Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2017-11-21
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, November 21, 2017 – 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. 1. City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 6:00 PM 1. Roll-Call Attendance O Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer X Keith Bird __X__ Genesis Milam __X___ Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Community Invocation by Troy Drake with Calvary Chapel 4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 5. Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussio n or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. 6. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of November 8, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting B. Final Order for Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No.1 (H-2017-0133) by Brighton Investments LLC located approximately ¼ mile south of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. Blackcat Rd. C. Final Order for Castlebridge Subdivision (fka Kingsbridge) (H-2017-0135) by Jarrod Langston located at 3475 E. Falcon Drive D. Final Order for Maddyn Subdivision (H-2017-0136) by A Team Land Consultants located on the West Side of N. Meridian Road, South of E. Ustick Road, North of W. Sedgewick Drive CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, November 21, 2017 – 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. E. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Linder Professional Plaza (H- 2017-038) by M & L Properties, LLC located at 4664 N. Penngrove Way F. Citadel Storage #3 Water Main Easement G. Borough Subdivision Sewer and Water Main Easement H. Release of Whitebark Subdivision Water Main and Sewer Easement I. Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 Sanitary Sewer Easement J. Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement K. Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer and Water Easement L. Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Water Easement #1 M. Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Water Main Easement #2 N. Volterra South Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement #1 O. Volterra South Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement #2 P. Release of Centrepointe Subdivision No. 2 Sewer and Water Main Easement Q. Centrepointe Subdivision No. 2 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement R. Professional Services Agreement with Treasure Valley Children's Theater for Not-to-Exceed $5,000 S. Approval of purchase of two (2) Pierce Fire Engines from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $1,099,483 T. AP Invoices for Payment - $3,615,042.27 U. Resolution No. 17-2049: A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Meridian, Idaho, Setting Forth Certain Findings And Purposes To Declare Surplus Property And Authorizing The Mayor Of The City Of Meridian To Donate Certain Boards, Bricks And Pavers To The United Way. 7. Items Moved From the Consent Agenda 8. Community Items/Presentations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, November 21, 2017 – 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. A. Meridian Arts Commission Mural Project Update 1. Memorandum of Agreement for Contribution to Public Art Project: Meridian Mill Mural with Meridian Development Corporation for Not-to- Exceed $16,000 Approved 2. Homecourt Mural 9. 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 grou p, 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. The City Council may move to continue the item for additional information or vote to approve or deny the item with or without changes as presented. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items, unless to break a tie vote. A. Approve Letter Required by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin for Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds for the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine (ICOM) Approved B. Final Plat Continued from November 8, 2017 for Rockbury Subdivision (H- 2017-0131) by Rock Harbor Church, Inc. located at 6437 N. Tree Haven Way Continued to December 5, 2017 C. Public Hearing for AT&T Stor-It (H-2017-0139) by Justin Hadley located at 1776 N. Avest Lane Application Withdrawn 1. Request: City Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a wireless communications facility at 1776 N. Avest Lane D. Public Hearing for Adoption of 2015 International Building Code, 2012 International Residential Code, 2015 International Existing Building Code, 2017 Idaho State Plumbing Code, 2015 International Fire Code, and proposed local amendments Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, November 21, 2017 – 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. E. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC is located at the southeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd. at 1225 W. Chinden Blvd. Continued to January 16, 2018 1. Request: Annexation and zoning of 81.61 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C zoning district (64.75 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (16.87 acres) in the City; 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 1 common lot and 3 other lots for future right -of- way dedication on 78.29 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-8 zoning districts; and, 3. Request: Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. 10. Department Reports A. Continued from November 14, 2017: Updates to City Code provisions regarding Chief Financial Officer/Information Services Director Approved 1. Ordinance No. 17-1753: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-8-1, Regarding Appointment of Department Officials by Mayor; Repealing Title 1, Chapter 8, Article E, Meridian City Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-9-3(G)(7), Regarding Compensation Changes; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-8B-2, Regarding Duties of the Chief Financial Officer; and Providing an Effective Date. B. Police: Budget Amendment for Animal Control Services Not-to-Exceed $11,000 Bring back after Council receives and update from Idaho Humane Society 11. Future Meeting Topics Adjourned at 10:54pm Meridian City Council November 21, 2017. A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 21, 2017, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy De Weerd, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Ty Palmer, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener. Members Absent: Anne Little Roberts. Others Present: Bill Nary, C.Jay Coles, Josh Beach, Sonya Allen, Clint Dolsby, Brent Bjornson, Brian Caldwell, Joe Bongiorno, Hillary Bodnar and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X__ Anne Little Roberts X _ _Joe Borton X__ Ty Palmer X__ Keith Bird __X___Genesis Milam __X__ Lucas Cavener __X_ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Well, I will go ahead and start tonight's meeting by thanking all of you for joining us here this evening and wishing you an early Happy Thanksgiving. For the record it is -- not Wednesday -- it is Tuesday, November 21st. It's 6:00 p.m. I will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us the pledge to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Troy Drake with Calvary Chapel De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Troy Drake with the Calvary Chapel. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you for -- Drake: Council Members. Let us pray. Lord God, thank you for who you are and what you have done and just wanted to take a moment here to bless this evening and also just the great things that you have done that you have afforded us here in the United States and we are so thankful for the City of Meridian and what we have and, Lord, that we can live free and pursue our hopes and dreams and raise families and work where we want to and -- and we just appreciate that, God. We thank you for our country and Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 2 of 89 those who have given so much and fought for our liberties. Lord, we don't want to forget that here at this Thanksgiving time. God, we are also greatly appreciative of our -- those who keep us safe in our community, the first responders, those who protect us, the police and firefighters, the paramedics, and all those servants who give their time and even their holiday time to make sure that our city is safe, Lord. God, we pray that -- that nobody would go hungry this Thanksgiving and nobody would be lonely and, God, they could find themselves to a place where they could enjoy what the rest of us experience. And, lastly, Lord, I just want to pray for this evening and these people who have given up their time to lead our city. God, these our elected servants here and I know that they want to do what's best for our community, so I just pray that you bless them, God, that they would know how much we appreciate them and, God, that you would give them lots of grace and wisdom and knowledge about the decisions that they have to make. So, we appreciate you, God, and we glorify you in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Okay. Thanks for the opportunity. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Thank you, Troy. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: Happy Thanksgiving. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, I move we approve the agenda as published with Item 6-U being proposed resolution number 17-2049. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a section to approve the Consent Agenda -- I'm sorry -- the agenda. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, any sign-ups? Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We had one individual sign up. Kimberly Hecht to provided a description of the deed restriction at Bear Creek Park. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 3 of 89 Coles: Kimberly Hecht. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Hecht: My name is Kimberly Hecht. I live -- my address is 2476 South Bear Claw Way, Meridian, Idaho. And thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you all again. I was here a couple weeks ago and I just have some additional requests for the City Council in relation to Bear Creek Park. I request that the City Council hold on any further planning of Fire Station No. 6 at Bear Creek Park until the city attorney reviews the deeds and provides the City of Meridian -- citizens of Meridian with an answer as to how the land can be used for a fire station when the deed clearly says it has been donated for use as a public park. In my opinion this should have been done over a year ago when the City Council began looking at Bear Creek as an opportunity or a place for a fire station. To continue to spend taxpayers' time and money on a station that may not be able to be built is wasteful. Land donation is a personal issue to me. My family has donated a significant part of their farmland to a conservation agency, with deed restrictions in it so that it can't be developed in the future and so this is something that really is passionate to me and something I care about. The city has two options in this case. Option number one. If they can show integrity and honor in the deed restrictions that they signed when they took the donated park as a gift. Option number two is they can try to circumvent the deed and undermined the intent -- the clear intent of the deed that was given as a generous gift. If the city is trying to circumvent the deed through legal means, it puts in jeopardy thousands of acres of donated land, because it does set a precedent that donated land can be changed whenever a city feels that it should be changed and, as I said, land donation is a personal issue with me, because my family has donated land. I expect my City Council and Mayor to have integrity and the City of Meridian deserves a City Council and elected officials that honor their promises when they are made. Thank you all. De Weerd: Thank you. Well, Kimberly, I know that a date has been proposed for the neighborhood meeting and those questions will be answered at that time. Thank you. Item 6: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of November 8, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting B. Final Order for Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No.1 (H-2017- 0133) by Brighton Investments LLC located approximately ¼ mile south of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. Blackcat Rd. C. Final Order for Castlebridge Subdivision (fka Kingsbridge) (H- 2017-0135) by Jarrod Langston located at 3475 E. Falcon Drive Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 4 of 89 D. Final Order for Maddyn Subdivision (H-2017-0136) by A Team Land Consultants located on the West Side of N. Meridian Road, South of E. Ustick Road, North of W. Sedgewick Drive E. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Linder Professional Plaza (H- 2017-038) by M & L Properties, LLC located at 4664 N. Penngrove Way F. Citadel Storage #3 Water Main Easement G. Borough Subdivision Sewer and Water Main Easement H. Release of Whitebark Subdivision Water Main and Sewer Easement I. Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 Sanitary Sewer Easement J. Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement K. Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer and Water Easement L. Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Water Easement #1 M. Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Water Main Easement #2 N. Volterra South Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement #1 O. Volterra South Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement #2 P. Release of Centrepointe Subdivision No. 2 Sewer and Water Main Easement Q. Centrepointe Subdivision No. 2 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement R. Professional Services Agreement with Treasure Valley Children's Theater for Not-to-Exceed $5,000 S. Approval of purchase of two (2) Pierce Fire Engines from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $1,099,483 Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 5 of 89 T. AP Invoices for Payment - $3,615,042.27 U. Resolution No. 17-2049: A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Meridian, Idaho, Setting Forth Certain Findings And Purposes To Declare Surplus Property And Authorizing The Mayor Of The City Of Meridian To Donate Certain Boards, Bricks And Pavers To The United Way. De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 6 is the Consent Agenda. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, I move we approve the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, absent. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Items Moved From the Consent Agenda De Weerd: There were no items moved the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Community Items/Presentations A. Meridian Arts Commission Mural Project Update 1. Memorandum of Agreement for Contribution to Public Art Project: Meridian Mill Mural with Meridian Development Corporation for Not-to-Exceed $16,000 2. Homecourt Mural De Weerd: So, we will move into Item 8-A under our Community Presentations and turn this to Hillary. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 6 of 89 Bodnar: Good evening, City Council and Madam Mayor. I wanted to take an opportunity to update you guys on the Meridian Arts Commission mural campaign. We come to you before and I had spoken briefly and tonight we have an item that I could have included on Consent Agenda, but wanted to elaborate on a little bit more. MDC has signed an agreement for their contribution for a mural at a private site at the Zamzow's Mill for an amount not to exceed 16,000 dollars. We met with two members of the Zamzow's family and discussed what their wants and needs are for this project with the proposed artist and came to a consensus that we did want to move forward with this project. So, the first step to moving forward is this agreement with MDC and the city. Once this agreement is signed we will move on to reaching out to the Zamzow's and Sector 17 for formal agreements. Like I said, we already had that initial meeting with Callie and Faye Zamzow, Tuck and Colin from Sector 17, Ashley Squires, MDC's administrator, Emily Kane and myself, so that the artist and the Zamzows could get a feel for each other and so that we as a group could discuss how the process would move forward so that everyone was aware of how this process would play out. The artists have already taken it upon themselves, even though they don't have an agreement yet, to draft up some initial designs, just so that the Zamzows could get a feel for what their interpretation of that first discussion was. So, Callie shared those initial designs with her dad and brother as well. So, they had had a jumping point to start to get off of -- once they have an agreement. The Zamzow family will be the initial point for approval. Once the Zamzow family has approved of a design, that design would, then, be moved forward to MDC to also approve before we come to City Council for approval before any installation and the plan is that this installation for a mural to take place in the spring and, once again, the project is being funded by MDC for a not- to-exceed amount of 16,000 dollars. The other mural project that I had mentioned to you earlier was a project proposal for Home Court. In October at the regular meeting the Meridian Arts Commission moved to recommend to Council that we proceed to extend a contract to the only proposing artist, which was, again, Sector 17, that would spell out every distinctive milestones for a consultation, design, et cetera, to help answer questions and concerns that the Parks Department had. When I had followed up with Steve, the director of the Parks Department on this, they still had some reservations and we weren't ready to address those reservations in the contract process. So, after some discussion we decided to put a pause on this -- on the Home Court project for the time being, but, hopefully, after seeing some progress with the Meridian Middle project, we can either revisit the conversation at the mill or consider another city site hosted mural. De Weerd: Great. Thank you, Hillary. Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 7 of 89 Cavener: Hillary, can you share with us or -- I see Mike's in the audience. I'm just curious what are some of those issues with the Home Court facility and doing a mural there? Bodnar: The main concerns were around the size proposed for the mural and, then, also the maintenance. So, Parks doesn't -- Parks wants to be very mindful of any potential wear or damage to the mural being such a large size and on a material that we don't have other existing murals on. So, currently the Parks Department has a mural at Tully Park and they have been able to see how that's weathered and warn on kind of a concrete and cement bases and it's a much smaller scale and I can't remember when they installed that, but it does need to be retouched in some ways. So, Parks wants to have a better understanding of the long-term plan, ten years out, 20 years out what would the mural look like, how will it weather on the metal material and, then, how will the maintenance be addressed. Cavener: Okay. Bodnar: So, it's something that we can do further research on that might help address those concerns from Parks. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I move that we approve the memorandum of agreement for contribution to public art project, Meridian mill mural with Meridian Development Corporation not to exceed 16,000 dollars. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, absent. De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Action Items A. Approve Letter Required by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin for Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds for the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine (ICOM) Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 8 of 89 De Weerd: Thank you, Hillary. Okay. Item 9 under Action Items, we have 9 -A and I will turn this to Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a similar request that you have -- that Council has previously seen in regards to public financing authority for the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine. This is a process simply to acknowledge that they are seeking funding through the state of Wisconsin and the city is aware of it. They are not -- it's not city funds, this is not funded by the taxpayers locally, it's simply a method of financing for the college to acquire -- and this is just a local acknowledgment by the governing body that that's what they are doing. Dr. Hasty is here from the College of Osteopathic Medicine to answer any questions, but, otherwise, this is a fairly routine type of process. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Dr. Hasty, do you have anything you want to add? Hasty: No. Just want to say thank you for the Meridian city for considering this. Appreciate it, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for our attorney or Dr. Hasty? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the -- a letter for the College and for the Mayor to sign and send it on. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to move forward on Item 9-A with appropriate signatures. Any discussion from Council? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, absent. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you, Dr. Hasty. Hey, Dr. Hasty, since we have you here, do you want to give us an update on how the college is moving forward? Hasty: Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor, for doing this and I want to thank the City of Meridian again for all your tremendous support. As you know, the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine will be Idaho's first medical school with a projected impact economically of about a half billion dollars to the region the first ten years of operation. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 9 of 89 I'm proud to report that we broke ground last May and using a Meridian based ESI. We are actually ahead of schedule. We are -- we have a guaranteed completion date in the spring of 2018 and it's tracking a lot faster than that, so we are doing very well. From an accreditation standpoint we received pre-accreditation this past fall from the American Osteopathic Association, COCA, accreditation and we -- right now we are waiting to get the ability to start recruiting students for next year and we, you know, thank Meridian. We are very grateful for being here and -- and it's the best city in the world to create a medical school. So, thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And we understand you're a resident now, so -- Hasty: That's right. I live in Meridian, so -- thank you. B. Final Plat Continued from November 8, 2017 for Rockbury Subdivision (H-2017-0131) by Rock Harbor Church, Inc. located at 6437 N. Tree Haven Way De Weerd: Thank you. Item 9-B is a final plat on H-2017-0131. I will ask for staff comments. This applicant has requested to continue and if you can let us know what that is based on. Parsons: Sure. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The applicant needs some more time to work with ACHD and ITD staff on a revised traffic study for their right-in, right-out access that was approved by this Council through a variance process. So, they need to get updated information to those bodies before they can move forward on their final plat and that's the reason for a continuance. De Weerd: Okay. And, Bill, is there any assistance the city can help? I know this has kind of been a huge delay and if there is any way we can help that would be awesome. Parsons: Understood. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have met with the applicant, both ITD and ACHD, so all of us are on the same page moving forward. So, hopefully, this will be the last continuance and we are headed in the right steps to get that application in front of you and get it expedited, so they can move forward on -- on their development. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no questions, this has been requested to continue to December 5th. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we -- I move we continue H-2017-0131 to December 5th, 2017. Palmer: Second. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 10 of 89 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 9-B to December 5th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for AT&T Stor-It (H-2017-0139) by Justin Hadley located at 1776 N. Avest Lane 1. Request: City Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a wireless communications facility at 1776 N. Avest Lane De Weerd: 9-C is a public hearing for H-2017-0139. While I will open this public hearing, this applicant has requested to withdraw the application. Bill if -- or -- Bill, if you can give us any background on that. Parsons: Sure. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you are correct, Madam Mayor, the applicant has requested to withdraw this application and seeking your approval of that request this evening. Primarily what has happened was when this application went before Planning and Zoning Commission they actually denied their conditional use permit to erect another facility on that particular property because there was an abandoned cell tower currently on that site and so in the UDC the owner of that cell tower is to remediate that abandoned tower after -- within 60 days of it being abandoned. So, staff is working with the property owner and the cell tower company to have the property owner take down the abandoned tower, so that they can come forward with a staff level cell tower -- stealth tower, basically, on the site and go through the administrative process, rather than having to go through the public hearing process. So, they are going to continue to work with staff behind the scenes, rather than go through the public hearing process. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Parsons: You’re welcome. De Weerd: I will need a motion to approve the withdrawal of this application. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Did you open the public hearing? De Weerd: Yes, I did. Bird: I move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0139. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 11 of 89 Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 9-D. All those in favor say aye. I'm sorry. 9-C. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the withdrawal of H-2017-0139. Milam: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request to withdraw Item 9-C. If there is no discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, absent. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Adoption of 2015 International Building Code, 2012 International Residential Code, 2015 International Existing Building Code, 2017 Idaho State Plumbing Code, 2015 International Fire Code, and proposed local amendments De Weerd: Item 9-D is a public hearing on the adoption of the 2015 International Building Code, the residential code, the existing building code, the state plumbing code, et cetera, et cetera. I just will turn it over to you, Brent. Bjornson: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'd like to discuss a brief overview of the building code adoption as discussed at the October 10th City Council meeting. As everybody is aware, the Idaho Building Code collaborative -- there is a collaborative effort in the adoption of the building codes every three years through the Idaho Building Code Board and a negotiated rulemaking process, which includes public input. Following the state's adoption municipalities are required to adopt. The building codes by January 1 following that state adoption. The City of Meridian is doing that. We are currently in that process. We have provided a notification as required by statute to the Building Contractors Association, Meridian Press, area stakeholders, so that -- that part is complete. Our public notification is complete. Our draft copies have been e-mailed out to those groups and, then, as you recall on November 10th, most Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 12 of 89 recent, we had a meeting that during this building code adoption we discussed emission testing facilities as it relates to adding that to our draft code amendments, which we did on November 10th. One of the things with the emission testing facilities is that it is -- we would like to say in support that it's exempt from the building code permits, because most of those structures are 120 square feet and less. We feel and staff recommendation is that it's a good fit under the exemptions to permits at 120 square feet or less and so, therefore, it's a recommendation. Before you in this public hearing is, basically, additional discussion if needed on that topic for those emission testing facilities as it relates to their exemption in our code adoption. So, at this point I'd like to open it up for any public testimony and/or questions related to our code adoptions and those emission testing facilities. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point? Palmer: Madam Mayor? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: It looks like I'm first. I'm going to enjoy this here for a second. Quickly, I guess my question is -- I got thinking about the -- the emission testing facilities that are actually vehicles, instead of structures. Does that have any effect on them or, then, they become subject to the other requirements of temporary use permits? Bjornson: The vehicles in the building code, obviously, are exempt, because they are on wheels, so it's a Department of Motor Vehicle Registration. Most of the facilities that I have seen in Boise and recently in Meridian are 120 square feet or less. Typically they -- none of them are on foundations and so the vehicles -- to answer your question, Councilman Palmer, no, they are exempt from the building code. De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor. Can you point to the page on the 32 page draft where this specific reference on the 120 feet is located? To track where this discussion is going in the draft itself. Bjornson: The 120 square feet is under Section 105 in the draft and Section 105 and their building permits, it's -- there is an exemption, work exempt from permit. That language should be -- I'm not sure what page specifically that is on, but that 120 square feet appears in the building code under that International Building Code Section 105, work exempt from permit. That Section 105, Councilman Borton, speaks to detached accessory structures, sheds, similar uses and it is exempt when they are 120 square feet and less. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's page three. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 13 of 89 De Weerd: Page three? Nary: Yeah. De Weerd: Mr. Borton, any follow up? Borton: No. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to testify? Coles: Madam Mayor, we had two individuals signed up wishing to testify. Kent Goldthorpe and Matt Hansen. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Goldthorpe. Thank you for joining us tonight. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Goldthorpe: Kent Goldthorpe, executive director of the Air Quality Board, 41 South Baltic, Suite 200, in Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Goldthorpe: And I will make this quick, because I -- I believe all except maybe Councilman Borton received a packet from me earlier this week. Did you get yours? Borton: Uh-huh. Goldthorpe: Okay. I kept getting it bounce back. Borton: Okay. Goldthorpe: I just figured Bill Gates and whoever wasn't getting along that day. All I want to do, very briefly here, is to implore you to go ahead and adopt what City Attorney Nary has put together for you, which addresses all of the concerns that you have enumerated so far concerning the square footage, the style, the quality and the foundation issues, so that here in the City of Meridian you can approve these permits that are being requested and to assure you, because I get questions from our station owners all the time -- one this week about another station in Meridian asking -- this is just a process of evolution from those four wheeled vans to permanent structures that are not permanent as far as foundations go, but in every other way -- that you adopt tonight this exception, so that at the very least the individual who has been experiencing delay after delay for the last year moving his station from Garden City here to Meridian Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 14 of 89 and he lost his lease before -- not be subject to having his station license be revoked just because of delays and if for some reason you want to delay this yet again, that you at least go on the record and allow him to set his station at his new location, so that his new landlord can feel like there is nothing to lose by allowing him to do that which has been discussed and negotiated for almost a year now. Are there any questions? De Weerd: Council, are there any questions from Mr. Goldthorpe? Goldthorpe: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: And Matt Hansen was the second individual sign up. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us here this evening. If you will, please, state your name and address. Hansen: Matthew Hansen. 6138 South Teton Peak Way. De Weerd: Thank you. Hansen: I would encourage the Council to adopt this provision specifically with regard to the provision -- the local amendment relating to the emissions testing facilities. This would make Meridian consistent with surrounding jurisdictions, at least in its application of the codes and, really, in all the surrounding jurisdictions, including the City of Meridian, there is a provision for temporary buildings and from a safety standpoint and anesthetic standpoint those temporary buildings are really identical to the emissions testing facility, yet they are only allowed to be there 120 days. Now, the -- the time frame on that doesn't work as well for an emissions facility. It may for a farmer's market or for a snow cone stand. However, from a safety standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint these are virtually identical and -- and are quite favorable to the alternative, which was the -- which was the vehicle are the emissions testing van and so we think the change would allow better access to the citizens, the residents of Meridian to emissions testing facilities. If emissions testing facilities will only be available on those pieces of property where the owner or landlord will allow a larger structure with -- with a foundation, they will be fewer and farther between, making it more difficult for the residents of Meridian to find a place to get their -- their vehicle tested when that time comes and that's all I have. Any questions? De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 15 of 89 Cavener: Mr. Hansen, can you share with us -- I have heard a lot of just opposition to the -- the vehicle based emission testing. I just don't know what the rationale is behind the opposition. What is it that station owners don't like about vehicle based emission testing? Hansen: I don't know that station owners have a -- an objection to them, at least from a business perspective, but I think that the program has -- has grown and matured, the residents of Ada county have -- have I think overwhelmingly decided that some of these vans are sort of an eye sore. They are bright colors, they are older, they are sitting in parking lots. Many of them not registered. And I think that from an overall esthetic standpoint the buildings seem to look better. Cavener: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you so much. Hansen: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes -- yes, ma'am. Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. LeFever: My name is Denise Hansen LeFever and I'm at 6706 North Salvia Way and I was at the last meeting that this was a topic and I have to say I agree with what Council Member Palmer had to say, that I just don't think it's the government's business to go back through and select winners in -- winners in business and call out that the emission testing have special privileges over other temporary type structures. You know, in other states there are lots of opportunities for these businesses to operate in tire shops, DMV's. There is opportunities for them to be in service stations, all kinds of different garages. They can do subleases, leases, there is a lot of other avenues besides a 120 foot structure. So, if we are going to open this up, I think it should be opened up to taking on regulation that has to do with all 120 foot structures, so -- De Weerd: Thank you, Denise. Is there any further testimony? Any further questions from Council or comments from staff? Bjornson: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, the only thing I'd like to add from the Building Department perspective is that, again, I don't feel that there is any life safety concerns with these structures. We are trying to find the best fit in the building code in how we permit these items versus it's not in my mind, you know, a special type of a treatment, as opposed to where do they best fit. How do we deal with them? What's going on in the surrounding valley jurisdictions or how are they handling those? They are not used for the public. There is typically one person that is an employee that occupies that space, so they are not bringing in the general public. It's a pre- manufactured roof system that's small in nature, very similar to the other 120 square foot or less structures, pump houses in the building code and in the International Resident -- Residential Code. Excuse me. We have got the detached accessory Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 16 of 89 structures for sheds and those types of things. So, in our mind the risk is very low. We would still require an electrical permit and that's really all I have got to add from a -- from a staff recommendation. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Brent. Anything further from Council? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Brent, not trying to put you on the spot, but there has been a reference to the snow cone shacks and, obviously, emission testing buildings and I heard you -- I think you even said well houses. Can you give us a sense -- I mean how many of these types of structures are in Meridian right now that would be impacted by this? Bjornson: Councilman Cavener, Members of the Council, I don't have a count for you. I'm not sure how many. When I said well houses -- I want to step back a little bit. I'm talking about the smaller pump structures, irrigation pumps, those type things that are 120 square feet or less. I know the well houses can get pretty complicated. But I do not have a count for you. I apologize. De Weerd: Any further information needed from Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Question for Mr. Nary. The amendments of that 105.2 that addresses the square footage, does that by itself alleviate the concern with the emissions testing facilities or is there a separate additional ordinance necessary, similar to what Garden City has done? Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, there are other regulations in the UDC in relation to the structures and so those are already going through the planning department as well. So, the issue about the appearance and those types of things are handled in the UDC permitting part of it. The building code issue simply is the foundation requirement and so that's -- that's really what they are trying to address is the foundation, that the property owners don't want those foundations in their parking lots, because, again, they can't be removed if needed in the future without a great expense. So, all this particular provision is doing is creating the same -- the same exemption for these emission testing facilities as we do for other smaller temporary structures in regards to foundation. Borton: Okay. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 17 of 89 De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? If not, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on 9-D. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the adoption of the 2015 International Building Code, 2012 International Residential Code, 2015 International Existing Building Code, 2017 Idaho State Plumbing Code, 2015 International Fire Code, and proposed local amendments. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve 9-D. Discussion? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: When does this take effect? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, so what happens -- there is other process that needs to occur. This has to be done prior to January 1, so it won't go into effect till January 1. So, the -- the rest of the process has to be completed subsequent to this. Milam: Madam Mayor? So, is there anything for -- that we can do at this moment to -- to Mr. Goldthorpe's comments regarding somebody that specifically has a lease that they are trying to move over now, so that he doesn't lose a lease with the landlord he's negotiated that with? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 18 of 89 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think -- subject to Mr. Bjornson, but I don't see a problem in moving forward. That was our intent was to move forward -- to allow that to go forward if that was the direction of the Council. Milam: I just wanted to make sure. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, as was mentioned, I don't think we should be in the business of picking winners and losers, especially when the winner is to be the provider of a government-mandated service. So, I would support all except the issue that we have been discussing. De Weerd: Appreciate that. I guess the down side to that is that's a year around need and if we make it just temporary I don't think our citizens would be happy to only have 120 days to -- to get their emissions tested. So, this allows a year around opportunity. I guess that's the difference. Any further discussion? Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I tend to agree with Council Member Palmer on this particular issue. I appreciate the great work done by staff and Legal and I think as we are -- I think through this month on the Air Quality Board I know this is an issue that Director Goldthorpe has been trying to -- to address and I think the intent is correct, but I think the execution is -- is not what I think is necessarily appropriate. I do think that we do have a solution that has been used in the past that allows for 12 month service being provided by these station owners. If -- if we are going to choose one entity, I would much rather have a much broader discussion about allowing other entities to be exempt as well that are 120 square feet or less. So, I will be voting no. De Weerd: Okay. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: So, one story detached accessory structures, storage sheds, play houses, emission station facilities and similar uses. So, similar uses can -- I'm just trying to think of -- if there is any way that that could be just turned into a -- is there a broader term or -- you know, snow cone shacks, since we are using that as a reference, could be a snow cone testing facility -- I'm just saying. If the problem that Council is having here is with not allowing other uses -- to not restrict -- not restricting emissions from using it, but from -- not allowing other uses also. That's what I'm hearing. They don't want to disapprove the emissions, but maybe to also approve other uses and I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I don't think a snow cone shack is going to be up much longer anyway. I don't think they are going to be up all year, so -- yeah. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 19 of 89 De Weerd: If there is no further discussion I would ask Mr. Clerk to call roll. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor, I mean if -- if we have got some concern about the narrow scope of this provision, unless staff's got a reason to not expand the scope of 105.2 to be broader, then, you could -- you could add the including, but not limited to into that sentence to allow it to be utilized for additional use that fall within that square footage limitation, is there any reason not to do that? Bjornson: Councilman Borton, Members of Council, that’s a good point. We could look at that. I think that the similar uses in Section 105 is subject to building departments and building official interpretations and how we use that and certainly our City Council and our planning team -- I think that's a good suggestion. I think we need to be careful how far we open that up, though, as it relates to the building code. As the Mayor pointed out, I believe that these emissions facilities are there year around versus that snow cone shack and I -- if we open that door it's just -- with those uses and that verbiage, how -- how far does that go. You just need to be careful with that. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, do you have anything you want to add? Nary: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, again, I think we are mixing two different issues here. The emission testing -- their issue is do they need a foundation to be in a parking lot and the direction from the building department and the direction other communities have gone is no. The issue of whether a temporary use can remain in that lot is a separate issue, because those were based on the type of use. We felt it was appropriate that these types of facilities don't require foundation. Those other ones don't have foundations either. The issue that we have discussed previously with the use and the length of the use, so that we limit those types of temporary sales units from being year around, because that's what was happening and that's where the problem and concerns were is those types of -- of facilities that are being used year around and now are not meeting any of the building code -- or not -- excuse me. All the development code requirements. These are different, because, again, they are a requirement to do. If you -- if you want to separate out for further discussion that, we would ask that we move forward on all of the other building code ones, except for this local amendment, if you would like to bring it back for a longer discussion, but they are really two completely separate arguments that we are talking about. This is really just to allow those to continue to remain as they have been, as they have been previously in other jurisdictions that allows them, without a foundation and that's the only issue of concern today. But if you want to have a longer discussion, we just have to separate that and let us bring the other ones forward, because, otherwise, we will miss the January 1 deadline and this one isn't required to be done by January 1, but the others are. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 20 of 89 Bird: Call for the question. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Substitute motion. Just want to get numbers in order. I would move that we approve -- I guess we still have the -- we are still open on the public hearing? De Weerd: No. Cavener: Okay. Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve adoption of the 2015 International Building Code, 2012 International Residential Code, 2015 International Existing Building Code, and 2017 State Plumbing Code, 2015 International Fire Code, proposed local amendments, with the exception of IBC Section 105.2. Palmer: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the amended motion? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Isn't there a way -- sorry. It was off. Can we approve the whole thing as it is and, then, come back and revisit that? Because what we are trying to do is expand it, not reduce it in scope. Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if -- if you move forward with the other provisions and not this one, that's I think the problem Mr. Goldthorpe raised, is that the business owner may not be, then, allowed to operate his business in the city and whether that might impact negatively the other business owners of this type of business, that could also occur. Again, we are talking about the use of seasonal uses versus a year around use and that's really a different question than this building code provision. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: So, he wouldn't be able to operate his business within Meridian or he wouldn't be able to operate his business in Meridian against code? Milam: Without a foundation. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 21 of 89 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, so what the Council's direction would be, then, is that the building code needs to be applied and foundations need to be on all of these structures, so the new one that's being asked to locate would, then, be required to either have a foundation or not locate there. As I stated, from what I understand, the property owners don't want foundations in their parking lots. So, other ones also would be on notice that they would require a foundation, depending on when they were constructed and whether that applies to them I couldn't tell you and every one of them, but those that did would, again, have the same notification that they can't operate there without a foundation. So, it would affect those businesses dramatically, so -- Borton: Madam Mayor? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Council Woman Milam is spot on. It's -- it's the approval of -- of all of the codes as proposed today, with the understanding that there is a request that as to that particular section we revisit it and see if -- kind of the pros and cons of a future expansion of -- of that limitation. But for the purpose of today it makes sense to approve all of it and that affords the particular relief necessary for the emissions testing operator as well, so long as we address whether or not it should be expanded and don't lose sight of that. Milam: Is that a motion? No. Just kidding. De Weerd: No. We have a motion that we need to vote on. Bjornson: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bjornson: Members of Council, Councilman Cavener, I don't think we can take out that 105.2 exception in its entirety. That has to stay so it applies to others. Just for clarification, what we would take out is the emission testing facilities, those three words right -- De Weerd: Okay. That was the intent of the amended motion. