interest of the people of Meridian and visitors to Meridian City Hall; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the proposed 2016 Initial Point Gallery Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit C, as may be amended or supplemented by the Arts & Culture Specialist from time to time as necessary, is hereby accepted and adopted by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian. Section 2. That the Arts & Cultures Specialist is hereby authorized to invite the artists enumerated on the 2016 Initial Point Gallery Schedule to display their work in Initial Point Gallery, subject to terms and conditions of a written agreement to be negotiated by the City Attorney's Office. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 1st day of Dec., 2015. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 1st day of Dec., 2015. APPROVED: Mayor Tainiy de Weerd 0`1 \,,ATTEST: OV, rJ City of SEAL ycee ] City Clerk RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2016 INITIAL POINT GALLERY SCHEDULE Page 1 of 13 EXlllb It .A Meridian Commission Call for Artists: 2016 INITIAL POINT GALLERY SERIES OVERVIEW: The Meridian Arts Commission (MAC) seeks proposals for the display of two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional artwork as part of the 2016 Initial Point Gallery Series, a series of one-month exhibitions in Initial Point Gallery. Initial Point Gallery is located on the third floor of Meridian City Hall (33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho), and is open to the public during City working hours. Initial Point Gallery provides 120 feet of total watt space for hanging two- dimensional artwork, and four enclosed display cases for three-dimensional artwork. MAC requests that artists voluntarily donate to MAC 20% of proceeds from sales of art displayed in Initial Point Gallery. ELIGIBILITY: Two-dimensional works displayed in Initial Point Gallery must be comprised of professional -quality, ready -to -hang, original art; artwork on paper must be under glass or acrylic. Selectees must fill all or half of the gallery. Three- dimensional works may be of any medium, but must fit within the four supplied display cases. No artwork will be displayed which: cannot be safely hung or displayed using the gallery's equipment; requires unusual maintenance, handling, or security; or is disruptive or likely to offend the sensibilities of the general public. Each piece to be displayed will be evaluated for its compliance with these general requirements. Selectees will be asked to enter into an Acceptance Agreement with the City setting forth specific conditions of display. Selectees and invitees may reapply biennially and if selected again, 75% of the display must be artwork that has not been previously displayed in Initial Point Gallery. Small, informal groups of 2-4 artists are encouraged to propose an exhibition including all artists' work. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: Artists or organizations wishing to display work in the 2016 Initial Point Gallery Series must provide the following materials and information to MAC in order to be considered for selection. • Completed, signed Application Et Acknowledgements form; • Letter of intent, including biography of the artist(s) or informational statement regarding organization; • 250 -word informational paragraph about the artist or organization (for use in gallery publicity if selected); • Five (5) digital images representational of the works proposed for display, on a CD (for organizations, each image must be of a different artist's work); and $35 gallery maintenance fee (nonrefundable). Details and forms are available at the City's website, http://www.meridiancity.org or upon request. Limited assistance producing digital images may be available upon request. Materials submitted will not be returned. DEADLINE: All proposals must be received by MAC by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 16, 2015. SELECTION PROCESS: The selection of art for the 2016 Initial Point Gallery Series will be made by MAC. MAC will notify selectees by letter sent U.S. Mail. In evaluating eligible proposals, the following factors will be considered: • Quality of work; • Appropriateness of subject and concept for a functioning government workplace; • Consistency with City policy and community values; and • Contribution to aesthetic and cultural atmosphere of Meridian City Hall. RESOURCES PROVIDED UPON SELECTION: The City of Meridian will provide selected artists/ organizations with the following resources: • Volunteers to assist artist/ organization with installing and removing each piece of artwork; • Track system for hanging 2D art and four enclosed pedestals for 3D art; • Space for artist information and/or an information board; and • Publicity of the exhibit through City contacts, local media, and other informational forums. CONTACT MAC: By mail: Meridian Arts Commission Attn: Hillary Bodnar 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian ID 83642 By e-mail: mac@meridiancity.org Meridian Commission Application Et Acknowledgments: 2016 INITIAL POINT GALLERY SERIES APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Check one: ❑ 1 am submitting this application as an individual. ❑ 1 am submitting this application for this organization: ❑ 1 am submitting this application for an informal group: Applicant: Applicant E-mail: Mailing Address: Physical Address: Applicant Phone: Day: Evening: Cell: APPLICATION OVERVIEW: Check all that apply: ❑ I/we propose to fill one half of Initial Point Gallery with two-dimensional artwork. ❑ I/we propose to fill the entire Initial Point Gallery with two-dimensional artwork. ❑ I/we propose to fill 01 02 ❑3 ❑4 of the display cases with 3D artwork Number of 2D pieces: Average size of 2D pieces: Number of 3D pieces: Average size of 3D pieces: Proposed title or theme of show: APPLICATION MATERIALS: ❑ Completed, signed Application Et Acknowledgements Form. (Informal groups: each artist must sign separate form.) ❑ Biography of artist or informational statement regarding organization, no longer than one 81/2 x 11" page; ❑ A letter of intent, describing: a. Artist/Organization/Group's vision for and/or