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Bird: Which one are we voting on? Palmer: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 22 of 89 De Weerd: Yes. Palmer: Before we vote on it, I understand Councilman Milam's intent, but I think it goes back to -- then we would be picking a winner today under the excuse that we may add additional winners later. So, I think with the -- Councilman Cavener's motion that this leaves an opportunity for us to make the right decision later, rather than accepted by some decision now or we might make it better for others later. It just -- it leaves too much open I think for me. So, I will be voting yes on the motion we are currently voting on. De Weerd: Okay. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I -- I don't believe that we are picking winners and losers, we are -- I'm supporting small business owners in general and I don't see anybody who -- by passing this is going to be a loser today. So, I think that we might be able to open it back up, broaden the scope and -- and help some more businesses, but I don't think passing this today creates any -- any losers. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, the loser would be anybody who wants to open what we would now consider a temporary use structure for a year around -- that would like to do it as a year around service, we are saying you're the loser, because you aren't an emissions testing facility, you're not a government-mandated service, so because you're a luxury you're not as important as the government-mandated service. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Bird, nay; Borton, nay; Milam, nay; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, absent. De Weerd: Okay. The amended motion did not pass. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. THREE NAYS. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: We have a motion to approve Item 9-D in its entirety. If there is no discussion, Mr. Clerk. Bird: Call for the question. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 23 of 89 Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, absent. De Weerd: The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC is located at the southeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd. at 1225 W. Chinden Blvd. 1. Request: Annexation and zoning of 81.61 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C zoning district (64.75 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (16.87 acres) in the City; 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 1 common lot and 3 other lots for future right-of-way dedication on 78.29 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-8 zoning districts; and, 3. Request: Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. De Weerd: Okay. Item 9-E is a public hearing on H-2017-0088. I will open the public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first application before you is a request for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a variance. This site consist of 78 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at the southeast corner of North Linder Road and West Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed-use community, which consists of approximately 54 acres and a medium density residential at approximately 24 acres. The applicant requests approval to annex and zone 81.61 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada county to the C-C district, which is 64.75 acres and the R-8 zoning district, which is 16.87 acres in the city. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use map designations of mixed-use community and medium density residential for this site, although the proposed residential area is approximately seven acres less than depicted on the future land use map for the medium density residential designated area. A conceptual development plan was submitted with the annexation application that depicts how the site is proposed to develop in the future. Based on staff's recommend -- recommendation to the Commission, testimony provided at the public hearing, the Commission's belief that the plan was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the mixed-use community designation, and the applicant's unwillingness to revise the plan per the staff report, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the application to City Council. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 24 of 89 Since the Commission hearing the applicant has submitted a revised concept plan as shown that does address some of the issues noted in the staff report. A new neighborhood meeting was also held with adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property boundary. The revised concept plan depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store, WinCo, as an anchor for the development there at the southwest corner of the site. Three midsize anchors. A fuel sales facility. Smaller office. Retail. Restaurant. Live-work uses and a plaza. One of the potential mid anchor buildings may be 50,000 square feet, which exceeds the 30,000 square foot limitation in the MUC designation, which will require additional public and quasi-public uses to support the development commensurate with the increase in size. The orientation of the rear of the WinCo building has been shifted to the corner of Linder and the future public street, away from the adjacent residences, which was a big topic of conversation at the hearing. This is a copy of the use area plan that they submitted, showing the mix of uses proposed on the site. A circulation plan was submitted as shown that shows accesses to the site via three accesses from North Linder Road and two accesses via Chinden, State Highway 20-26. A traffic signal is planned at the southernmost access via Linder and the eastern access via State Highway 20-26 when warranted. Because the UDC prohibits new accesses via a state highway, a variance is requested from Council for those accesses. There are three local stub streets to this site from the adjacent residential neighborhood at the south and east boundary to the site. The plan also depicts pedestrian walkways throughout the development, backage roads, extension of -- excuse me -- extension of stub streets from adjacent residential development, connections to the east boundary for future connection to North Fox Run Way and the signal. A bus stop and a future signal on Chinden. A cross-access ingress-egress easement and driveway should be provided to the property at the southwest corner of the site and that is right down here at the south boundary in an effort to decrease access points to the arterial street Linder Road. A vehicular connection should also be provided between the existing and future residential uses and the commercial uses. None are currently shown. A staff report has not yet been received from ACHD on this application. ACHD did submit a letter to the city stating that they are requiring the applicant to update the traffic impact study prior to taking formal action on the preliminary plat application. The revised plan is still not entirely consistent with the mixed used community designation in that the most intense commercial uses are still proposed adjacent to the single-family residential uses, rather than transitioning outward from the residential uses with live-work and less intense to more intense commercial uses as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Vehicular connectivity should also be provided as mentioned between the residential and commercial development, so that area residences don't have to venture out onto the adjacent arterial streets to access the site. A revised preliminary plat was submitted that matches the configuration of the revised concept plan that depicts 16 commercial building lots, one residential building a lot, one common lot and three other lots for future right of way dedication. The applicant intends to resubdivide the lots depicted for future development into smaller lots in the future. Street buffer landscaping is required in accord with UDC standards. A 35 foot wide street buffer is required along both Linder and Chinden, both entryway corridors into the city. A ten foot wide pathway is required as part of the city's regional pathway system within the street buffers along Linder and Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 25 of 89 the state highway. A semi-private wood screen wall is proposed along the southern boundary of the commercial property on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the future residential development. An eight foot tall CMU wall is proposed behind the community grocer and the retail area. A cross-section was submitted for the southern boundary of the site showing the sound screen wall, street landscape berm, buffer, and walkways as shown. Business hours of operation in the C-C zoning district are limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation may be requested through a conditional use permit. The WinCo store is proposed to operate 24 hours a day. Once the property is subdivided as proposed, the WinCo lot will not abut a residential use. However, until, then, the property as a whole does abut residential and would be subject to that restriction. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor WinCo, the mid anchor, and the retail shops as shown. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split face CMU, metal panel siding, and stone and brick veneer accents. Nonresidential buildings are required to be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. Future buildings are required to be consistent with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The Commission, as I stated previously, did recommend denial to the City Council of the proposed annexation and zoning, and preliminary plat applications. Summary of the Commission hearing. There were many folks that testified in favor. I'm not going to run through each application. Those names are contained in the official Commission recommendation document to the City Council. Many also testified in opposition. Several commented. Written testimony was received from the applicant and also, again, many letters were received from the public. I will go over the key issues discussed by the public at the hearing. First, a lack of detail on pedestrian and vehicular interconnectivity with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and walkability of the site. Concern regarding the large size of the box buildings and stores and their arrangement on the site in proximity to adjacent residential properties. Concern regarding access via the state highway and the future signal at Chinden and Bergman and resulting traffic impacts, congestion and safety. Lack of transition and buffering from existing residences to proposed commercial development. For example, the lesser intense uses should be adjacent to residential uses and transition outward to high intense commercial uses. Opposition to strip mall configuration of buildings and massive parking lots. WinCo loading docks and trash dumpsters oriented toward residential neighborhood and associated noise and light impacts on neighbors from proposed 24-hour operation. Inadequacy of proposed buffer, six foot wall and trees, between the rear of the WinCo building and adjacent residents. Like to see the site be redesigned more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, smaller neighborhood friendly uses and services and design layout of the site. Traffic impact on adjacent streets, Linder Road and Chinden and within adjacent neighborhoods generated from the proposed uses and safety of elementary school children walking to and from school. Proposed building elevations do not blend with nearby structures. Not enough common area and poorly placed. Objectivity to not having a complete conceptual development plan for the area proposed to be annexed. And infrastructure on the highway and Linder Road is not sufficient for a major development such as this and no consideration of public transportation, such a bus stop or bus-bicycle hub. The following are key issues of discussion by the Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 26 of 89 Commission. The location of the WinCo building at the rear of the site adjacent to residential uses, rather than adjacent to the state highway. Chinder -- Chinden, excuse me, or the arterial street Linder Road. Concern regarding proposed 24 hour operation of the WinCo store and associated noise and light impacts on adjacent residents from deliveries at the loading docks located at the rear of the building. Design of the site plan should be flipped with larger, more intense commercial uses located adjacent to the highway and arterial street, with less intense neighborhood friendly uses located near the single-family residential uses, not consistent with the mixed-use community designation. Extent of improvements to the state highway and timing thereof. They would like to see how public street connects from Linder Road to the east boundary of the site for future connection to Fox Run. Lack of integration between the proposed development and the adjacent residential neighborhood and location of the live-work units at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Chinden and the commercial area, rather than adjacent to residential properties at the south boundary. The following is a Commission change to the staff recommendation. The Commission voted to deny the project based on the following: Proposed site design layout. For example, the lack of transition and integration with adjacent residential properties. Lack of detail on the conceptual development plan for the eastern and southern portions of the annexation area. No pedestrian or vehicular connectivity with adjacent residential neighborhood and no plan for a street connection between Linder and the east boundary of the site for future connection to Fox Run. The proximity of higher intense commercial uses to single family residential uses. Twenty-four hour operation of the WinCo store and impacts on adjacent residents. Traffic with access -- general consensus that the proposed development plan is not consistent with the mixed-use community designation. Outstanding issues for the City Council tonight. Council should determine if the revisions made to the concept plan adequately address the concerns from the Commission hearing and the conditions of approval noted in the original staff report. If so, the City Council should direct staff to prepare an updated staff report based on the revisions to the plan and either remand the application back to the Commission for review and a new recommendation or continue the project to a subsequent Council meeting for review and action. If not, Council may vote to deny the application. Further, if Council votes to continue the application to a subsequent Council meeting for an updated staff report, staff recommends continuing the project for a couple of months or -- or as suggested by the applicant in order for the applicant to update the traffic impact study and for ACHD to issue a report. Written testimony since the Commission hearing. Many letters of public testimony have been received and are contained in the public record since the Commission meeting. Staff will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Not a question, just wanted to disclose that in September at a city event I was approached by a citizen who had some concerns about it. I let her know that I hadn't Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 27 of 89 looked at the application, that it hadn't even gotten to Planning and Zoning yet and things often change, so I don't usually look at things until after they have made it through that process and are on their way to us. I asked a couple clarifying questions after I mentioned that I had not seen the application to understand exactly what her concerns were and expressed gratitude that we have had so much public input on the project. Encouraged her to come to the meeting to -- to let us know further, especially if any changes did happen, to let us know how she might feel about those and I have also read many, many, many, many e-mails and also want to point out that I have not discussed the project with the applicant. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I was thinking since Mr. Palmer brought it up I'm happy to share. I think all of us have received a significant amount of e-mails, both in favor and against this project going back a number of months. I had drafted a response to both people who were supportive and against the same response, thanking them for contacting the city and asking them to be involved in the process and I have not discussed this application with the applicant in any way, shape or form either. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? No? Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? McKinney: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. My name is David McKinney and I work for DMG Real Estate Partners, located at 2537 West State Street, Suite 110, Boise, Idaho. 83702. De Weerd: Thank you. I'm here this evening representing the applicant. Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC, to present our proposed project Linder Village and to answer any questions that you might have. I have also vary -- included various representatives from our team here tonight, including our traffic engineer, our legal land use attorney, executives from WinCo and they are all anxious to answer questions also. First let me say Happy Thanksgiving to you and everyone else in the auditorium. I'm thankful that we live in the Treasure Valley, which we all know is a great place to live, work and raise a family. Could I get the next slide, please? In fact, we think our plan Linder Village embodies that notion of live, work, play, which we think is a big part of living and raising a family. We know we have lots of folks in support of our plan, but also know there are concerns from some people that don't agree with this plan exactly as we have proposed for various reasons. We have honestly tried to address concerns as best we could and believe we have impressed some folks with the revisions that we have made recently, but also know there are people that, frankly, do not want us to proceed at all. This is unfortunate when considering the positive impact a good project like this can provide. Obviously, we have agreed to work with ITD on much needed road improvements to Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 28 of 89 Chinden Boulevard, which we see as a true public-private partnership. Plus the WinCo store alone creates over a hundred, hundred and fifty new jobs for its store and, then, notwithstanding the construction -- the construction trade jobs to build the store are numerous. In fact, our analysis projects approximately 2.7 million dollars in increased annual sales tax that WinCo would generate, plus an additional 270,000 dollars a year in increased real estate taxes and personal property tax from the WinCo store alone. Next slide. We have a lot of community support on the project. You can see on this slide we have had letters -- over 500 letters in support. We have had a lot of Facebook likes, over 1,400 there, and we feel like -- like I said, there is a lot of support here. Next slide. We are now in agreement with most of staff's recommendations to improve our annexation and our zoning and preliminary plat and hope Council will approve the variance request for the Chinden access that we propose. Obviously, with the support and approvals we have received from ITD after a couple years of work. Our traffic studies show an improvement in the level of services along Chinden with the road widening, safer turning movements with a new traffic signal. Our traffic consultant John Ringert is here tonight also and will provide additional details on that a little later in the presentation. We also received a copy of the memorandum that Sonya put together for the Mayor and Council, dated November 16th, 2017, and agree with most of her analysis, but, to be clear, I think we should walk through some of the key items and on the slide there you see our old plan -- let's go back one. Our old plan versus our new plan, we thought it would be good to compare them there on the same page. So, based on staff's recommendation and some of the neighborhood input that we have had, we made the following revisions to our plan. As Sonya said, WinCo's building has been turned so that the receiving area now faces Linder and the future collector street intersecting with Linder. The delivery area is 516 feet, almost two football fields, from the nearest home in Paramount neighborhood and we have also included proposed eight foot high block concrete sound walls added along the rear of WinCo's building that stand between WinCo and the neighboring areas. Let's go to the next slide. So, the next slide. Let's try the next one. There we go. This illustration shows some of that in more detail and I think Sonya had that on her presentation also, but the distance you see back here on the bottom, that's the 516 feet to the WinCo receiving area, which also has the eight foot high block sound wall back to the first home that is adjacent to Arliss there on the southeast corner. Next slide. Also we thought this perspective was very convincing on what people will see, you know, in the various points behind WinCo into the southeast portion of our property. Obviously, in A there you see the southern side of the new collector street and, B, that shot is towards the screen wall in the back of the WinCo. C would be the street area. And D would be, you know, the plaza park area that's adjacent to the small shops on the southern end of the -- of the site also. I just wanted to comment. We have planned for neighborhood service shops, which are less intense uses closest to the future existing residential areas. Those are these shops south and east of the WinCo and they abut the park area and the walking paths that -- that we have there as shown. In -- in our opinion those are less intense uses. We think these uses are -- we have had interest from a daycare, hair salon, nail salon, drycleaners, small offices, coffee and bagel shops, sandwich shops, mail, UPS, those type of tenants and those are what are closest to the neighborhood and we think those buffer the WinCo building also. We think the more intense uses are actually shown on Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 29 of 89 our plan along Chinden, which include a gas station, a convenience store, fast food restaurants, drive-thrus. We do have a steak and seafood restaurant very interested. Pizza. Italian food. Other restaurants. Most of them include alcohol sales. We do have interest for medical urgent care facilities, a drugstore, a car wash, and a tire facility. We think those are the uses that are more intense and should be along Chinden and that's actually what they require. Our proposed public and quasi-public uses and space include additional plaza and park area, landscaped areas, open space and walking paths. In addition we have also had a couple discussions -- and I think they are serious with the Meridian Library District. In fact, we are trying to schedule a meeting here in the next couple weeks to discuss a branch on our site here at Linder Village. We have also added a clubhouse in our future residential area that we believe could also be used as a community meeting space. We have also broken up the strip design that was mentioned in the staff report and the neighbors were concerned with. Specifically we have used the recommended L configuration or layout that includes a main street design in this area coming off of Chinden and along our main drive aisle, which will feed pedestrian activity right down to the plaza and the park area. We think that's a very nice lifestyle amenity. Let's go to the next slide, Sonya. Let's try the next one. There we go. So, you see in this perspective -- A, for example, is showing the shop design with the main street feel. B is really from the other side of that. C would be just a shot from the plaza area looking back. D would be in the plaza area. And E is also within the plaza area. We probably don't show the park area and how it feeds into the plaza as well as we should on this, but we think this will be a great amenity. We have also included a conceptual development plan for the southern residential areas, including street extensions of the existing stub streets as requested and, then, we also added a future office development area on the far eastern portion of the property. You know, one of the thoughts that keeps coming up is we should have a connection to Fox Run to the far east and we have shown a potential place for that -- actually, two places for that to be extended if the adjacent property owners would agree to allow that. The first is really on the southern end of where the Brighton property matches our property and we could take it across there and tie into Fox Run, which would service the residential also like the other streets, direct -- directly south of that and, then, another spot we thought may be along the drive aisle that's closer to Chinden where that would not need to tie into Fox Run, but it could circulate with our property and their property and we could work together on -- on just more circulation for the adjacent properties. And, then, finally, we understand that our live-work village area is a different concept for one to consider at this location, because of the high traffic on 20-26 and the future traffic on Linder, but our intent is to create a village mixed-use center within a center, utilizing this property and recognizing this is a large site. This is 80 acres. We feel like having offices on the bottom floor and some residential above that and we are probably looking at a two-story building here, be it rental residences or sales, we think it would be very marketable when thinking about the changing needs of residential in the Meridian market, in the Treasure Valley in general, and, then, also the extended stay of folks that are visiting the temple in the area. So, we -- we think that would be very marketable and our plan with berming and so forth and the setback off of Chinden we think that would work fine. I would like to now introduce John Ringert with Kittelson & Associates to provide more detail on the planned traffic improvements for Chinden. Thank you. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 30 of 89 Ringert: Good evening. De Weerd: And, Mr. Ringert, you have three minutes left of the applicant's time, so -- Ringert: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: -- use it wisely. Ringert: Okay. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Ringert: John Ringert with Kittelson & Associates. 101 South Capital Boulevard, Suite 301, Boise, Idaho. 83702. De Weerd: Thank you. Ringert: We did the traffic work for Linder Village and I'm just going to give a really brief presentation and, hopefully, keep it under three minutes. De Weerd: I think you need to speak a little bit more directly into the -- Ringert: Yeah. I know. These mics always get me. I'm just like two in ches too tall to get the right angle here. So, let's see, I -- I don't know where Dave put my slides. At the end. I say keep going. Okay. There is me. Okay. I will just start off by saying this site is challenging. It's not -- it doesn't matter what goes in here, it's a challenging site. It's been -- we have had a lot of commercial development built up. The transportation improvements are -- are still waiting to happen. The two key issues are really, one, the intersections along this section of Chinden are operating pretty near capacity and in the background -- basically background without our site, they reach capacity. So, essentially, at Meridian Road it's already pretty congested today. It's going to get worse in the next two years and there is no one -- there is no funded improvements yet. ITD is slowly working on Chinden and State Highway 44 down from Eagle Road doing widening, but they are kind of swapping between the two and so we are looking at many years out before we are probably going to be all the way to Linder. Second thing is is this site doesn't have any signalized access. So, if you think about trying to turn out onto Chinden today, it's not the easiest turn. You need something. And even if you take a right turn on Linder doing U-turns and other things trying to get around, it can't serve a site of this size. So, those are kind of the two big things. Let's see. How do I get to the -- so, what we have gone through and worked with ITD and ACHD on is basically an improvement package that goes well beyond what I think -- I have seen any other development do in this area, other than maybe the Village at Meridian. So, essentially, what we would do is starting from the left-hand side here, the turquoise color, is widen Chinden Boulevard, get the five lanes in immediately. This would likely come in slightly before the ITD project that's under design right now, just because they Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 31 of 89 have a little longer process they use, but we would basically design the same section of roadway that they are designing for Eagle through Locust Grove. Optimally that would be expanded to matching with their project when their project comes in, so both would match and we would have five lanes from Eagle all the way through Linder Road. Then if we head into our site, out site would include widening along the frontage, a brand new signal at Bergman, which would serve both sides of the road potentially and we have essentially right of way and just -- and space -- and setbacks for our buildings to -- for a future CFI as a continuously flow intersection proposed by ITD. Finally if you go to the south, ACHD's completing design for widening of Linder Road, so that's already planned and that's going to be built in any case and that will match right in with the timing for this project. So, essentially, what we are going to get is a complete system widening of -- De Weerd: That little bell says you're out of time. Ringert: Okay. De Weerd: I think, Council, I would ask -- Transportation is a large -- you have read the letters and the large concern -- would you extend that the time on this? Palmer: Oh, really. De Weerd: And we will add it to the HOA representative for any of their testimony. Okay. Ringert: Thank you, Mayor. I will still be quick. So, essentially, what we plan to do is widen Chinden. We are going to expand the Chinden-Linder intersection even more by finalizing this expansion to -- with double lefts eastbound and westbound and getting the full five lane approaches. We are going to put the new signal at Bergman. That's -- and that's because I know that was a concern by some planning commissioners and some people that -- that testified. That does add a little delay. There is -- there is no -- there is no question that adding a signal adds a little delay, but the amount of delay that adds on that corridor is small compared to what you can say if you widened it to five lanes. So -- so, that's really the issue is it's really a package here. How can we -- how can we get the project to work -- a site to work and get some benefit to the traveling public. Also we want to -- we are giving the ability also to help that future widening from ITD. So, if we can get this to five lanes our plan right now is to try to get the right of way for all seven lanes on this side of the road. That's our deal with ITD and they are working with us on that right of way piece. So, essentially, this would also -- for that whole section from Meridian Road to our site provides that -- that leg up that they would need also for a future seven lane widening and the CFI. See if that's all. So, you know, what we are proposing is significant. We are trying to accommodate the future and the new signal at Bergman really gets this development -- this site a chance to get some access. Also potentially gives the north side a chance to get some access. We understand that this is a brand new site plan. This is a new site plan to us also. So, obviously, as you see from ACHD's letter, we need to do some updates to the traffic study. That means Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 32 of 89 they are mostly concerned about Linder and the access to Linder is substantially changing, so that's a reasonable request. Also before there wasn't specific connections to the local neighborhood, we can -- we can address that, too, depending on, you know, where this process ends up with how those connections are -- are designed or laid out. Unless there is any questions I think that's all I have to say. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Ringert: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is public testimony time and I will just point out on the screen up at the podium it gives you the timer, so you will always be able to know how much time you have, so -- and each -- is it three minutes? However, if Paramount has a spokesperson, HOA president, that person will be afforded ten minutes, plus a minute and 44 seconds. Mr. Clerk. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. Just so you know, we have several pages of sign-ups this evening. Several on the sign-in sheet did indicate they wished to waive their time to certain individuals. I have done the count. There are at least four representatives representing different numbers of folks this evening, just as a matter of information. So, this evening -- first on that list is Sally Reynolds and by my count Sally is representing at least nine individuals in the audience this evening. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. You will have six minutes then. Eastman: I have six minutes? De Weerd: Are you the spokesperson for the -- the neighborhood? Eastman: I am one of them, but enough people have waived so I can have a ten minute presentation. De Weerd: We generally don't just add them all up, but -- Eastman: Oh. De Weerd: -- Council, do you have any problem with ten minutes on this individual? Bird: How many minutes? De Weerd: Ten. Go ahead. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 33 of 89 Eastman: Thank you. My name is David Eastman. I reside at 1192 West Bacall Street, Meridian, Idaho, and tonight I think it's very appropriate that we step back a little bit and my presentation is to outline the relationship historically on this plat that developers had with the city, the residents, so on and so forth. And this actually goes back ten years, way back to 2007. We were introduced to the developer David McKinney and Greg Goins before he became vice-president of real estate at WinCo was also in partnership with Mr. McKinney to develop this. We were introduced -- can everybody hear me okay? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Eastman: We were introduced to the developer and basically what he presented to us ten years ago in introducing us to this project was that this project is a done deal. This project has been approved. There is really nothing that the citizens of the community can do to disrupt the momentum that this project has. So, understandably that being our first introduction to the project, everybody in the community kind of went nuts and we looked around, tried to find out how we had gotten excluded from the process, contacted the Mayor, contacted planning, contacted ITD. We found in contacting the Mayor's office -- Mayor de Weerd, actually, that -- how do I get this to advance here? No, but if I press the space bar -- oh, I can press down or over. Allen: Is there an arrow? Eastman: There is not. The mouse -- the mouse is not even -- ah, there we go. Is that you or is that me? Allen: It's me. Eastman: Okay. So, you get to be my advancer. We found out the Mayor had actually not -- if you can advance it -- the plot and she -- Mayor de Weerd, I'm sure you remember every single e-mail you have written and you wrote me one ten years ago saying -- and if I could just highlight what you had said in the middle of this, that there was several strong messages that we relate -- you said you had met with the developer sometime earlier and when they expressed interest in developing this land. You said there were several strong messages that we relate to these property owners, an expectation of quality development to reflect the surrounding area. No access to Chinden. Only the half mile. The need for a backage or frontage road and the look of big boxes did not fit the vision of the area. As well, since the area is noted in our Comprehensive Plan as mixed use, there would be -- need to be a mix of uses, which made us very happy to understand that we had not been excluded from the process. If you could. We followed up with ITD and found out, actually ITD had not approved the access to the north side of the property and ITD sent me a letter and the last sentence of the paragraph that we tabled over to you and recommendations regarding the variance for the following reasons and, then, they said that there were compliance issues with the city's plans. If you could. Actually, we went back to the planning staff and had a meeting with them on August 30th with Anna Canning. And, Sonya, you Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 34 of 89 were there and I'm sure you remember every meeting you went to ten years ago. But, basically, Planning and Zoning said we will not accept your application -- or planning staff said we will not accept your application unless you address traffic and access issues, you address neighborhood concerns and you address reconciliation with the Comprehensive Plan. This project as they saw it was so far from the Comprehensive Plan that they were hesitant to even entertain accepting the applications. What came out of this meeting -- and I was in it -- was the developer was told go back, converse with the residents and come up with an acceptable solution. Sonya. What happened was the developer did not contact the residents. Did not do anything with the neighborhood to come up with an acceptable solution. Sonya. This actually disturbed us and, then, worried us, rightly so, and so we circulated a petition. This was an old school petition. Some of you may remember receiving this if you were around ten years ago. Four hundred and fifty people within one mile radius of the proposed development signed this petition and we submitted it to the Mayor, City Council, ACHD, ITD, and we received e-mails acknowledging the receipt. But, anyway, in the petition all we asked was no variances be allowed to the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint For Good Growth and tell the developer -- address his access and traffic issues, just like the Mayor said in her e-mails, like Planning Department had said, and submits a plan that closely -- more closely reflects the Meridian Comprehensive Use Plan, just like the planning department and the Mayor's e-mail had said. We submitted these in response to the developer, who did not contact the residents to work out an acceptable plan. In fact -- if you could, please. The developer never even got to a point where the city would accept its application and so this is what they left off with at the end of 2007. September of 2007 you can see that there are a significant amount of box -- big box spaces butting up against residential use, the parking lot, multiple access points, creating a traffic mess. None of the concerns that the city or the residents had at the time had been addressed. Sonya, if you would, please. This is where we are after ten years. We have -- and I realize the developer did tweak one of the buildings and turn it a little bit askew, but here is what we basically have is we have a bunch of big box residentials that butted up against -- or I'm sorry. Big box commercials butting up against residential property. This is the Costco -- the initial Costco, June 2017, that they -- Sonya, if you would, please. That they submitted to the city. So, they submitted an application to planning staff. Did not address any resident concerns of traffic, it's mixed use, and to add onto it, they were proposing another complication of the 24/7 operation adjacent to residential use. The staff report noted -- and Sonya said numerous and significant problems with the plan and recommended that the developer address them. They did not. They moved on. The P&Z hearing of August 3rd -- Sonya, if you would, please. In August 3rd they continued -- requested a continuance to September. In the meantime Costco announced that it had chosen a better location on Ten Mile. Now, at this point when the developers anchor tenant pulled out, they had the chance to go back to the community and say, look, we have got to turn this on its head, our anchor tenant has pulled out, let's work -- let's work for something that would work as a community, as a good location for the community and something that would serve the community, instead of shoehorning a bunch of big boxes right next to residential. Sonya, if you would, please. The developer chose not to contact the residents and work for an acceptable plan. Sonya, if you would, please. September 7th -- in fact, September 7th Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 35 of 89 the developer appears in Planning and Zoning, they had continued to October 19. They hadn't even taken Costco off the plan at that point and in this continuance request they said they needed more time to address community feedback, but they did not address community feedback. In fact, two weeks later they submitted a revised plan that was dated September 5th, two days before the meeting where they said that they would address community feedback. So, there was no intent to address community feedback, they had the plan, they requested a continuance and submitted the plan they already had. October 19th Planning and Zoning. Unanimous recommendation for denial as you know. The Commission concerns were traffic and access issues, to not following the Comprehensive Plan, 24/7 operations. If you would, please, Sonya. The developer made it clear in this meeting that they would not make any substantive changes to the plan to address the important issues. In fact, Commissioner Bernt said: I asked the developer point blank are you willing to change it and he said no. I mean it's on the record. I purposely asked that question hoping that he would at least listen to homeowners, listen to staff, listen to the direction that we have given them. Sonya. Commissioner McCarvel. Commission has traditionally granted up to two continuances and I guess I was a little disappointed in seeing what finally came out of that extra time and, then, with the staff report and everything that it's still not addressed from what's been asked. So, I think it's been a little bit misrepresented with this new plan, how they presented it to the residents. It was just a handful of people, maybe a dozen. It was not everybody within 300 feet and they basically presented this new -- a plat they have tonight and they at the same time reiterated the fact that they will not address traffic and access issues, they will not reconcile it closer to the comprehensive use plan. Sorry. And they will not address the 24/7 operations. Sonya, if you would, please. So, really, what they are asking you to do tonight is ignore the importance of the comprehensive use plan, ignore the reasoning behind the unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission, ignore the serious concerns of hundreds of residents in the surrounding community, ignore the Council's own accountability to those who elected them to serve and I'd kind of like to take a break and say for ten years we have been working with these guys trying to get something out of them. We want something there, but this is being shoehorned in and they said they will not address these significant issues. It's been consistent over the ten years of having them try and develop something back there. This is not something where we are stamping our feet and saying no, no, no. We want something that serves the community and we think it's possible. But they are unwilling to change and it's on the record and so what we are asking is that you deny this and the reason why we are asking that you deny this is to send them back, give him adequate time to start with a clean slate, to work with the community, to work with Planning staff to come up with something that works and address the concerns that have been brought forth for the last ten years and I ask that you deny this and I'm open to any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 36 of 89 Palmer: Madam Mayor. Sir, the number one point that you have got on here that they are refusing to address traffic and access concerns. Do you have any comment about the traffic and access concerns that said four minutes and 44 seconds? Eastman: Well, I have got -- there will be other people presenting, getting into more technical details tonight. So, we will cover traffic and we will cover the comprehensive use plan. But my goal here tonight is just to outline the history and where the community is vis-à-vis this developer. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Palmer: Madam Mayor. And, sir, with the address that you provided you are extremely close -- you back up to -- to this property, so I'm curious your feeling about the -- the traffic and access presentation that we received, the widening of the roads and -- Eastman: I think my personal -- as someone who uses Chinden I think -- I mean bordering the back of the property is not going to have as much -- the traffic is not going to have as much impact as someone who uses Chinden, so I'm in the boat with a bunch of other people and the developer admittedly said that point on Chinden if you put a signal on it, it's going to slow down significantly to below 30 miles an hour. So, you have a 55 mile an hour corridor that slows down significantly, because they are -- they are proposing access and a signal and so, yes, as somebody who backs up to that particular property I think it would be equal to me for somebody who was anywhere else in the development trying to use Chinden and Linder. See what I'm saying? Palmer: Madam Mayor, follow up? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Palmer: So, you're concerned that there is too much access to the arterials? Eastman: Yes. Palmer: Okay. That helps. Thanks. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: So, a lot of this has to do -- seems to have to do with their lack of communication of the neighbors over the last ten years and their lack of -- the developer didn't ask you what it is that you wanted. So, I just -- I'd like to know what you -- what Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 37 of 89 do you think would work for the community. You guys have all been talking about it, just a couple ideas. I'm not asking for you to do the development, but -- Eastman: Oh, sure. Milam: -- all -- we have had e-mails and that's all we have heard is deny, deny, deny, deny and I'm curious what -- if you said there is something that would work, what -- in you guys' mind what is that? Eastman: You know, I think Planning and Zoning had a brilliant idea and it really goes along with mixed use community, which is just flip the thing upside down. I mean that's really what a mixed use community is, a gradual transition from residential to commercial and we -- we have talked -- we have asked -- there have been communications, but the developer is not willing to -- to address any of our concerns. I mean when we point blank asked them, you know, would you be willing to put WinCo up here on the corner of Linder and Chinden just on the north side of the property and he said flat out no and we say, well, is there any possibility that we could do that, even if you're looking down the barrel of denial. Nope, we will absolutely not do that. And we think that mixed use community is a wonderful idea. We are excited to have services, we are excited to have shopping, but not have it the way it -- it's absolutely backwards for what it should be and so if they start -- and, again, this is why we are recommending denial. Wipe the slate clean, start flipping on it -- flipping it on its axis and start over again. Milam: Madam Mayor? So, what I hear you saying is if they were to flip this around, you're pretty sure everybody in your neighborhood and the surrounding area would be happy with it at that point? Eastman: I think it would alleviate a lot of the concerns that we have on the mixed use side. But, you know, there is still the access side and there is still the 24/7 aspect of it. I think a lot of people -- and I shouldn't speak for everybody, but I think a lot of people would be more assuaged if we had the WinCo on the north side of the property and the 24/7 access wouldn't be such an issue. But we have got it right next to the residential. Milam: Thank you. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Sorry for the questions, but in this hearing the applicant's mentioning of the fuel station, the drive-thrus, and you're talking about wanting to flip it over, would -- do you believe those that you are representing or yourself would you feel comfortable having those types of businesses closer to the residential side? That being said, that would require -- especially the drive-thrus, because a lot of businesses are experiencing this issue, if a drive-thru is within 300 feet of a residence it requires a conditional use permit, Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 38 of 89 which then means having more neighborhood meetings and approvals from Planning and Zoning and whatnot and so I guess -- again, the question is those type of businesses, are you okay with those kind of being down there or would you rather scramble -- Eastman: Well, I think that's -- I think that's more of a blanket reorganization. So, I think -- am I interested in flipping everything around and making a mirror image of what it is? No. It's going to require some work with community and it's going to require some work. That is a drive-thru, but if you look at work-life, that's on the northwest corner of this property. Work-life should not be on the northwest corner, it should be closer to the residences. You look at future office and services over on the eastern side, that should be closer to the residences and so, no, I don't -- I don't support having a bunch of drive- thrus adjacent to residential, but I do support reorganizing. And, again, this is why we are pushing for denial, which isn't we don't want anything here, it's more, okay, let's take a break, let's wipe the slate clean, let's go through point by point and figure out how we can make everybody happy and it is possible. I truly believe that it's possible. Palmer: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Eastman: Thank you. Coles: As mentioned before, Sally Reynolds was on the list requesting ten minutes this evening as a representative of multiple in the audience. Reynolds: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council. My name is Sally Reynolds. I reside at 1166 West Bacall Street in Meridian, Idaho. So, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I represent a group of citizens, Preserve Meridian, who are here to urge you to uphold the Council's unanimous recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to reject this application and to defer any annexation and zoning of the plan until such a time that Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and approved an acceptable plan from the developer that addresses the major concerns of the residents. I gave -- last month I gave a detailed technical presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and submitted a written copy to the public record. So, I'm going to assume that you're familiar with it and I'm not going to completely rehash those tonight, except to stress that this community is excited to have development. Personally I go to ten businesses on the periphery of Paramount and we really would love more choices besides Taco Bell and McDonald's. So, we welcome the businesses that would be coming there. Anyone versed in the history of this application knows that it has been a long road getting to this point. For those who are listening sounds familiar. When presented with the original Linder Village site plan, the residents in adjacent areas resoundingly opposed it, not because it was development, but because of the way it was laid out. Asking the developer to address four major areas of concern, proximity of 24/7 to -- operations to existing homes. The footprint size of several proposed buildings. The addition of a traffic light and safety Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 39 of 89 issues surrounding access points to the commercial areas that would feed a substantial volume of traffic through the already crowded residential streets. In particular high school students speeding through -- particularly high school students speeding through the neighborhood to grab a quick lunch. In essence, the residents asked the developer to clean up their room and just like kids do, the developer's response was to ignore and delay as long as possible. It wasn't until after the unanimous recommendation from P&Z to deny the application -- basically threatening to ground the developer for a year that any changes were made to the plan in a last-ditch effort to appear to this Council as if real progress had been made. What we have today here, however, is equivalent to shoving everything under the bed and into a closet. Things appear a little better if you don't look too close, but almost all the fundamental issues remain. We do appreciate the effort of the developer to provide a little more pedestrian-friendly feel with the new plaza design, the revised site plan also eliminates direct access between the residential and commercial areas. Unfortunately, ACHD per a letter that was submitted this week, insists on routing high commercial traffic through a narrow residential street, so it's unclear if that change will be allowed to remain. We also acknowledge that the new revised site plan is finally complete. It has become apparent, however, that the biggest problem is that they have anchored themselves, pun intended, to a regional retailer who has no interest in being part of the established community. As one P&Z Commissioner stated, this is not a referendum on WinCo, close quote, whether they are a good company, whether they have low prices, whether we shop there and like them. This is a question of if their business model and practices fit at this location. Putting a 24 hour regional destination retailer in a mixed-use community is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. The entire design has to revolve around that one retailer who doesn't fit, because they refused to make any meaningful compromises. Residents who are willing to compromise on having WinCo in this development have repeatedly asked WinCo to compromise either hours or location. If the hours -- if the store is in its current location, then, the operating hours should be limited. If the store remains 24/7, then, it should be located on the northwest corner of the property per the P&Z -- one of their suggestions by the Commission. So far WinCo has been unwilling to compromise on either of those, despite the fact that the location, the hours, and the size of the footprint of the building all violate the MCU designation. The P&Z staff gave them an even lower threshold to meet. The message from the P&Z staff and Commission was very clear, quote, if the WinCo store is turned so the rear of the building and loading docks are facing Linder, end quote, they expected the back of the store to run parallel with Linder Road with the self -- the store itself acting as a buffer against the noise of loading, unloading idling trucks. WinCo made claim that rotating the store 45 degrees meets the P&Z requirement, but it was literally a half-hearted and halfway gesture that does not fulfill the intent of the P&Z staff report. In fact, WinCo demanded additional parking in conjunction with this rotation despite the P&Z's commission view that when they looked at the design all they saw was parking lot. Flipping the store's footprint was not a concession either. That is an option that WinCo has. It does not affect their business either way. This is another example of the applicant trying to pass off minor changes as major concessions. In the end, these changes do not even address the fundamental concerns of residents. The applicant claims that residents will be buffered by a park, a backage road, a roundabout, a walking path, landscaping, and a sound wall. With the Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 40 of 89 exception of a sound wall and landscaping, none of those features provide any meaningful buffering to residents. In fact, the buffering shown on the south edge of the property may ultimately be nonexistent due to a 20 foot irrigation easement which limits the type of concrete and trees that can be put there. These responses over the last four months show WinCo has no desire to be part of the community. They only want the land. Perhaps WinCo has interpreted the city slogan built for business, designed for living, to mean that their interest come first. Tonight is City Council's opportunity to let the residents of Meridian know if this interpretation is correct. There are still a litany of smaller issues that remain. As Sonya alluded to, there is several buildings that exceed maximum footprint and size. The movie theater will be 50,000 square feet. The office building will be 48,000 square feet, which would require more open space here in this area. These larger footprints mean that it needs more parking. Two of the Commissioners noted that when they looked at this plan all they see is a parking lot and all those parking spaces require lights at night, especially around a 24-hour store. In this plan the developer also relies wholly on small landscape buffers to transition areas instead of transitioning using buildings that slowly increase in intensity of usage and many times I will note on their open space plans they are counting these landscape buffers as qualifying for the open space requirement when they specifically do not and this leads to nonresidential buildings, which are still not proportional and blend in with a -- with adjacent residential buildings. The applicant maintains that the new plan now closely resembles the figure 3-3 in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan depicting what a mixed-use community should be. We do not agree. These issues are in addition to the leniency which has already been shown by the P&Z staff, namely, they granted a departure from the FLUM in allowing the applicant to reduce the number of residential from 24 acres down to 16 acres and so you can see if we had abided by the future land use map the total residential that should have been included in these 80 acres is almost 35 acres. As it stands now, because they are redesignating it all as mixed-use community, they are using that residential portion to satisfy their 20 percent requirement of mixed-use community and cut it down to the very bare minimum to satisfy that requirement and this also -- this calculation also has an impact of the amount of open space, which they are supposed to have. Finally, P&Z staff waives the requirement for community servicing facility -- or facilities. Because Paramount already have -- has these nearby, it wasn't required for them to put them in the mixed-use community and regularly you would see community serving facilities in an MUC, which because it's a butt up next to Paramount, that's more land that they don't have to use in their 80 acres to serve the community and that they can use for a revenue-generating retail real estate. All of this clearly points to a need to deny the application. A denial will give WinCo the opportunity to decide if they really want to be part of the community. It will allow the developer time to continue to work with residents on a revised plan that addresses major concerns. It will also allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and approve the plan before it returns to the city and it sends a message to Meridian residents that Meridian standards are -- that the City Council values their quality of life. We also urge the City Council to defer annexation until a preliminary plat is approved. Annexation is a privilege, not a right. Many communities have CC&Rs. When one person moves -- when a person moves into that community they agree to follow the CC&Rs, which are there to make the neighborhood an enjoyable place to live Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 41 of 89 and protects property values for everyone. Similarly, the city has guidelines that they ask developers to follow if they want their land to be part of the city. Those guidelines have not been met. So, we respectfully request that you deny this application. We believe that they could be a positive addition to our community if WinCo and the developer where to abide by the spirit and the intent of the mixed-use community designation. Thank you. De Weerd: Good timing. Reynolds: Stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Coles: Next on the list is David McKinney. Not the applicant. The other David McKinney representing Paramount, I believe. De Weerd: Not Paramount HOA? McKinney: Yes. I have been asked to speak on behalf of the Paramount HOA advisory board. De Weerd: Okay. McKinney: I would request some additional time in that respect. I live at 1225 West Bacall Street in the Paramount Subdivision. Again, Bacall is just to the south of the project site. De Weerd: Mr. McKinney, you're asking for more than ten minutes? McKinney: No. De Weerd: Okay. McKinney: No, I'm not. De Weerd: Thank you. McKinney: Well, I guess I get an extra minute and 44 or something for traffic. I'm an attorney, I'm also a civil engineer, and my background in engineering is primarily in traffic and highway engineering. I have done work on many projects for a number of years for the Ada County Highway District and for the Idaho Transportation Department. I worked for two different consulting engineering firms that are here in the area before becoming an attorney and going to the dark side. I also served on the Planning and Zoning Commission in another city for about six years, so I'm very familiar with all of the issues that relate to development, that relate to good planning, and that relate to making a city the kind of place that people want to live and that's what Meridian is and can Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 42 of 89 remain if it -- if it follows the plans it's already got in place. Now, as a -- as a traffic engineer that's going to be my subject to discuss or some of the concerns about traffic and I think the key thing for the Council to keep in mind is that what the Council does here on this project will set a precedent. This is the first major commercial development that's being proposed in the City of Meridian along Chinden and if the city does the kinds of things -- or allows the kinds of things that happened along Eagle Road, Chinden will end up being the same way that Eagle Road is now and Eagle Road does not function as it's intended. It's supposed to be a high-speed arterial highway and it is not. Even though the posted speed limit is 55, rarely can you actually drive 55, unless you get up in the middle of the night or -- at another rare times. The reason for that is because of all of the access points along Eagle Road, primarily unsignaled access, because they have still maintained the signals at half mile spacing along Eagle Road from -- you know, from the freeway to Chinden, but they have got all sorts of other access points along the way. That creates friction in a highway. A highway is like a pipeline. The more friction you have along the way, the less you can pump through that pipeline. Well, the same is -- that's true with Eagle Road and if we allow the kind of access that this developer is requesting along Chinden, Chinden will develop in the same way that Eagle Road has. Now -- and for that reason we request that this Council uphold the decision -- or the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the application. Now, like the others, again, we are not opposed to development here. We want a development here, but it needs to be done in a smart way, it needs to be done in the right way and traffic issues are one of those. Chinden is a statewide route and currently during the morning and evening piece is that level of service F. It's a failing route. Now, that's because it's a two lane farm access road that's now gotten lots more traffic than it was designed for and that's understood. ITD has a plan to widen it and expand it, but that plan is several years down the line. It's going to be a couple of years before the segment from Eagle Road to Locust Grove is widened and even longer before we get all of it widened out and past Linder Road. Because of that, the proposed widening the developer is proposing here at this site, while it's good, it doesn't solve the whole problem. It can't solve the whole problem. I'm happy with widening of the road and that will be a helpful step. But since the road is already narrow between Meridian Road and Locust Grove and, then, onto Eagle, the backup stretches on through this entire area. So, just widening this area doesn't solve the problems that Chinden has. Now, adding a signal into the mix -- the developer has stated many times that the signal will help improve the flow, will allow the terms and so on and so forth. What the developer is comparing that to is the way things are now. An additional signal that's more than every half mile, meaning more frequent than every half mile, will not improve the condition of the road ultimately. That's what we have to look for, because while they are saying that this signal will be temporary, that's temporary until the continuous flow intersection is built, which according to the current schedule at ITD is 2026, almost ten years from now and we know that those schedules tend to get longer, not shorter. Now, the -- but to put chapter and verse to it, the three major flaws with the proposal of the applicant relate to, first of all, the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act, Section 39.03.42, which specifies signalized intersections no closer than one half mile along statewide routes. This violates that. They are requesting a variance to do that. Likewise, the COMPASS regional Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 43 of 89 transportation plan specifies Chinden as an expressway, with signalized intersections no closer than one half mile apart and, finally, the Meridian City Code, Section 11-3H-4, specifically outlines what developers have to do when they are adjacent to a statewide route, whether it's Eagle Road, State Highway 55 and in this case Chinden, 20-26. Here is what it says: In -- and I'm quoting directly from the city code. Use of existing approaches can be allowed to continue if certain conditions are met and none of those conditions apply here. So, that can't happen. The existing approaches can't be used. The farm approaches, et cetera, where the farmer could get access to his property. If an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approaches shall cease and the approaches shall be abandoned and removed. No new approaches directly accessing the state highway shall be allowed. Then the applicant shall construct a street, generally paralleling the state highway, to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the property and the main highway. That's the access road that's been talked about, a connection from Linder Road to Fox Run Way. That's precisely what our city code calls for and it's the failure of that to be enforced along Eagle Road that has caused our problems there. We can avoid that problem if the city makes sure that unless this is being followed, approval for the project doesn't go forward. You see, because what the developers do is they go to the Idaho Transportation Department or the Ada County Highway District and get a letter saying, oh, yeah, we can have a signal here, we can have a signal here, and if they have gotten approval for their development before they get that approval from these agencies, then, the city cannot enforce this code, this statute, this ordinance. What the city needs to do is make sure that unless this is observed they don't get approval in the first place, so what ACHD and ITD do can't circumvent the intent of the city to keep development within the -- within the bounds we want. Okay? To make this the kind of city -- to make it remain the kind of city that we want. Now, there are still some variances from this section of the city code that would still be needed. I do believe a right-in, right-out access along Chinden or a couple of them would be appropriate. If you look, for example -- and the applicant in their letter responding to the denial from -- the recommendation of denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission, they gave some good examples about the reasons to allow a variance for an intersection -- or, yeah, a signalized intersection. The Council has to make findings that, number one, the variance does not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. Two, the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site and, three, the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Now, as an example of this kind of variance being granted they pointed to The Village, what it was called during its proposal time as the Meridian Town Center. At The Village the City Council approved a variance and in saying that -- in looking at that first criteria, that it doesn't grant a right or special privilege that is not allowed in the district, they said granting the request would not grant a right or special privilege to the applicant that is not otherwise allowed, as there are several access points to the state highway that were previously approved on adjacent properties. See, what happens is if the Council approves this kind of variance here, now we are tied. We are handcuffed. Every single developer coming along will say, oh, well, we meet this criteria, because you have done it on other developments. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 44 of 89 It's really -- in the end it's circular reasoning. It's saying we have got to do it here, because we screwed up and did it before and that's the kind of -- that's bad government. That's not good government. That's not what we want here. The issues about undue hardship -- there was a little bit of an undue hardship here, because access to this site -- you know, it's just a big farmer's field. That can be relieved with the road that connects to Fox Run and Linder Road. And, finally, health, safety and welfare -- the welfare of the driving public is going to be hindered by an additional signalized intersection along Chinden, rather than not at all, you see. Now, let me just -- and the -- the developer in some of our meetings with -- with the residents has said that Brighton Corporation won't work with them, won't agree to extend a connecting road to Fox Run Way. Well, the reality is at this point I have never seen anything that corroborates that. It's just hearsay from the developer. And that would be really an unfortunate basis to move forward. But even if that's the case, there are methods and ways that the city can encourage, if -- if by no other means through condemnation, the city can get that access road put through, in combination -- you know, working with Ada County Highway District, that can be done. The -- the Brighton Corporation is going to have to have an access to their property there anyway on -- on Fox Run Way, so getting a road through that can provide the kind of circulation and access that's appropriate for this site is entirely possible and let me just end with this. If you look at The Village, as I mentioned earlier, The Village does not have any full access to Eagle Road or Fairview. It's only full access is via the other roads that connect. It's River Valley Drive and the other one - - I forget the name of it that goes up to the Kleiner Park. The -- the other -- all other access points along Fairview and Eagle Road are right-in, right-out and what we request this Council to do is to deny the applicant -- deny the application, because they have an access plan that's inconsistent with the standards that are in city code, the standards for the Idaho Transportation Department, and the standards for the -- the COMPASS plan and even though they are doing many good things, even though they have made some improvements in this site, this is one of the major issues that they haven't addressed. In short it sounds like -- or it seems to us like the developer is trying to shoehorn a C-G development into a C-C zone by asking for variances for this and that and the other and that's inappropriate and that's the reason we want the Council to deny this application. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? I just have to take you on a history of this area as well, if we are talking transportation. The City of Meridian has tried to work hard at maintaining the half mile access points, but when Fred Meyer went in across the street they really disadvantage this piece of property by the access that the state gave and it disadvantaged, actually, all three corners in the City of Meridian. So, to right that access was granted to those as well. This -- I don't think anyone in Paramount wants all of the traffic from this development to go through Fox Run and I think that the developer and Brighton Corporation have been in discussions on it and City of Meridian doesn't have condemnation to get this. We have tried for years to try and get the two to talk and find a way. That light is an equalizer for this large piece of property to -- to gain some kind of equality to -- to the other development. So, I think that the compromise here as -- is what ITD worked with a developer and with Brighton Corporation on, they looked at what Fox Run would look like. I don't think -- I think we would have more of Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 45 of 89 an out -- outrage if you saw what that would look like and what it would impact the neighbors in -- in making that just one half mile wide and we have been working on that for a long time. I hadn't seen this application, but this app -- this piece of property had some real disadvantages and challenges for transportation because of what was happening across the street and because there was very little that could be done at Fox Run to accommodate the amount of traffic that a regional mixed-use development would have on this corner, so -- and this has been a long time in discussion, probably since 2007 as Mr. Eastman said, in trying to figure out how this piece of property can access and analyze change. You have an intersection improvement that wasn't there at that time that Fred Meyer put in and they are having to deal with the improvements and the decisions that were made at that time, too. So, I think the transportation element to this is -- is there because there was a recognized problem -- problem in how to move traffic that would be generated by what was allowed on that piece of property. McKinney: Sure. I think it's worth noticing, though, that -- a couple of items. First of all, this isn't intended to be, nor is the requested zoning for a mixed-use regional development. This is intended to be mixed-use community and -- De Weerd: That's mixed use community as well. McKinney: Right. And there are many -- there are many ways that these problems can be solved. It may require the improvement and widening of the Fox Run intersection. It may include a variety of other changes, but it can be done within the framework that already exists. We don't have to start granting variance after variance and putting ourselves in a hole, so that every future developer down the road points to this and says, see, we get -- it will be unequal treatment if you don't do that for us. Speaking as an attorney, equal protection of the law is the -- the rallying cry of everyone who wants to make sure that they get everything everybody else gets and so that will be a problem down the road and if we set that precedent here, I think the city will live to regret it. De Weerd: Council, any other questions? McKinney: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Andrea Carroll representing a group called Protect Meridian has requested ten minutes. De Weerd: Good evening. Carroll: Good evening. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 46 of 89 Carroll: Absolutely. My name is Andrea Carroll. My address is 714 West State Street. I'm a land use attorney representing the group Protect Meridian and thank you for the opportunity to speak with each of you today about Linder Village. Thank you for the opportunity. Staff, if you would go to the first slide. This is actually my last slide. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry. I was thrown off a bit that both the Mayor and one of the City Council Members stepped out during my presentation. I would like to go through two of the -- I'm not going to rehash all of the points that I made in the memorandum that I submitted to the city last week, but I do want to touch on two legal issues that has sort of been updated with some additional information from the transportation agencies, as well as the staff presentation tonight. If you will go to the next slide. Looking at the Meridian City Code with regards to the hours of operation, the -- if you look at that -- that plain language and tonight was the first time that I heard from staff at the interpretation that the city approached this provision which is based on the platted status of the -- the parcel and so they are basing the -- their determination that it is not abutting based on the future subdivision of this parcel. I'd like to address the plain language of this provision, because certainly the plain language does not make that distinction and the language within this provision would be inconsistent with that interpretation. If you look at the -- if you will go to the next slide. If you look at the highlighted language, it's clear that this provision is focused on activity with -- surrounding the entire parcel. It's not just surrounding the activity that is taking place within the community -- or within the enclosure of the commercial building, it's looking at the trash compactors. It's looking at the traffic of clients that are visiting the commercial development. It's looking at the loading activities that are happening. These are not activities that focused necessarily to any given enclosure and certainly the -- the adverse effects from these activities, they don't cease to exist just because an applicant has subdivided the property at the end of the development. You know, if you look at the conditional use permit, the findings that I cited in the -- in the memorandum I submitted, you're looking at noise, you're looking at odor, you're looking at exhaust. None of that has anything to do with subdividing the property. Finally, if -- and if you will go to the next slide. If you look at the first part of the provision and you use the definitions that are contained within Meridian City Code, it becomes even more clear that that was not the intent of the City of Meridian in making this -- this requirement for a conditional use permit. Abut is defined as having a common border with a subject property. Property is defined as a lot or parcel and parcel specifically is defined as a tract of unplatted land. Unplatted. Or contiguous unplatted land. So, several parcels. As long as it's held in a single ownership and is considered a unit for the purposes of development. So, if any part of this development shares a common border with a residential use, which it absolutely does, then, by the plain language of the City of Meridian's code, a conditional use permit is required and the benefit that the city gets is -- are all of the findings that you have outlined in the conditional use permit -- required findings. The -- the consideration of the noise, the consideration of any of the exhaust, the pollution, any of the adverse effects of property owners. But the placement of the building itself, that does not determine whether or not a conditional use permit is required, it's required and, then, once you're making a decision on the conditional use permit, then, it becomes important. If you will go to the next slide. So, I also want to address the traffic issues, specifically because there are -- since I submitted my -- my memorandum there was Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 47 of 89 some additional information from ITD and ACHD, because they -- they clarified exactly what it was, what they were able to review with regard to this -- to this proposed development and just to back up a second, you know, everyone has a different role to play when you're developing land. The city has its own role, but ITD and ACHD, they have the exclusive jurisdiction of the roads and access points, but they do not have exclusive jurisdiction to consider traffic. The City of Meridian considers traffic as well, because the City of Meridian has the exclusive decision-making power to determine if this is an appropriate development for this location, they have to -- the City of Meridian has to consider that with regard to the zoning, the use, and the site plan. Certainly traffic plays a role. It plays a very important role. So, simply because ITD and ACHD have made statements about this development, it does not necessarily mean that they put their stamp of approval that they -- and certainly based on their own statements that they provided within this past week they have only looked -- the only information that was submitted as part of the traffic impact study was the commercial portion and it was the commercial portion of the original site plan, the one that included Costco. So, none of the information that's been provided to these agencies is updated with the new site plan and it also doesn't address the full impact of traffic, because that's what you're asked to approve here today is the full site plan, because they have leveraged the residential portion of this development in order to get the approval of the commercial development. So, they are leveraging it together. You have got to consider the traffic impact of the full site plan. One of the provisions of -- of LUPA that -- that's -- I know the city is very familiar with -- is the requirement for a written decision and a requirement within that written decision for findings of fact and conclusions of law and it certainly -- the responsibility of the City of Meridian to support all of its findings and I'd ask you to think about the -- the facts that have been submitted to you. There has not been a traffic impact study submitted to the city. The traffic impact study was submitted to ACHD and ITD. It's outdated. It's only a part of the development is what has been considered and you have got some statements from ITD and ACHD, but they are not definitive, they are not binding, they haven't made any final decisions, so as the City of Meridian is looking at the required findings, it has to make today, how do you support those finding? How do you support a finding that the traffic is going to be adequately mitigated? That the traffic is going to be manageable? Because what is in the record is a reference to the ITD corridor study for 2026, which documents that year after year there is -- there are increased fatalities, there are increased accidents, increased traffic. There is an important safety issue that is not being address and the City of Meridian cannot support the approval of this development with the findings that it has to make under its own code. So, the next slide. So, in conclusion, I ask that you consider the unwillingness of the developer in making changes to the proposed development. We have -- the City of Meridian has already asked the applicant if they are willing to limit the hours. No. They have asked the applicant are you willing to relocate the WinCo to the northwest corner of the development. The Planning and Zoning Commission asked them. No. I’m going to ask that you deny the zoning, the preliminary plat, and the -- and the variance, because the developer has had six months for this application pending and this application is still incomplete. So, they could use a year very well in coming back to the community representative and coming back to the City of Meridian with a plan that works for everyone. Thank you. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 48 of 89 De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do have one. Is it -- is it your position that the -- an approval would be premature with regards to the traffic, because an updated traffic analysis hasn't been completed? Not necessarily to deny it based on traffic issues, but to table the consideration? Carroll: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, a denial would be appropriate. This has been continued several times and with each continuance there seems to be an additional very minor change, but it's important that this application has been reworked several times and with every continuance there is additional public resources expended. There are additional community members that are -- there are community members who have adjusted their holiday and their travel plans based on this -- the City of Meridian's consideration of this permit. With every continuance is -- you have to ask yourself is it equitable to give additional time to this applicant to bring all of the things to the table that it should have had in the first place, when it's done so little to work with the community members during the course of this administrative process. And at the end of the day they haven't asked for a continuance today. They have asked for your approval and in order to approve you have to make those findings. If you can't make those findings based on what they have brought you today, I would ask that you deny it. Thank you. Are there any other questions? De Weerd: Any follow up? Borton: Yeah. Madam Mayor, just one. If -- if an applicant makes changes, minor or major to try and address certain concerns, even if it might be later in the game, and we receive requests to update traffic analysis -- you know, the letter from ACHD, the most recent one, and that analysis may or may not implicate additional changes on the -- the application, and the land use agency should review that updated analysis to make its determination, why would the request on that be to deny now, rather than to say let those agencies that we should be getting input from, provide that input in order for you to make a decision -- Carroll: Uh-huh. Borton: -- which may or may not be an approval or denial. If that agency input is important in the first place. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 49 of 89 Carroll: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, I absolutely -- I believe in following your -- your reasoning on that. My response would be that regardless of what ACHD and ITD were ever to conclude, what -- the question that they are asking themselves legally is a different question than what the City of Meridian is asked. They are looking at this -- the requested site access and trying to determine the safest, most appropriate site access, but they do not have the power -- the land use power to make the decision of is this an appropriate use. That would be invading the purview of the City of Meridian for them to do that. So, even if we had final conclusions from ACHD, from ITD, certainly that would give the City of Meridian additional information to take into account, but it certainly wouldn't mean that the City of Meridian would have to fall into line with whatever decision had been made, because they are not making the same decision, they are making a decision based on access, they are not necessarily making a decision as to whether or not the scale of this development is appropriate for the -- the property that the -- that the owner purchased and so -- I hope I'm answering your question, but, essentially, they are two different questions -- or potentially three different questions. The question that ITD is asking regarding Chinden, the question that ACHD is asking with regard to Linder and, then, the question that the City of Meridian asked, which is whether or not to do it at all, because those two agencies do not ask that question, only the City of Meridian can make the decision of yes or no, do we do this at all. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Brian Billings signed up as neutral on this project, with no indication of testimony. Jeremy Evans sign up in favor. There was no indication of testimony. De Weerd: Good evening. Evans: Thank you. It's been a while. My name is Jeremy Evans. I live at 5470 Linder, which is part of a project which is going to abut this project. I also used to live on Bacall Street next to a lot of the folks who are talking here today. So, I'm very familiar with this project. Since 2007 -- I think I e-mailed the Mayor in 2007 about it also and, you know, I appreciate the position you all are in. You play an important role in our system of government. We have a democracy, but it's not a pure democracy, we just pledge allegiance to the republic and there is a reason we talk about a republic, because we need to have elected leaders who make principled decisions in the best interest of everybody, not just on the most vocal people in the room. I have been part of this vocal group for a long time. I know that they are my friends and neighbors -- or they used to be and, you know, a lot of what they are saying is valid. They are good points. They are very smart people. But the bottom line is -- and you can see this in their testimony, they just don't want anything to go here. They want it to be a field. Their property is more valuable because there is a field behind it and if you look, for example, at their testimony, these same people last week stood up in our P&Z hearing and they said we want more commercial, Mr. Evans, in your property, because more residential is just going to add to our schools and our traffic routing and today they are standing up and saying, no, no, no, there is not enough commercial in this development. It's supposed Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 50 of 89 to be more residential. There is no principle there. They are just trying to keep their land free and clear and for -- you know, 11 years ago I had that conversation with them. They are very well disciplined and organized. They have got attorneys in the neighborhood. They have got city planners. Retired city planners. They know what they are supposed to say and what they don't say. They have a very curated webpage where they make sure that only the message they want is heard and so, then, you don't hear the, hey, we just don't want anything to go there. But that's what's underlying this. And if you look at the conflicting testimony here and in other places, it's very clear what's going on. Your job, as difficult as it may be, is to look through that and to say what is in the best interest of Meridian. So, let's look at perspective. We have been talking a lot about Meridian, but if you zoom up just maybe five miles, this corner isn't just important to Meridian, the reason this corner is so great it's because it connects to Chinden and to State Street that crosses the river and, then, to the south it cuts through the city and it connects to the highway. It's a -- it really is a regional intersection, unlike almost anything else until you get to Eagle and the growth since 2007 with WinCo -- I mean, sorry, with Fred Meyer and with the regional LDS temple going in there, it just reflects this. There is a demand for -- for a higher density user, because the traffic pattern, the geography simply demands it. It's what the market demands. The -- you know, I -- I only have 14 more seconds. I'm trying to apply to half an hour, but if you look here at what is best -- in the best interest of Meridian what the market demands and who is more adaptable and able to reflect that market, find the highest and best use for the property, I believe it's Mr. McKinney and the person who owns this property. He shouldn't have to beg for approval from a bunch of neighbors who can change their mind at a whim. Let him -- let him decide what to do his own property. De Weerd: If you can wrap up. Evans: And what he is asking is well within reason, well within what the plan anticipates. It's consistent with what's going on all around him and he should not be penalized just because the neighbors across the fence are very organized and very vocal. He should be allowed to do what's best for his property. Do you have any questions for me? De Weerd: Thank you. Evans: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Okay. Please. We have a list and when we get to you I'd love to have you come up. Coles: Joe Marshall signed up against with no indication of testimony. Marshall: Madam Mayor, Commissioners -- or Council Members. De Weerd: It's probably habit; right? Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 51 of 89 Marshall: There we go. And to be honest, I threw this in not knowing that they were actually going to put it up to show how much they changed. I put it in to show how much they haven't changed. My name is Joe Marshall. I live at 5937 North Arliss Avenue. I actually do have a little bit of expertise in land planning. I worked in development all through the '90s here in the valley and taught land planning for 15 years and, then, was a P&Z commissioner for seven. Worked with these guys. If we could go forward -- we have already seen all these. Keep going. Keep going. Because you asked -- Mrs. Milam, you had asked what do you want to see. Well, I have been listening. I am -- I have experience in land planning. I have been listening. I have read the Comprehensive Plan. I have been trying to be responsive to our -- all the neighbors, trying to listen to the input. I believe something like this might be a good starting point to start a discussion on how this property should develop. Number one, I'm going to tell you I studied -- ask anyone here involved with this development if they have any experience with a past successful mixed-use development. Have they ever done anything that's successful in mixed-use. Because what they are showing you is not going to be successful. I promise you. To be successful in -- and mixed use is the hardest type of development to do accurately and to do right. It is. It's very difficult. And what does it mean to be successful? Well, a general rule of thumb to me is if you refer to a place by the development name, that's a successful development. But if you refer to it by the store name, the development is not successful, the store is. So, I go down Eagle and I go to Lowe's. Successful store, but what development is it in? I go to Kohl's. I go to Albertson's. I go to those stores, those are successful stores and WinCo goes here it's going to be successful if you put it on a mud lot. There is a lot of demand for it. A lot of people want it there. A lot of people will shop there. You don't even have to put a parking lot up, just put a mud path, everybody will go, I promise. But they will be more successful if you can give people a reason to get out of their cars and walk. Mixed-use requires people to get out of their cars and walk around. Look at The Village. Oh, The Village. That's the development name. It's successful. Half of it is. The other half is strip malls. But generally speaking if you want a successful development you got to get people out of their cars and walking and this development that they presented does not. And I guess I'm out of time, so if you have any questions -- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I will ask a question about what you have depicted before us. Marshall: Uh-huh. Borton: Because this is a -- Marshall: This is something I put together real quick. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 52 of 89 Borton: Madam Mayor. If you could just briefly describe what principles you think are reflected here that are appropriate. Marshall: Okay. You have a central court that everybody -- that green area is meant to be plaza, walking space, maybe some pergolas, things like that. It gets people out of their cars and walking. That's what you absolutely have to have, because retailers are always more successful with walking traffic than they are drive-by traffic. You don't care about the cars going by unless they stop and so you have to have -- the developer should give reason for somebody to come here and so what the biggest thing in the U.S. right now -- what started several years ago in Europe is the food mall -- the food hall. It's a very -- it's kind of -- if you think of the food court in malls, they are all going out. they are going away. But this is several steps up from that. As of two years ago there were four in the United States. This year there is just over a hundred and they expect that to double by next year. It's the biggest thing going. You can Google it, you will find hundreds of articles about it on how it's the biggest thing going. It draws in all the foodies. Now, what made me think about it is they had -- they had suggested a farmer's market and that ties directly in to a farmer's market, because the restaurants that you want in a food hall our local, fresh -- they would do their shopping at the farmer's market over at the WinCo if you could pull in a butcher shop and a -- and a creamery or something like that. You give people a place to go and, then, they are going to walk around and do window shopping while they are -- they are going to their dinner or from their lunch or things like that. I don't know. It was just a thought on my part. You know, I don't know who they can attract and who they can't, but something needs to be there to pull people in and to me I was trying to address the layers that are called for in the Comprehensive Plan. You go less intense layers going away. So, I tried to make the WinCo work. Again, I think WinCo has it wrong. This may be developer driven or it may be client driven. I don't know who is all doing what, but WinCo has to realize people don't go to their store because of the parking lot in the front of the building, they go there because they know they are there, they need a reminder, like some nice signage out on the street, but they don't need to see the building. De Weerd: Did your question get answered? Borton: Madam Mayor -- Marshall: I could go on for hours. I'm sorry. I'm very verbose. Borton: Well, Madam Mayor, with that experience it's -- I like to kind of pick and learn a little bit from your perspective. When you -- when you speak of the development as being successful, is it an inward look as to what might be a design that creates the greatest bang for the buck for the -- for the operators or more outwardly successful as in consistent with what the city planned for? Marshall: Well, mutually it goes across the board for everybody, because it's the individual stores are more successful it raises rents, which -- which puts more money in the developer's pocket, which pays more taxes, which makes my home close by go up Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 53 of 89 in value, because everybody wants to live by it. Everybody wins across the board if this development is successful. Everybody. So, I don't want to see it not succeed and I'm going to tell you right now what I see and in my evaluation is that's not going to be successful. You're going to see successful businesses in there. WinCo will succeed. You bet. But, then, you're going to get a bunch of stores that will come and go. They will constantly try to fill certain areas. You're going to get -- the development itself will not be successful. Individual stores will be. They are going to disagree with me, but, I'm sorry, I have studied this for 30 years and I can tell you there are developers out of Portland and Seattle that have done very, very good mixed use developments. I have not seen one in this area at all. Where -- where in the valley do you see one? I mean The Village is partial and it was designers out of California. But only part of it is mixed -- I mean the other half is strip mall. De Weerd: Well, thank you, Joe. Marshall: Yeah. And as to this, please, just ask them to start over with this. We want it all to work. Please. Coles: Doug Stewart signed up in favor with no indication of testimony. De Weerd: Welcome. If you will, please, state -- Stewart: Good evening. De Weerd: -- your name and address for the record. Stewart: My name is Douglas Stewart. I live at 5960 North Linder Road, which is the property right adjacent to the WinCo, that none of these people live adjacent to that they continue to complain that it's in their backyard. It's in my yard. I have the five acres that adjoins that. And just a little history. I would point out that when I bought this property 41 years ago, Ada county was not going to develop these 40 acre parcels and they could only be split one time. The smallest split could be five acres, which is what my property is. When Paramount was developed, the farthest from the core of Meridian that it can get, we were shown, those of us who live on the perimeter that have these five acre parcels, we were shown five acre parcels, at least consistent with what we had. But that's not what was built. Paramount was built. And not one of these people ever questioned whether the little two lane roads that surround every one of those sections was capable of carrying the traffic. Look at all the houses they built there and they all moved in and they all made their way up and down the roads. But now that somebody wants to develop the properties that are left, they have been crying for the last ten years that we don't want it or it's not consistent with what we want. Well, why don't they buy it? All of it has a price. And let them buy it and let them develop it, put a hog farm there if they want to. It's still rural -- De Weerd: They can’t do that. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 54 of 89 Stewart: Well, it's still rural -- De Weerd: No hog farms. Stewart: Well -- but the idea is they are opposed to everything. They have been opposed to it for ten years. I saw the plans for Fred Meyers to go on that piece of property. I still have those plans. The Fred Meyers ended up across the street . Why is that? No one -- no one's ever told me what the reasoning for that is. But somebody turned that down. People have a right to develop their property. I would have developed mine, because now Ada county is going to take my entire front yard and put four lanes on my front porch. So, I want out of there. So, there is only a few properties left and we -- you know, our lifestyle has been ruined by their arrival, so now they are complaining that their lifestyle will be ruined by further development. Don't buy property on a fence line on a vacant field if you don't expect it to be developed. So, I would say approve these developments and let's get on with it. The roads will be widened to go along with the development, just like they were widened to accommodate their presence. Schools were built to accommodate their children. They weren't killed in the parking lots as one of them complained last time would happen. All this cry baby nonsense is just that, cry baby nonsense. Let's get on with it. Get this thing developed. All the other three corners are developed and here we sit on that piece of property for ten years trying to do something with it. I am the -- I am the only one next to it and when they complain about noise from WinCo, a fire station is right across the street and they take off at least 12 times a day and blow the sirens, which are much louder than any truck at WinCo will ever be. There is a high school that adjoins the back of them and the marching band and the screaming kids, they don't complain about that, but they are complaining about this place and I don't understand that. It's nonsense. De Weerd: Thank you for your testimony. Stewart: Thank you for listening. Coles: Kelly Watkins signed up in favor with no indication of testimony. Nick Eller signed up in favor and would like to testify. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Eller: Thank you. My name is Nick Eller and I'm at 851 West Honker Drive in Meridian. I have been in Meridian for the past few years. Grew up in Boise. And this is a development to put on the record that I strongly agree with. I do want to state that I am ecstatic at what the developer and the design team turned around in such a short period of time. The P&Z meeting, they doubted the developer that they did -- the -- excuse me. They doubted the design team to turn something around within 30 days to meet their application requirements. They did a lot that the citizens were concerned about and as the gentleman just said, he's right behind WinCo. The truck dock is over 550 feet I believe from WinCo. The future residential developments adds an additional barrier -- if Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 55 of 89 you're moving into that future residential development, you know that development -- or that development is already there, which adds a little bit more separation there. The citizens I believe have a blind spot as far as them being so close to this development when they have got to two -- two rows of houses there and a two-lane road. Minimum through there. It's a blind spot. Let's see here. One thing that I agree with on this development is it brings entertainment, restaurants, offices closer to home. Being in Meridian one of the issues that I have is I drive nearly four miles to get to The Village. I don't go to The Village because it's the greatest and best thing in the world, it's because it's the only thing in Meridian. Meridian is so centralized on having The Village, it needs to diversify and have more developments like this and I believe this brings everything that Meridian needs to that corridor. It's something that I would visit and it would also pull traffic away from the Eagle corridor going down there. A lot of people coming on those side streets to get to Eagle Road, because that's where everything's at. If you create a development that's closer to home, you can alleviate some of that traffic that we have been seeing in Meridian the past few years and it's only getting worse, because everything is being centralized down to Eagle Road and we need more developments out there. Growth is inevitable. We all know that from public testimony and we all know that the people want development to happen. They want smart growth and I believe this is smart growth. Let's see what I have got here. As far as some of the points at the beginning of this meeting here, concern is walking paths, details, the signal. I believe the developer has addressed all of these items. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Eller: Any questions? Coles: Bob Bennett signed up in favor, wishing to testify. Kevin Baker signed up in favor, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Baker: Yeah. Hi, my name is Kevin Baker. My address is 3322 South Fox Leash Avenue, Eagle, Idaho. 83646. Sorry. 83616. I live in Fox Tail. And so what I really want to talk about is three main things in the short time that I have. Number one is marketability as far as those of us that live here if you don't like it, you know, how does that affect, you know, our home and how we -- how we get out of there and go someplace that we do like. Number two is just convenience of having a property like this close. Number three is traffic. You know, just one quick thing. Personally is I was also a civil engineer by trade and education for nine years and I can't remember one development, smaller or larger, or the same size as that ever was welcomed with open arms. So, the fact that we are here is no huge surprise. But marketability -- my wife and I, we bought a place in Lochsa Falls in 2011. It's the big green house right behind Tobacco Connection, Homestead, and that little strip mall area there and, you know, when we first moved there it was a cul-de-sac that was no traffic, quiet, and, then, they punched -- punched it through and this development came through. We didn't like it, Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 56 of 89 you know, and we didn't want to live there. However -- so, we put it on the market. Somebody else loved the fact that all that stuff was right there and so, you know, we got a full price offer in three weeks, you know. So, was it -- was it the right place for us? No. But was it the right place for somebody else? Yes. And so my argument with this -- would be there for all those that are opposed that live close, if you don't like it, you know, sell it and move to Melba. You know, there is -- there is places you can go that, you know, are -- are -- you're not going to have this sort -- these sort of issues, maybe for at least a while. Number two is the convenience. In 2011 when we moved there, there was literally nothing out there. You know, there was no restaurants, bars, Fred Meyer, grocery stores, nothing. So, every place we had to go for all that stuff was on Eagle Road, which is a bear to get to. It is a pain. You never were sitting in your -- in your couch saying, oh, let's go to Eagle Road real quick, you know, that never happened. And so the fact that this is there -- there is a -- there is a lot of people all the way around here that -- that are going to find that hugely convenient and for those that are looking to move west out of west Boise or Boise, moving here with all these amenities is going to turn them on and -- and they will be not scared to go here and buy a place. Number three is the traffic, you know, and being -- with an engineering background I understand, you know, all the -- the codes and variances, all that kind of stuff that goes through that and going back to the -- you know, in my engineering days I never saw one development that went through a hundred percent according to code. There has always been, you know, places that had to move or budget, you know, to bring people in and, you know, make sure it was fair, obviously, but any development like this ever moving exactly according to code I think is unheard of probably. Don't have any stats for that, but just guessing. However. So, my main access is Bergman and Bergman -- I love the idea of a left out of there, because getting out of there right now, if it's dark and it's rainy and crossing two lanes right now, let alone three or four later, sounds scary and I like going left. So I like the light and -- De Weerd: Nice wrap up. Good job. Baker: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Tim Graver signed up in favor, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Graver: Hello. Tim Graver. I live at 706 East Cholla Hills, Meridian. I am in favor of this project. I have been a resident for 23 years in Meridian and I'm a real estate broker. I think the -- the convenience of shopping really is what draws me to this project. I like that. You know, you have to drive so many other places to shop. I love the fact that there is going to be a WinCo there. I love -- and I remember the slow times during the recession. I love the fact that it will be creating a lot of jobs for the local -- local folks and I appreciate what the developer did in terms of changing the plan to meet the criteria and after reviewing it I think it's a Class A project, pedestrian friendly, and, you Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 57 of 89 know, somewhere I can take my kids, my wife, my grandkids. So, I encourage, you know, that City Council and Mayor to approve this and thank you for your consideration. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Greg Brown signed up in favor wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Brown: Good evening, Madam Mayor and esteemed Council. My name is Greg Brown and I'm here representing the Russell Corporation this evening. The Russell Corporation resides at 1940 South Bonita Way in the Eldorado Business Park and we are a commercial general contracting and construction management company and we specialize in projects like this. The Russell Corporation has been involved in any number of pretty -- pretty visible commercial and retail projects going clear back to downtown, the Old 8th Street Marketplace, Bown Crossing, Forest River and more recently we were the construction manager to the general contractors for The Village in Meridian and I pointed out at the last meeting, because so much of the opposition seems to center on the idea that The Village is the perfect development, as opposed to what the developer has proposed here and yet a significant component of The Village in Meridian or at Meridian was what we called the power center and the power center was big box retail in a strip fashion and there was a good amount of mixed-use smaller building out along the Eagle corridor and as I look at this project what you see in -- in retail in the area -- commercial in the area is that kind of a model over and over and over. You have it in the community everywhere. When they talk about turning the WinCo store so that it faces Chinden and Linder on the northwest corner, I don't see any examples of any big box retailer doing that anywhere and I don't think you will see that in the near future. The way that they have sited these buildings and cited this project makes perfect sense and I think they are committed to giving you a great development, a great project and I think it will solve a lot of problems. They talk about the traffic problems, but I think it's going to solve some problems. So, we are in favor of it and I appreciate you're taking the time to listen to me. If you have any questions I'm happy to answer. De Weerd: Thank you. No. Thank you. Brown: Great. Thanks. Coles: Wendy McKinney signed up against, wishing to testify. McKinney: Good evening. De Weerd: Good evening. McKinney: Thank you for spending your time here. I know you'd rather be doing something else, like cooking a turkey or something; right? No. We appreciate your time Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 58 of 89 and service. The Linder Village development is something that we would like to see happen. As residents in the neighborhood we would like to see this happen no matter what other people tell you. I have been part of a group that's been working on this. I have had a blog for the last two years just giving the facts to people without rumors and there is a lot to be said about what we have done and how we have gone about doing it . Just to give you a little background on myself. I am one of the few people in the world that is Kama'aina Haole. I was born and raised in Honolulu, although I don't look it, and I do not believe in shutting the door after I walked into Honolulu in the -- in the '60s. There are lots of people who can get together and can resolve situations and backgrounds and differences, but we all have to be at the table. We all have to be willing to be at the table and discuss and talk. I'm grateful that the developer finally got to the table, but that was a week ago and so I've done my best, dropping everything that I have had going to put this presentation together for you with one week's notice. The property owner has tried to turn this corner from a farm into commercial development since 2007. You know that. There are certain requirements that you as a city have specified for this property. This is Meridian city that has specified it. If they want to be annexed into the city they have to abide by your rules. Why did you come up with the Comprehensive Plan if we are not going to follow it? Next, please. This is the Paramount Subdivision as best I could get from Google Maps. So, you can see the areas. If you look to the bottom left corner I'm going to show you that a little more clearly in the next side. This is the actual positioning of the southwest corner of the Paramount neighborhood. Now, you can see that the only thing built there is the automotive and on the corner we have Walgreens. Typically Walgreens is a 24/7 business. They made adjustments, because they were too close to property. If you look to the far right corner of this you see that there is a whole new section there with a pool that's been added. That was added since Walgreens went in. Please look to the very top of that section there, right where you see North Fox Run Way, that home on the corner was the closest existing property at the time that Walgreens went in. This Walgreens section -- that whole section you see on the far left is C-G. Already part of Meridian city. Next slide, please. Now, I'm taking this property and I have flipped it, so we can pretend that this same corner that we are discussing tonight is going to look exactly identical to the corner that you have up there. So, there you go. There is your section there. It's 2,060 feet. Next slide, please. De Weerd: You will need to summarize. McKinney: This property -- thank you. This property is 1,460 feet away. Last slide, please. Before -- so, we are asking you to treat it as a C-C, not a C-G. Next slide. Walgreens and Stinker Station were both held to not 24/7, even though they were in a C-G, because they were too close to residences. Next. We don't want the same issues that that corner has up here. Next. We would like you to deny this application. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 59 of 89 Coles: Linda Arnold signed up against, not wishing to testify. Michael Arnold signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will state your name and address. Arnold: Yes. It's Michael Arnold and I live at seven -- or 972 West Bacall Street in Paramount. De Weerd: Thank you. Arnold: And I and my wife retired four or five years ago and moved up -- moved up to Meridian. Well, one of the things that we did before we selected our property -- or one of the things I did when we found Paramount was look at the Comprehensive Plan that the city had put together. We reviewed the vacant property immediately behind our house, noted that there was -- the future designation was for medium density residential and mixed-use community. I read the descriptions of those and I felt pretty comfortable that whatever goes in there, based upon the -- the way the Comprehensive Plan reads is going to be a very, very good development. As I go through the process that we are experiencing now with this developer, I just do not believe that they are living up to the Comprehensive Plan. I believe that annexation is not a right, it's a privilege, and the City Council has the ability to insist that any development that goes in there abides by the key features of the Comprehensive Plan and I don't feel that this particular development at this stage does and that's the reason why I'm in opposition to the plan. De Weerd: Thank you. Arnold: Thank you. Coles: Cindy Maple signed up against not wishing to testify. Jonathan Kahnoski signed up against, wishing to testify. Kahnoski: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Persons. I am Jonathan Kahnoski. I'm a cry baby that lives at 357 West Heston Court in Paramount and unlike a couple of the speakers who were rather harsh about their neighbors, I'm not selling and moving away. So, I am opposed -- I do oppose this Linder Village project as presented tonight. For months citizens of the surrounding neighborhoods have asked -- in fact, we have pleaded with the developer to offer something that we could support. Instead the developer has tweaked this a little and adjusted that a little, but, really, changed very little of his basic plan. It is time to end this dance and deny the developer's application. This proposal has many problems, as people have listed. I want to emphasize two major design flaws. First, the shops, restaurants, and offices are scattered about a vast parking lot in small clusters with almost no pedestrian interconnectivity. Because the clusters are isolated from each other, there is no critical mass of activities and ambience to constitute a village. There is no there there, unless you count a parking lot. What could be, Councilwoman Milam, hoping I can give you a picture, is a single village of Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 60 of 89 businesses surrounding a plaza -- a central plaza and along pedestrian-only promenades extending east and west. Architecture -- pardon me. Architecture and landscaping that attracts visitors and entices them to stay to shop and dine. A place where one comes in the morning for a cup of Joe, enjoying the aromas of a fresh brewed coffee and breakfast pastries fresh out of the oven or maybe meets friends at the fountain or under the clocktower or some other landmark to lunch at a sidewalk cafe or spends evenings sipping wine, dining al fresco, listening to live music and enjoying the aromas of sizzling steaks or homemade Italian cuisine. This vision isn't possible with the developer's auto oriented plan with drive-thrus. But it could be with a new design. Madam Mayor, Council Persons, please, give this vision a chance. Deny the developer's application and send them back to the drawing board to create something truly unique and wonderful for the City of Meridian. Thank you. Coles: Diane McClaire signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Cindy Eller signed up against, not wishing to testify. Pat Eller signed up against, not wishing to testify. Tim Graver, who I believe we have already heard from this evening. Nick Russell signed up in favor with no indication of testimony. Thomas Bloggett signed up against, not wishing to testify. Jim Alexander signed up in favor, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Alexander: Good evening. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Alexander: My name is Jim Alexander. I live at 1060 West State Street in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Alexander: I'm here to say that I'm in favor of this. From what I have learned tonight the developer has made some changes and I really like the part that's the entry. I understand that nothing is a hundred percent. I don't think anybody can really say everybody will agree to it and -- but what I see it looks very good and I'm very impressed with the way that the applicant was working with the ITD and is going to pay for the expansion of Chinden for a mile, you know, up to four or five lanes and I just think that's a really great thing and will alleviate a lot of problems. We heard from somebody that's an engineer and they said that Chinden is -- gets an F with the traffic problems I believe and it wasn't going to be for another ten years that they would widen it. I think with this development it would relieve a lot of problem and, then, if they have to work to do something more down the road I'm sure that could be accomplished. So, I guess I would like to say I'm in favor of this. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Coles: Mary McFarland signed up as neutral, wishing to testify. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 61 of 89 De Weerd: Good evening. McFarland: Good evening. I'm Mary McFarland, 1201 West Lakeland. De Weerd: If you can pull -- McFarland: Is this one better? De Weerd: Which ever one you want to use. McFarland: Okay. Lakeland Drive. Full disclosure. I was a former city council president in Eagle and sitting on the council when ITD brought the CFI to us and we were just in dismay of what they were proposing. Eagle, as you know, is home of the original NIMBY. This is where we don't want snow parks, we fight over really silly things in Eagle. I'd like to address ITD's planned CFI at the site. It's unfortunate that ITD created the traffic issues on Chinden by building the Highway 16 extension from Highway 44 to Chinden without any funding for the completion of the road. It's my understanding that the big picture was connect 44 to 16 all the way to I-84. Instead they built what was funded and literally dumped all of the traffic from 44 onto Chinden. They created the issues and now they want to fix it by spending millions in the future impacting businesses that have already spent millions on road -- roadway improvements. A few years back ITD wanted to put medians all along Eagle Road. The residents of Eagle rallied and the medians stopped at just north of Chinden. But the shopping center on the northwest corner was not spared and they suffered immediately. Even with the U-turns allowed businesses closed. The main anchor Walgreens shuttered their doors recently. How long will that white elephant sit vacant? These decisions affect small businesses, as well as large ones. Hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs are lost. I have watched mom and pop businesses closed down for years. Most people think they just shut the doors and walk away. The reality is that many times in an all-out effort to survive they have leveraged their homes and everything they own and are left totally broke. I hope that Meridian will look closely at the impacts that the continuous flow intersections will have on businesses. The access to Fred Meyer via Bergman is absolutely vital and was a condition of the development agreement to build Foxtail. I also believe that Fred Meyer will be required to vacate their Chinden access when the light comes in at Bergman. So, that will alleviate some of that in and out that's really not safe for anybody. Cutting Fred Meyer access is unnecessary and would lead to loss of many businesses, jobs, more white elephants and useless land. Nobody wants commercial traffic through their neighborhood, but when ITD creates the issue, there is really no other option. The Eagle city council made their disdain for the plan clear, but it's falling on deaf ears. I'd like to see Meridian, Eagle and Boise work together with ITD on a better plan to move traffic through the state highways that affect us all, including connecting to I-84. I was quick; right? De Weerd: Thank you, Mary. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 62 of 89 McFarland: And I would also like to give the clerk the letter -- the official letter from Eagle city council addressing the CFIs. Thank you. Coles: Keith Jones signed up in favor, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Nice to stand up, huh? Good evening, if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Jones: Keith Jones. 280 East Corporate Drive, Suite 130. I have lived here in the Treasure Valley for 27 years. It's doubled since we have been here. So, people have continued to come, it continues to grow. Early on when I come I had heard some philosophy that they want to keep the roads narrow to restrict growth, so people won't come here. Well, people are going to continue to come here, it will continue to grow. It's a great place to live and raise a family and so we are trying to manage growth and I hear a lot of concerns, but to put things in perspective, would it be possible to put up the satellite map or one of the satellite images that you had previous? I want to put things in perspective for a second. There was a gentleman who spoke who owns about one- third of what backs up to this property and I would say his voice is as valid as -- as any. Now, I know there are a lot of very concerned people that are living in the subdivision behind -- okay. That's good. Oops. The satellite one. The satellite one would be awesome. But anyways -- we can go right there. So, between -- so, the people that are living in these homes, there will be an entire subdivision between the commercial component and them. Everybody who comes in will know that there is a development right there and they will be signing off to it. Now, there was some footages said, you know, 500 feet -- whatever. Five hundred feet away seems like quite a distance that would help buffer any noise concerns. Now I know we have traffic problems in our area, but I don't think it's fair to blame the traffic problems on this project. Our traffic problems are probably due to the fact that we don't have enough exits off the freeway, we don't have enough north-south thoroughfares, ways to get over the river, so we tend to bottle -- bottleneck. That's why Eagle Road is such a disaster. But the lights are put in for safety. There is a light being proposed here. It's for safety. If it saves one life it's worth it. I know it's an inconvenience. You might have to slow down a little bit right there. But if it save one life it's worth it. I lived once upon a time in Bristol Heights. Coming out of there a person died. Before long a light ended up being put there, so now you have a light south of Chinden right there in front of Bristol Heights. That's less than a half mile. It was done for life safety and I believe this light is for the same reason and many of the concerns discussed -- or vented would almost be impossible to solve. So, somebody up here had said it just sounds like a ruse to -- to dump the project, which may be the case, but in closing -- I think that's my bell. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Jones: So, I'm saying yes to businesses. Yes to companies -- small companies. Yes to jobs. Not only the hundreds of jobs that will be created to build it over the next ten years, but the tax base, the revenue base, the hundreds of jobs that will be there after it's done. We are talking about some good companies. I heard WinCo referred to as a Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 63 of 89 square peg. This is a successful company that's successful nationwide. They are growing for a reason. They are a good company. People want to go there. They have a ladder within that company. Please excuse me. I'm sorry. Thank you for your time. I, obviously, vote yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Diane Wolford signed up in favor, wishing to testify. De Weerd: See, we would get to you; right? Wolford: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Wolford: Thank you for your time. I'm Diane Wolford. I live on 915 North Glen Aspen Way and, obviously, I support this project and I encourage you to approve this. I have lived here for almost two decades and started out in downtown Boise, moved to Star and I am one of those little folks and I have raised two sons here and both of them in high school and college worked for WinCo. You could not ask for a better company for someone willing to work with school kids and college kids. They had nothing but the greatest experience working with them. They worked around their schedules and I became a supporter of WinCo. My checkbook especially likes WinCo and if your local people are looking for a part-time job, you couldn't ask for anything else and I like the way they changed the angle. I like the landscape. I think it's a wonderful idea. Thank you for your time. Have a good evening. And Happy Thanksgiving. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Ethan Wolford-Griggs signed up in favor, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Wolford-Griggs: Good evening. I'm Ethan Wolford-Griggs. 915 North Glen Aspen Way. And guarantee -- you know, I'm her son and whatnot. I worked at WinCo before and whatnot. I absolutely loved it. You cannot even hear anything when the trucks show up, which I worked carts, which I absolutely didn't like, but, you know, I got -- got to deal with it, which was actually pretty fun. But most of my friends -- you know, they live around here. One of my friends over there lived right by Fred Meyer and a bunch of other friends by the other ones, Meridian, Eagle, and whatnot and they absolutely love WinCo. They absolutely love the great location. The people are great and whatnot and the trucks don't bother them one bit. You know, sure, you know, you have the occasional loud beeper of the truck, whatnot, but it doesn't bug them, so -- but I'm completely for it. If you guys can pass it it will be absolutely amazing and in the future I think it will be absolutely amazing. Thank you for your time. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 64 of 89 De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Stewart Klein signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. With that, Madam Mayor, that concludes the public testimony sign ups. De Weerd: If you weren't -- if you didn't sign up and would like to provide testimony I would invite you to come forward. Sir. Yes. We will get you after this gentleman. Thank you. Howe: Good evening, Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: Good evening. Howe: -- and Council Members. My name is Rick Howe. I live at 4104 West Sugartree Drive in Meridian. I am the HOA president of the Orchard Grove Subdivision part of Spurwing Greens. I stand in opposition today to the plan as it's submitted. I would like to also say that I have been to a couple of these meetings, I have talked to some of the residents of Paramount, they are not against the development, they are against the development as it is. They haven't been communicated with, they haven't been listened to, and those people -- and I represent 321 homeowners in Spurwing -- they are watching what happens here, because they know there is vacant property along Chinden and we know that the property -- and we know that your traffic is horrible and not getting any better and we are all concerned about it. So, it's not just Paramount, it's a lot of other subdivisions -- major subdivisions that are watching what's going on here and are really concerned with what the future might bring. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening. Winder: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Chuck Winder. I reside at 5528 North Ebbetts in Boise, Idaho. Just for the record I have been involved in this project now for almost a year and a half and I was asked to come into it and help facilitate discussions with property owners around the property, as well as with ITD and ACHD. The Mayor helped facilitate meetings between Brighton Corporation and the developers. I personally attended the public meetings and open houses that were recently held this fall where members of the HOA came and visited with the developer face to face for significant amounts of time. There has been a lot of communication going on back and forth. Brighton Corporation has over the time period basically been unwilling, because of the negative impact it would have on their Fox Run access to allow a major connection as the primary access. That's why the signal is necessary. I have worked with ACHD and with ITD during that time period to try and resolve the access issues, look at the future of the roadway and a lot of people will try and convince you that Chinden Boulevard is always going to be a rural road and it's always going to have a half mile, but that's going to be part of Meridian. That's going to be part of the whole urban development that's going to occur and you better plan for it in the future. You need to plan for better access to it and I just remind the City Council, because some of you weren't here, ITD actually came to City Council, asked you to put in the half Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 65 of 89 mile restrictions and -- but there have been times when they have come back and said there are points were quarter mile access is necessary. If the -- the Fox Run intersection is in violation of that policy, it's not at the half mile. If it were it would serve both pieces of property, but it doesn't. So, this property does require another signalization. I think as you look at what happened in 2007 -- does anyone remember the great recession? Do you remember anything getting done there for three or four years? We are still digging our hole -- digging ourselves out of that hole here in the valley and I think the developer has struggled with this. I think Costco left the project because I got tired of waiting and all the delays that occurred and it's quite interesting that it ended up on a Brighton piece of property, just a fact of the competition out there. There is competition. But I think this is a good site. I think it can support it. I think the developer -- I have -- if you went back and looked at the original plans I have seen -- been significant accommodation of ITD by moving buildings back. I hope you don't ever see the continuous flow intersection anywhere in our county, because I think it's bad for the citizens and will create major problems and with that I just thank you for your interest. It's not an easy decision, but I appreciate you listening. De Weerd: Thank you. Winder: Thank you. De Weerd: Good evening. Wilson: Hi. My name is T.J. Wilson. My address is 5809 North Arliss Avenue in the Paramount Subdivision and I just want to kind of bring the focus back a little bit. There has been a lot of discussion since we started and I just want to remind that Planning and Zoning unanimously recommended denial of this proposal and they did so on the -- on the key -- on the cornerstones of the 24/7 operation of WinCo, the position of WinCo on the site, the full length frontage road and the additional signs -- signal on Chinden. There has been a lot of suggestions here and so, you know, there is a lot of things that are possible, but this plan doesn't cover them. It made some concessions, but minor ones, and not the major ones that the people are looking for and if you look at the plan, we talk about buffering zones. The residents get a six foot fence. Chinden and Linder get an entire berm of property that's blocking the noise and all the other stuff that goes along with it, yet the residents get a six foot fence. So, I think there is a lot more that can be done here that will benefit the residents that live near this community and make it the village that it's supposed to be. You call it a village and, then, you make a design that's not that and we are trying to work with them and they have constantly neglected and pushed us aside and denied our voice, only to give some concessions at the last minute without any opportunity to discuss with them any further. I think we deserve better. I think we can get better. I think that this can be something that can be a real jewel in this section. It should be. All the -- all the opportunities that can come to this location from Eagle, from Star, from -- even Nampa and Middleton and even further out. The opportunities are -- are great, but it's got to be somewhere that -- a place that we can be proud to call a village and that represents that name. I think we can do better and I think that with denial we have the chance of doing so. If we go forward with this I Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 66 of 89 think it will be a disappointment. It will be shopping. Great. But there is going to be shopping all over the place. We have got a Walmart nearby. We have got a Fred Meyer nearby. We have got Eagle Road. We have got lots of options and four miles isn't that far to drive. We are really lucky that we have that much opportunity within four miles of us, really. California is much worse off. But we could do a lot better and I think we should and not push this through just because. Thank you. De Weerd: Any further testimony? Okay. Would the developer-applicant like to make final remarks? McKinney: Madam Mayor and Council Members, thanks again for our time tonight. De Weerd: If you will restate our name for the record. McKinney: I'm sorry. De Weerd: That's all right. McKinney: David McKinney with DMG Real Estate Partners. De Weerd: Thank you. McKinney: Thanks again for your time tonight. Really appreciate it and I guess if there was anything I was going to say is -- you know, it's a disappointment to me personally for people to say that we haven’t talked to them and tried to make revisions to our ideas to accept -- more accept their ideas, which we have done. We have hosted -- we hosted the pizza night at Gino's one night in -- I think it was in April. We have hosted a barbecue on site. I know various people by first name basis that I have met with. So, it's -- that is disappointing. Other than that, I think there is some misconception on a few things. You know, the traffic study that was done and presented ACHD and ITD was extensive and a lot of work and time for a lot of people from ACHD, ITD and -- and our team. There will be more traffic studies that are completed, especially with the residential. We will have a whole new traffic study for that when we develop that and we will update the traffic study based on the newer plan in concert with the -- the request that ACHD recently made. So, other than that, before you close testimony, we are willing to answer questions and our whole team is available to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor. Dave, there was a -- there was a lot of comment through previous e-mails and, obviously, tonight we have got great input pro and con talking about a lot of considerations and one of the more common themes talks about the Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 67 of 89 layout and design -- not necessarily in opposition to -- to the mixed use community development of the parcel as a whole, but the design itself and whether it's not a literal flip of the project, but perhaps -- and even the original staff report would -- would speak to placing some of the larger properties closer to Chinden and -- and reversing some of the design. It sounds like there has been pizza nights and barbecues and opportunities to have discussion up through including today. So, we have heard from our staff and from some other planners who have talked about that being the most appropriate way to design mixed-use community. Walk us through the alternative argument why this current design, with the larger properties adjacent to the residential, is, in your opinion, more appropriate for mixed use community. And -- and kind of how you explain it to the public then and help us understand. McKinney: Sure. First of all, we -- we think we have -- we have placed smaller retail shops -- service-oriented shops closer to the neighborhood. If you -- if you look in the southeast portion of the site adjacent to WinCo, all those shops are a lot smaller. Those are 60 foot depth shops for smaller tenants we think that does buffer and shields lights also to the neighborhood from the shopping portion. As far as the placement of the WinCo building, before we drew anything on this site for this plan we -- we tried to look at where we would least impact existing residential neighborhoods. Okay? And as a suggestion, we may want to look at the area -- the project site aerial. It was the first one on my slides. But, in essence -- in essence what I'm saying is we looked at our property and we said, okay, let's try to buffer the existing residential with more residential, which is what we think we have done with this plan. And, then, where can we best identify our larger anchor, you know, WinCo, and we have had, you know, interest over the years from, as we all know, Fred Meyer, Home Depot, Costco, Walmart, all of us have been contacted about -- contact about the site and they all pretty much want to be in the same position on the property, but we said, okay, where would be the least impact and where we thought the least impact was, the southwest corner -- or southwest corner of the site abutting like comp plan designated property, which is mixed use community, away from the residential, recognizing that the large anchors like WinCo still want convenient access and visibility to the main streets. So, you know, they want to be close to Linder, facing Chinden, with enough parking to support their stores. And, ultimately, by turning the buildings in various spots and various locations on the property, we felt that general area was the best place. Now a point of clarification. In the Commission meeting I was asked specifically if we would turn the WinCo building and really the whole center so that the whole rear of WinCo and the entire section of the center there faced Linder Road and to me that meant turning it so the whole backs of the building where along the Linder frontage. I did say no. I was not saying that we would not make additional changes to the plan, I was trying to illustrate that that won't work for us, but there is probably other changes we can make to satisfy that concern, which we think we have done in the last 30 days. Am I answering your question? Borton: Madam Mayor? It does. It's very helpful. And sort of I guess. It sort of answers it. McKinney: Okay. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 68 of 89 Borton: What I'm -- what I'm looking for is -- I guess that -- that alternative explanation for its location -- from what you described if -- if the least impact on the residential communities -- one of the primary concerns -- McKinney: That was. Borton: -- and -- and some of the planning principles from our comp plan speaks to having that transition in a smaller to bigger, from residential moving away, and -- and if -- if visibility from Linder and Chinden is desirable for those larger users and, then, a lot of the residential input from our community wants to have that change and move it further north on the property, allowing it still to develop as a mixed use community, what, then, is still the impediment that says, well, despite all of that, having that location move north still isn't viable? McKinney: Councilman Borton, Madam Mayor, we can make additional changes to the plan. We can shift WinCo's building additionally. To say that -- and I don't want to totally speak for WinCo here, because they are here, but to say we would totally turn the building towards the intersection -- the rear the building towards the intersection and face it south, I don't think they will do that. Maybe we should ask them. But that's not -- functionally that's not what WinCo or any retailer really wants. They -- their preference is to have visibility to the main intersection, to the main roads, and convenient access to those roads. I would also say that when you move buildings on a site and site plan, it has impacts to other portions of the site plan that, you know, are amenities that we all really like as part of the site plan and, for example, if you bring -- and you just shift WinCo's building 50 feet north, let's just say, that's going to have an impact on parking, that's going to have an impact on where we place other buildings, so that, you know, some of those things would probably go away or change drastically. So, one of the -- one of the neighbors said to me, Dave, I have -- I see where you're coming from, because I have looked at this whole site and I have looked at the positioning of WinCo as you have it and, you know, with the angled portion. I understand why you did that. I have looked at other positions on site, as some people have mentioned. On the hard corner or over on the other side and flipping it around facing the interior and I see why you keep coming back to this -- to this area, because it makes the most sense and I believe that, but we are also open to continuing to listen to any ideas that people have. We tried to be responsive to staff. We tried to be responsive to the neighborhood. To ITD as -- as Mr. Winder said and we think we have come up with a plan that's probably not perfect, but it deals with a lot of the issues that people have mentioned, staff has mentioned, and we think it's still a good, viable plan to move forward. I don't know if there was an additional question regarding the service station, locations and the fast- food -- you know, I think I said it earlier in my earlier presentation, all those users, frankly, want visibility, convenient access to the high traffic streets. They want to be close to those streets. Obviously, they have smaller buildings, so they need to be closer to the streets to get the visibility to be successful. WinCo is a larger building and can sit back a little bit from the main road. Still they want good visibility and access, but they can sit back a little bit from the main roads and have parking in front of them that's Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 69 of 89 accessible for their customers, but their larger buildings and they have that visibility, because of the size of the building. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I think we heard from a lot of people tonight and some of the neighbors had some really good ideas. I love the -- the flow and the walkability ideas. I like -- I mean your -- it's a nice concept plan. McKinney: Thank you. Milam: You know, you could take some of your residential and put it back behind WinCo, move it forward and put some apartment buildings in there and they would take care of your residential portion. Push it up, you know, it's really tricky and I realize that you can't really put -- as much as I'd like to take that store and put it up on the corner here or here, having a big huge store like that right against the street seems unconventional for one, but it doesn't have a smooth flow to me. You also lose all of the visibility for all the small shops. So, for those who are worried about this being a successful shopping center, the whole point of putting the small ones out by the road is so that they do have the visibility and being a small business owner -- no, small business doesn't want to be in the back. McKinney: I agree. Milam: Either need to put the big store back there or you need to put residential back there and I don't even know what else would work. McKinney: I agree. Understood. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. McKinney, a couple things. I really appreciate having our developers speak last, because it gives them the opportunity to address a lot of comments and concerns that were raised through the significant amount of public testimony. We didn't hear a lot of that from you this evening. I just want to make sure that you have got an opportunity to address some of those. I saw you furiously taking notes throughout the testimony. I just want to make sure you had an opportunity to address some of those. Secondarily, much of tonight's testimony focused on the proposed WinCo site, but not a lot of discussion about the -- kind of reiteration of the mid anchors and I was hoping you could share with us a little bit more what the thought process was about those changes and what you were hoping to accomplish. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 70 of 89 McKinney: Okay. So, regarding the mid anchors -- and could I ask you just to kind of summarize again -- Cavener: Sure. McKinney: -- real quick? Cavener: So, what I -- Madam Mayor? When I look at your future office, retail development, to me that seems more in line with the vision that you have talked about with this project where you have got that transition of kind of that smaller use building to the larger use and I just -- I mean quite frankly I don't see that on the proposed WinCo site and -- and I don't really see a lot of that on -- on the mid anchor pieces and it -- to me it harkens back to I think a comment that we had heard from Planning and Zoning Commission is a lot of -- sea of parking spaces and so I wanted to give you the opportunity to talk to -- McKinney: Okay. Cavener: -- when you -- when you spoke earlier you talked about a lower use and smaller and I think you used a neighborhood service center I think was the word you used. I just don't see those -- McKinney: Service oriented. Cavener: Yeah. McKinney: First of all, this being a hundred scale plan, okay, it's hard to get a real good feel for the distances. Cavener: Sure. McKinney: Right? And from the back of the larger building in the middle there to the edge of the existing residential due south, I believe that's over 400 feet. So, that's quite a distance. What we have tried to create with the main street and the pedestrian, you know, connectivity that would go down from kind of north to south along our main street and, then, into the plaza is very walkable, very friendly, and, then, have the parking for those shops and there is quite a bit of square footage there. Park, in essence, behind them, so that it would be -- so, I'm -- east and west of them. Okay? Where the storefronts actually face that main -- main corridor. Okay? What we are trying to do is separate out the parking there, so that people can have more of the pedestrian interaction up and down that main street. Okay? Then the areas in front of the -- the mid anchors leading back over to the plaza, those crosshatch areas you see -- and I think we have them labeled plaza -- what we are trying to do there is to create a promenade feel, again, where people are able to, you know, walk from one spot to the next and enjoy, you know, the plaza or go to a movie possibly or work out or shop, you know, for retail. That -- that was the goal there and we really saw for the existing Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 71 of 89 neighborhood that our higher density residential between the existing neighborhood and the commercial was, you know, less intense uses building to the commercial portion. So, that in itself was a buffer. Are you with me? Cavener: A little bit. McKinney: Okay. Anything else on that? Cavener: No. McKinney: Okay. De Weerd: Other questions from Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: One of the topics that came up was the Chinden access, obviously, and the -- the CFI -- it's current status and one of the conditions that was referenced placed on the -- the light access on Chinden south into the project was that it's a temporary access to be removed upon the completion of the CFI at Linder and Chinden and we have heard tangentially certain comments most recently -- one of the last presenters spoke about it might be -- it's not set in stone I guess. It's not certain to occur. It's not an absolu te. If you can comment on the status of the CFI and if -- if that condition to remove the -- of light goes away, obviously, the light is there in perpetuity, which doesn't sound like was even your intent, so give us some -- some idea on the CFI if you can. McKinney: Councilman Borton and Madam Mayor. Council. As far as the CFI, I think there is a mixed opinion within ITD on if the CFI will happen in the future or not. Some folks -- you know, they still believe that it's a possibility, especially at District Three, which is, you know, in the -- controls this area. Some other folks, even in HQ -- you know, think it's probably not going to happen. So, there is a mixed opinion there. We purposely set our buildings back enough to allow enough room for the CFI on the south side of Chinden to take place and so that was part of our agreement with ITD to say, hey, we will, in essence, give up that land and we won't put buildings up there in case you ever do it. You know, if you decide you're going to do that in the future, you have the room to do it. So, we agreed with that -- with -- on that subject early on with ITD. Now, just a point of clarification. The access points on Chinden that we have aren't temporary. They don't go away. What the second letter we received from it was, in July, said that the signal that's at Bergman Way would -- would convert to a three- quarter movement if a couple things happened. They put the CFI in -- Borton: Right. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 72 of 89 McKinney: -- they get access to Fox Run and they also allow a signal down at the new collector street and Linder Road. Then they went on to say -- they said would that be acceptable and we said sure, you know, that's fine with us and I think it's always been a condition that the warrants need to be in place for the signal to be installed. Okay? But ITD actually went on to say, you know, we will also give you a left turn movement in the stacking lane if the CFI goes in in the stacking lane for the CFI left turn onto Linder Road. So, what that means is in the area about where we have our live-work area -- if you took a direct shot and just took it up to Chinden -- they will give us a left turn there for traffic that wants to turn into the center that's heading west. You know, maybe they don't want to make the turn and go south on Linder, but they will be allowed to turn into our development and that was ITD's idea. Borton: Thank you. De Weerd: What is the timing of the improvements on Chinden and what is ITD saying they will do on their portion to make it totally connect? McKinney: Number one, we have started design and we signed a contract on the -- the design of the widening -- I believe it was in July. So, that's been ongoing and, honestly, we spent a lot of money on design of that, because we wanted to get started quickly. As far as the timing, it's always been our understood -- understanding that as soon as the design is agreed to and we get the STARS agreement executed with ITD, that we would -- you know and design approved, we would be able to start construction on the widening of the road, working, obviously, from the Linder intersection back to the east. We know we can get all our frontage taken care of. We need the right of way from Brighton along the southern portion of Chinden, which we believe the setback is already in place for that and, then, that would take us to the Catholic church at Meridian and we also believe the church sits back far enough where we can taper that and, you know, fulfill the obligation and the requirement of the traffic study in what we have on the table. Then we have also suggested that if ITD were able to move up their timing on their project, completion of Chinden from Eagle Road back towards Locust Grove and with their tapers we might be able to meet in the middle -- and just do the extra work to meet in the middle to get the whole three mile stretch done, you know, as soon as possible, as soon as their money allocates and we could move forward with that. De Weerd: So, I know we have spent a lot of time asking you about the connectivity and the flow. You have your main street type of feature and you have your future office retail development. How -- how do you envision connecting the live-work area to the main street area to the office-retail development? McKinney: Madam Mayor and Council, are you asking about the pedestrian connection? De Weerd: Yeah. Pedestrian and design I guess. How does it feel like it's all part of one plan? Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 73 of 89 McKinney: Okay. We feel like the -- I think it's ten or twelve acres or so that's bound by Chinden to the north and a little east of our right-in, right-out drive area -- drive aisle and the plaza and, then, a direct shot along the drive aisle back to Linder. We feel like that whole area plays very well together. Okay? With the uses that we have planned and the pedestrian walkways, we envision -- first of all, we envision the live-work and -- and those buildings south of the live-work as somewhat of a mini, you know, Bown Crossing or BoDo or -- that kind of feel, if you visualize that. We do have a lease outstanding on the first building on Linder on the north side of the curb cut off of Linder. That is a restaurant. We have talked with the group representing the drug store on the hard corner parcel, which we think works well with our live-work and our buildings just to the south of live-work. We have another restaurant that's very interested -- and this would be more of a sit down, steak and seafood type restaurant. On the other building abutting close to -- close to Chinden, but utilizing the landscaping field and so forth for their patio area at least and, then, with our main street shops we feel like all that working together creates, in essence, a village within a center -- a village within a village and recognizing that this whole property is 80 acres, this node would work within itself about ten to 12 acres. De Weerd: And what is the phasing -- I mean what is the timing of all this? McKinney: Well, the -- the two restaurants I mentioned, the one at Linder and the one off of Chinden, they are -- they are immediate. They, you know, were in the lease and they -- they want to move forward. We have our feelers out on the drugstore. We haven't marketed -- most of -- most of the activity we have had have all been people coming to us, because of word of mouth. De Weerd: I guess to better ask is this going in, then, building by building, instead of, as you called it, nodes -- node by node? McKinney: I think if -- when we build the live-work areas they would go together. I think the restaurants would be immediate. I personally think all this will come together fairly close to the same time, recognizing I can't stand here tonight and say absolutely, positively, we will build all that at the same time, but I -- I really feel like once we know we are proceeding and we are able to market and really get going here, I think it will come fairly quickly together. Just for what it's worth, we have -- you know, we have an interested party on the future office-medical area over on the far eastern side that has made an offer, which will be a large -- large property development also. We have various pads along Chinden that lots of different folks have expressed an interest. Again, this is people coming to us without us actually teaming up with a marketing group or anything as of yet. So, we think the outlook is pretty positive for moving forward on it quickly. De Weerd: So, what is the timing on your traffic study? McKinney: Well, we just found out yesterday with the letter from ACHD that we would need to update the traffic study and I think -- and I'm probably going to not say this Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 74 of 89 exactly right, but their intent was because our site plan has changed as much as it has, that they wanted to see an update at least in how it impacts the access points on Linder. We did -- as soon as we received that we had meetings with our traffic engineer and we think that ACHD is already scheduling hearings for February, so I'm thinking it's probably going to be a couple months before we are able to get in and get back into ACHD with a full updated study. You know, it's interesting -- we started with ACHD a couple years ago and, then, worked with ITD and back with ACHD and -- but with the changes in the site plan, because they were pretty big changes, they now want the updated study. So, we will just have to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other -- okay. McKinney: Any other questions for any of our experts or the WinCo folks or anyone here tonight before we -- Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: If you are offering, if there is someone from WinCo that would like to come up, I have got a couple of questions. McKinney: Okay. I will introduce Greg Goins as the VP of real estate. De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Goins: Greg Goins on behalf of WinCo. 650 North Armstrong, Boise, Idaho. 83704. De Weerd: Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Mr. Goins, the applicant had indicated that it wouldn't be prudent for him to talk about WinCo's willingness to reorientate that building any further and so if -- if you're willing to comment, I'm just curious about your company's stance on its location and a willingness to reorientate in a different capacity. Goins: Sure. Madam Mayor, Council Members. I have been doing commercial development on the food store side for about 35 years. I have worked for companies such as Albertson's, Kroger Food Stores, and now WinCo. I have also been on the development side as well and I would say that, you know, as a general rule of thumb, any retailer, especially -- especially grocery, are going to be looking for something that is economically viable as a start point. So, one of the speakers originally said something about he didn't know if this was a tenant driven situation on the site plan or if it's a developer driven site plan. To some degree it's tenant driven, because your anchors are going to have some control over how that site plan is going to lay out, because we have to have certain criteria. There has been a lot of comments about the Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 75 of 89 size of the parking lot. Well, for those of you that have shopped at WinCo you know that our parking requirements are very high. We have a very high parking ratio of about five to one just to support our particular store. In this particular development we have worked with this -- with this developer to try to compromise to some degree on the amount of parking that we are willing to live with to help accommodate what the -- what the community has wanted here. So, at the end of the day, yes, we played a key role in how we -- how we laid out on this plan. As Dave indicated, how we face the intersection is really important. Another gentleman spoke to the fact that, you know, when you go out and you look at different communities, you look at different centers, how many huge boxes like a WinCo at 85,000 feet do you see backed up to the intersection, which I think from an aesthetic point of view really doesn't look that good, but on top of that it just functionally doesn't work well for the way that WinCo does its business. Cavener: Madam Mayor? I guess just to be clear, that's a no, that there isn't any more willingness to reorientate the building than where it currently sits. Goins: Well, I would never say no. Okay? Because a tweak that somebody might want to make we will take under consideration, but what we did do when the community was concerned about the way our building was oriented, we did work with DMG to shift our building and position it so that we could take into account additional mitigation measures to try to alleviate -- mitigate light and noise related issues. Cavener: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: How soon will WinCo be wanting to start that store out there? Goins: As soon as we can. Bird: As soon as you can. Goins: Yeah. We -- we have been watching this particular intersection for the last six to seven years. One of the things that kind of held us up was -- you know, the -- as the community continued to grow we annually did sales studies out here and we finally reached a point where the sales projections clearly support going forward with the store. So, we are anxious to get started as soon as possible. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: So, what are your loading dock hours? You know, what are those delivery -- do you -- do you restrict -- would you restrict -- Goins: Well, for those of you, again, that have shopped at our stores before, because of the high volume nature of our facilities, the way that we deliver to our stores, the way that we stock our stores, you know, it's a -- it's a critical aspect of the business model for Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 76 of 89 the company. So, today all of our Treasure Valley stores operate on a 24/7 operation and delivery schedule. Now, what we try to do is our delivery trucks -- and usually for the higher volume stores you will see two large WinCo trucks that usually show up -- try to be there around 10:00 o'clock, because what we want is those -- for those trailers to be there to offload product, because they got people stocking the store literally all night long to get it ready for the next morning, which, by the way, is also a little bit of a life safety issue for us as a company, because one of the things that we try to do, given the level of product that's on the floor, on pallets, being stacked on the high racking, is -- you know, we want to get that done before people are coming into the store where you might have conflict between consumers and people that are trying to stock the store. So, our expectation and our hope is that we can continue with the set -- with the model that we run in the Treasure Valley that we run nationwide, which is 24/7. De Weerd: And would you be willing to restrict loading or delivery hours? Goins: Well, again, the -- De Weerd: I know -- I know you told me what your typical model is, but would you be willing to look at this area? Goins: Well, I think that with the -- with the site plan design changes that we have agreed to and with the noise mitigation, with the sound walls that we have been willing to put up, the additional landscaping, we feel like we have met the effort in terms of the noise mitigation and don't feel like it's something that should be required in this particular situation. De Weerd: Okay. It was just a question. Last question is a lot of people speculate the -- the big box is going to be obsolete in the next ten, 20 years, because of the home deliveries and those kind of things, is -- is that something that you're planning for the future and -- and the size that you are proposing today? Goins: Well, for starters, we don't believe that our model is going to go away in 20 years. I think that the Amazon, Whole Foods acquisition -- there has been a lot of speculation about the impact that that's going to have, but I think, frankly, when you look at the history of the grocery business, people going in, buying their perishables and so and so forth, I don't think you're going to see home delivery just suddenly take over the entire industry. I do think you're seeing grocery retailers make necessary adjustments. I do think over time you might see WinCo offer, you know, more of a click and pick type of approach, taking advantage of the internet, so people can order their product online, pick it up when they get to the store, but we are an adaptable company and so when the need is finally there and when financially it makes sense, we can make those adjustments. But we are not expecting to go away in 20 years. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 77 of 89 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Just while I have got you here. Thank you. I live on the south side of Meridian. Been driving by the site on Overland Road and it says WinCo coming soon. When is coming soon? I get asked this question a lot. Goins: Well, it's a good question. We -- you know, part of the strategy here -- and I'm going to speak to something I don't think it's necessarily been discussed and I think there has probably been some rumors about what's actually planned to take place. What we have done as a company -- we made a decision that the one store that we currently have in Meridian was right in the center, but as the community continued to grow south, grow north, grow east and especially to the -- to the west, we felt like we needed to reposition the company in the City of Meridian. So, ultimately, we did buy the property at Overland and Wells with the intent that with the Chinden and Linder store and the Overland-Wells store we would open those two stores simultaneously and we would be closing the store that's on -- currently in Meridian. Cavener: Okay. Thanks. Bird: Any other questions, Council? Thank you, Mr. Goins. Goins: Anything else? Bird: Thank you. Goins: Thank you. Bird: Council, you got any other questions or anything you need answered while we are still open. Okay. Mr. Goins, you got some more -- Goins: One more thing I'd like to add so that it's clear. As it relates to our existing store that we will be closing, we are actively engaged right now with another national retailer that would take that building at the time that we vacate it. So, we have been actively pursuing someone to take that spot. I'm clearly not at liberty to disclose who that is at this point, but it is a national retailer and they are pretty excited about the opportunity to take over that box. Bird: Thank you very much. Council, do we need any other questions answered? Any -- Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 78 of 89 Borton: I guess a question or comment for the applicant. On one of the -- the latest entries in the record and some of staff comments at the start -- is regards to ACHD's November 20th letter and -- and it's kind of a double edge sword, because you have done I think -- and your team has done an excellent job in trying to alleviate and address certain concerns. Some of the challenges that you are confronted with is it's relatively late in the game, right, in response to some of the P&Z comments and we have got a new concept plan, which is -- has some pretty significant changes that you have acknowledged and ACHD in response has asked for that opportunity to get the updated TIS and address it and their letter raises certain concerns, which I think are worthy of exploring and now it sounds like you have got a February hearing potential. McKinney: Councilman Borton, Madam Mayor, Council Members, the February time frame, that was a guesstimate from a traffic engineer and that was just a comment that ACHD is scheduling hearings at this time. We were asked how long it would be before we were able to get to ACHD and that was -- that was the response. I would -- I would also say that we have made revisions to the plan over time for the last seven or eight months, you know, in the submittal, not only the revisions to remove Costco, but other revisions to the plan. We actually updated our traffic study for ITD to make sure that the trip generation that they base their decisions off of when Costco was a part of the plan, did not change significantly, which we did confirm through that update. That was in July. As to the ACHD comments, we will just work through them and answer the questions and get the study updated in accordance with their -- their comments and move forward in that vein. Borton: Madam Mayor? Kind of where I was going with that is, you know, some of their comments -- where I'm headed with -- I really appreciate the concerns of the public and of the -- of the development team on this, but I also really appreciate the input from those -- those other professional reviewing agencies that we rely on and ACHD is one of them and I wish I had their report and their review and analysis as of us today. I'm -- I'm leaning towards tabling it to get that information. I think it's important and some of the improvements that you're providing both on Chinden and -- and where access is located, a lot of that comes from some of that good analysis that's been done and that's your one shot at trying to get it done right. ACHD brings up questions such as the northern most access point on Linder and whether that is or is not necessary and it references the lack of connectivity on the public streets directly going north and instead as designed it drives it out to an arterial street, to, then, access WinCo, whether that's appropriate. I think those are great questions. So, my -- my initial perception, in light of everything we have received, will be to keep this open, not act on it, and allow that to occur and receive that feedback back from ACHD and have them complete it. That very well might change some of the internal circulation at least, which might move some of the locations, but we just don't know yet and customarily what's happened is we have had that staff report and that analysis on the final version that's presented as part of the annexation decision. That, obviously, takes time to get done, but it's just a bi-product of what I think is your -- your good faith effort to try and address some of the concerns of the public. You have made changes that necessitate that. The consequence, in my opinion, is -- I think it's premature to say deny it when you've made references -- or you Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 79 of 89 made alterations, which we have been requesting -- or the public's requested and you're trying to address it, but rather to try and maybe step back and have that updated analysis occur and give it a decision. I just kind of wanted to throw out my thoughts on it and see if you had a comment on that. McKinney: Councilman Borton, Madam Mayor and Council Members, I -- I understand what you're saying. Honestly, I had hoped to have ACHD's comments a lot earlier, even before Planning Commission. I know Sonya would have some comments on that also. I think -- and I'm paraphrasing. I think their thoughts were that they wanted to see how we progressed with our entitlement approvals prior to commenting and I know that's unusual that ACHD typically would come in ahead of time and I think you all require that, but be that as it may -- Borton: Sure. McKinney: -- they just commented. I haven't studied the letter in detail. That means I have probably read it five times, rather than 20 times, but I think most of the items, with the exception they disagree with the traffic signal, I think most of the items we can work through and address to meet their needs and it was always my understanding their main concern was how Linder is impacted. When we reoriented the plan where we had three curb cuts directly into the site on Linder, it switched to one main curb cut, a curb cut off a collector road that we are building, and we thought it was appropriate, because in our -- our measuring we thought it met the 330 foot distance from the center line of the intersection to have the right-in, right-out on that northern proposed curb cut. That's how we analyzed it and I think what they said in their letter that they want to review that closer, because it -- to me it -- it sounded like they didn't totally review distances and check to make sure they were verified and all that. As a suggestion, to answer your question, Council may want to consider approval per staff's recommendation on the annexation and zoning and, then, maybe we set a date in the future where we come back to Council to directly on the plat, including ACHD's comments. De Weerd: I know that with the changes that staff hasn't been able to do a full analysis of it and I think that the attorney earlier said how can you prepare findings without having that -- that done. Looking at maybe setting this out two weeks, let staff do their detailed work and give ACHD time to maybe respond to some of the questions that have been raised and with staff's analysis you have all the information on the city's side and maybe a better indication of ACHD and the traffic study that they are -- they are requiring. McKinney: That would be okay with us. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 80 of 89 Bird: I think that is an excellent idea to continue this public hearing to December 5th and staff can -- maybe we can get with ACHD and find out -- get the questions answered that we need -- seem to need. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Is that -- is that enough -- just a moment. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in deliberations here it wouldn't give staff enough time with two weeks, because that -- we would have to have something to you next week in order to keep you on the 5th, so it -- it would be our recommendation at least December 19. De Weerd: We can't do it on the 19th. Allen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- sorry. You know, based on the -- the TIS and ACHD's report, there may be some significant changes to the concept plan, too, and that's wrapped into the development agreement associated with the annexation, too. So, I'm not sure if that's the best idea. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I appreciate the dialogue amongst Council tonight. Feedback from the applicant. To me tonight I have -- I have really struggled with -- I think we have all struggled with this application. For me the biggest piece is -- is this something that Council needs to be discussing tonight or is there enough merit to remand this back to Planning and Zoning Commission and I have been looking for a reason to not send it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but I haven't heard that this evening and so I for one -- because there has been such substantial changes, because there is still so many things we are waiting to hear back from ACHD, I would be more supportive of sending it back to Planning and Zoning Commission to begin with. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: While we all ponder on that idea, Sonya, I don't know if we have -- a gentleman in the back was asking for a graphic that I'm curious to see as well, whether we have the -- the site plan that could be set over, a slightly wider view, so that we can see the proposed commercial structures proximity to the existing residents -- residences to the south. Allen: Madam Mayor and Councilman, does that help at all or -- Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 81 of 89 De Weerd: What were you hoping to see? Palmer: The -- the whole view set over -- just like I said, just a slightly wider satellite view, so that -- that -- I mean I like this graphic. I'm a lines and numbers kind of guy, but I think for that to sit over I guess a satellite view so that we can actually see where the houses begin -- I mean we see the property lines on the bottom, but I think it really would help -- De Weerd: Was that the first slide in the initial presentation? Allen: Yeah. You can -- you can tell right here, Mayor and Councilmen, where the residential lots start. Right here. McKinney: Sonya, if you go to the project site, I think it's the first slide. That is the aerial. There you go. De Weerd: Yeah. But he wants to see it with some -- Allen: Yeah. We don't have an aerial with the concept plan overlaid on it. De Weerd: I think a lot of the -- the changes that you made to -- so, this is how you make sausage; right? It's never a pretty site. It's dirty and it changes and what I appreciate is the issues that you had at Planning and Zoning, you have tried to address in this -- in this new concept site plan. What is concerning is that at Planning and Zoning they -- while you addressed much of it, it hasn't been vetted, which triggers all these other reviews by the other agencies and I -- I like the buffer with the residential and that people can actually see what you intended, that you also show that it doesn't connect into the commercial aspect, which gives greater I think confidence that -- that -- of the fear that this is all going to inundate one of our premier subdivisions and I think that this does demonstrate that. I like your main street. I like your loft living. I'd like to see a little bit more on how it all connects to each other, but you verbally talked about that. It's just that because this is so different, all of that time that staff needs to analyze it has -- hasn't had an opportunity to be done and it's hard for Council to be asked to consider that, let alone have findings without that information. McKinney: Madam Mayor and Council Members, may I suggest a later date in December or the early part of January to come back to Council? That would be okay with us. Ballard: Can I interject? Can I -- De Weerd: You can actually talk, Mr. Ballard. Ballard: Okay. Thank you so much. De Weerd: If you will -- Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 82 of 89 Ballard: Brian Ballard. Hawley Troxell. 877 Main in Boise, Idaho. Sending it back -- the staff is the same staff that's going to be talking to you all as would be done at the P&Z. It creates a needless step I think. If you do as Dave suggested, throw it back to Sonya and let's meet again in January and she can do what she does and you will have the same information from the same staff that's going to be doing it down below. So, I think directly back to you is what I would prefer. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I tend to agree with Mr. Ballard on that point. Having it come back here is -- is most appropriate. The challenge can be, as I see it, it's that second -- or first or second -- perhaps even the first one in January -- first or third I guess in January. De Weerd: January 2nd? Bird: It should be the 2nd or 3rd. Borton: Whether we have the information -- complete information and there is some risk that it might not be done from ACHD or otherwise, but if you're comfortable with that, it gives a quicker opportunity to perhaps get answers. Ballard: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, let's give it a shot. I think it's worth it. Borton: January? Ballard: Sometime in January at your convenience. I think maybe after the holiday. I don't know. De Weerd: Well, it's up to Council. If it's January 2nd you have to finish old business. Bird: January 2nd I'm done. De Weerd: No. No. No. Milam: Madam Mayor? If it were to go back to P&Z, how -- when would that be? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think it's a great idea. We don't need to remand it back to P&Z. We have got it -- we have got it here, Sonya and them can -- the staff can work. We give them time. It Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 83 of 89 can come back to the Council and whether I'm sitting here or not, you know, it's -- it's just at the -- no. De Weerd: I'm sorry. Right now not -- this is a conversation from Council on when -- what they would like to do and the public hearing will remain open. Bird: Anyway, I think that -- give it time to do some stuff. I personally think that this corner, if done right, could be like we are doing at Ten Mile out there. It can have all kinds of businesses in there. You're not going to build all the buildings at the same time. You're not going to develop it all at the same time. You have got a wonderful box going in in WinCo. They have been a -- they have been a great Treasure Valley Company for -- since they started out as Waremart over on Overland Road in Boise. I think we give them time to do it. I -- there is something -- I have sat here for 20 years, but there is something about this I just can't get my arms around this site for a deal -- a concept. It might be the greatest site going, but I think it's a nightmare at -- at some location, so -- anyway. I will leave it up to the rest of the Council, but I think you guys need to -- I don't think you need to represent it -- remand it back to Planning and Zoning. Let's take care of it at this level. We are big boys. Milam: Yeah. I'm a big boy. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Council Woman Milam, you are a big boy. I agree with you on that. I want that on the record. You know, Madam Mayor, we have heard a lot of correspondence from the citizens and many of the e-mails that I read that I know maybe had referenced something, Madam Mayor, that you had said time and time again and that's that we get one shot to do this right and I believe in the process that we have with our citizen Planning and Zoning Commission. I think it's entirely appropriate that we remained it back to them and give them another opportunity to look at this. What we have seen with this application is each time a second set of eyes is placed on it, the quality of the product improves and I think that the applicant has indicated that there is high demand for this type of a product in this area. They are seeking -- they are hearing from a lot of potential tenants and I think giving them the opportunity to fine tune this with our Planning and Zoning Commission is absolutely appropriate and I think it is the right course of action for this Council to take. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I have gone both sides of this one. I feel like there have been substantial changes made and there may be more substantial changes, depending on what staff says and depending on what ACHD and ITD and -- you know, more changes are going Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 84 of 89 to be made. If they are going to listen to the comments that they heard tonight and -- you know, and change it even further, then, I do believe that it should go back in front of P&Z. But, yes, I know it's a decision that we can make, but the process is it goes to them first. They denied it. But this is a different project and I think if they saw the -- the final project, maybe after they have met somewhere, that they would see it differently. On the other hand, if that's going to take -- that's why I was asking about the time frame. If that's going to take way too long -- if that's going to take six months, then, I don't think that's fair necessarily to the developer either. I hate to drag it out that long. So, I guess for me to make that decision I need to know how long it would take. Cavener: About the same time. Milam: Same time? Cavener: Yeah. Milam: Maybe they could see it on November 19th -- or December 19th. Or that week. They might be able to see it sooner. P&Z may be able to see it sooner than we can I guess is when -- Cavener: Actually, it's going to be less if it goes to P&Z like -- Milam: Yeah. That's what I was trying to figure out. De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If staff could clarify that schedule. De Weerd: I think that's what Mr. Nary was just going to -- Allen: Madam Mayor, Council, if you choose to remand it back to the Commission, we could either get it on the -- depending on the -- if the city attorney feels that we should renotice the project -- that's an affirmative yes. We could either get it on the January 4th or January 18th hearing. That still wouldn't allow ACHD time enough to get the revised TIS and issue a staff report. But it sounds like that they could probably get that by the time it went to Council with a new recommendation. De Weerd: And, then, it's 30 days notice on that and -- so -- Allen: I would say you're probably at around three months, probably, by the time it is all said and done. Bird: Council? Madam Mayor I mean. Sorry. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 85 of 89 Bird: Why not continue this to January 16th, which gives us plenty of time to do what -- we were going to remand it back and let's -- let's get it taken care of at this level. You're going to reprimand it back and it's going to wind up costing the developers probably some tenants, which -- to me that isn't fair to -- to a developer that is -- I won't say bent over backwards to make -- to meet all the concerns, but he has done something to make some -- to meet the concerns. So, I would make a motion that we continue this public hearing on H-2017-0088 to January 16th, 2018. If I get a second. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this item to January 16th -- 16th, 2018. All those I favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. Cavener: Nay. De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it and the public hearing was continued, so without any sidelines. Any sideboards. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I guess to that -- to that point, there were some -- I don't know if it's official sideboards, but I think constructive comments that I know the -- the developer team took notes of -- that came not only from before today's hearing, but from today's hearing. Concerns and questions that the public had that they have an opportunity to try and address it, incorporate it, that -- to and including what ACHD's -- the issues they have raised and our staff has rightly noted might impact the development agreement and it all does have to stick together. But if there had been some sideboards and the team has made note of opportunities to try and address some of the valid concerns that the public has raised and Council wants to make sure they do that. Reynolds: Madam Mayor, kind of a procedure concern. At the P&Z Commission they -- when they were about to discuss what they were going to do, they closed the public hearing and the applicant needed to sit down, so that they couldn't be here to sway the members of the P&Z Commission one way or another and I think that a lot of us who -- you know, the developer gets to get up and give a rebuttal to a lot of what has been said. We don't have that same opportunity and so we were sitting there without -- without any voice of saying, well, yes, we could -- we could support you continuing it at the city level if this happened or, yes, we support it going back to P&Z for this -- for this reason or X, Y, Z. And so the residents, once again, did not get to weigh in on what -- what we would -- anyway, what we would feel would be best in this situation and we definitely had -- had some thoughts -- factual thoughts to go along with that, so -- Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 86 of 89 De Weerd: Well, procedurally -- and I think Mr. Marshall can tell you that you do start with the applicant, you take the testimony, and you finish with the applicant and -- and that is the process. Reynolds: Right. But I'm saying once you started discussing the applicant was still here answering questions about, well, why don't we just go to City Council, why don't we just do this, why don't we just do that. De Weerd: Council had questions for them and that's why they were part of the conversation. Reynolds: Okay. Understood. What Council -- would they ever consider asking residents, you know, why would you want it to go back to P&Z? Have they ever called residents back up to ask for their input? De Weerd: If Council had questions for the residents most certainly. Reynolds: Okay. Thank you so much, Madam Mayor. Thank you City Council Members. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 10-A is under -- I'm -- I'm going to call a five minute recess. (Recess: 10:36 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.) Item 10: Department Reports A. Continued from November 14, 2017: Updates to City Code provisions regarding Chief Financial Officer/Information Services Director 1. Ordinance No. 17-1753: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-8-1, Regarding Appointment of Department Officials by Mayor; Repealing Title 1, Chapter 8, Article E, Meridian City Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-9-3(G)(7), Regarding Compensation Changes; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-8B-2, Regarding Duties of the Chief Financial Officer; and Providing an Effective Date. De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and -- and start this meeting again. We are at 10-A under Department Reports and this was a continued update from our CFO. Oh. Where is our attorney? He's out -- Nary: Sorry, Madam Mayor. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 87 of 89 De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. I know you were trying to wrap that up with the neighbors. Sorry, we are on 10-A. Yes. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, some of the Council Members weren't present last week. We did continue it for a week to make sure they could see this. What this change in our code -- simply eliminates the position of sports services director, puts the responsibility of the clerk's office and the IT department under the CFO, information services director, now Todd Lavoie, who is also -- if you noticed in the ordinance, it's a very long title, because the state code identifies the treasurer as the designated title of the person that's appointed. So, although we may internally refer to that or designate that as the CFO, I did have to include treasurer in the title. But that's the only -- only thing. But, otherwise, it just adds those duties and eliminates the support services director, since that doesn't exist any longer. Milam: Now everybody is not here. Bird: Do you want him to read it again? De Weerd: Oh, any questions on this? Mr. Clerk, will you read it by title. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 17-1753, an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Meridian City Code Section 1-8-1, regarding appointment of department officials by Mayor; repealing Title 1, Chapter 8, Article E, Meridian City Code; amending Meridian City Code Section 1-9-3(G)(7), regarding compensation changes; amending Meridian City Code Section 1-8B-2, regarding duties of the Chief Financial Officer; and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this read by title. Would you like to hear it read in its entirety? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 17-1753 with suspension of rules. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, absent. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 88 of 89 B. Police: Budget Amendment for Animal Control Services Not- to-Exceed $11,000 De Weerd: Item 10-B is under our Police Department. Caldwell: Madam Mayor, Council, I was -- De Weerd: We saved the best for last. Caldwell: Yeah. I received a short brief from Chief Lavey this morning in regards to the Idaho Humane Society and an increase in fees. This is in regards to -- as the city has grown, so has the need for their services and I believe the increase was for approximately 11,000 dollars and this didn't make it to budget as we did not get the information from them in time for our budget process. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Not so much a question, just more -- maybe a comment for scheduling in the future. I'd like to have an update from the Humane Society on how this program is progressing, especially in light of them asking for more dollars because of growth. I'd like to see -- I just -- I think it's important that we be updated as to what they are doing. De Weerd: I would agree. It would be important maybe to ask them during our budget process to give us an update, along with their budget proposal. Milam: Yes. Good -- good call. De Weerd: Okay. And you can take that back. Caldwell: Will do. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the budget amendment for the animal -- animal control services not to exceed 11,000 dollars. Milam: Second. Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 89 of 89 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: And I recognize we put some people on the spot and we all want to go home. Personally I would feel more comfortable holding on this budget amendment until we have had to hear from them. We missed it through the budget process and I don't think a couple more weeks at the least would slow anything down, so I would be more supportive of waiting until we hear from them before we approve the dollars. Caldwell: Madam Mayor and Council, when you talk about a report, are you looking for something like the increase in calls for service years over years, that type of report? De Weerd: Yeah. I would say increase in service, what kind of service pressures they have had, you know, what kind of calls they get. You know, just a -- almost a year in review and how they are serving our customers. Caldwell: So, something kind of similar to what we do with our crimes year to year, how we track that? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: So, we are going to ask them to come during our budget hearing process, that's in June. De Weerd: We would like an update now, but, then, annually they -- they would participate in that budget process. Milam: So, now and in June. Whatever. Okay. De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think when we originally signed on with this with the Humane Society, we were a city of less than 80,000 and I don't -- to my knowledge I don't think it has risen and now we are probably over 100,000. I can understand why the Idaho Humane Society -- I Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 90 of 89 agree, you guys -- we need to be updated more -- kind of like we get updated at least once a year by the -- or by the Boise City Attorney's Office and I don't know why they can't do this, but I don't -- I just -- this 11,000 dollars is -- let's put it this way: If it was still under our control, this 11,000 would be a hundred -- probably 111,000 budget amendment. De Weerd: And, Mr. Bird, I would agree with you, but I see Mr. Cavener's point and when Republic Services comes they have to give an update and they are here in person to -- to represent that. To ask our Police Department to -- I know they gladly bring it, because, otherwise, they get animal control back and I don't think they are looking for that. But this is one of our contractors and they are asking for an increase, they should ask in person. What's your pleasure? Borton: Madam Mayor, I'm fine with waiting for the update, if it doesn't take too long. De Weerd: Okay. We will put it back on an agenda after we hear from the chief on when they can come and give a report. Item 11: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Okay. Item 11, Feature Meeting Topics. City all closes tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. and we will reopen on Monday at 8:00. Next Friday is the AIC legislative summit. Let April know if you'd like to be registered and we will get that taken care of and just a reminder about the Winterland Parade on December 1st at 6:30. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. Bird: Same to all your guys. De Weerd: Okay. With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Milam: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:54 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Page 91 of 89 _ r Z/7 eR-TA Y DE WEERD DATE APPROVED ATTE7 _,r Qo�p,ZED AUGLS T C. J Y CO , C LERK 20 f IIV of V E IDIAN�- IDAHO s� SEAL �I Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 5 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum 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 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN -IN SHEET Date: November 21, 2017 Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet or other provisions of law or policy. Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic rJ Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM TITLE: ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: Approve Minutes of November 8, 2017 City Council Regular 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 November 8, 2017 Page 28 of 28 Roll call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (7:03 p.m. to 8:05 p.m.) De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn? Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:05 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR A MY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED ATTEST: C. J COL , CITY CLERK S'i1 v of o w m E jD�AN�. 0 SEAL 4 / Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0133 ITEM TITLE: Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No.1 Final Order for Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No.1 (H-2017-0133) by Brighton Investments LLC located approximately 'Amile south of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. Blackcat Rd. 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 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BAINBRIDGE HESS SUBDIVISION NO. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 Page 1 of 3 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT CONSISTING OF 22 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 6 COMMON LOTS ON 5.85 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R-8 ZONING DISTRICT FOR BAINBRIDGE HESS SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY: BRIGHTON INVESTMENTS, LLC APPLICANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. H-2017-0133 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council on November 8, 2017 for final plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6B-3 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete by the Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat, the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of “PLAT SHOWING BAINBRIDGE HESS SUBDIVISION NO. 1, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 2017, ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BAINBRIDGE HESS SUBDIVISION NO. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 Page 2 of 3 HANDWRITTEN DATE: 9/13/2017, by AARON L. BALLARD, PLS, SHEET 1 OF 4,” is conditionally approved subject to those conditions of Staff as set forth in the staff report to the Mayor and City Council from the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department dated November 8, 2017, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked “Exhibit A” and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Kameron Nauahi, Brighton Corporation, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked “Exhibit B” and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City’s requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 2.1 The plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2.2 The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash surety has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty- eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review pursuant to Idaho Code§ 67-52. st By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of ,�/vVem69-1�- , 2017. CB a erd Mayor, of Meridian -U' Attest: oP r ('ily of w EIDIAN*. IDAHO C.J6y Cole m AL City Clerk�P/ SE Copy served upon the Applicant, Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: %� _ ' �-n 17 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BAINBRIDGE HESS SUBDIVISION NO. 1 — FP H-2017-0133 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 1 STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: November 8, 2017 (Continued from: October 24, 2017) TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP (H-2017-0133) I. APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, Brighton Investments, LLC, has applied for final plat (FP) approval of 22 single- family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 5.85 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for the first phase of Bainbridge Hess Subdivision. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 final plat subject to the conditions noted in Sections VI and VII below. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the City Council. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval I move to approve File Number H-2017-0133 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial I move to deny File Number H-2017-0133, as presented during the hearing on November 8, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0133 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The subject property is located approximately ¼ mile south of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. Black Cat Rd., in the NW ¼ of Section 14, T. 3N., R. 1W. B. Applicant: Brighton Investments, LLC 12601 W. Explorer Drive, Ste. 200 Boise, Idaho 83713 C. Owner: Dallas Hess 6948 N. Spurwing Way EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 2 Meridian, ID 83646 D. Representative: Michael Wardle, Brighton Development 12601 W. Explorer Drive, Ste. 200 Boise, Idaho 83713 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed final plat depicts 22 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 5.85 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. The minimum property size in this phase is 7,190 square feet (s.f.) with an average size of 7,952 s.f. This property was included in the preliminary plat for Bainbridge Subdivision (PP-13-001) and is actually the 8th phase of development of Bainbridge Subdivision (including the Bainbridge Park Subdivision final plat) but because it’s under different ownership and not contiguous to the previous phase of the Bainbridge development, the developer is phasing it in separately under the name Bainbridge Hess Subdivision. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat (PP-13-011) as required by UDC 11-6B-3D.2. There are 4 additional building lots than shown on the approved preliminary plat for this phase; the amount of qualified open space is the same. With Phase 6, there was one additional building lot and with Phase 4, there were two additional building lots included on the final plats than shown on the approved preliminary plat; the first three phases, Bainbridge Park Subdivision, and phase 5 contained the same number of building lots. The qualified open space in Phase 3 exceeded that shown on the approved preliminary plat, while that in Phase 4 decreased by 0.41 of an acre; and Phases 1, 2, 6 and Bainbridge Park Subdivision were the same. Because the number of building lots increased and the area of qualified open space decreased on previous final plat phases, the applicant was required to submit an updated conceptual plat with the 6th phase of development depicting what’s already been platted and what is planned to be platted in future phases to ensure overall substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-3C as required (see Exhibit E). The revised plan includes the 2.5 acre property recently acquired by the developer at the west boundary of the site. A new preliminary plat is required to be submitted for that area. The concept plan depicts a total of 573 building lots which includes 9 lots that will need to be included in a new plat which leaves 12 lots that are over the amount included in the preliminary plat. These extra lots are the result of reductions in the width of lots based on market adjustments. The applicant states they will apply for a new preliminary plat that will include the extra lots as they get closer to Ten Mile Road and the LDS Church site. To date, there are a total of 7 additional building lots than were approved on the preliminary plat. Because the total number of building lots (338) shown on final plat applications to date has not yet exceeded the total amount approved with the preliminary plat (i.e. 552), Staff deems the proposed final plat in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. However , at the point more building lots are proposed than were approved with the preliminary plat, lots will either need to be decreased in accord with that approved or, a new preliminary plat for the remaining area will be required. A new preliminary plat is also required for additional land that has been acquired since the preliminary plat was approved that is proposed to be included within the development. VI. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved annexation [AZ-05-058, Development Agreement #106141058 (Keego Springs Subdivision)] and preliminary plat (PP-13-011) applications approved for this site. EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 3 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat within two years of the City Engineer’s signature on the previous phase final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. The final plat prepared by KM Engineering, stamped on 9/13/17 by Aaron L. Ballard, shall be revised as follows: a. Note #6: “. . . and homeowner’s association pressurized. irrigation.” b. Note #14: Include the recorded instrument number. c. Note #15: “. . .These lots are This lot is encumbered by that . . .” 5. The landscape plan prepared by KM Engineering, dated 9/13/17, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a concrete pad at the end of the common driveways on Lots 7 and 16 no more than 5 feet behind the sidewalk that is of sufficient area to accommodate the trash receptacles of the residences that take access from the common driveway. Please contact Bob Olson at Republic Services (345-1265) for additional information. b. Fencing is required to be constructed by the developer abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7; include fencing details. Note: Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited, unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer; otherwise, a 5-foot wide buffer is not required per UDC 11-6C-3D. 6. The common driveways shall be paved with a surface with the capability of supporting fire vehicles and equipment; and shall be straight or provide a 28’ inside and 48’ outside turning radius of per UDC 11-6C-3D.4. 7. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment per UDC 11-6C-3D.8. 8. All fencing installed on the site must be consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. If permanent fencing does not exist at the subdivision boundary, temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around this phase prior to release of building permits. 9. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. 10. Prior to the issuance of any new building permit, the property shall be subdivided in accordance with the UDC. VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 4 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 5 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 6 V. EXHIIBITS A. Vicinity/Zoning Map B. Preliminary Plat (dated: 4/30/13) C. Proposed Final Plat (dated: 9/13/17) D. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated:9/13/17) E. Updated Development Plan with Qualified Open Space Exhibit (dated: 8/15/17) F. Common Driveway Exhibit EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 7 Exhibit A – Vicinity/Zoning Map R-4 R1 RUT L-O RUT L-O C-G C-C R-8 L-O C-N R-15 L-O N T E N M I L E R D N B L A C K C A T R D Y W WOLF RAPIDS ST N D A L L A S A V E N E L M S T O N E A V E AVILLA DR W LO N S E A W I N D A V E W PHILOMENA ST W VANDERBILT DR W WAPOOT ST N J O Y W A Y N E Y N S F O R D A V E W DAPHNE ST W LOST R APIDS ST W GONDOLA DR W VANDERBILT DR W CEDAR GROVE ST W W SAND WEDGE ST N E X E T E R A V E W A Y W MILANO ST W RAMBLIN CT W W M W W LARRY LN N N S A L V I A N J O Y A V E N C A R L E S E A V E N B O L S E N A A V E N A S I S S I W A Y N A R E Z Z O A V E A Y N EX E T E R A V E N M A P L E S T O N E A V E 4N1W27 Chinden Blvd. EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 8 Exhibit B – Preliminary Plat (dated: 4/30/13) EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 9 Exhibit C – Proposed Final Plat (dated: 9/13/17) EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 10 EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 11 Exhibit D – Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 9/13/17) EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 12 Exhibit E: Updated Development Plan with Updated Qualified Open Space Exhibit (dated: 8/15/17) Note: Single-family lot count includes 9 lots that will be included in a new preliminary plat that were not within the boundary of the subject preliminary plat. EXHIBIT A Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 – FP H-2017-0133 13 Exhibit F: Common Driveway Exhibit 1 C.Jay Coles From:Kameron Nauahi <knauahi@brightoncorp.com> Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:49 AM To:Sonya Allen; Barbara Shiffer; C.Jay Coles; Charlene Way; Machelle Hill Cc:Jon Wardle; Mike Wardle Subject:RE: Bainbridge Hess Sub. 1 - FP H-2017-0133 Staff Report for 11/8 Council Mtg Attachments:Bainbridge Hess Sub No. 1 - FP H-2017-0133.pdf All, We are in agreement with the attached Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1 final plat staff report and the recommended conditions of approval; and ask that the item be placed on the City Council’s Wednesday, November 8 th consent agenda. Thank you, Kameron Nauahi | Assistant Project Manager BRIGHTON CORPORATION 12601 W. Explorer, Suite 200 | Boise, ID 83713 Direct 208.287.0504 | Cell 208.830.3629 From: Sonya Allen [mailto:sallen@meridiancity.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:02 PM To: Barbara Shiffer <bshiffer@meridiancity.org>; C.Jay Coles <cjcoles@meridiancity.org>; Charlene Way <cway@meridiancity.org>; Machelle Hill <mhill@meridiancity.org> Cc: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Kameron Nauahi <knauahi@brightoncorp.com> Subject: Bainbridge Hess Sub. 1 - FP H-2017-0133 Staff Report for 11/8 Council Mtg Attached is the staff report for the proposed final plat for Bainbridge Hess Subdivision No. 1. This item is scheduled to be on the City Council agenda on November 8th. The hearing will be held at City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, beginning at 6:00 pm. Please call or e-mail with any questions. Mike - Please submit a written response to the staff report to the City Clerk’s office (mhill@meridiancity.org , cjcoles@meridiancity.org , cway@meridiancity.org , bshiffer@meridiancity.org and myself (e-mail or fax) by 3:00 pm the Thursday prior to the meeting. If you are in agreement with the conditions of approval contained in the staff report and you submit a written response accordingly, your item will be placed on the consent agenda; consent agenda items are passed in one motion by the Council at the beginning of the meeting. Note: If you are in agreement with the staff report, it is still recommended you attend the meeting in the event the item is pulled off of the consent agenda for discussion. If you do not respond to the staff report by Thursday at 3:00 pm, or if you have concerns with the conditions of approval, your project will be placed on the regular agenda. Thanks , Sonya Allen | Associate City Planner Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0135 ITEM TITLE: Castlebridge Subdivision Final Order for Castlebridge Subdivision (fka Kingsbridge) (H- 2017-0135) by Jarrod Langston located at 3475 E. Falcon Drive 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 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CASTLEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION – FP H-2017-0135 Page 1 of 3 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT CONSISTING OF 10 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND 3 COMMON LOTS ON 5.04 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR CASTLEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION BY: JARRON LANGSTON APPLICANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. H-2017-0135 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council on November 8, 2017 for final plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6B-3 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete by the Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat, the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of “PLAT OF CASTLEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, ALL OF LOT 7 OF GOLDEN EAGLE ESTATES, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 37, AT PAGE 3127, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, LOCATED IN THE N ½ OF THE NW ¼ OF SECTION 28, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M., CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 2017, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 8/22/17, by ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CASTLEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION – FP H-2017-0135 Page 2 of 3 RICHARD A. GRAY, PLS, SHEET 1 OF 3,” is conditionally approved subject to those conditions of Staff as set forth in the staff report to the Mayor and City Council from the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department dated November 8, 2017, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked “Exhibit A” and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Jarron Langston, Applicant’s Representative, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked “Exhibit B” and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City’s requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 2.1 The plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2.2 The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash surety has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty- eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review pursuant to Idaho Code§ 67-52. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the I day of lio w/v) Ver- , 2017. T Mayor, Attest: C.J Coles City Clerk Meridian Copy served upon the Applicant, Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department and City Attorney. By: Jjllit Dated: // '9 / ' -O / ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CASTLEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION — FP H-2017-0135 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 1 STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: November 8, 2017 (Continued from: October 24, 2017) TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Castlebridge Subdivision – FP (H-2017-0135) I. APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, Jarron Langston, has applied for final plat (FP) approval of 10 single-family residential building lots for detached homes and 3 common lots on 5.04 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district for Castlebridge Subdivision. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Castlebridge Subdivision final plat subject to the conditions noted in Sections VI and VII below. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the City Council. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval I move to approve File Number H-2017-0135 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial I move to deny File Number H-2017-0135, as presented during the hearing on November 8, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0135 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at 3475 E. Falcon Drive, in the NW ¼ of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. (Parcel No.: R3193250030) B. Applicant: Jarron Langston 9563 W. Harness Drive Boise, Idaho 83709 C. Owner: Jack Hammond 3728 E. Vantage Point Ln. EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 2 Meridian, ID 83642 D. Representative: Stan McHutchison 2818 N. Mule Deer Way Meridian, Idaho 83646 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed final plat depicts 10 single-family residential building lots for detached homes and 3 common lots on 5.04 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. The minimum property size in this phase is 16,065 square feet (s.f.) with an average size of 18,706 s.f. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat (H-2017-0065) as required by UDC 11-6B-3D.2. There are the same number of building lots and the same amount of common area proposed on the final plat as approved with the preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff deems the proposed final plat in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat as required. The applicant’s narrative states that this subdivision is upgrading the existing pump station in Kingsbridge Subdivision through an agreement with the Kingsbridge Homeowner’s Association. VI. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved annexation, Development Agreement #2017- 092983, and preliminary plat (H-2017-092983) applications approved for this site. 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat within two years of the City Engineer’s signature on the previous phase final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. The final plat prepared by KM Engineering, stamped on 8/22/17 by Richard A. Gray, shall be revised as follows: a. Notes #13 & 14: Include the recorded instrument numbers. 5. The landscape plan prepared by Breckon Land Design, dated 9/6/17, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a concrete pad at the end of the common driveway on Lot 9 no more than 5 feet behind the sidewalk that is of sufficient area to accommodate the trash receptacles of the residences that take access from the common driveway. Please contact Bob Olson at Republic Services (345-1265) for additional information. 6. Design of homes constructed within the subdivision shall be consistent with the conceptual building elevations included in the development agreement. 7. The existing home proposed to remain on Lot 12, Block 1 shall hook up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it being available to said lot. 8. An access easement is required to be obtained from the Accommodations Subdivision Homeowner’s Association through Lot 16, Block 1 for access to the emergency access driveway on Lot 9, Block 1. A copy of said easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 3 9. A perpetual ingress-egress easement for the common driveways proposed on Lots 9 and 16, Block 1 shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. 10. The existing domestic well and septic system within this project shall be removed from domestic service, per City Ordinance 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. The well may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 11. All fencing installed on the site must be consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. If permanent fencing does not exist at the subdivision boundary, temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around this phase prior to release of building permits. 12. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. 13. Prior to the issuance of any new building permit, the property shall be subdivided in accordance with the UDC. VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 4 Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 5 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. V. EXHIIBITS A. Vicinity/Zoning Map B. Preliminary Plat (dated: 5/15/17) C. Proposed Final Plat (dated: 8/22/17) D. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 9/5/17) E. Common Driveway Exhibit EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 6 Exhibit A – Vicinity/Zoning Map EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 7 Exhibit B – Preliminary Plat (dated: 5/15/17) EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 8 Exhibit C – Proposed Final Plat (dated: 8/22/17) EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 9 Exhibit D – Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 9/5/17) EXHIBIT A Castlebridge Subdivision – FP H-2017-0135 10 E. Common Driveway Exhibit From:Jarron Langston To:Sonya Allen Cc:Barbara Shiffer; C.Jay Coles ; Charlene Way ; Machelle Hill ; Stan Mchutchison (stlomc@aol.com); rp_green@hotmail.com; Jack Hammond Subject:Re: Castlebridge Sub - FP H-2017-0135 Staff Report for 11/8 Council Mtg Date:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 9:14:15 AM All, Good morning! As it pertains to the Staff Report for Castlebridge Subdivision FP ( H-2017-0135 ) we are in Agreement. Please continue with the scheduled Final Plat approval for November 8th by MeridianCity Council. Thank you! Jarron Langston Commercial Leasing and Development Commercial Real Estate BOISE, IDAHO C: 208-724-6239 jarronlangston@gmail.com Check out Boise!!! https://youtu.be/XRhGeau8RlE https://youtu.be/ykdPMjEXx5s On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org > wrote: Attached is the staff report for the proposed final plat for Castlebridge Subdivision. This item is scheduled to be on the City Council agenda on Nov. 8 th . The hearing will be held at City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, beginning at 6:00 pm. Please call or e-mail with any questions. Jarron - Please submit a written response to the staff report to the City Clerk’s office (mhill@meridiancity.org , cjcoles@meridiancity.org , cway@meridiancity.org , bshiffer@meridiancity.org and myself (e-mail or fax) by 3:00 pm the Thursday prior to the meeting. If you are in agreement with the conditions of approval contained in the staff report and you submit a written response accordingly, your item will be placed on the consent agenda; consent agenda items are passed in one motion by the Council at the beginning of the meeting. Note: If you are in agreement with the staff report, it is still recommended you attend the meeting in the event the item is pulled off of the consent agenda for discussion. EXHIBIT B If you do not respond to the staff report by Thursday at 3:00 pm, or if you have concerns with the conditions of approval, your project will be placed on the regular agenda. Thanks, Sonya Allen | Associate City Planner City of Meridian | Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533|Direct: 208-489-0578|Fax: 208-489-0578 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6D PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0136 ITEM TITLE: Maddyn Subdivision Final Order for Maddyn Subdivision (H-2017-0136) by A Team Land Consultants located on the West Side of N. Meridian Road, South of E. Ustick Road, North of W. Sedgewick Drive MEETING NOTES u✓ APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT MODIFICATION FOR MADDYN VILLAGE SUBDIVISION H-2017-0136 Page 1 of 2 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C NOVEMBER 8, 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION TO MADDYN VILLAGE FINAL PLAT TO ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING PERMITS PRIOR TO SIGNATURE ON A FINAL PLAT. BY: STEVE ARNOLD, A TEAM CONSULTING APPLICANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. H-2017-0136 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT MODIFCATION This matter coming before the City Council on November 8, 2017, upon the Applicant’s submittal of a final plat modification application pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-5A-2 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete by the Planning Division, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the modifications, the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The above named applicant is granted approval to modify the Maddyn Village Subdivision final plat to allow issuance of multi-family building permits prior to signature on the final plat, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, incorporated by reference. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017 , 2017 By the actionofthe City Council at its regular meeting on the /X UPS U� , 2017. DATED this al Attest: C. Ly Coles, City Clerk day of /vowly)6e� , 2017 \�GO�QDFtATED cv01Vu% `9 w SEAL 4 / day of Mayor T i y de Weerd Copy served upon the Applicant, Planning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. BY: Dated: // '2- / — '9-o /'� ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT MODIFICATION FOR MADDYN VILLAGE SUBDIVISION H-2017-0136 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A Maddyn Village H-2017-0136 - 1 - STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: November 8, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner (208) 884-5533 SUBJECT: Maddyn Subdivision – (H-2017-0136) I. APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, A Team Land Consultants, has requested approval of a modification to the Maddyn Village final plat to allow the issuance of building permits for the multi-family portion of the development prior to the recording of a final plat. NOTE: No building permits for the single family portion of the development will be issued until the final plat records. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subject application subject to the modifications listed in Exhibit A. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0136, as presented during the hearing on November 8, 2017. Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017- 0136, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number H-2017- 0136 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance) IV.APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located on the west side of N. Meridian Road, south of E. Ustick Road, north of W. Sedgewick Drive in the NE ¼ of Section 1, Township 3N., Range 1W. B. Applicant/Representative: Steve Arnold, A Team Consulting 1785 Whisper Cove Avenue Rupert, ID 83709 C. Owner: Kyle Enzler, Maddyn Homes 3001 N. Meridian Road Meridian, ID 83646 D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. Exhibit A Maddyn Village H-2017-0136 - 2 - V. PROCESS FACTS The subject application is for a modification to the final plat. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5, the City Council is the decision making body on this matter. A public meeting is required to be held for this type of application. VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently developed with two (2) single-family homes. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Parkview Christian Church and Spring Creek Assisted Living Facility, zoned L-O 2. East: N. Meridian Road; single-family residential properties zoned R-8. 3. South: Single-family residential properties in Salisbury Lane Subdivision, zoned R-4 4. West: Single-family residential properties in Parkway Subdivision, zoned R-4 C. History of Previous Actions: In 2016, the property received annexation and zoning with both R-8 and R-15 zoning districts, a preliminary plat for 29 single family lots, 10 multi-family lots and 6 common lots. And a conditional use permit for a 48 unit multi-family development. In 2017, the property received final plat approval for a plat consisting of 29 sing le-family lots, 10 multi-family lots and 9 common lots on 10.32 acres of land. Staff is also processing a CZC and DES for the multi-family portion of the project so that the applicant is able to obtain a building permit. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests approval to obtain building permits prior to the recording of a final plat for Maddyn Village Subdivision. This modification is requested to allow the applicant to get started on construction as it will take several months to get the final plat recorded. In order to proceed with the modification as proposed by the applicant , final plat site specific condition #10 needs to be revised as follows: 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a final plat for the single family portion of the development. Prior to issuance of building permits for the multi-family portion of the development, the developer shall complete the following prerequisite items: a) The domestic water system shall be installed, tested, and activated so that fire hydrants are available during construction. b) The sanitary sewer system shall be installed and tested. c) At a minimum, a compacted gravel road base shall be in place that will support the weight of a fire apparatus (75,000 lbs). Add a new conditon as follows: 11. The applicant shall record the final plat prior to receiving issuance of any certificate of occupancies for the multi-family dwellings. Staff is supportive of the requested changes to the final plat. The requested changes are shown in Exhibit D. Exhibit A Maddyn Village H-2017-0136 - 3 - VIII. EXHIBITS A. Vicinity Map B. Approved Final Plat C. Approved Multi-family Development Site Plan D. Modifications to the Final Plat Note Exhibit A Maddyn Village H-2017-0136 - 4 - A. Vicinity Map Exhibit A Maddyn Village H-2017-0136 - 5 - B. Approved Final Plat Exhibit A Maddyn Village H-2017-0136 - 6 - C. Approved Multi-family Development Site Plan Exhibit A Maddyn Village H-2017-0136 - 7 - D. Modifications to the Final Plat The Maddyn Village final plat shall be modified as follows: 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a final plat for the single family portion of the development. Prior to issuance of building permits for the multi-family portion of the development, the developer shall complete the following prerequisite items: d) The domestic water system shall be installed, tested, and activated so that fire hydrants are available during construction. e) The sanitary sewer system shall be installed and tested. f) At a minimum, a compacted gravel road base shall be in place that will support the weight of a fire apparatus (75,000 lbs). Add a new conditon as follows: 11. The applicant shall record the final plat prior to receiving issuance of any certificate of occupancies for the multi-family dwellings. Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6E PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-038 ITEM TITLE: Linder Professional Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Linder Professional Plaza (H-2017-038) by M & L Properties, LLC located at 4664 N. Penngrove Way 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 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER FILE NO(S). H-2017-0138 - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Short Plat Consisting of Three (3) Building Lots on 1.56 Acres of Land in the L-O Zoning District for Linder Professional Plaza, by Aaron Moorhouse, M & L Properties, LLC. Case No(s). H-2017-0138 For the City Council Hearing Date of: November 8, 2017 (Findings on November 21, 2017) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER FILE NO(S). H-2017-0138 - 2 - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant’s request for short plat is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer’s signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat (UDC 11-6B-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two (2) years, may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval (UDC 11-6B-7B). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat not to exceed two (2) years. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again (UDC 11- 6B-7C). E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the �� day of Ivo L - 6(,- 2017. COUNCIL PRESIDENT KEITH BIRD VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED Y64 COUNCIL MEMBER ANNE LITTLE ROBERTS VOTED COUNCIL, MEMBER TY PALMER VOTED Y&� COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED_ y6� COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM VOTED Yeo MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Ta my e Weerd =Go_QDapTEDAUGLs i Attest: ON of Y ©4HO C.Ay ColeQ SEAL City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. r By: /'Y7/1 a � /� Dated: City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER FILE NO(S). H-2017-0138 - 3 - EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: November 8, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Linder Professional Plaza – SHP (H-2017-0138) I. APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, Aaron Moorhouse, M & L Properties, LLC, has applied for short plat (SHP) approval of 3 building lots on 1.56 acres of land in the L-O zoning district for Linder Professional Plaza. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the criteria listed in UDC 11-6B-5, Staff finds the proposed plat is eligible to be processed as a short plat. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed short plat with the conditions and Findings stated in this report. The Meridian City Council heard these items on November 8, 2017. At the public hearing, the Council approved the subject SHP request. a. Summary of City Council Public Hearing: i. In favor: Caleb Kenyon, Applicant’s Representative ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: i. None c. Key Issues of Discussion by Council: i. None d. Key Council Changes to Staff/Commission Recommendation i. None III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0138 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 8, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0138, as presented during the hearing on November 8, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 2 Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0138 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a short plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notification published on: October 20, 2017 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 12, 2017 V. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at 4664 N. Penngrove Way, in the NE ¼ of Section 35, Township 4N., Range 1W. B. Applicant/Owner(s): Aaron Moorhouse, M & L Properties, LLC 13150 W. Persimmon Ln. Boise, ID 83713 C. History: In 2001, this property received approval for annexation & zoning (AZ-01-003), conditional use permit/planned development (CUP-01-006), and preliminary plat (PP-01-002) as part of Bridgetower Subdivision. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation recorded as Inst. #101117652). In 2007, a new preliminary plat (PP-07-023), rezone (RZ-07-018), and development agreement modification (MI-07-014, Addendum Inst. #108059795 was approved for Bridgetower Crossing Office Subdivision. In 2008, a final plat (FP-08-011) was approved for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 15 which included the subject property. On September 28, 2017, a property boundary adjustment was approved which affected the configuration of this property (ROS #11044). VI. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed short plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 3, Block 45, Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 15 and consists of 3 building lots on 1.56 acres of land in the L-O zoning district. All of the lots in the proposed subdivision comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O zoning district. Future building height and setbacks are also required to comply with the aforementioned standards. This property has street frontage on N. Linder Road, an arterial street; and N. Penngrove Way, a local street. An ingress/egress easement is depicted on the plat for access to all of the proposed lots via N. Penngrove Way in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Street buffers are required to be provided and depicted on the plat along all streets in a permanent dedicated buffer or common lot, maintained by the property owner or business owner’s association, EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 3 as follows: a 25-foot wide buffer is required along N. Linder Road; and, a 10-foot wide buffer is required along N. Penngrove Way. The buffer along Penngrove is not required to be installed until the time of lot development – installation of such improvements are not required at the time of plat approval, as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14B.3. Staff has reviewed the proposed short plat for substantial compliance with the criteria set forth in UDC 11-6B-5 and deems the short plat to be in substantial compliance with said requirements to recommend approval as proposed. VII. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Short Plat (dated: 9/20/17) 3. Landscape Plan (dated: 5/21/08) B. Agency Comments/Conditions of Approval C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 4 Exhibit A.1 – Vicinity/Zoning Map EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 5 Exhibit A.2 – Short Plat (dated: 9/20/2017) EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 6 Exhibit A.3: Landscape Plan (dated: 5/21/08) EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 7 Exhibit B. Conditions of Approval SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the previous approvals for this property (AZ-01-003, Development Agreement Inst. #101117652); PP-07-023; RZ-07-018; and MI-07-014 (Development Agreement Addendum Inst. #108059795). 2. The final plat prepared by Eagle Land Surveying, LLC, stamped on 9/20/2017 by Jeremiah B. Fielding, shall be revised as follows: a. Note #7: Remove the extra period (.) at the end of the sentence. b. Note #8: “A portion of tThe site is not located in a floodplain.” c. Note #9: “No lot shall have direct access to McMillan or Linder Road.” (This site doesn’t have frontage on McMillan Road.) d. Note #12: Include the addendum to the Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument #108059795. e. Note #13: “The landscape buffers along McMillan Road, Linder Road, and Penngrove Way, and Coppercloud Way will be maintained by the Bridgetower Owner’s Association or their successors or assigns.” (This site doesn’t have frontage on McMillan Road or Coppercloud Way.) f. Graphically depict the 25-foot wide landscape buffer easement (Inst. 106129395) on the frontage of this site along N. Linder Road; include a note stating who will maintain the landscaping (i.e. property owner or business owner’s association) as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C.2b. g. A 10-foot wide landscape buffer is required along N. Penngrove Way, a local street, and shall be on a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the property owner or business owner’s association in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. 3. The landscape plan, prepared by The Land Group, dated 4/20/17, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 10-foot wide street buffer along N. Penngrove Way, a local street, as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Per UDC 11- 3B-14B.3, this buffer isn’t required to be installed until the time of lot development – installation of such improvements are not required at the time of plat approval. b. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk along N. Penngrove Way, a local street, in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. 4. If the City Engineer’s signature has not been obtained within two (2) years of the City Council’s approval of the short plat, the short plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained, per UDC 11-6B-7. 5. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer’s signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized, as well as the signatures of the Ada County Highway District and the Central District Health Department. ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5, UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 8 2. The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area. 3. The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 4. The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all landscaping and constructed features within the clear vision triangle consistent with the standards in UDC 11- 3A-3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 3. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, prior to signature on the final plat. 6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 9 9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 19. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 21. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 10 (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. EXHIBIT A Linder Professional Plaza – SHP H-2017-0138 PAGE 11 Exhibit C – Required Findings from the Unified Development Code In consideration of a short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Unified Development Code; The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates the portion of the site that fronts on N. Linder Road as Office and the rear portion that fronts on N. Penngrove Way as Low Density Residential. The current zoning district of the site is L-O. The proposed short plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the dimensional standards in the UDC for the L-O district. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council finds that public services are adequate to serve the site. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvements program; The City Council finds that the development will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. All required utilities are being provided with the development of the property at the developer’s expense. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The City Council finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. The developer and/or future lot owner(s) will finance the extension of sewer, water, utilities and pressurized irrigation to serve the project. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision and subsequent development; however, the City Council does not believe that it will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public in the surrounding area. The City Council finds that the development of this site will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The City Council is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with the development of this site. Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6F PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Citadel Storage #3 Water Main Easement MEETING NOTES C✓i APPROPQ 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 2017-113224 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=7 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 11/28/2017 11:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE THIS INDENTURE, made this 2- day of �(Vln (2017 between Skyline Boise LLC the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the GRANTORS, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the GRANTEE; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the GRANTORS desire to provide a water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain, 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 waterline and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair, replacement and subsequent connection at the convenience of the GRANTEE, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said GRANTEE, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs, performing maintenance, replacements or subsequent connections to the water 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, Water Main Easement REV. 08/15/16,doe THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, blush, 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: Mah P.O • box ap/v Laq�!,--ro 9--306, Address STATE OF IDAHO ) . ss. County of Ada ) On this 2 day of d 6r/e M be- i- , 20 17 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared A ✓Yi 14 K -t -ll a4d. N�p , known or identified toqAe to be th ' 6rcretary, respectively, of the corporation that executed the within instlufn" tf, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my -hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 1!iErl Water Main Easement - A,'�.z � NO ARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: N(o 660 L In Commission Expires: NIGwLIX 1;, LOZ� REV. 08/15/16.doc ZZ QDRpJED AUGU GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Goa s ; 01 �r w E IDIAN�.. Z JOAN* Tammy de We ayor SEAL �ReJthe TREASV�� Att t by C. Coles, City Cleric Approved By City Council On; _// r d-1 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss County of Ada ) On this o ,� day of N)N , 20 Q , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and C.Jay Coles, known to me to be the Mayor and City Cleric, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. !♦h SN�FF� 4 E�A�Y ►v�v 'ATB Water Main Easement NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at:ff) d�c% Commission Expires: REV. 08/15/16.doc zG Sawtooth Land 5urveying, LLC ��i19c1 UGIT F: (208) 398-8104 F: (208) 398-8105 2030 5. Wa5hmgton Ave., Emmett, ID 83617 EXHIBIT A October 6, 2017 Citadel III Water Easement Legal BASIS OF BEARINGS for this description is North 89°20'31" East between the aluminum cap marking the northwest corner of Section 31, and the brass cap marking the N1/4 corner of Section 31, both in T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho. A parcel of land located in Parcel A as shown on Record of Survey 9941, Ada County Records, located in Government Lot 1, of Section 31, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows; COMMENCING at an aluminum cap marking the northwest corner of said Section 31; Thence North 89°20'31" East, coincident with the north line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 961.57 feet to a 5/8" rebar; Thence South 0039'27" East, 38.08 feet to the southerly right of way of E. Amity Road; Thence South 85028'58" West, coincident with said southerly right of way of E. Amity Road, 162.25 feet; Thence South 89°20'31" West, coincident with said southerly right of way of E. Amity Road, 137.