theme of the proposed display; b. Number, dimensions, prices, and medium or media utilized in the works to be displayed; c. Any publicity that the Artist/Organization/Group plans to undertake if selected; and/or d. Any atypical issues or challenges regarding hanging or display of the works proposed for display. ❑ Up to five digital images of work representational of the artist's/organization/group's work on a CD, resolution of 300 dpi at a minimum size of 5x7", in .jpg format. Materials submitted will not be returned. Damaged or non- compliant CDs and/or images will not be considered. Images will not be accepted via e-mail. ❑ $35 gallery maintenance fee, check made payable to the Meridian Arts Commission. This fee is nonrefundable. DISPLAY INFORMATION: Initial Point Gallery is equipped with a track system for hanging two-dimensional artwork. Two-dimensional artwork wilt be hung from cables, using hooks, and therefore must be equipped with two D rings (fig. 1) on the side rails on the back of the frame (fig. 2). The inside of each D ring must allow a space of at least one-quarter inch (1/ ") for insertion of the hooks; any wire constricting this space must be removed. The D rings should be approximately a quarter of the distance of the total frame height from the top of the frame in order to avoid slanting away from the wall. Wires, eyehooks, and clip frames may not be used for hanging. Initial Point Gallery also provides four display cases, each with different dimensions (fig. 3), for displaying three-dimensional artwork. 101111 > FIG. 3. 3D ART DISPLAY CASES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I, , hereby acknowledge the following stipulations and agree that if this proposal is selected for display at Initial Point Gallery, such display shall occur subject to these general terms and conditions, as well as subject to other specific terms and conditions that shall be set forth in a separate, written Acceptance Agreement between myself and the City of Meridian. I specifically acknowledge that: A. Before my work will be displayed in Initial Point Gallery, I wilt be required to enter into an Acceptance INITIAL Agreement with the City of Meridian establishing the specific terms and conditions of the display of the particular works displayed. B. If my work is selected for display in Initial Point Gallery, the City of Meridian and its agents will INITIAL exercise professional care in handling and securing all artwork displayed in Initial Point Gallery, but cannot and will not assume liability for any loss or damage. C. Any insurance of the artwork displayed in Initial Point Gallery shall be the sole responsibility of the INITIAL artist. The City of Meridian shall not provide insurance to cover loss, theft, or damage of artwork displayed in Initial Point Gallery. D. While artwork displayed in Initial Point Gallery may be passively offered for sale by means of an INITIAL informational table, board, or handout as provided or allowed by the City of Meridian, no piece displayed in Initial Point Gallery may have a visible price tag. E. While it is intended that each exhibit in Initial Point Gallery will be displayed for a one- to two-month INITIAL period, this period may be shortened by the City of Meridian for any reason, without notice to the artist or organization. F. The City may display the work of more than one artist or organization in Initial Point Gallery at any INITIAL time, at the City's sole discretion. G. Artwork submitted for display in Initial Point Gallery must be original works conceived and created INITIAL by the artist (or by artist members of the organization) submitting this application. H. Meridian City Hall is primarily a place of public business and Initial Point Gallery is a public place. The INITIAL City seeks to encourage artistic expression and public dialogue, but must simultaneously ensure that City Hall is a place where citizens, employees, and visitors of diverse ages and perspectives feel welcome and comfortable. To this end, only artists and artwork meeting the eligibility standards described in the Call for Artists and following the terms set forth in the Acceptance Agreement shall be displayed in Initial Point Gallery. I do acknowledge and understand each and alt of the foregoing stipulations and do agree to these general terms and conditions. Signature: Print name: * Parent Signature - If Applicant is Under 18: Date: To propose an exhibition in Initial Point Gallery, please submit this form, completed in full, with the required materials and fee, via U.S. mail, to: Meridian Arts Commission Attn: Hillary Bodnar 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian ID 83642 Thank you for your interestl MeridiatnC ommission &YIJCJU# &YIJCJU$ Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 51 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Resolution Resolution No. 2�'/ �`d : Authorizing the Destruction of Records of the Community Development Department, Building Services Division 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. 15- 1164 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO DESTROY CERTAIN SEMI-PERMANENT RECORDS OF THE BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have the authority pursuant to Idaho Code section 50- 907(4) to authorize the destruction of semipermanent and temporary records, upon the advice of the City Attorney, and under the direction and supervision of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has identified certain semipermanent records that may be destroyed pursuant to Idaho Code section 50-907(2), because the time period for retention of such records has expired; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to direct and supervise the destruction of the following semipermanent records of the Building Services Division of the Community Development Department: RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED DESCRIPTION YEARS Permits and inspection records Building, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical permits 1975-2010 and inspection records Building project files Certificates of Occupancy for commercial and 1993-2005 governmental buildings Section 2. That the City Clerk is authorized to take all necessary steps to destroy the records as provided by this resolution. Section 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this I day of December, 2015. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this M day of December, 2015. n. -- ._ l City of Mayor T de Weerd�1D� - �' � 1'e, EALBy: Holman, City Clerk RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF BUILDING DIVISION RECORDS 2015-06 PAGE 1 OF 1 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5m PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Resolution Resolution No. 1t� " �� 0?-- : Authorizing the City Clerk to Destroy Certain Semi -Permanent Records of the Meridian Mayor's Office; and Providing an Effective Date 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 A CITY OF MERIDIAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. ] / c BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE,ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO DESTROY CERTAIN SEMI- PERMANENT RECORDS OF THE MERIDIAN MAYOR'S OFFICE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have the authority pursuant to Idaho Code section 50-907(4) to, by resolution, destroy semi-permanent records, upon the advice of the City Attorney, and with such disposition to be under the direction and supervision of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has identified certain semi-permanent records that may be destroyed pursuant to Idaho Code sections 50-907(2) and (3) because the time period for retention of such records has expired; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to direct and supervise the destruction of the following semi-peirnanent records of the Mayor's Office: MAYOR'S OFFICE YEAR(S) I DESCRIPTION Semi-permanent Records Agendas & Minutes 1995-2003 Agendas and minutes of Director Meetings, Operational Meetings, Mayor's Youth Advisory Council Meetings. Applications 1996-2003 Forms and materials submitted with application for positions or awards administered by Mayor's Office, including applications for scholarships, Promise partners, Mayor's Youth Advisory Council, volunteer positions, City commissions, and City committees or task forces. Correspondence, General 1996-2003 Records created or received in the Administrative course of administering city policies/programs, but these records do provide insight into significant policy/program RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF MAYOR'S OFFICE RECORDS 2015-05 PAGE 1 OF 2 Section 2. That the City Clerk is authorized to take all necessary steps to destroy the records as provided by this Resolution. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. S "I` ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of December, 2015. S+ APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this I day of December, 2015. ATTEST: By: Jaycee V. Holman, City APPROVED: Mayor Ty de-Weerd "— RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF MAYOR'S OFFICE RECORDS 2015-05 PAGE 2 OF 2 discussions or decisions. To include: Citizen response letters. Publications 1996-2003 Informational or promotional publications of the Mayor's office, including newsletters, flyers, marketing materials, brochures, program materials. Section 2. That the City Clerk is authorized to take all necessary steps to destroy the records as provided by this Resolution. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. S "I` ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of December, 2015. S+ APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this I day of December, 2015. ATTEST: By: Jaycee V. Holman, City APPROVED: Mayor Ty de-Weerd "— RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF MAYOR'S OFFICE RECORDS 2015-05 PAGE 2 OF 2 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 5n PROJECT NUMBER: H2O15-0002 ITEM TITLE: Woodland Springs Subdivision Final Order for Approval: H-2015-0002 Woodland Springs Subdivision by Woodland Springs, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat for Woodland Springs Subdivision in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on the Second Phase Final Plat 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 50 PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 14-007 ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact Southridge Estates Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an Acre from R-8 to R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES i 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: December 1. 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: PP 14-017 ITEM TITLE: Findings of Fact Southridge Subdivision Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 168 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TNR 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 6a PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: FY 2015 Budge Amendment Other Government: FY2016 Budget Amendment for Various Meridian Arts Commission Projects for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $40,946.00 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 A lJ a) N y E O E uo V, tea` E= Z ;v C CL E G 'C N ❑. O a) D N 0 a, L N t Y N 0 O 0 V £ 0 a) a L Q: OJ -1 � n = y U 0 a CL 0 D _ c a) 7 O Q. c a1 m 0 E Oal E �' aJ al 1,0-0- N 0C ++ 0c C 7 U c L -j €"- m .� eT o r bA 4 "O U N (� id Y m N a m C) !F cu m 3 O G v C 2uQ c -I � M LL ¢g¢ i 3.Ym a c 'O pl_ c ++ c U cy E i Ib E Q +m, ,� O =3 c 4 � W w Q m d ,kr 10 o m °c° 3 Q, VN Lr0 vi o ,ro X 0 ea a cu c o ~ U N Y (V N u c �N� Q. Q E Q v W tw y t lu ' FL �•1 'o -Q N 4-1 0u E m c 30 o� C: 0 c = 4-1 ai o m t m O E.. a) -Q }i F- N N $ C cu O U LL lz a LL a) 0 0 s c m O N al O �.. u 0) j O 'O Y 41 O YO O oza-p -0 (Ua mo N � •� i -O m � m E 0 o �_ N m to m N N c O N I P: :E Qr a) oL x a m L .vC 3 N y^ U +' s Q• c Y C Y Y > c r• €6 L m O c 3 = -o C "' °, o �o c v O m m �. U O O. l0 ai Y l0 L .- +a c m vmi + amit a c o m e r c o *v o +' o 9 H L a) : E "6 c E m .O m v m S O a) c N Q `O CL •E Nu CL O L' Om c Q ao v Q .c F- m .Q (D Y O o f U -0 a cu 41 ++ O N N (LD u N �• 0 QuiN P (n Y O a) E O 0 vo 0 C iri N 0 a, L N t Y N 0 O 0 V Eui E 0 LL c a) E a C: (1) Q m a 7 m aJ yO LL c t6 O C N O T 'u 7 T L Q: d -1 � n >' 0 U CL Q D _ C \ U 0 U 0 t V N - c O �' aJ 3 o 0 Eui E 0 LL c a) E a C: (1) Q m a 7 m aJ yO LL c t6 O C N O T 'u 7 T d -1 � n w .a m 7 c CO a) U E Eui E 0 LL c a) E a C: (1) Q m a 7 m aJ yO LL c t6 O C N O T 'u 7 T Q Q > v Q :1a Q .a m 7 c CO a) U E c v OE m tlaa - c cL m I l N 3 o 0 o Ll Y C 7 U a .� eT o r bA 4 J N (� id — m c T o m C) U=m� O � t QU O M a) L to c y 7 C c ++ c U cy E i Ib E m m i a) al O o tw Lo E Q D a VN yt U 3 3 o a, c yc a ~ w c N c i O E E Y . Q E Q v <- j• �•1 'o -Q N 4-1 v a v2 Q N m N Q p3 3 3 to aci }i C C C j =o lz E E E v 3 m m m c o (a. N N O m j Eui E 0 LL c a) E a C: (1) Q m a 7 m aJ yO LL c t6 O C N O T 'u , L O U— a) a) Q w 0) _ _ r� O L _ C M (Ci LJ w L 0 G E .2 �L. O LL Q, U c L a a u c v m E LU .° y 0 L} t/)• L? i/} N u W O a, fd � � O O � � 3 CQC A ° C O N c a E E S N a L L in� in i� in Ci Q a in a) L in. in in. N v °� 0 0 aCL O L :� N u � w R � •� E o Co E Ln 0 ° E 0 o t °° a ° 0 N : cQ c O N = C G w N O N O O c 0 .-f 1--1 e-1 E U- N N c m EE Z Z LQ 0 V' c ° 0 d' 0 d' E 0 d' m co ei cu ai 00 a -L 00 ei 41 00 e -i 00 .-1 4 in t t •-i •-1 c -i O Q 0 N 0 0 f?. 0 L} t/)• L? i/} N u W O U � � O O � � 3 CQC ° C O N c e -II 0 QCC N ai N a) E in� in i� in in in a) L in. in in. O °� to aCL O F> d O c u l.3. w R W Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O d' e -I N m m O N O N 1-1 N O m N O N O N O N O .-f 1--1 e-1 ci N N N N 0 d' 0 d' 0 V' 0 It 0 d' 0 d' 0 d' 0 d' co r -i co ei co ei 00 a -L 00 ei 00 N 00 e -i 00 .-1 0ii N •-i •-i •-1 c -i c 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to W 0 W O m' e -II in� in i� in in in <n in. in. in in. in +n to C) 0o O m ci 0ii aa) � c N c C m X 'X w W C C O •N O ,N E E 0 0 u u t t a a O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 00 rl o0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W 00 W W o0 a0 W W W o0 W W N e -I c -I a --i H v-1 e -I ei r-1 ci 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 4� 0 L CL E U Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g Ci t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g De c e m b e r De c e m b e r De c e m b e r De c e m b e r 1 1 1 1 , 2 0 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 It e m s # 7 B : E a s y J e t - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Re z o n e , C o n d i t i o n a l U s e P e r m i t , P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t Fu t u r e L a n d U s e M a p Landscape Plan Se e R e v i s e d S i t e P l a n f o r C u r r e n t L a y o u t Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a t RE V I S E D S I T E P L A N (3 ) 2 - s t o r y 1 6 - p l e x b u i l d i n g s w i t h a t o t a l o f 4 8 d w e l li n g u n i t s Sl i g h t l y l a r g e r o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s Re d u c e d p a r k i n g s p a c e s In c r e a s e d o p e n s p a c e Ve h i c l e & P e d e s t r i a n C o n n e c t i v i t y E x h i b i t It e m s # 7 C : V i l l a g e A p a r t m e n t s - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s An n e x a t i o n Ar e a CU P A r e a Ov e r a l l C o n c e p t u a l D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n Si t e P l a n fo r V i l l a g e A p a r t m e n t s La n d s c a p e P l a n fo r V i l l a g e A p a r t m e n t s 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 f o r M u l t i - F a m i l y S t r u ct u r e s 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 f o r C l u b h o u s e It e m s # 7 D : S u n d i a l S u b d i v i s i o n - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Su n d i a l C i r c l e S u b . - P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t Su n d i a l C i r c l e S u b . – L a n d s c a p e P l a n Bu i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s It e m s # 7 E : B u l l R a n c h S u b d i v i s i o n - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a ps Bu l l R a n c h S u b . - P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t Bu l l R a n c h S u b . – L a n d s c a p e P l a n Bu i l d i n g E l e v a t i o n s Meridian City Council Meeting► DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7a PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Shelburne Subdivision Continued Continued from October 27, 2015: Shelburne Subdivision No. 1 (H-2015- 0004) by Shelburne Properties, LLC Located 1/4 Mile East of S. Eagle Road and North of E. Amity Road 1. Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Eight (48) Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 19.42 Acres of Land in the R-4 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7b PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Easy Jet Public Hearing Continued from November 17, 2015 for Easy Jet Subdivision (RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, and CUP 15-017) by Reginald Jones Located 2750 S. Eagle Road 1. Request: Rezone of 6.55 Acres of Land from the R-4 to the R-15 (4.93 Acres) and L -O (1.62 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Three (3) Multi -Family Residential Building Lots, Two (2) Commercial/ Office Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 5.41 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-15 and L -O Zoning Districts 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of Sixty -Four (64) Residential Dwelling Units in an R-15 Zoning District and Office Uses in an L -O Zoning District MEETING NOTES rfo Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Ea s y J e t Mi x e d - U s e D e v e l o p m e n t ME R I D I A N C I T Y C O U N C I L DE C E M B E R 0 1 , 2 0 1 5 In t r o d u c t i o n s J- U - B E n g i n e e r s , I n c . R e p r e s e n t i n g R e g i n a l d J o n e s Li s a B a c h m a n , A I C P , P l a n n e r Kr i s t i W a t k i n s , P l a n n e r Sc o t t W o n d e r s , P E To p i c s 1. Co n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l P& Z R e c o m m e n d a t i o n – A p p r o v e w / C o n d i t i o n s St a i r w e l l s d o n o t n e e d t o b e i n t e r n a l t o t h e b u i l d i ng s ( p e r a p p l i c a n t ’ s r e q u e s t / P & Z a p p r o v a l – c o n d i t i o n #1 . 1 . 1 0 . e . ) Re d u c e b u i l d i n g s t o t w o - s t o r y m a x i m u m ( p e r P & Z ’ s r e q ue s t ) In s t a l l v i n y l f e n c i n g a d j a c e n t t o p l a y a r e a s a b u t t i ng E a s y J e t ( p e r s t a f f / P & Z ’ s r e q u e s t ) In s t a l l v i n y l f e n c i n g a l o n g t h e s o u t h e r n b o u n d a r y t o m a t c h e x i s t i n g f e n c i n g ( p e r P & Z r e q u e s t ) 2. Tw o A d d i t i o n a l P o i n t s 3. Qu e s t i o n s Tw o P o i n t s Hi g h Q u a l i t y D e v e l o p m e n t Im p r o v e d P r o j e c t B a s e d o n N e i g h b o r h o o d C o n c e r n s , P & Z, a n d S t a f f Re c o m m e n d a t i o n s Hi g h Q u a l i t y D e v e l o p m e n t Mi x e d u s e , i m p l e m e n t s t h e C i t y ’ s c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n a n d c o m p li e s w i t h c i t y c o d e , f i t s i n t o t h e Ea g l e / O v e r l a n d R o a d A r e a – B u s i n e s s , m i x e d u s e , h o us i n g , o f f i c e s , e t c . Ni c e l i v i n g s p a c e fo r e m p t y n e s t e r s , r e t i r e d f o l k s , a n d p e o p l e l o o k i n g f o r c o n v e n i e n t l i v i n g o p t i o n s Op e n S p a c e a n d A m e n i t i e s Ex c e e d s m i n i m u m r e q u i r e d o p e n s p a c e ( n e a r l y d o u b l e ) Op e n g r a s s y a r e a s , c o u r t y a r d f o r s h a r e d u s e / t r a n s i t io n i n g b e t w e e n c o m m e r c i a l a n d r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , c o m mon play ar e a w i t h a c l u b h o u s e a n d f i t n e s s c e n t e r Am p l e P a r k i n g Ex c e e d s m i n i m u m r e q u i r e d p a r k i n g s p a c e s ( n e a r l y d o u bl e ) Hi g h Q u a l i t y D e v e l o p m e n t At t r a c t i v e E l e v a t i o n s : n o t e - t h e u p d a t e d e l e v a t i o n s w i l l b e t w o - s t o r y St o n e a c c e n t s Ea r t h t o n e c o l o r s , m a t c h s u r r o u n d i n g s t y l e s La n d s c a p i n g a r o u n d f o u n d a t i o n s , t h r o u g h o u t d e v e l o p m en t Im p r o v e d P r o j e c t B a s e d o n Ne i g h b o r h o o d , P & Z I n p u t Tw o n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g s Fo l l o w - u p c o m m u n i c a t i o n , e m a i l s w i t h n e i g h b o r s In i t i a l P r o p o s a l – 7 6 u n i t s , 2 c o m m e r c i a l l o t s ( 1 5 d u / a c r e ) b a s e d o n f u l l R - 1 5 z o n e c a l c u l a t i o n Mi x o f t h r e e 3 - s t o r y & 2 - s t o r y m u l t i - f a m i l y b u i l d i n gs P& Z C o m m i s s i o n P r o p o s a l – 6 4 u n i t s , 2 c o m m e r c i a l l o t s , m o r e o p e n s p a c e ( 1 5 d u/acre) Tw o 3 - s t o r y b u i l d i n g s , o n e 2 - s t o r y m u l t i - f a m i l y b u i ld i n g Tw o - s t o r y a d j a c e n t t o S u t h e r l a n d F a r m s Ci t y C o u n c i l P r o p o s a l – 48 u n i t s ( 1 1 . 2 9 d u / a c r e ) , 2 c o m m e r c i a l l o t s Al l t w o - s t o r y m u l t i - f a m i l y b u i l d i n g s Ad d i t i o n a l f e n c i n g ( p e r s t a f f & P & Z ) Im p r o v e d P r o j e c t B a s e d o n Ne i g h b o r h o o d , P & Z I n p u t Up d a t e d S i t e P l a n Th r e e 2 - s t o r y m u l t i - f a m i l y b u i l d i n g s Re q u i r e d o p e n s p a c e - 1 6 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . Pr o v i d e d o p e n s p a c e – 3 9 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . Re q u i r e d p a r k i n g , ( c o v e r e d ) – 9 0 , ( 4 8 ) Pr o v i d e d p a r k i n g , ( c o v e r e d ) – 1 1 5 , ( 7 0 ) Re q u i r e d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g – 8 Pr o v i d e d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g - 2 0 Tw o 1 - s t o r y c o m m e r c i a l b u i l d i n g s Ap p r o x . 5 , 6 0 0 s q . f t . e a c h Re q u i r e d p a r k i n g , ( b i c y c l e ) – 2 5 , ( 4 ) Pr o v i d e d p a r k i n g , ( b i c y c l e ) – 5 6 , ( 1 0 ) Th a n k y o u Qu e s t i o n s ? Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Village Apartments ruoiic Hearing ror vulage Apartments (AL Ib -U12, CUP Ib-UIV an b- 011) by DevCo Located at 2600 and 2700 N. Eagle Road 1. Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Include a Conceptual Development Plan for the Property and to Remove the Requirement for Detailed Conditional Use Permit Approval of Future Uses 2. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.38 of an Acre of Land with a C -G Zoning District Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 01, 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. 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Ilavalnnmenf (-nnciciinn of 33/ nwe -.Ilinrn I Initc nn 1 A AR nr rac of 1 nnrl in n MEETING NOTES r Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Vi l l a g e A p a r t m e n t s Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n Th a n k Y o u T T T Th e P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i fied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : - A 2 0 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Re c o r d s A v e . p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 1 ( r e s i d e n t ial po r t i o n ) c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - A 3 5 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Eagle Ro a d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 2 ( c o m m e r c i a l p o r t i on) ce r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - E x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s t o b e r e m o v e d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e of fi r s t c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r t h e s i t e . Vi l l a g e A p a r t m e n t s Ov e r a l l A r e a Bu i l d i n g S e t b a c k s Ad j a c e n t P r o p e r t y P e r s p e c t i v e Re g e n c y P h a s e 1 Th a n k Y o u T T T Th e P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i fied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : - A 2 0 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Re c o r d s A v e . p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 1 ( r e s i d e n t ial po r t i o n ) c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - A 3 5 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Eagle Ro a d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 2 ( c o m m e r c i a l p o r t i on) ce r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - E x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s t o b e r e m o v e d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e of fi r s t c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r t h e s i t e . Op e n S p a c e UD C 1 1 - 1 A - 1 – O p e n S p a c e : A n a r e a s u b s t a n t i a l l y o p e n t o t h e s k y t h a t m a y b e o n t h e s a m e p r o p e r t y w i t h a st r u c t u r e . T h e a r e a m a y i n c l u d e , a l o n g w i t h t h e n a tu r a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l f e a t u r e s , p a r k s , p l a y g r o u n d s , t rees, wa t e r a r e a s , s w i m m i n g p o o l s , t e n n i s c o u r t s , c o m m u n i ty c e n t e r s o r o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . T h i s term sh a l l n o t i n c l u d e s t r e e t s , p a r k i n g a r e a s , o r s t r u c t ur e s f o r h a b i t a t i o n . Vi c i n i t y S e r v i c e s So c i a l C e n t e r Am e n i t i e s : C o f f e e S h o p En v i r o n m e n t (L o u n g e C h a i r s , fi r e p l a c e , c o f f e e ta b l e s ) B u s i n e s s C e n t e r E v e n t s C e n t e r F i t n e s s F a c i l i t y B i l l i a r d s R o o m M a i l C e n t e r Co m m o n A r e a s Fe a t u r e s : * Sw i m m i n g P o o l * Pl a y g r o u n d * La r g e O p e n G r a s s y A r e a * Co v e r e d P a t i o s * Tr e l l i s L o u n g i n g / S u n n i n g A r e a s * Bi k e R e p a i r S t a t i o n * Wi - F i On S i t e B i k e Pa r k i n g 1 9 4 T o t a l S p a c e s Si t e A m e n i t i e s * 36 O n - S i t e S t o r a g e U n i t s * 12 7 G a r a g e s * 20 6 C a r p o r t s La n d s c a p e F e a t u r e s Th a n k Y o u T T T Th e P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i fied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied he P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l t h a t m o d i f ied co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : co n d i t i o n 1 . 1 . 5 : - A 2 0 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Re c o r d s A v e . p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 1 ( r e s i d e n t ial po r t i o n ) c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - A 3 5 f o o t w i d e l a n d s c a p e b u f f e r r e q u i r e d a l o n g N . Eagle Ro a d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f P h a s e 2 ( c o m m e r c i a l p o r t i on) ce r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s . - E x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s t o b e r e m o v e d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e of fi r s t c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r t h e s i t e . Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7d PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Sundial Circle Subdivision Public Hearing for Sundial Circle Subdivision (PP 15-018) by Conger Management Group Located 2250 W. Whitelaw Drive 1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Eleven (11) Single Family Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.54 Acres in the R-4 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7e PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Bull Ranch Public Hearing for Bull Ranch (AZ 15-013 and PP 15-017) by Gem State ER, LLC Located at 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.06 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat (PP 15-017) Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Building Lots and Twelve (12) MEETING NOTES f--Uyt 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: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7f PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Winter Fee Schedule Parks and Rec Public Hearing: Proposed Winter 2015-2016 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2015, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding the 2015 Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule, including proposed new fees as set forth below. Further information regarding these fees, as well as the entire Parks & Recreation fee schedule, is available at the Parks & Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, (208) 888-3579. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 48 hours prior to the public hearing. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Activily Guide Class Fees: Learn to Play Lacrosse — Winter Holiday Clinics $18.00 Learn to Play Lacrosse — Spring Break Boys Camp $96.00 Learn to Play Lacrosse — Spring Break Girls Camp $76.00 Camp Mer -Ida -Moo Spring Break Camp — Full Day $90.00 Camp Mer -Ida -Moo Spring Break Camp — Half Day $70.00 Point Sparring & Tournament Preparation $25.00 Yoga Restorative & Yoga Nidra Workshop $10.00 McCall Winter Carnival — Day Trip $55.00 Mobile App Design For Youth $180.00 Kleiner Park Special Event Half Day (Full Park) $750.00 DATED this 1st day of December, 2015. PUBLISH on November 16 and November CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE December 1, 2015 ITEM # 7F Project Number: Parks and Rec 2015-2016 Winter Fee Project Name: Schedule PLEASE PRINT NAME FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL RECETV CITY OFC _ a CITY i OFFICE. Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7g PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Resolution Resolution No. ' \ \0-�) : A Resolution Adopting the Winter 2015- 2016 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date MEETING NOTES i 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. K- 110-3 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on November 16 and November 23 the City Council of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in ExhibitA hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said proposed Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. 2015. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 1 st day of December, APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 1st day of December, 2015. ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE I OF I Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2015, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding the 2015 Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule, including proposed new fees as set forth below. Further information regarding these fees, as well as the entire Parks & Recreation fee schedule, is available at the Parks & Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, (208) 888-3579. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 48 hours prior to the public hearing. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Activily Guide Class Fees: Learn to Play Lacrosse — Winter Holiday Clinics $18.00 Learn to Play Lacrosse — Spring Break Boys Camp $96.00 Learn to Play Lacrosse — Spring Break Girls Camp $76.00 Camp Mer -Ida -Moo Spring Break Camp — Full Day $90.00 Camp Mer -Ida -Moo Spring Break Camp — Half Day $70.00 Point Sparring & Tournament Preparation $25.00 Yoga Restorative & Yoga Nidra Workshop $10.00 McCall Winter Carnival — Day Trip $55.00 Mobile App Design For Youth $180.00 Kleiner Park Special Event Half Day (Full Park) $750.00 DATED this 1st day of December, 2015. PUBLISH on November 16 and November Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7h PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Meridian Police Public Hearing: Proposed Updates to Meridian Police Department Fee Schedule MEETING NOTES V 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2015, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding proposed increases to fees collected by the Meridian Police Department, as set forth below. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the public hearing. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Labor to redact exempt public records $51.83/hour; $0.86/minute Labor to make paper copies of public records (applies if records are redacted, more than 100 pages, or more than 2 hours; waived if total is less than $10.00) $26.27/hour; $0.44/minute Labor to upload public record information to CD, DVD, or thumb drive $26.27/hour; $0.44/minute Extra -Duty Personnel — Officer $47.00 Extra -Duty Personnel — Supervisor $57.00 DATED this 16th day of November, 2015 " .,lClm., DAI PUBLISH on November 16, 2015 and November 23, 201 SE, 0rthe TRE``'0 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE December 1, 2015 ITEM # 7H Project Number: Meridian Police Department Fee Project Name: Schedule PLEASE PRINT NAME FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL RECEWFL) CITY OFCACf-.,,, crry,,".'LERKS 0FRCE Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 7i PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Resolution PD Fee Schedule Resolution No. - 6' \\O�, : Adopting Meridian Police Department Fee Schedule 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. 15 - BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE OF THE MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on November 16, 2015 and November 24, 2015, the City Council of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Fee Schedule of the Meridian Police Department, as set forth in Exhibit,4 hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said proposed Fee Schedule of the Meridian Police Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Fee Schedule of the Meridian Police Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Meridian Police Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, on December 1, 2015. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, on December 1, 2015. APPROVED: Tammy dery erd;.lYlayor' ATTEST: rCt� �i IDAe i0 ty Clerk r s -t! v 3 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE I OF 2 ExhibitA FEE SCHEDULE OF THE MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT Labor to redact exempt public records $51.83/hour; $0.86/minute Paper copies of public records (applies if records are redacted, more than 100 pages, or more than 2 hours; waived if total is less than $10.00) $0.10/page Labor to make paper copies of public records (applies if records are redacted, more than 100 pages, or more than 2 hours; waived if total is less than $10.00) $26.27/hour; $0.44/minute CD or DVD with public record information $1.00 each Thumb drive with public record information $7.50 each Labor to upload public record information to CD, DVD, or thumb drive $26.27/hour; $0.44/minute NSF check fee $20.00 Photographs (35 mm 4x6 -inch prints) $0.15/print Extra -Duty Personnel — Officer $47.94 Extra -Duty Personnel — Supervisor $57.67 False alarm — third within calendar year $25.00 False alarm — fourth within calendar year $50.00 False alarm — fifth within calendar year $75.00 False alarm — sixth or subsequent within calendar year $100.00 each Nuisance/weeds abatement administrative fee $100.00 Dog redemption fee $10.00 Cat redemption fee $12.50 Livestock redemption fee $25.00 Dog license — neutered $16.00 Dog license — non -neutered $21.00 Lost dog tag replacement $5.00 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 2 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 8 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Ordinances Ordinance No. : An Ordinance of the City of Meridian Repealing and Replacing Title 1, Chapter 15 Discrimination Prohibited of the Meridian City Code; Providing a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing and Effective Date. MEETING NOTES .9 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 ORDINANCE NO. 15 - I (pG �S BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 1, OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 15 REGARDING DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED; PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian seeks to nurture a culture in which all persons are afforded equal opportunities for employment, and to that end has determined that, in addition to the existing protections enumerated by law, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression should be addressed by the City's nondiscrimination policy; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the contributions of all citizens are essential to our community's growth, vitality, and prosperity, and discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is detrimental to such social and economic progress; WHEREAS, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Meridian to foster the employment of individuals in accordance with their abilities, and proactively avoid sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the employment context; WHEREAS, the prohibitions against discriminatory acts as established in this ordinance are intended to supplement state and federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination in the employment context, as provided under state or federal law, including, without limitation, race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, and/or disability; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Title 1, Chapter 15 is repealed and replaced to read as follows: TITLE 1 ADMINISTRATION Chapter 15 DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED 1-15-1: NONDISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF GENDER IDENTITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION: A. Purpose and Declaration of Policy: It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City MERIDIAN CITY CODE TITLE 1, CHAPTER 15 - DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED PAGE 1 OF 4 of Meridian that, in addition to civil rights protections afforded by state and federal anti -discrimination laws: 1. Every prospective or current City employee should experience equal employment opportunity and workplace rights, irrespective of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity; and 2. Every individual in our community should have the equal opportunity to enjoy City -sponsored programming, irrespective of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence, including that regarding the freedoms of speech, association, and exercise of religion. B. Definitions: As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: 1. Discriminate: Any direct or indirect exclusion, distinction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial or other differentiation in the treatment of a person. 2. Gender identity: A person's sense or expression as male or female, regardless of biological sex at birth. 3. Sexual orientation: A person's actual or perceived homosexuality, heterosexuality and/or bisexuality. C. City of Meridian Employment: In addition to protections already afforded by federal and state law, with regard to current or future hiring, termination, compensation, transfer, promotion, or discipline, the City of Meridian shall not discriminate against any qualified person or employee on the basis of such person or employee's gender identity or sexual orientation. This provision shall not be interpreted to require, to grant, or to accord any preferential treatment to any person because of that person's gender identity or sexual orientation. D. City -Sponsored Programs, Events, and Activities: In addition to protections already afforded by federal and state law, with regard to participation in and benefits of any City sponsored program, event, facility, or activity, the City of Meridian shall not discriminate against any qualified person on the basis of such person's gender identity or sexual orientation. This provision shall not be interpreted to require, to grant, or to accord any preferential treatment to any person because of that person's gender identity or sexual orientation. 1-15-2: NONDISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF DISABILITY: A. Accessibility to City Programs: It is the policy of the City that all programs and activities shall be accessible to, and usable by, qualified persons with disabilities. B. Evaluation of City Programs: The City shall undertake an evaluation, conducted in consultation with citizen groups involving persons with disabilities, of its programs, policies, procedures and facilities in order to determine those areas where discrimination on the basis of disability may occur. MERIDIAN CITY CODE TITLE 1, CHAPTER 15 - DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED PAGE 2 OF 4 C. Revisions and Modifications: The City shall, upon completion of said evaluation, make such revisions, modifications, or other changes so as to fully comply with the letter and intent of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. D. Transition Plan: Further, the City shall, where building modifications are required, develop and implement a transition plan for the timely elimination of structural barriers to citizens with disabilities. 1-15-3: FAIR HOUSING: A. City Assistance; File Complaint: With available resources, the City will assist all persons who feel they have been discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or familial status to seek equity under Federal and State laws by filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Compliance Division. B. Publicize Notice to Real Estate Owner and Developers: The City shall publicize this Section and through this publicity shall cause owners of real estate, developers and builders to become aware of their respective responsibilities and rights under the Federal Fair Housing Law and amendments and any applicable state or local laws or ordinances. C. Implementation of Program: Said programs will at a minimum include, but not be limited to: 1. Printing and publicizing of this policy and other applicable fair housing information through local media and community contacts; 2. Distribution of posters, flyers and any other means which will bring to the attention of those affected, the knowledge of their respective responsibilities and rights concerning equal opportunity in housing; 3. Prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice and actions to mitigate such impediments. Section 2. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (112) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. MERIDIAN CITY CODE TITLE 1, CHAPTER 15 - DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED PAGE 3 OF 4 /$�,- PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this / day of 2015, APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this / day of 2015. APPRO�D r4AVOR Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: December 1, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 9 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Future Meeting Topics 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