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 40118'02" East, 15.90 feet; Thence South 0136'40" West, 25.35 feet; Thence South 89108'18" East, 8.73 feet; Thence South 0151'42" West, 20.00 feet; Thence North 89108'18" West, 8.64 feet; Thence South 0136'40" West, 10.71 feet; Thence North 90000'00" West, 5.51 feet; Thence South 0137'28" West, 539.28 feet; Thence South 89022'32" East, 205.90 feet; P:\2015\15093 -CMG -CITADEL III\Survey\Drawings\Descriptions\WATER LEGAL.docx Page 11 Thence North 0138'00" East, 19.34 feet; Thence South 89126'08" East, 20.00 feet; Thence South 0039'52" West, 39.36 feet; Thence North 89022'32" West, 225.82 feet; Thence South 0037'39" West, 55.00 feet to the southerly line of said Parcel A; Thence North 89122'32" West, coincident with said southerly line of Parcel A, 20.00 feet; Thence North 0036'51" East, 25.71 feet; Thence North 89022'32" West, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 15.51 feet; Thence South 1023'59" East, 8.68 feet; Thence North 89122'32" West, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 20.01 feet; Thence North 1023'59" West, 8.68 feet; Thence North 89022'32" West, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 7.16 feet; Thence North 78054'15" West, 184.61 feet; Thence North 89022'32" West, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 249.90 feet; Thence South 0035'26" West, 205.99 feet to said southerly line of Parcel A; Thence North 88°46'41" West, coincident with said southerly line of Parcel A, 20.00 feet; Thence North 0035'26" East, 225.78 feet; Thence South 89122'32" East, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 217.58 feet; Thence North 0000'00" West, 3.97 feet; Thence South 89022'32" East, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 20.00 feet; Thence South 0000'00" East, 3.97 feet; Thence South 89022'32" East, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 34.16 feet; Thence South 78054'15" East, 184.61 feet; Thence South 89022'32" East, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 40.80 feet; Thence North 0037'28" East, 298.37 feet; PA2015\15093-CMG-CITADEL III\Survey\Drawings\Descriptions\WATER LEGAL.docx Pa 12 Thence North 89122'32" West, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 140.37 feet; Thence South 0°00'00" East, 1.97 feet; Thence North 89123'59" West, 59.98 feet; Thence North 0100'00" West, 2.00 feet; Thence North 89122'32" West, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 257.59 feet; Thence North 0°14'51" East, 28.00 feet; Thence South 89022'32" East, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 20.00 feet; Thence South 0°14'51" West, 8.00 feet; Thence South 89022'32" East, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 237.50 feet; Thence South 0000'00" West, 2.00 feet; Thence South 89023'59" East, 59.98 feet; Thence North 0137'28" East, 1.97 feet; Thence South 89122'32" East, parallel with said southerly line of Parcel A, 140.57 feet; Thence North 0137'28" East, 249.98 feet; Thence North 90°00'00" East, 5.51 feet; Thence North 0°36'40" East, 48.82 feet; Thence North 40018'02" West, 25.01 feet to said southerly right of way of Amity Road; Thence North 89°20'31" East, coincident with said southerly right of way of Amity Road, 25.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 0.975 acres more or less. \ONp,L LLAAN� y NSE CarlCr Porter PLS a. 4221 Date End Description 1,0 1 i;7 Zo OF VO POO - P:\2015\15093 -CMG -CITADEL III\Survey\Drawings\Descriptions\WATER LEGAL.docx� Page 13 Io .z2.'kl O % � § m/�Q —z— t QLLn ca��§ M« 0290 / ADW ` 2§|j�|k``uj.�§�LU|§ | wk \ � el: 2 ¥ | qt| IMIRM \/ \z In � \in n§B h � k - k § ■' © _uj � - § k � � a � �■ � � A N §� .3 | % % § - � 2 _2 _ $ _} # | § .. \ LL 0uld Io .z2.'kl Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6G PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Borough Subdivision Sewer and Water Main Easement MEETING NOTES 9 APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2017-113207 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=10 HEATHER LUTHER 11/28/2017 10:53 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT 1 St L-e 'CHIS INDENTURE, made this ?1 day of �, 20�between Q • b61* 1 the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 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 and year first herein above written. Ulan ems' g F.Overl4,l�l Rd. Me,=tdel-i, 8 �a Address Secretary STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this day of N6VPn% b U , 201 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Veu 84,- and known or identified to e to be the ,Sem; respectively, of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. ��,rMnPds© O ; ,01f 6 a i i C, `O o Sanitary Sewer and Water MAu,l A4-0 , . NOTARY PUBLIC FOR AHO Residing at: AlAr'PT Commission Expires:' REV. 08/15/16 Qom. "T t3RANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN =° City of EIDIAN�- 'Camy e eer ayor z�F SEAL tn 2r-'?Orthe TREPSJ�� 4,Atst by C, ay Coles, City Clerk /` Approved By City Council On: /(l1 (STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) On this' _day of 20-0 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and C.Jay Coles, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 'IHw•» PO* Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAH Residing at: Commission Expires: b -D �DD REV. 08/15/16 Exhibit _ SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT Description for CITY OF MERIDIAN Boroughs Subdivision A portion of Lot 6, Block 1 of Westborough Subdivision as file in Book 87 of Plats at Pages 9884 through 9886, records of Ada County, Idaho, located in the NE 1/4 of Section 30, TAN., R.1 E., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the SW corner of said Lot 6; thence along the West boundary line of said Lot 6 N 00029'56" East, 97.50 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said West boundary line N 00°2956" East, 30.00 feet; thence leaving said West boundary line South 89014'17" East, 94.13 feet; thence continuing South 89°14'17" East, 30.00 feet; thence North 00°30'14" East, 56.36 feet; thence South 89029'46 East, 9.20 feet; thence North 00030'14" East, 12.50 feet; thence North 8902946" West, 9.20 feet; thence North 00030'14" East, 74.70 feet; thence South 8905648" East, 172.98 feet; thence North 00003'12" East, 26.66 feet; thence South 89056'48" East, 37.91 feet; thence South 66046'45" East, 34.82 feet; thence South 23013'15" West, 11.50 feet; Page 1 of 5 thence South 66°46'45" East, 9.86 feet; thence North 23°13'15" East, 11.50 feet; thence South 66046'45" East, 22.05 feet; thence South 23004'08" West, 150.25 feet; thence North 89014117" West, 29.37 feet; thence North 00045'43" East, 15.18 feet; thence North 89°14'17" West, 8.00 feet; thence South 00045'43" West, 15.18 feet; thence North 89014'17" West, 138.29 feet; thence North 00045'43" East, 16.42 feet; thence North 89033'22" West, 5.00 feet; thence South 00045'43" West, 16.39 feet; thence North 89014'17" West, 30.46 feet; thence continuing North 89014'17" West, 30.00 feet; thence North 00030'14" East, 151.05 feet; thence North 89°29'46" West, 31.51 feet; thence North 00°30'14" East, 6.00 feet; thence South 89029'46" East, 31.51 feet; thence North 00030'14" East, 16.14 feet; thence South 89056'48" East, 52.36 feet; thence North 00003'12" East, 30.87 feet; thence South 8905648" East, 10.30 feet; thence South 00003'12" West, 30.87 feet; Page 2 of 5 thence South 89°56'48" East, 61.12 feet; thence South 00000100" East, 14.50 feet; thence South 8905648" East, 58.95 feet; thence North 00°03'12" East, 46.44 feet; thence South 89056'48" East, 20..00 feet thence South 00003'12" West, 19.56 feet; thence South 8905648" East, 34.22 feet; thence South 6604645" East, 31.37 feet; thence North 23°13'15" East, 4.30 feet; thence South 79039'15" East, 7.18 feet; thence South 23013'15" West, 5.90 feet; thence South 6604645" East, 17.16 feet; thence South 89039`54" East, 82.52 feet; thence North 14004'48" East, 12.81 feet; thence North 90000'00" East, 2.84 feet; thence South 33025'47" East, 5.84 feet; thence South 21052'44" West, 8.18 feet; thence South 89039'54" East, 11.43 feet; thence South 45007'22" East, 37.79 feet; thence North 90000'00" East, 7.98 feet; thence South 00000'00" East, 8.00 feet; thence North 90°00100" West, 19.26 feet; thence South 00000'00" East, 130.93 feet; Page 3 of 5 thence North 90100'00" East, 21.50 feet; thence South 00°00'00" East, 8.30 feet; thence North 89035'38" West, 21.50 feet; thence. South 00000'00" East, 11.68 feet; thence South 45000'00" West, 25.29 feet; thence South 00024'22" West, 24.17 feet; thence North 89035'38" West, 88.06 feet; thence South 00024'22" West, 13.00 feet; thence North 89°35'38" West, 19.00 feet; thence North 0002422" East, 13.00 feet; thence North 8903538" West, 25.98 feet; thence North 40042'18" West, 40.44 feet; thence North 57022'03" East, 36.70 feet; thence North 23004'08" East, 164.65 feet; thence South 89039'54" East, 30.22 feet; thence South 67001'05" East, 34.56 feet; thence South 00000100" East, 24.34 feet; thence North 90000'00" West, 11.00 feet; thence South 00000100" East, 8.92 feet; thence South 90000'00" East, 11.00 feet; thence South 00000'00" East, 17.21 feet; thence North 90°00100" West, 11.00 feet; thence South 00°00100" East, 6.00 feet; Page 4 of 5 thence South 90000'00" East, 11.00 feet; thence South 00000'00" East, 82.39 feet; thence South 45000'00" West, 28.54 feet; thence North 89°3538" West, 36.99 feet; thence North 0002422" East, 5.60 feet; thence North 89035'38" West, 10.00 feet; thence South 00024'22" West, 5.60 feet; thence North 89035138" West, 40.12 feet; thence North 0002422" East, 3.98 feet; thence North 89035'38" West, 5.00 feet; thence North 40042'18" West, 21.89 feet; thence South 57022'03" West, 36.70 feet; thence North 89014'17" West, 322.07 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 5 of 5 I O I )-to I Q M > 9 ocv. L3 SO'03'12"W r L5 I D- t?Fo NO'03'1 2"E30.87 `ir 1 30.87' -- i 0 o I NO'03'12"E- _ - V) I= S89'56'48" E I i S89'56'48"E 46.44' i S89'29 46 E __� L_________ i ►Y I Z 31.51r'�- 041 - 52.36' 61.12' i S89'56'48"E i ---_. w J --,------j L19 UJ cn L1 - 58.95' F- ( H ZI r ------------------------------- w N89'29'46"W� i i S89'56'48"E 172.98' = I > n. 31.51 Lu �I- I NI ih 0I ^p Ir I O Z w, BLOCK 1 i N89'29'46"W I d i 9.20' 0 i of '---NO'30'14"E I 0 i 12.50' N89'14'17"W of , Z w i S89'29'46"E 8.00 7ro 9.20' SO'45'43"W o I ✓L44 15.18' S89'14'17"E Z , tl o --------------- J:......�__-�J L-_'-- S89'14'17"E, 138_29'___-�-'-- E. E\!EREST ST. 0 94.13' L47 L46 -- L41 IO TIE LINE K) p-------------------- - - - - - - - q w ------- S89'14'17"E 322.07' 0 lto REAL POINT OF BEGINNING Lo rnI O NI = O O z In U I: W SW COR LOT 6, BLOCK 1 Z WESTBOROUGH SUBDIVISION iv JL IF 10 60 180 0 30 120 SCALE: 1 " = 60' -------------.\ 7729 S � (1 0 G,p�co�Y0 GP���� G. EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR 16 35 x s IDAHO \/ ,45TE.WATERTOWER8SUI7. E 130 SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT SHEET NO. ,3URVE r MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 BOROUGHS SUBDIVISION 1 OF 3 (206)6A6-Bb7tl • GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN TMMERIOIAN4OF ADA COUNTNY�DAHON., RJE., B.M., p/6/2017 L5 NO -03'1 2"E� 46,44' I S BLO ;3 s0'03' 12"W 19.56' rS89*56'48"E 34.22' n L8 --L9 89'56'48"E I L19 (�` _ _ a Q0 l0 _ 58.95' N!' - Q,4 ______ NO'0312„0 E `' 26.66' L22//"3i /r Nr'r r har' r CK 1 ^/ / �r ! wrr i ^ � N89'14'17"W o! r,o 8.00' S0'45'43"W 15.18' N89'14'17"WJ-�Jr1Q - w!N40'42 <'-o �1 138.29' L41 /21,89' r�-N14-04'48"E- 12.81' r- ' 14-r'0�24' 48"E 12.81'- �Lw1 J, niiIII L�12 S89'39'54"E--JLL�1:o,oo �3 82.52' f o �� S 45'07'22"E 37.79' r L15 L25 -1c0 N90'00'00"W L28 I ' JJ 19.26 L29__t__ L3000 L31------ L32--- L33 --L32 L33woo P o to O In S45'00'00"W p Do25Q0'00 E28.54' 10 8"W IIIIt I i X49 I r _-r--L17 ' JI --------------------- N89'14'17"W ., tti`L L39 Jr J L34 ,' / �� �N89'35'38"W , .\\ L38 L -- ---- 21.50 322.07 ` L37 i �S45'00'00"W I N40'42'18"W-�N89_35'38"W -- J 25.29' o 40.44' ' 88.06'--- SO'24'22"W F- '38"W� -`' 24.17' < N89'35 SO'24'22"W I 25.98' 13.00' 1 NO'24'22"E 8 .35,3 ''W I Z N 9 8 13.00' 19.00' iv Nps J C 10 so 180 00 a 7 29 0 30 120 0 co/ / SCALE: 1 " = 60'�p� TF 0 cpRY G. CPQ IDAHO 1450 E. WATERTOWER ST. SU TE 130 \SURVEY MERID AN, IDAHO 03642 12061646657tl GROUP, LLC EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT BOROUGHS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, T.4N., RAE., S.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 16-235 2 OF 3 11/8/2017 r�-N14-04'48"E- 12.81' r- ' 14-r'0�24' 48"E 12.81'- �Lw1 J, niiIII L�12 S89'39'54"E--JLL�1:o,oo �3 82.52' f o �� S 45'07'22"E 37.79' r L15 L25 -1c0 N90'00'00"W L28 I ' JJ 19.26 L29__t__ L3000 L31------ L32--- L33 --L32 L33woo P o to O In S45'00'00"W p Do25Q0'00 E28.54' 10 8"W IIIIt I i X49 I r _-r--L17 ' JI --------------------- N89'14'17"W ., tti`L L39 Jr J L34 ,' / �� �N89'35'38"W , .\\ L38 L -- ---- 21.50 322.07 ` L37 i �S45'00'00"W I N40'42'18"W-�N89_35'38"W -- J 25.29' o 40.44' ' 88.06'--- SO'24'22"W F- '38"W� -`' 24.17' < N89'35 SO'24'22"W I 25.98' 13.00' 1 NO'24'22"E 8 .35,3 ''W I Z N 9 8 13.00' 19.00' iv Nps J C 10 so 180 00 a 7 29 0 30 120 0 co/ / SCALE: 1 " = 60'�p� TF 0 cpRY G. CPQ IDAHO 1450 E. WATERTOWER ST. SU TE 130 \SURVEY MERID AN, IDAHO 03642 12061646657tl GROUP, LLC EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT BOROUGHS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, T.4N., RAE., S.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 16-235 2 OF 3 11/8/2017 ' JI --------------------- N89'14'17"W ., tti`L L39 Jr J L34 ,' / �� �N89'35'38"W , .\\ L38 L -- ---- 21.50 322.07 ` L37 i �S45'00'00"W I N40'42'18"W-�N89_35'38"W -- J 25.29' o 40.44' ' 88.06'--- SO'24'22"W F- '38"W� -`' 24.17' < N89'35 SO'24'22"W I 25.98' 13.00' 1 NO'24'22"E 8 .35,3 ''W I Z N 9 8 13.00' 19.00' iv Nps J C 10 so 180 00 a 7 29 0 30 120 0 co/ / SCALE: 1 " = 60'�p� TF 0 cpRY G. CPQ IDAHO 1450 E. WATERTOWER ST. SU TE 130 \SURVEY MERID AN, IDAHO 03642 12061646657tl GROUP, LLC EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT BOROUGHS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, T.4N., RAE., S.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 16-235 2 OF 3 11/8/2017 EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR SEWER AND WATER LINE EASEMENT BOROUGHS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, T.4N., RAE., S.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 16-235 2 OF 3 11/8/2017 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6H PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Release of Whitebark Subdivision Water Main and Sewer Easement MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2017-113226 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 11/28/2017 11:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE RELEASE OF EASEMENT TYPE OF EASEMENT BEING RELEASED: WATER MAIN AND SANITARY SEWER GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN GRANTORS: BHH Investments I LLC and Whitebark Subdivision Homeowners' Association, Inc, successors in interest to Cindy K. Lewis Trust and T&M Holdings LLC WHEREAS, by easement dated January 21", 2014 and recorded as Instrument Number 114005986 re- recorded as 114010296 in the land records of Ada County, State of Idaho, an easement of the type and nature set forth in the above -captioned title was granted to the City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, over and across the real property legally described on Exhibits A- I and A-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. WHEREAS, the continuance of this easement is no longer necessary or desirable because the majority of the easement being released is now located in the public right of way and new easements have been granted for the portion(s) of the water and sewer infrastructure that remain on private property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the City of Meridian does hereby vacate, relinquish, release and abandon the said rights and easements hereinabove referred to and described, with the intent that the same shall forthwith cease and be extinguished. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE CITY OF MERIDIAN has caused these presents to be executed by its proper officers thereunto duly authorized this al day of , 204. CITY OF MERIDIAN AII, By 01v or Tamm cerd, M or IDAHO ATTEST 0 TTI - ;A SEAL C. ? City Clerk y Cole C. Col City Clerk STATE OF IDAHO M, County of Ada On this day of N)DVD 20__I'L,before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and C.Jay Coles, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. Exhibit A-1 Legal Description of Easement (West Side of Subject Property) Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 32 from which the North 1/4 corner of said Section 32 bears South 89°43'50" East, 2645.04 feet; Thence along the North boundary line of said Section 32 South 89°43'50" East, 2316.55 feet; Thence leaving said North boundary line South 00°1610" West, 25.00 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of West Amity Road, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing South 00°16'10" West, 286.50 feet; Thence North 89043'50" West, 105.78 feet; Thence 95.24 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 feet, a central angle of 99012'50" and a long chord which bears South 40°39'45" West, a distance of 83.78 feet; Thence South 08°56'41" East, 225.19 feet; Thence 130.69 feet along the are of a curve to the right having a radius of 320.00 feet, a central angle of 23°24'00" and a long chord which bears South 0204619" West, a distance of 129.78 feet; Thence South 14°27'19" West, 120.06 feet; Thence 163.04 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 280.00 feet, a central angle of 33021'42" and a long chord which bears South 02013'32" East, a distance of 160.74 feet; Thence 231.23 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 420.00 feet, a central angle of 31'32'38" and a long chord which bears South 03°08'04" East, a distance of 228.32 feet; Thence 38.93 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 180.00 feet, a central angle of 12°23'29" and a long chord which bears South 06°26'30" West, a distance of 38.85 feet; Thence South 00°14'46" West, 66.50 feet to a point on the North boundary line of Blackrock Subdivision No. 1 as filed in Book 96 of Plats at Pages 12003 through 12008, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said North boundary line North 89°44'45" West, 40.00 feet; Thence leaving said North boundary line North 00°14'46" East, 66.50 feet; Thence 47.58 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 220.00 feet, a central angle of 12°23'29" and a long chord which bears North 06°26'30" East, a distance of 47.49 feet; Thence 209.21 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 380.00 feet, a central angle of 31'32'38" and a long chord which bears North 03008'04" West, a distance of 206.58 feet; Thence 186.33 feet along the are of a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 320.00 feet, a central angle of 33021'42" and a long chord which bears North 02°13'32" West, a distance of 183.71 feet; Thence North 14°27'19" East, 120.06 feet; Thence 114.35 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 280.00 feet, a central angle of 23°24'00" and a long chord which bears North 02°45'19" East, a distance of 11 3. 56 feet; Thence North 08°56'41" West, 225.19 feet; Thence 63.01 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 95.00 feet, a central angle of 38°00'11" and a long chord which bears North 10°03'24" East, a distance of 61.86 feet; Thence North 10026'58" West, 301.00 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of West Amity Road; Thence along said South right-of-way line South 89°43'50" East, 40.71 feet; Thence leaving said South right-of-way line South 10°26'58" East, 264.89 feet; Thence 51.79 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right having a radius of 95.00 feet, a central angle of 31°14'09" and a long chord which bears North 74°39'05" East, a distance of 51.15 feet; Thence South 89043'50" East, 65.79 feet; Thence North 00°16'10" East, 246.50 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of said West Amity Road; Thence along said South right-of-way line South 89°43'50" East, 40.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Exhibit A-2 Legal Description of Easement (East Side of Subject Property) A permanent public utility and access easement located within a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 32 from which the North 1/4 corner of said Section 32 bears South 89043'50" East, 2645.04 feet; Thence along the North boundary line of said Section 32 South 89°43'50" East, 2454.54 feet; Thence leaving said North boundary line South 00°18'40" West, 25.00 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of West Amity Road, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along said South right-of-way line of South 89°43'50" East, 30.00 feet; Thence South 00018'40" West, 331.50 feet; Thence South 09°33'17" East, 71.10 feet; Thence South 09°49'37" East, 104.87 feet; Thence 156.49 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 420.00 feet, a central angle of 21020'54" and a long chord which bears South 00050'49" West, a distance of 155.59 feet; Thence South 11'31'16" West, 217.15 feet; Thence 87.99 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 180.00 feet, a central angle of 28000'33" and a long chord which bears South 0229'00" East, a distance of 87.12 feet; Thence 297.31 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 520.00 feet, a central angle of 32045'30" and a long chord which bears South 00006'32" East, a distance of 293.27 feet; Thence 22.37 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 80.00 feet, a central angle of 16°01'27" and a long chord which bears South 08015'30" West, a distance of 22.30 feet; Thence South 00014'46" East, 36.47 feet to a point on the North boundary line of Blackrock Subdivision No. 1 as filed in Book 96 of Plats at Pages 12003 through 12008, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said North boundary line North 89°44'45" West, 40.00 feet; Thence leaving said North boundary line North 00014'46" East, 36.47 feet; Thence 33.56 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 120.00 feet, a central angle of 16°01'27", and a long chord which bears North 08015'30" East, a distance of 33.45 feet; Thence 274.44 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 480.00 feet, a central angle of 32°45'30", and a long chord which bears North 00006'32" West, a distance of 270.71 feet; Thence 107.55 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 220.00 feet, a central angle of 28°00'33", and a long chord which bears North 02°29'00" West, a distance of 106.48 feet; Thence North 11 °31'16" East, 217.15 feet; Thence 141.59 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 380.00 feet, a central angle of 21020'54", and a long chord which bears North 00°50'49" East, a distance of 140.77 feet; Thence North 09049'37" West, 188.01 feet; Thence North 12°34'26" East, 55.69 feet; Thence North 00018'40" East, 272.31 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 61 PROJECT NUMBER: 110Vii1111111:1 Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 Sanitary Sewer Easement MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2017-113254 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 NIKOLA OLSON 11/28/2017 11:55 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE SANITARY SEWER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this Sk day of NDVern b f -Y- , 2017, between Whitebark Subdivision Homeowners' Association Inc., the party of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantor, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to provide a sanitary sewer main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto that, after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it 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. Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 Sewer Main Easement 1 THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that, should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of, any public street, then, to such extent such right-of-way and easement hereby granted 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 GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that it 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: WHITEBARK SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Inc. CU411aniel, ire for 729 S. Bridgeway Place Eagle, ID 83616 STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Ada ) On this Q day of We— , 2017, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Chad Hamel, known or identified to me to be the Director of the Whitebark Subdivision Homeowners' Association, Inc., the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. CX1 - ^ % A R Y ZS P U ••� •....• ••Q!�,� J,�� re of �,�••• NOTARYIJPU ,'LIC FOR Residing at: My Commission Expires: Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 Sewer Main Easement 2 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy y Coles, City Clerk �Q0 p,TEDAUGGS 411 c. ( E IDIAN!�- -a IDAHO �� SEAL Approved by City Council on: it Z al /,;o/7 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this Q day of ��� , 2017, before me, the undersigned, a Notary . Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and C.Jay Coles, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. rar city NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO o40 +�tv ` Residing at: JM a A — < 1 q A pvev� e My Commission Expires: o SIA TE ��••� Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 Sewer Main Easement EXHIBIT A October 23, 2017 Description for City of Meridian Sanitary Sewer Easement Lots, 1 & 6, Block 1, Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 An easement located in the NW '/4 of Section 32, T.3N., UE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the N '/4 corner of said Section 32, from which the NW corner of said Section bears North 89°43'47" West, 2645.03 feet; thence along the northerly boundary of the NW 1/4 of said Section 32 North 89°43'47" West, 661.22 feet; thence leaving said boundary South 00°20'39" West, 48.00 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of E. Amity Road and northerly boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of Whitebark Subdivision No. 1, as filed for record in Book 109 of Plats at Pages 15368 through 15371, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said southerly right-of-way and northerly boundary of said Lot 1 South 89°43'47" East, 92.37 feet to the point of intersection of the extension of the westerly boundary line of Lot 6, Block 1 of said Whitebark Subdivision No. 1, and said southerly right-of-way and northerly boundary of said Lot 1, the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said southerly right-of-way and northerly boundary of said Lot 1 South 89°43'47" East, 30.53 feet to the point of intersection of the extension of the easterly boundary line of said Lot 6 and said southerly right-of-way and northerly boundary of said Lot 1; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way and northerly boundary of said Lot 1, and along the extension of the easterly boundary line of said Lot 6, and the easterly boundary line of said Lot 6, South 10°23'27" East, 23 7.3 5 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 6, said point being on a curve on the northwesterly right-of-way of S. Marsala Way; Thence along the southerly boundary of said Lot 6 and said northwesterly right-of-way 31.76 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 29.00 feet, a delta angle of 62°44'24", and a long chord bearing South 86°05'05" West, 30.19 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 6; Thence leaving said right-of-way and along the westerly boundary line of said Lot 6, and the extension thereof, North 10°23'27" West, 239.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement covering 7,067 SF, more or less. �\oN pj. L q /V� S S T E ,p � G 0 A a 11118 OF AQP 5� 'LTO N W NPS 170 1 29-ssease-wb l .docx EXHIBIT B BASIS I OF BEARING _ _ _ E. AMITY RD. I I 3029 A _ _ _ N 89'43 47' • 2645.03' _ • _ _ 29 31 '32 ` L1 661.22' T — T — _32 — — — o — — — S 00'20'39" W — — _ 48.00 �t �— I I S 89'43'47" E� cn 0I I � PUNT OF BEG✓NN/NG _ MW EAEMN 7,067 SF. iI I I BLOCK 1 1 30 I I �I I Cl { I CITY OF MERIDIAN SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOTS 1 & 6, BLOCK 1, WHITEBARK SUBD. NO. 1 � PROJ. NO. 170129 SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 32 T.3N., R.1 E., B.M. MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 170129—SSEASE.DWG bkb I \ \ — � N0. j I L I I ONpLLA/yOs, 5� %STf G� � I 111 8 ' FOF�� 5 I I I I CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD Cl 31.76 29.00 62'44'24" S 86'05'05" W 30.19 ---I ---- LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 89'43'47" E 30.53' SCALE ,n=too' CITY OF MERIDIAN SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOTS 1 & 6, BLOCK 1, WHITEBARK SUBD. NO. 1 NG/NEER/NG SOLUTIONS 1029 N. ROSARIO ST., STE. 100 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 938-0980 Fax (208) 938-0941 Dwc.oarE 10/23/17 PROJ. NO. 170129 SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 32 T.3N., R.1 E., B.M. MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 170129—SSEASE.DWG bkb Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM TITLE: ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement MEETING NOTES 0 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 2017-113229 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 11/28/2017 11:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this r,day of AQ. , 20,tZbetween Bridgetower Investments, LLC, the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from time to time by the Grantee;' NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of a sewer line over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary sewer line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area Sewer Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: Manager 398 E. Copper Ridge St. Meridian, ID 83646 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On the l-�h day of r 20 A-, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state personally appearedy <ag, "o-6111AM known or identified to me to be the ,9A, of the Limited Liability Company that executed the instrument or the person who exe sited the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Company and acknowledged to me that such Limited Liability Company executed the same. In witness whereof, I written. 0lOw p D USkn'••4 set my hand and seal the day and year in this certificate first above �' �DTARY i•� • p lG s� UBL •• p , Sewer Main Easement�••i� fE,OF I'D F`'D NOTARY PUBLIC FOY IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: 511 iEkl REV. 08/15/16 O0ptED AUGUS GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN oPe Cit, -r w — EIDIAN.- IOAHO Tammy de W erd Mayor sm SEAL �'Qollhe TREPSJ��,�v Att by C.Jay Coles, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: it / �1 / / 22/2 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada } On this a\__ day of , 20 1 —L_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and C.JAY COLES known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: 122cm p Arn, X q iLo`s Commission Expires: r — �!a — ;�D 9D AX, Sewer Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 PARCEL DESCRIPTION Date: October 31, 2017 CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER EASEMENT A parcel of land being a portion of the NEI/4 NEI/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of said Section 34, monumented by a 5/8" rebar (Coiner Record No. 108122909), from which the N1/16 coiner common to Sections 34 and 35, monumented by a 5/8" rebar, bears South 00°52'46" West, a distance of 1315.57 feet; Thence South 00°52'46" West, coincident with the east line of said NEI/4 NEI/4, a distance of 805.15 feet; Thence North 89'07'14" West, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 81.24 feet to an angle point on the northerly right of way line of N. Vicenza Way and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 22'37'12" West, a distance of 14.47 feet; Thence North 67°22'48" East, a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence South 22'37'12" East, a distance of 8.06 feet to said northerly right of way line; Thence South 49°36'25" West, coincident with said northerly right of way line, a distance of 2 1. 00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 225 square feet or 0.005 acres, more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is South 00°52'46" West between the northeast corner of Section 34 and the N1/16 corner common to Sections 34 and 35. ;kL LAS Te NA End of Description �� 1o/71/17a ��rFOF AA SKETCH FOR LEGAL EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER EASEMENT A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1 /4 NE1 /4 OF SECTION 34, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 201'7 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NE CORNER SECTION 34 ri Tw ril J_ PROPOSED z w in VOLTERRA NORTH 00 COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION z BLOCK 1 "2 N61TC3 225 S.F N22'37'12"W ±0.005 AC. 14.47' 0o v, N89'07'14"W 81.24' N. VICENZA WAY POINT OF BEGINNING N1116 CORNER SECTIONS 34 & 35 Np,L LANO G\ S T E p Cin °- 1 "66 IWHPr �� N i _ ATE OF `OP ,r 2141 W Airport Way, Ste 104 M. 8 Boise, ID 83705 208-342-5400 Fax 208-342-5353 NOT TO SCALE I. S. P. C.S., GRID NORTH www.whpacific.com Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6K PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer and Water Easement MEETING NOTES c✓ APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2017-113228 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 VICTORIA BAILEY 11/28/2017 11:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this 6`� day of /Atli. , 2p� Bridetower Investments, LLCbetween g ,the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after malting repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 Aflp, 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: anager 398 E. Copper Ridge St. Meridian, ID 83646 Address STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) On the -446 day of AL ove0JV20Q , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state personally appeared tAi c M,C co 1)U.M, known or identified to me to be the "a of the Limited Liability Company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Company and acknowledged to me that such Limited Liability Company executed the same. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. +�++•` till o usk�''�� �. I :• �,pT A R �, = NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO o * : �•� o ,� : Residing at: •: �° U 1 LtG o Commission Expires: B113:121 F �. .� �• T F Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 o�QORp,T ED p Uc�s GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN v ('uy of o �vl�2y Z IDAHO Tammy de ee d, Mayor SEALA. 0`,ha TREASV��,` At st by ay Coles, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: —1 ar L?bR STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) On this_ _day oft� iP�Y� � , 2011, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tanury de Weerd and C.Jay Coles, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SE P. SHtFp� oX04 AR Y G PUS*- �o t 7'E OF Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: 4i� .Qx� a)- , Add Commission Expires: 8'-50-,"D90 REV. 08/15/16 PARCEL DESCRIPTION Date: October 31, 2017 CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT A parcel of land being a portion of the NE1/4 NEIA of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of said Section 34, monumented by a 5/8" rebar (Comer Record No. 108122909), fiom which the Nl/16 corner common to Sections 34 and 35, monumented by a 5/8" rebar, bears South 00°52'46" West, a distance of 1315.57 feet; Thence South 00°52'46" West, coincident with east line of said NEIA NEI/4, a distance of 426.59 feet; Thence North 89'07'14" West, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 46.00 feet to the westerly right of way line of N. Ten Mile Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 00°52'46" West, coincident with said westerly of right of way line, a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence North 89'07'14" West, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 33.00 feet; Thence North 00°52'46" East, parallel and offset 33.00 feet westerly of said westerly right of way line, a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence South 89'07'14" East, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 33.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 990 square feet or 0.023 acres, more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is South 00°52'46" West between the northeast corner of Section 34 and the N1/16 comer common to Sections 34 and 35. r-�)p 6% .1 ce End of Description jp to[? 117 SKETCH FOR LEGAL EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER & SEWER EASEMENT A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 34, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2017 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NE CORNER SECTION 34 PROPOSED VOLTERRA NORTHcli COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION BLOCK 1 PoBvTOF 7-1 BEGflMNG Lq 589'07'14"E 33.00' N89'07'14"W 46.00' M O O N O O P CD w � M Q ( 990 S.F ±0.023 AC. �R: J N V') N O � Z O Z IJ.I N89'07'14"W 33.00' z N1116 CORNER SECTIONS 34 & 35 ,ONL LAND � G�ST�R�S�ipL O � 10561 0;o N WHpd�Clfx �T '°'3''" ° � 9Tf 2141 W Airport Way, Ste 104 F OFQ Boise, ID 83705 0 208-342-5400 Fax 208-342-5353 /� M. VO� NOT TO SCALE mAy.whpacific.com I.S.P.C.S., GRID NORTH Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6L PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Volterra North Commercial Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Water Easement # 1 MEETING NOTES �✓ APPROIED 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 2017-113230 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 CHE FOWLER 11/28/2017 11:07 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE WATER MAIN EASEMENT d9- T14IS INDENTURE, made this _ clay of /0. , 201 between _ Bridgetower Investments, L!,p the parties of the first pari, and hereinafter called the GRANTORS, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the GRANTEE; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the GRANTORS desire to provide a water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain, service and subsequently connect to said pipeline from time to time by the GRANTEE; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the GRANTORS, and other good and valuable consideration, the GRANTORS do hereby give, grant and convey 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 water line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair, replacement and subsequent connection at the convenience of the GRANTEE, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said GRANTEE, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs, performing maintenance, replacements or subsequent connections to the water 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, fyl yyz , Water Main Easement IREV. 08/15/16,doe THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the GRANTEE that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the GRANTEE that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: Manager 398 E. Copper Ridge St. Meridian, ID 8364 STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Ada ) On this 4'' day of WoVeMbW , 20L --l-, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state personally appeared MN -4- tAtNtium known or identified to me to be the M of the Limited Liability Company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Company and acknowledged to me that such Limited Liability Company executed the same. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. .•'G�,LP► USk� #'' •'T �O ARS, . w� s•� a '* G pUBO o Water Main Easemeif%, �g °°° °°• e,�' ""'Pt OF LIAM-goq�y NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: KlAha l Commission Expires. 3 REV. 08/15/16.doe GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy Mayor Att'by C. Coles, City CIerk Approved By City Council On:// >/7 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss County of Ada ) On this � day of N�bg ;Y\Kh , 201_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and C.Jay Coles, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR nCL M IDAHO. Residing at: =MQXA I -L , k0JAM Commission Expires: AA, Water Main Easement REV. 08/15/16.doc PARCEL DESCRIPTION Date: October 31, 2017 CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT A parcel of land being a portion of the NE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the NE corner of said Section 34, monumented by a 5/8" rebar (Corner Record No. 108122909), from which the N 1/4 corner of said Section 34, monumented by a 5/8" rebar with plastic cap, illegible (Corner Record No. 2015- 079244), bears North 88°56'29" West, a distance of 2654.64 feet; Thence North 88°56'29" West, coincident with the north line of the NIA of said Section 34, a distance of 549.65 feet; Thence South 01°03'31" West, perpendicular to said north line, a distance of 25.00 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 1 of the Proposed Volterra North Subdivision, being a point on the southerly right of way line of W. McMillan Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 88°56'29" East, coincident with said southerly right of way line, a distance of 22.00 feet; Thence South 01°04'06" West, parallel with and offset 22.00 feet easterly of the westerly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 27.00 feet; Thence North 88°56'29" West, parallel with and offset 22.00 feet southerly of said southerly right of way line, a distance of 22.00 feet to said westerly line; Thence North 01'04'06" East, coincident with said westerly line, a distance of 27.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 594 square feet or 0.014 acres, more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is North 88°56'29" West between the NE corner and the NIA corner of Section 34. L LAIVO ,, Pa �► � C� T innnc�n T�Tn 1 (1[x.1 End of Description in n 10'3►'o SAB OF �DP� SKETCH FOR LEGAL EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 34, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 201'7 N88'56'29"W 2654.64' N1l4 CORNER o 549.65' POINT OF SECTION 34 c Ln COMMENCEMENT 04 NE CORNER W. McMILLAN RD. SECTION 34 M M P POINT OF "' BEGINMNG S88'56'29"E 0 22.00' o0 N N w 594 S.F o ±0.014 AC, o O o o p P 0 z � N88'56'29"W 22.00' PROPOSED VOLTERRA NORTH COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION BLOCK 1 Np LA /VD STER�oCin� 1 '60.k0 1 'WHPd�CIfIC 0561 N A- Airport Way, Ste 104OC OF \OP�o IX21411y I Boise, ID 83705 rY g 208-342-5400 Fax 208-342-5353 Ymy.whpaci(ic.com NOT TO SCALE I.S.P.C.S., GRID NORTH Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6M PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Volterra North Commercial Subdivision Water Main Easement #2 MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2017-113231 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 VICTORIA BAILEY 11/28/2017 11:07 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this day of A1QV , 20-L7between Bridgetower Investments, LIiC the parties of the first pant, and hereinafter called the GRANTORS, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second pant, and hereinafter called the GRANTEE; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the GRANTORS desire to provide a water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain, service and subsequently connect to said pipeline from time to time by the GRANTEE; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the GRANTORS, and other good and valuable consideration, the GRANTORS do hereby give, grant and convey 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 water line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair, replacement and subsequent connection at the convenience of the GRANTEE, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said GRANTEE, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs, performing maintenance, replacements or subsequent connections to the water 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. Water Main Easement � REV. 08/15/16.doc THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the GRANTEE that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the GRANTEE that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: v Manager 398 E. Copper Ridge St. Meridian, ID 8364 STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Ada ) On this4+h day of e r , 2011 before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state personally appeared M ikQ, M.RO&M known or identified to me to be the tAftffiWX of the Limited Liability Company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Company and acknowledged to me that such Limited Liability Company executed the same. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC F R DAHO Residing at: Kum Commission Expires: 3 1 Water Main Easement REV. 08/15/16.doc GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy e d, Mayor Attc&by 04 Coles, City Cleric Approved By City Council On:// STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss County of Ada ) On this � day of 20 11 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and C.Jay Coles, known to me to be the Mayor and City Cleric, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residingat: Commission Expires: Water Main Easement REV. 08/15/16.doc PARCEL DESCRIPTION Date: October 31, 2017 CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT A parcel of land being a portion of the NE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of said Section 34, monumented by a 5/8" rebar (Comer Record No. 108122909), from which the N1/16 corner common to Sections 34 and 35, monumented by a 5/8" rebar, bears South 00°52'46" West, a distance of 1315.57 feet; Thence South 00°52'46" West, coincident with the east line of said NE1/4 NEI/4, a distance of 219.00 feet; Thence North 89'07'14" West, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 46.00 feet to the westerly right of way line of N. Ten Mile Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 00°52'46" West, coincident with said westerly of right of way line, a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence North 89'07'14" West, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 33.00 feet; Thence North 00°52'46" East, parallel and offset 33.00 feet westerly of said westerly right of way line, a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence South 89°07'14" East, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 33.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 660 square feet or 0.015 acres, more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is South 00°52'46" West between the northeast corner of Section 34 and the N111 comer common to Sections 34 and 35. End of Description . LANO 10)31/l7 License No. 10561 SKETCH FOR LEGAL EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER EASEMENT A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NE114 NE1/4 OF SECTION 34, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 201'7 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NE CORNER SECTION 34 PROPOSED VOLTERRA NORTH N COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION BLOCK 1 POINT OF BEGINNING S89'07'14"E 33.00'N89'07'14"W 46.00' 0 0 0 0 0 o d N NLd N 660 S.F co ±0.015 AC. N cV n N w 0 o J z � � N89'07'14"W 33.00' z w z i NI/16 CORNER SECTIONS 34 & 35 L /vD �vC? CSTt RFp(ifjL iYhh ut�1.` O - 05 1 N H P d�clflc", 1°f31/1�0 -- BooeV D Airport t ay, Ste 104 �IV M F 208-342-5400 Fax 208-342-5353 NOT TO SCALE vnv<v.whpacitic.com I.S.P.C.S., GRID NORTH Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6N PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Volterra South Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement #I 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 2017-113798 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 11/29/2017 02:35 PM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this r,day of AQ. , 20,tZbetween Bridgetower Investments, LLC , the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from time to time by the Grantee;' NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of a sewer line over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary sewer line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area Sewer Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2017-113597 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 NIKOLA OLSON 11/29/2017 09:29 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this r,day of AQ. , 20,tZbetween Bridgetower Investments, LLC , the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from time to time by the Grantee;' NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of a sewer line over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary sewer line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area Sewer Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: Manager 398 E. Copper Ridge St. Meridian, ID 83646 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) On the '44� day of 2011, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state personally appeared MOLD, MCC0111,tm known or identified to me to be the MOWICAtA of the Limited Liability Company that executed the instrument or the person who execu d the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Company and acknowledged to me that such Limited Liability Company executed the same. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. N TARY PUBLI OR IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: '-311"+ Sewer Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 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 might -of -way -and easement hereby granted shall become..part of, or lie Withinthe boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which ties 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 WITNES-S *W* H*ER.EOF,. the said parties of the first pata have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: Manager 39'8 E. Copper Ridge St. Meridian, ID 83646 STATE -OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada On the_14-) day of 2024, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state personally appeared -M %%t known. or identified to me to be the of the. Limited Liability Company. that. executed -the.. instrument or the persoll who exec -Ad the instrument on behalf of said Llinited Liability Company and abknoAvledged to me that such Limited Liability Company exec-atedthe same, Ih Wittiess whereof, I have- hereunto set. my hand and -seal the day and -year in this certificate first above wr'ttm, l I'N DUS 400 so TA % so 0 so PUBL ioo go* 4_X 000OZ40 '0, $ Sewer Mahl Ea8e%ilfp. OF N TARY PUBU.OR IDAHO Residilig at: -K= - Commission Ekpires: REV. 08/15/16 GRANTEE: Tammy Mayor oF""p'v E D A UG�sr, IAN ' s o :�:) — ' CUE IDIAN�- IOANO SEAL �/ by May Coles, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: // / ),/ / ?0/ STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this day of , 20_L-_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and C.JAY COLES known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. SHI !� �♦ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: JOD P'� ck( in, dpe co Commission J ission Expires: y 3 0 9,D Pus%" Sewer Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 PARCEL DESCRIPTION Date: October 31, 2017 CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER EASEMENT A parcel of land being a portion of the NE1/4 NEI/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the N1/16 corner common to Sections 34 and 35, monumented by a 5/8" rebar, from which the northeast corner of said Section 34, monumented by a 5/8" rebar (Conner Record No. 108122909), beats North 00°5246" East, a distance of 1315.57 feet; Thence North 00°52'46" East, coincident with the east line of said NEI/4 NE1/4, a distance of 181.69 feet; Thence North 89'07'14" West, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 46.00 feet to the westerly right of way line of N. Ten Mile Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing North 89'07'14" West, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 36.00 feet; Thence North 00°52'46" East, parallel and offset 3 6. 00 feet westerly of said westerly right of way line, a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence South 89'07'14" East, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 36.00 feet to said westerly right of way line; Thence South 00°52'46" West, coincident with said westerly of right of way line, a distance 20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 720 square feet or 0.017 acres, more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is North 00°52'46" East between the N1/16 corner common to Sections 34 and 35 and the northeast corner of Section 34. P.L.S. .4 End of Description tP EO131/1-7 trJA�rF OF �0 �'�� M. �C SKETCH FOR LEGAL EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER EASEMENT A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NE114 NE1/4 OF SECTION 34, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 201'7 NE CORNER SECTION 34 589'07' 14"E w 36.00' (0-" SO'52'46"W :`- o 720 S.F. 20.00' ,N N ±0.017 AC. O z N89'07'14' W N89-07'1 4"W 36.00' 46.00' POINT OF BEGINNING C) Of Ln PROPOSED w VOLTERRA SOUTH COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION =I `? BLOCK 1 0) Ld N �fl z o z POINT OF C0illillENCE11ENT _ N1116 CORNER SECTIONS 34 & 35 LAND STERFoIJ,�� N 05 � � , � � 10131 17�O WHpa�c1flic -f,,, ATF OF SOP �. 2141 W Airport Way, Ste 104 Boise, ID 83705 208-342-5400 Fax 208-342-5353 NOT TO SCALE mm.whpacific.com I.S.P.C.S., GRID NORTH Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 60 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Volterra South Commercial Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Easement #2 MEETING NOTES f 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 2017-113227 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 CHE FOWLER 11/28/2017 11:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this r,day of AQ. , 20,tZbetween Bridgetower Investments, LLC, the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from time to time by the Grantee;' NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of a sewer line over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary sewer line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area Sewer Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: ��� Manager 398 E. Copper Ridge St. Meridian, ID 83646 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) On the "�4h day of RoyembGr, 2013, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state personally appeared M iv -Q, MZCOWLM known or identified to me to be the of the Limited Liability Company that executed the instrument or the person who execut d the instrument on behalf of said Limited Liability Company and acknowledged to me that such Limited Liability Company executed the same. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. 3 '�'OTAR J, •� Sewer Main Easen%19 0 0 0006000000 Q. ��• NOTARY PUBLIC FO IDAHO Residing at: V , 16 Commission Expires: 3 1;- REV. 08/15/16 �_gLp� ED AUG GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN �= 01y „r w E I IDAIA�0,/ �D sm SEAL Tammy de er , Mayor ylFR of th e T Rr-- s Attest y C. ay Coles, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: // / )/ / >17 STATE OF IDAI-IO ) ss County of Ada ) On this day of , 20 11_, before me, the undersigned, allotary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and C.JAY COLES known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ��AA Sy�R •y� NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDA O �T(A* Residingat: c,� a� . �cjaCommission Expires: �� �� 2 a P ja e OF `OA j J� Sewer Main Easement REV. 08/15/16 PARCEL DESCRIPTION Date: October 31, 2017 CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER EASEMENT A parcel of land being a portion of the NE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the N1/16 coiner common to Sections 34 and 35, monumented by a 5/8" rebar, from which the northeast corner of said Section 34, monumented by a 5/8" rebar (Corner Record No. 108122909), bears North 00°52'46" East, a distance of 1315.57 feet; Thence North 00°52'46" East, coincident with the east line of said NE1/4 NEI/4, a distance of 435.39 feet; Thence North 89'07'14" West, perpendicular to said east line, a distance of 73.43 feet to an angle point on the southerly right of way line of N. Vicenza Way and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 49°11'29" East, coincident with said southerly right of way line, a distance of 21.27 feet; Thence South 20°52'32" West, a distance of 12.15 feet; Thence North 69°07'28" West, a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence North 20°52'32" East, a distance of 19.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 315 square feet or 0.007 acres, more or less. Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearings for this parcel is North 00°52'46" East between the N1/16 corner common to Sections 34 and 35 and the northeast coiner of Section 34. No. 10561 End of Description 10 1311 F,,, Gln SKETCH FOR LEGAL EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER EASEMENT A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NEl/4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 34, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2017 NE CORNER SECTION 34 N. VICENZA WAY ic\l N89'07'14"W 73.43' S49'11'29"E i-21.27' 5 S.F. 007 AC. Ld wOS20'52'32"W 12.15' z PROPOSED w VOLTERRA SOUTH -i COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION BLOCK 1 z Lu z POINT OF C0101ENCE1IENT NI/16 CORNER SECTIONS 34 & 35 NPS- LAND �v���� S T ERFSC��G mw T � 1 .- 10561 clfl kj� 10131/1-7 14 P Ic N I/D 83705 Way, Ste 104 B2141 ose, Airport M F M. 208-342-5400 Fax 208-342-5353 NOT TO SCALE \"vw.whpacilic.com I.S.P.C.S., GRID NORTH Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6P PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Release of Centrepointe Subdivision No. 2 Sewer and Water Main Easement MEETING NOTES go 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 2017-113225 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=2 CHE FOWLER 11/28/2017 11:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE RELEASE OF EASEMENT TYPE OF EASEMENT BEING RELEASED: WATER MAIN AND SANITARY SEWER GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN GRANTOR: FIG Village at Centre Point LLC, Successor in interest to Blue Marlin Investments LLC WHEREAS, by casement dated July 15, 2016 and recorded as Instrument Number 2016-060153 in the land records of Ada County, State of Idaho, an easement of the type and nature set forth in the above - captioned title was granted to the City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, over and across the real property legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. WHEREAS, the continuance of this easement is no longer necessary or desirable. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the City of Meridian does hereby vacate, relinquish, release and abandon the said rights and easements hereinabove referred to and described, with the intent that the same shall forthwith cease and be extinguished. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE CITY OF MERIDIAN has caused these presents to be executed by its proper officers thereunto duly authorized this aV day of November, 2017. CITY OF MERIDIAN By Tammy VFeKrd7-, Mayor ATTEST- C./Ay C&Ws, City Clerk STATE OF IDAHO ss County of Ada At CCity r �WEEAf -4 IDANQD IDANo �N 41 SEAL On this 9- )1 day of n wpL,,, —, 2017, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and C.Jay Coles, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who 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 ficate first above written, Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: — , - 6 a &-h-tr Commission expires: i EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRITION OF EASEMENT BEING RELEASED A sanitary sewer and domestic water easement across a portion of the Southeast'/ of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 32, thence along the South line of said Section being the centerline of East Ustick Road North 89°44'39" West 1328.23 feet; thence leaving said South line North 00°29'45" East 38.00 feet to the North Right - of -Way line of said East Ustick Road; thence continuing North 00°29'45" East 1333.87 feet to a point on the northern boundary of Centrepointe Subdivision, recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder in Book 97 of Plats, at pages 12330 and 12331 as Instrument No. 167047647; thence along said northern boundary North 89059'56" East 252.35 feet to a point on the proposed east Right-of-way line of North Centrepoint Way; thence departing from said northern boundary and along said proposed Right -of -Way; North 00°15'21" East 175.25 feet; thence continuing along said proposed Right -of -Way 76.10 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet, a delta angle of 21148'04" and a long chord bearing North 11109'23" East 75.64 feet; thence continuing along said proposed Right -of -Way North 22003'25" East 210.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 22°03'25" East 36.00 feet; thence departing from said proposed Right -of -Way South 67056'35" East 68.91 feet; thence, North 90°00'00" East 262.51 feet; thence, South 77°54'39" East 273.89 feet; thence, South 00°00'00" East 14.84 feet to a point on the line common to Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on Property Line Adjustment Survey #9840, recorded as Instrument No. 114045235; thence, along said line South 00°00'00" East 207.11 feet; thence, leaving said line, South 00°00'00 East 172.99 feet to a point on northerly boundary of said Centrepointe Subdivision; thence along said northern boundary North 89°59'56" West 32.00 feet; thence. leavine said northern boundary North 00°00'00" West 366.00 feet; thence, North 77°54'39" West 54.97 feet; thence, North 00°00'00" West 15.34 feet; thence, North 77154'39" West 188.36 feet; thence, North 90°00'00" West 28.82 feet; thence, South 00°00'00" West 15.00 feet; thence, North 90°00'00" West 241.06 feet; thence North 67°56'35" West 73.26 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 29,845 square feet or 0.69 acres more or less. Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Centrepointe Subdivision No. 2 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement MEETING NOTES c✓ 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 2017-113219 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=6 CHE FOWLER 11/28/2017 11:05 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Ckantee; across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines t€ be constructed by t and successors and assigns forever. Sadtay sewer ad WataMain t REV.08/1 /1 any pennanent 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 pwposes 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 o:t or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby gr:anted 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 descn'bed 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. MM"~ 4(,~s S "'6\la..N-O EP= S&.e. VT' ~oll\-11"1 Address Secretary- u+<~-" STATE OF 1B2\iro ) SQ.ff i.ok-t-) ss County of.Ytt-) On this 15 -tL.. day of N Olltn'l ~ tr , 20 1(, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared J"A"'cJ P. 'boo/.~ ~d ---=========:::::=---. known or identified to me to be the~sidcnt m'tr ~C0!..11- Secretaty, respectively, of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. NOTARY PUBLIC ElMAN cartREU. e&8335 COMMISSION EXPIRE8 MARCH 29, 2020 STATE OF UTAH Sanitary s~er and Water Main Easement NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IBidiO UTAH Residing at: W11f S. M·,li_c,.J p_t ' .. ~ Comrmsston Exprres: OJ·2.,·'2.C>'2.o REV. 08/15/l6 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy d%Yr3&rd, Mayor by Clerk Approved By City Council On:z )Lz STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada ) On tbis��day ofnt,�o gn , 20-9 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and C.7ay Coles, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fust above written. SOt AR y 406do G Push'` �o re OF 0, NOTARY PUBLIC FOR O Residing at: Commission Expires: — o Qon�farn Gna�rr o�nrl Wntar Mnin i7aenm�nt uFV nQ114119 Project: 170005 T•O ENGINEERS CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 332 N. BROADMORE WAY SUITE 101 NAMPA, IDAHO 83687 208-442-6300 • FAX 208-466-0944 Date: November03,2017 Page: 1 of3 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER AND WATERLINE EASEMENT DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of Block 2, Centrepointe Subdivision No.2, as recorded in the official records of Ada County, Idaho, in Plat Book 110 at Pages 15889 through 15892 and situated in NEl/4 ofthe SEl/4 of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a brass cap monument marking the southeast corner of said Section 32, thence along the east line of said Section 32, N.00°30'13" E. a distance of 1989.71 feet to a point, from which a brass cap monument marking the northeast corner of the SEl/4 of said Section 32 (E 1/4 corner) bears N .00°30'13"E. a distance of 664.3 7 feet, thence leaving said east line N.89°46'47"W. a distance of 954.64 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar marking the northwest corner of said Lot 22, thence along the line common to said Block 2 and the east right-of-way line ofN. Centrepoint Way S.00°00'55" W. a distance of 42.29 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar, thence continuing along said common line and along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of250.00 feet, a central angle of07°30'05", an arc length of32.73 feet, a chord bearing ofS.03°45'58" W. a distance of 32.71 feet to a point marking the POINT OF BEGINNING: I) Thence leaving said common line S.89°44'39"E. a distance of 592.45 feet to a point; 2) Thence S.00°00'33"E. a distance of 46.00 feet to a point; 3) Thence N.89°44'39"W. a distance of 134.24 feet to a point; 4) Thence S.00°15'21 "W. a distance of 410.19 feet to a point; 5) Thence N.89°44'39"W. a distance of 496.55 feet to a point; 6) Thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 223.00 feet, a central angle of08°28'33", an arc length of32.99 feet, a chord bearing N.85°30'23"W. a distance of32.96 feet to a point; 7) Thence along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 177.00 feet, a central angle of08°30'40", an arc length of26.29 feet, a chord bearing N.85°3l '26"W. a distance of26.27 feet to a point; MERIDIAN • COEUR d'ALENE • NAMPA • SPOKANE • BOISE L:\170005\SO_Survey\Word Documents\Descriptions\170005-SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT Description 11-03-20 I 7 Project: 170005 Date: November 03, 2017 Page: 2 of3 8) Thence N.89 °46'46"W. a distance of25.09 feet to a point on said common line; 9) Thence along said common line N.00°13'14"E. a distance of 46.00 feet to a point; 10) Thence leaving said common line S.89 °46'46"E. a distance of25.09 feet to a·point; 11) Thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of223.00 feet, a central angle of08°30'40", an arc length of 33.13 feet, a chord bearing S.85°31 '26"E. a distance of 33.10 feet to a point; 12) Thence along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 177.00 feet, a central angle of 08°28'33", an arc length of26.18 feet, a chord bearing S.85°30'23"E. a distance of 26.16 feet to a point; 13) Thence S.89°44'39"E. a distance of 450.55 feet to a point; 14) Thence N.00°15'21"E. a distance of 159.19 feet to a point; 15) Thence N.89°44'39"W. a distance of 453.43 feet to a point; 16) Thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 123.00 feet, a central angle of22°29'24", an arc length of 48.28 feet, a chord bearing N.78°29'5T'W. a distance of 47.97 feet to a point on said common line; 17) Thence along said common line N.22°03'48 11 E. a distance of 46.00 feet to a point; 18) Thence leaving said common line and along an arc of a curve to the left having a radius of77.00 feet, a central angle of 22°53 '52", an arc length of 30.77 feet, a chord bearing S.78°1 7'43"E. a distance of 30.57 feet to a point; 19) Thence S.89°44'39"E. a distance of 453.43 feet to a point; 20) Thence N.00°15'21 "E. a distance of 159.00 feet to a point; 21) Thence N.89°44'39"W. a distance of422.76 feet to a point on said common line; 22) Thence along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of250.00 feet, a central angle of 10°49'18", an arc length of 47.22 teet, a chord bearing N.l2°55'39"E a distance of 47.15 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel containing 2.15 acres or 93,611 square feet more or less and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights~of~way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit 'B" and by this reference made a part hereof. MERIDIAN • COEUR d'ALENE • NAMPA • SPOKANE • BOISE L:\170005\50 _Survey\ Word Documents\Descriptions\170005~SEWER AND WATER EASEMENT Description 11 ·03·20 17 @cOPY T -0 ENGINEERS. THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-0 ENGINEERS. ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-0 ENGINEERS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. @ SKETCH EXHIBIT "B" 46' CITY OF MERIDIAN SEWER AND WATERLINE EASEMENT LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2017 :.: POINT OF BEGINNING CENTREPOINTE SUBDIVISION ~ JASMINE ACRES SUBDIVISION I CENTREPOINTE SUBDIVISION NO. 2 rooo ot!l ·z -.:t-_ ~~~ I C\1 fi:l;;l wiXl ~~~ ;;0 0 r<)fll . -ooo o< ZIXl 32 I 33 Q < 0 =: u.l ....:! '-' < u.l i 100 0 100 ~ 514 PAGE30F3 iiEJ T•O ENGINEERS 332 N. BROADMORE WAY NAMPA, IDAHO 83687-5123 PHONE: (208) 442-6300 FAX: (208) 466-0944 E.fiLE: 170005-V-XB-EASE DATE: NOV.2017 JOB: 170005 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6R PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Professional Services Agreement with Treasure Valley Children's Theater for Not -to -Exceed $5,000 MEETING NOTES 1' Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TREASURE VALLEY CHILDREN'S THEATER This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TREASURE VALLEY CHILDREN'S THEATER (hereinafter "Agreement") is made this � day of November, 2017, by and between the Meridian Arts Commission, through the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho (hereinafter "City"), and Treasure Valley Children's Theater, a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho (hereinafter ""VCT"). WHEREAS, the mission of the Meridian Arts Commission is to develop, advance, and nurture all facets of the arts to enhance the quality of life for Meridian residents and its visitors; WHEREAS, the mission of TVCT is to be part of a healthy, growing community by producing quality theater arts experiences for Children's; and WHEREAS, the respective governing bodies of City and TVCT find that these missions complement each other and wish to work together to further the objectives of both by engaging TVCT to present theater arts experiences as set forth in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and in consideration of the recitals above, which are incorporated herein, City and TVCT agree as follows: I. Scope of services. TVCT shall provide the following services, deliverables, and materials under this Agreement: A. TVCT shall obtain all necessary royalties and scripts. B. TVCT shall schedule and hold auditions and rehearsals, and shall provide Children's cast members with all necessary materials for such experience. C. TVCT shall provide the following staff and any other staff necessary to provide the services and deliverables set forth in this Agreement: director, music director, choreographer, stage manager, production assistant, costume designer, and light designer. D. TVCT shall provide all necessary costumes, props, and set. E. TVCT shall provide and distribute marketing materials, including printing posters, flyers, t -shirts, and programs. F. TVCT shall reserve and pay all related costs for audition, rehearsal, and performance space. G. TVCT shall present to the public the theater arts experiences as set forth in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A by September 30, 2018. H. Compensation and payment. A. Amount. City shall pay TVCT for professional services described herein in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TREASURE VALLEY CHILDREN'S THEATER PAGE 1 OF 4 B. Payment schedule. Following TVCT's provision of detailed invoice to City, City shall pay TVCT in accordance with the following schedule: 1. By December 29, 2017, City shall mail payment to TVCT in the amount of $2,000.00. 2, By March 1, 2018, City shall mail payment to TVCT in the amount of $1,000.00. 3. By June 1, 2018, City shall mail payment to TVCT in the amount of $1,000.00. 4. By August 1, 2018, City shall mail payment to TVCT in the amount of $1,000.00. C. Materials fees; revenue. TVCT shall be entitled to collect a materials fee from each cast member in an amount not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00). In exchange for such fee, each cast member shall be entitled to participation in rehearsals per TVCT's casting and direction; direction and coaching from TVCT staff at weekly rehearsals; and performance per TVCT's casting, direction, and scheduling. TVCT may not turn away any person due to inability to pay the materials fee; TVCT shall waive and/or make other accommodations for such fee upon request and demonstration of financial hardship. TVCT shall be entitled to retain any revenues realized from ticket sales, sponsorships, or other fundraising undertaken by TVCT. M. General provisions. A. Indemnification. TVCT and each and all of TVCT's employees, agents, contractors, officials, officers, servants, guests, and/or invitees, including any and all participants in Event or related activities, shall indemnify and save and hold harmless City from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by Organizer or any Organizer employee, agent, contractor, official, officer, servant, guest, and/or invitee, or any participant in or observer of Organizer programming, at or in its use of Park or any lack of maintenance or repair thereon and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City. B. Insurance. TVCT shall submit to City proof of an insurance policy issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in Idaho protecting TVCT, TVCT's employees, and TVCT's agents from all claims for damages to property and bodily injury, including death, which may arise during or in connection with the play, including auditions, rehearsals, set-up, performance, and tear -down. Such insurance shall name City as additional insured, and shall afford at least five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per person bodily injury, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per occurrence bodily injury, and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per occurrence property damage. The limits of insurance shall not be deemed a limitation of the covenants to indemnify and save and hold harmless City as set forth in this Agreement or any permit. If City becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance limits herein provided due to the actions or omissions of Organizer or any Organizer employee, agent, contractor, official, officer, servant, guest, and/or invitee, or any participant in or observer of Event or related activities, Organizer covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless City from and for all such losses, claims, actions, or judgments for damages or liability to persons or property. At all times during the course of this Agreement, T VCT shall provide worker's compensation coverage in the amount required by law for each and every employee utilized in the course of performance of this Agreement. C. Notices. All notices required to be given by either of the parties shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when personally served or mailed via U.S. mail, addressed as follows: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TREASURE VALLEY CHILDREN'S THEATER PAGE 2 of 4 If to TVCT: Autumn Kersey If to City: Hillary Bodnar, Commissions & Committees Specialist Treasure Valley Children's Theater City of Meridian P.O. Box 9144 33 East Broadway Ave Boise ID 83747 Meridian ID 83642 Either party may change its authorized representative and/or address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner herein provided, D. Assignment. City shall not assign or sublet all or any portion of City's interest in this Agreement or any privilege or right hereunder, either voluntarily or involuntarily, without the prior written consent of TVCT. TVCT shall not assign or sublet all or any portion of TVCT's interest in this Agreement or any privilege or right hereunder, either voluntarily or involuntarily, without the prior written consent of City. This Agreement and each and all of the terms and conditions hereof shall apply to and are binding upon the respective organizations, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties. E. No agency; independent contractor. Neither TVCT nor its employees, agents, contractors, officials, officers, servants, guests, and/or invitees shall be considered agents of City in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever in TVCT's use and occupancy of facilities at which auditions, rehearsals, workshops, and/or performances are held. In all matters pertaining to this agreement, TVCT shall be acting as an independent contractor, and neither TVCT nor any officer, employee or agent of TVCT shall be deemed an employee or agent of City in any manner or for any purpose. Specifically, without limitation, TVCT understands, acknowledges, and agrees that TVCT and its employees, agents, contractors, officials, officers, servants, guests, and/or invitees: 1. Are free from actual and potential control by City in the provision of services under this Agreement. 2. Are engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business. 3. Have the authority to hire subordinates. 4. Own and/or will provide all major items of equipment necessary to perform services under this Agreement. F. Compliance with laws. In performing the scope of services required hereunder, City and TVCT shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. G. Attorney Fees. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. H. Time of the essence. The parties shall fulfill obligations described in this Agreement in a timely manner, as set forth herein. 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 default of this Agreement. I. Termination. 1. Grounds. Grounds for termination of this Agreement shall include, but shall not be limited to: an act or omission by either party which breaches any term of this Agreement; an act of nature PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TREASURE VALLEY CHILDREN'S THEATER PAGE 3 OF or other unforeseeable event which precludes or makes impossible the performance of the terms of this Agreement by either party; or a change in or occurrence of circumstances that renders the performance by either party a detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare. 2. Process. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing fourteen (14) days' notice of intention to terminate. Such notice shall include a description of the breach or circumstances providing grounds for termination. A forty-eight (48) hour cure period shall commence upon provision of the notice of intention to terminate. If the defaulting party successfully cures the breach or circumstances providing grounds for termination, the terminating party shall signify such cure by issuing written withdrawal of the notice of termination. If, upon the expiration of such cure period, cure of the breach or circumstances providing grounds for termination has not occurred, this Agreement shall be terminated. J. Construction and severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is reasonably capable of completion. K. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. L. Discrimination Prohibited. In performing the Services required herein, TVCT shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age or physical handicap. M. Applicable law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. N. Approval Required. This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until approved by the respective governing bodies of both City and TVCT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties shall cause this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers to be effective as of the day and year first above written. TREASURE VALLEY - CITY OF MERIDIAN: B Tammy erd Mayor THEATER: Go�2O0 p? DA(/�,�s i IR C�p �► o ' E� City 4 ZAHO \ L SEAL �Z) Attest: ��rhe TREA`�u` C. fay Cole City Clerk PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT wITH TREASURE VALLEY CHILDREN'S THEATER PAGE 4 OF 4 TREASURE VALLEY CHILDREN'S THEATER Exhibit A IMAGINE... 2018 is a year of so many possibilities. Treasure Valley Children's Theater (TVCT), the valley's only professional theater organization dedicated to empowering youth through quality theater arts experiences, has enjoyed record-breaking growth over the past year. We look toward our 6th season with enthusiasm. We are confident in the knowledge that our partnerships with community-based organizations and businesses will continue to strengthen our Valley and serve our mission to change the world one theater kid at a time. Will the Meridian Arts Commission join us for a 6th season? MERIDIAN ARTS COMMISSION SEASON 20j8 PROPOSAL We are asking the Meridian Arts Commission to consider supporting our leadership - through -performing arts programs in 2018 for a total of $5,000? 2017 "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever" Dec. 1 & 2 at Meridian Middle School with a cast of 25 youth ages 6-13 (4 additional performances planned in Nampa and Boise) 2018 "Willy Wonka, Jr." March 10 & 11 at Meridian Middle School with a cast of 40 youth ages 10-18 2018 Summer Theater Intensive: TWO shows involving 50-60 youth ages 8-181 2018 "You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown" Sept. at a location TBA with a cast of 15-20 youth ages 14-18 MAC's obligations would extend to the negotiation of performance space rental fees, if necessary. Additionally, MAC may be asked to assist with marketing efforts through established channel of contacts. MAC will receive recognition at all productions including: o Top billing in all marketing of the 2018 programs • Mention from the stage at all performances • Opportunity to distribute information to performance attendees • Full page, color ad in the play bill for each production • Logo/link in e -newsletters • Logo/link on online ticketing and program webpage • Mentions on Facebook & Twitter . Reserved VIP seating for 10 guests at any of the performances Thank you for your consideration! P.O. Box 9144 Boiss, ID ' 208.287.8828 ' TR6ASUREVALLEYCHILDR6NST416AT6R.COM Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6S PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approval of purchase of two (2) Pierce Fire Engines from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $1,099,483 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 Page 1 Memo To: C.Jay Coles, City Clerk From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager CC: David Jones; Mark Niemeyer Date: 11/13/2017 Re: November 21 st City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the November 21 st City Council Consent Agenda for Council’s consideration. Approval of purchase of two (2) Pierce Fire Engines from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $1,099,483.00 Recommended Council Action: Approval of purchase of two (2) Pierce Arrow Fire Engines from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $1,099,483.00 and authorize the Purchase Manager to sign the Purchase Orders. This purchase is being made from the HGACBuy contract (a cooperative contract) that has been reviewed and approved by Legal. This purchase is part of the approved 2018 Budget. Thank you for your consideration. City of Meridian Purchasing Dept. City Of Merj.dian Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Rev and Exp Report - Sandra - Unposted Transactions Included In Report 01 - c€It€la1 Fund 2210 - Fi.!€ Adrin Fton. rA/7/2A11 rhrough 9/30/20L8 Percent of Budget Renaininq Budget with Cu!rent Year Actual Budget Remaining 9472a DEPT EXPENDITURES TOTAI, EXPENDTTURES 5L:42.e: Capital Outlay Capital - Fire Trucks Total Capital Outlay 549,999 .96 549,999 -96 5 49-999,96 5 49- 999-96 100.009 100.00c 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0-00 549,:r99. !5 549:999 -96 100.008 100.001549,999 Dat:eI ll/2/tt OB: 3 5:2 3 rJ,{ E IDIAN IDAHO PUrChaSe Order 11t'tot2o17 Attention: David Jones Attn: Finance 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, lD 83642 City of Meridian Fire Dept. 33 E. Broadway Ave, Ste.210 Meridian, lD 83642 18-0127 Total 572,279.50 (22,538.00) $549,741.50 CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST BROADWAY AVE. MERIDIAN, ID 83642 (208) 888-4433 Vendor Address: PIERCE MANUFACTURING INC 7751 COLLECTIONS CENTER DR CHICAGO, IL 60693 2018 Pierce Enforcer Pumper per HGACBuy Contract for Station 6 .DISCOUNT for 100% PRE-PAY- Special lnstructions Billing Address: Shipping Address: Shipping Method FOB: Unit Quantity truck destination Unit Price lar 1.00 (1.00) Purchase Order Total Enforcer Pumpers per the attached written Pierce quote dated 10t1112017 and HGACBuy contract FS12-.15 product code TC06Purchase approved by Councit .11/21l t 7 Norto-Exceed g549,741 .5 O O7-221O_g41ZO-t OaaO Caie [ gmt SaZt S Description Dollar 57227g.50 22538.00 Purchasing Manager:_ OW IAN CITY OF IUERIDIAN Purch.slng D!p!dm.nl 3i} E BROADWAY AVE. STE 106 MERIDIAN. ID 83642 TEL: (zE)489-sl7 FAX: (208) 887-4813 @ C]TY OF iIERIDIAN Flre D€parlmenl SUGGESlEO VENDOF 10nz2017 IS BTJDGET AMENDTIEMT REOI'IRED? NO CASE MANAGEMENT TICKET NO. Hughas Fire Equipment 910 Shelley St. Springlield, OR 97477 DATE OF BEOUEST AVAILABLE BUDGET AIIOUNT $71 .00 Purchase Requisition PROJECT ]IIANAGEB David Joncs PAYMENT TERMS NET 30 FREIG}IT TEBMS PHEPAID F.O.B, DESTINATION BEOUESTOR ilark Nlemcyer PBOJECT NAIIE: FY-2018 Station 6 Fire Enqine, tmoact Fees 201B Pierc€ Enlorcer Pumper 1 .l $ 549,741.50 07 2210 s4120 10880 $ 549,741.50 5'l ? >14.qo $ $ $ $ $ $ s D $549 741.50 NOTES: Council Approval Date: Desc r i tion of Purchase Ouantity and Pricing ACCOUNTING CODES PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION / COi/l[.IITMENT NAME / TASK OHDER / CONTRACT / PROJ ECI DESCBIPTION OTY UNIT UNIT PBICE O EPT CODE EXPEN t o (T PAOJECT, cot.lf.fl t r.,tr- NT ,r TOTAL AtiIOUNT - I II-IIIIIIIIIIII II-r--II T ici :f,.ir ;!aaF,lS! !Al:; rlul,iS-; l.:!Si /,4;:Ai 3ii 4L: l..rolc!S;iCXl'.:i 5t rri cAnro rs i'r, loa;isio .ia,r:i ni!ntil-aa-r,,r! c;i!i'i FI,JND Itt I I III tt Ftl=I Odoblr lt,2017 Moraian Fire D.pErirEnt, lD ?wo (2) Enforc.r Pllrpe'8 GG4(E 8{!d Locadon: Appl€ton, Wlcon3h Paoposal Price Lcas ch83!i! paog.css paynEnt di8counl Th. dar$ Foo,laa paylnant h !l. rllRnt ot 50,45.034 00 (t322 517 00 pe, ui Uwt!. duotrr. (3) moo$s P.b. iD tllc rlldy 1o. pa.! up t E n h. lelo.y alt Le6E paym€nt upon clrllploltrn @ flc{ory dbcount ' Oedocl lor 100% pe-p.yrne \tith contrlct f |hi. opibn h !hd.d, 6a rtilcrml b h .d(tlh ao tt. clla*a Frrlrta! p.ylr]anl dlcount ,t tha paymant upon ord.Uon .i !h! b.ro.y ditcounl Sublolalindudhg all pr.-pay discounts 1 153,887 00 (r9.3s2 Ul) (r2,514 00) (22.s36 00) -' r.099 483.00 - (9,O00 00) (3 1ls 00) 1 0E7 368 00 1!39 crrstomcr drivelou[ dkaount li hB cplbtr b .lecr€d p.ynont ln lul lnd Ploot ol hsE ncs ,n!.1 b. p.Dv$.d prb. lo la.v.o lha Larory and lE oldomi I 6apon.b- la @nFarc. Ndn d ll,ta rrcd rnd ,orr.f.l ool llqrl!ft.nl. hctrdhg hr drtvcr pot!.ssrrg r v3E COL lifit L!$ pciormgncc bond Propos6l pfiE€ inctrdrng d6@unts Tcfin3 B.sed on PEE! ! cll'Ient delivcry gcJlcduL lhe units would b. ra€dy to. delivcry horn f.ctory wihin I tg 12 monfi! .fisr conlract axecutxrn t .livrry b sublcd to ch8ng6 pendrE Plcrcc,s ddv.ry schcduh at ttnre of ord.r. The 6bove quotr E rubicd to changc An invoicc srifi br prorftrcd 30 days pnor to tha cfia3rb payrncnt due drte il.hcl.d lf payttrnt dscosnt options 8ra not cleded standrd p.ynEnt tcrms wtl spply Finat payfi.nl wll bc duc a() days lf,cr ths unils l€avc th. Lctory for d8ln6ry ll p.ymcnt E not made El thal timo ! Lt6 L. wifi bc lpp0cauc The proposar pric. E brscd on rhe units bllng purch8ed through HGAC rhE pdcjng b only vand to, .n HGAC purdrag! oncontracl Fsl2-,ls thru Nowmb.r 3l 2017 Pndng lnclrdr3 tts (2) 5" ! t O hed 3ucton hoso3 p.r l,nit 'r srhdrd h prcvious ord.r An annult prk increasc wi go hto rfirci to. s[ ordc6 proca3scd !fllr Jrnusry 31, mlg lf ordci b not abrndrd pdortg Ura[ dalc. I 3% prire incrqrte witr bc rEqui.ld TY,o (2) unil pricing a bs!.d on both udr b.ing prr.cias6d. m.nufactu.6d. intpld€d and delivercd st thc sarE tiric tfuniB rl! not ordorad. msnl,.cturad. [spcclcd ard d.l e.cd .t th. srmc prrc! Evi.ed p,ictnE will bc rcqutcd T.8nsporrrton of thr unit! to br ddvc'l frofi th€ factofy b inr.rudrd h thc pdcirE Ho cv.r, u,! rrq ungbh to obta{ Tcsar y_tstmilr due to th. weight of th! uniE, rnd t E uni6 must br tranlpo,Gd or ! flst bar, addilbnll t.lEpo.trton cha,g€g will bc the .eEponlbilrty ot the purdl8c. Wc l{It p(oudg p,irlng .t tiot timr if nocossary. Two (2) fldoty anslrdion lrhs tor thrcc (3) fir! dep..tni.ot cutto,ilr reprc€antattve€ E lncludld ln ttE abov€ pricin! ThrinEp.ctbn bipr willbc sdr.duled .t urnes mulusly .gced upon beltrEo; th€ mlnutadurcs rep(ascnt tivr o,l; ths - cu'rorE 4ftr., rodgir.g .nd mcdc *hih .t [E_tadory srs indud.d rt the DoP.,trcd arect! to foqo rn rn3pedion t ip31,850.00 per t lvrLr (ps t h) wil bG dcducfcd rrom [|c fn.l lnvoics 0 /001 C�WEI�ty FAX To: HGAC Fax: 713-993-4548 Phone: Re: City of Meridian Contract Pricing Worksheet Comments: Good Morning, CITY OF MERIDIAN FINANCE DEPARTMENT 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-489-0416 Fax: 208-887-4813 From: City of Meridiani Pages: 4 (including cover) Date: 11/8/2017 cc: Please review and verify the Pricing Worksheet amounts are correct. An email confirmation is preferred to sramirez@meridiancity.orq and CC Purchasing Manager, Keith Watts kwatts@meridiancity.orq. If you have any questions or requests please feel free to contact me via telephone (208) 489-0416. Thank you, am" Sandra Ramirez Purchasing Specialist L'M?j �; CONTRACT PRICING WORKSHEET ' , For MOTOR VEHICLES Only Contract No.: FS12-15 Date Prepared: 11/7/2017 This Worksheet is prepared by Contractor and given to End User. If a PO is issued, both documents MUST be faxed to H -GAC @ 713-993-4548. Therefore please type or print legibly. Buying City of Meridian, Idaho Agency: Contractor: Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. Contact David Jones, Division Chief Person: Prepared By: Shelby Sebright Phone: 208-888-1234 Phone: 541-747-0072 Fax: Fax: 541-747-0073 Email: =diones&meridiancity.ora Email: ssebright(Whughesfire.com Code: IFProduct TC06 Description: Pierce Enforcer, 4 -Door, Full -Tilt, Aluminum Cab, Aluminum Body, Single Axle, 1250 GPM Pump, Mid- Mounted Pumper A. Product Item Base Unit Price Per Contractor's H -GAC Contract: 396,540.00 B. Published Options - Itemize below - Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary - Include Option Code in description if applicable. (Note: Published Options are options which were submitted and priced in Contractor's bid.) Description Cost Description Cost Subtotal From Additional Sheet(s): $ 148,779.00 Subtotal B: 1 148,779.00 C. Unpublished Options - Itemize below / attach additional sheet(s) if necessary. (Note: Unpublished options are items which were not submitted and priced in Contractor's bid.) Description Cost Description Cost I Subtotal From Additional Sheet(s): I j $ 19,017.00 Subtotal C: 19,017.00 Check: Total cost of Unpublished Options (C) cannot exceed 25% of the total of the Base Unit plus Published Options (A+B). For this transaction the percentage is: 3.49"oPrice Total Cost Before Any Applicable Trade -In / Other Allowances / Discounts (A+B+C) Quantity Ordered: 2I X Subtotal of A + B + C: 564,336.00 = Subtotal D: 1,128,672.00 E. H -GAC Order Processing Charge (Amount Per Current Policy) Subtotal E: 2,000.00 F. Trade -Ins / Other Allowances / Special Discounts / Freight/ Installation Description Cost Description Cost Delivery 9,000.00 Performance Bond 3,115.00 Inspection Trips 11,100.00 Subtotal F: 23,215.00 Delivery Date: NOV-18TG. Total Purchase Price (D+E+F): 1,153,887.00 Pride Number Qty Description Published Options Unpublished Options 102 1 ADD "C" Frame Liner 2,425.00 104 1 upgrade to 27,000# rear axle 2,138.00 111 1 Tire Chains - Rear Axle 4,233.00 113 1 Aluminum Wheels, front 2,010.00 114 1 Aluminum Wheels, Rear Single Axle 3,168.00 141 1 Bumper tray with cover 1,685.00 148 1 Safety System 9,832.00 149 1 Driver Safety Seat 588.00 150 3 SCBA Safety Seat 2,991.00 155 2 EMS Compartment w outside access (each) 6,056.00 156 3 Upgrade SCBA Bracket to Hands Free 2,238.00 177 8 Spare radio wiring 944.00 186 1 Camera System, Sides and rear to monitor 1,608.00 188 1 Intercom System (BASIC) 3,187.00 196 1 Kussmaul Pump plus 2,633.00 200 1 Auto -eject 20 amp 526.00 209 1 12 volt LED Flood Brow light 2,048.00 210 2 12 volt LED Flood Recessed or surface (per light) 3,756.00 211 2 12 volt LED Flood Pole light (per light) 4,108.00 219 1 Hose Bed Cover, Vinyl 908.00 225 1 Add Right High Side Compartments 3,423.00 226 1 Add Electric / Hydraulic Ladder Rack 11,470.00 227 1 Full Height - Depth Compartments 6,026.00 241 2 trough - hard suction (each) 2,442.00 244 9 Adjustable Compartment shelves 1,782.00 246 1 Swing -out tool board 1,700.00 247 5 Slide -out floor tray 3,775.00 248 3 Adjustable slide -out tray 2,511.00 252 2 SCBA Cylinder storage in fender panel triple (each) 1,822.00 255 1 Increase Pump from 1250 to 1500 gpm 6,274.00 258 1 add pump anodes (pair) 335.00 259 1 Add Mechanical Seal to Pump 833.00 265 1 Add Front Suction Inlet 4-6" 6,521.00 267 1 1.5" discharge front bumper 2,194.00 276 1 Extenda-gun 18" 4,362.00 285 3 Poly Tray additional 2,673.00 287 1 Hose Reel, above pump w/ 150' Hose 3,583.00 296 1 Pierce Husky 3, Single Agent (5) discharges 12,614.00 300 1 Foam Cell 20 Gallons 1,523.00 306 1 Airhom at activation pump panel 166.00 307 1 Add Top Pump Control 7,685.00 344 1 Q26 Siren 3,805.00 345 1 lGTT Emitter Roof/remote mounted 2,184.00 348 1 Traffic Directing light bar 1,994.00 799299 1 Compt, Extinguisher, Alum Treadplate 1,046.00 604647 1 Box, Alum 4 -Way to Mount Model 582.00 798714 1 Antenna, Panorama LGMMB-7-27-24-58, for Motorola VML750 1,334.00 55675 1 Cross Divider, Hose Bed 489.00 11121 1 1 Delfector, Hose 4", Rear of Hose Bed 391.00 97958 1 IShelf, Permanent, Hose Bed 378.00 567581 1 IStop, Rear of Hose Bed 115.00 544667 2 JTray, Hose, Running Board, Free Floating 1,353.00 515 1 IDivider, Cargo Area above Pump 360.00 614835 1 113ackboard Storage, Above Rear Compy, Thru PS Compt 865.00 625794 4 JCable, Door Stop on each exterior access EMS Lap Door 264.00 28026 17 Matting, Turtle Tile, Compt Shelving only 2,522.00 48836 1 Arms, Raise Pivot Point 3.00", HLR 438.00 24499 1 Arm, Rear, Offset, HLR 2000, Recess Light 833.00 538495 1 Controller, Pressure - Fire Commander II, DDEC Engines 5,417.00 686428 1 Lettering, Gold Leaf, 3.00" 1,183.00 �= Emblem,.. Leaf Pair MINES!- -M MINES! - Base Bid $ 396,540.00 Published Options $ 148,779.00 Total Published Options $ 545,319.00 Unpublished Options $ 19,017.00 3.49% Total Options w/o HGAC Fee $ 564,336.00 Helping Goyernments Across the Country Buy ttt ttrlt lttratt ta totgl,0t l'() Rox 22777 r 3555'l immons l.n. o I L,us 'Ii vs lr2?l 2777. I lt00 r)24) 02j+ CON'TRAC'I' PRICING VERIFICATION IrR()ill: Division Chief David Jones Jackie Palmer l) \'ft Cig of Meridian, ID 11/9/2017 PIIONI] NUNIR[,R I)I IoNI; NL'IIIItIiR 713-993-2166 Price Verfication Contract Pricing Worksheet Date Prepared: i/7/mfi We have reriewed the pricing worksheet provided thtough HGACBuy Contract FS12-15. Our revierv verifies that the pricing provided is in compliance with the contract. Please adr-ise if rve can assist further in this matte! x****xThis is not an order confirmation*****x** Cl]N t RrlI- Ii,{X# 7I3.993.4548 ,I TO Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6T PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: AP Invoices for Payment - $3,615,042.27 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 Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 01 General Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Generations Plaza memorial plaque engraving - qty 1 10.00 01 General Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Name Plate for City Council Randy -B Funk 10.00 01 General Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Name Plates-Stephanie Leonard & Brock Cherry 18.00 01 General Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Wall Signs for Patrol Offices - Qty 3 69.00 01 General Fund ADVANCE AUTO PARTS 4 cycle oil for Parks Shop - qty 2 18.38 01 General Fund AMERICAN MECHANICAL CORP 220/replaced furnace, St. 4 1,739.80 01 General Fund AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION mbr#147836 Caleb Hood 1/1/18-12/31/18 mbrshp renewal 514.00 01 General Fund AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION mbr#249508 Josh Beach-FY18 renewal 1/1/18-12/31/18 306.00 01 General Fund AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION mbr#333828 Brian McClure-FY18 renewal 1/1/18-12/31/18 431.00 01 General Fund AMY MERRILL instructor fee-Ballet,HipHop,Jazz,Cheer 9/14-10/26/17 x 55 1,675.20 01 General Fund APEX INTEGRATED SECURITY SOLUTIONS Service Order 2899-MH Location City of Meridian- Police Depa 157.50 01 General Fund APPLIED CONCEPTS New Radar Units for New Patrol Units #103 & #104 3,125.00 01 General Fund AUTOMATIC RAIN CO DBA HORIZON gas cans - qty 10 474.10 01 General Fund BLUE PLANET PHOTOGRAPHY LLC Photographer services 1/2 down payment-copywright release 1,500.00 01 General Fund BME FIRE FIGHTER SUPPLY, LLC.220/24 badges, 48 collar brass for new recruits 3,731.44 01 General Fund BME FIRE FIGHTER SUPPLY, LLC.220/4 shirts for recruits, 16 pants for stock 2,123.13 01 General Fund BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ADA COUNTY 7/15/14 agreement for gym use-busing to facility 2017-2018 9,000.00 01 General Fund BRICON, INC concrete work for Kleiner Park Memorial Plaza 4,739.00 01 General Fund BRICON, INC Settlers splash pad concrete repairs 800.00 01 General Fund BROWNELLS Firearm Cleaning Equipment 127.74 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC Front Brakes & Rotors for Unit #153 532.53 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC Oil Change and Air Filter for Unit # 135 93.55 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC Oil Change for Unit # 121 55.00 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC Repair curb damage for Unit # 151 457.95 01 General Fund BUSY BEE SAND & GRAVEL, INC.road mix for Kleiner Memorial Plaza - qty 2.56 cu yds 25.60 01 General Fund Campbell Tractor Co.Heroes John Deere 1600 #4 mower repairs & servicing 1,888.03 01 General Fund CANYON TRUCK UPFITTERS add lights & wiring to fleet truck 30 797.68 01 General Fund CANYON TRUCK UPFITTERS fleet truck 16 ice melt lights - qty 2 77.62 01 General Fund CANYON TRUCK UPFITTERS working lights for plow trucks - qty 3 256.68 01 General Fund CDW GOVERNMENT 18-0002 BTO HP 840 G4 I7-7500U 512/8 W10P - Qty 37 43,475.00 01 General Fund CDW GOVERNMENT 18-0045 Quantum Bronze SUP YR Z1DXI4700 16,800.00 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 1 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 01 General Fund CHAVCO TREE & LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC. Tully Park tree/stump removal - qty 4 1,700.00 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE ATTORNEYS OFFICE 18-0084, City Prosecutor/Criminal Legal Services - Nov 2017 29,975.49 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE ATTORNEYS OFFICE 18-0084, City Prosecutor/Criminal Legal Services - Oct 2017 29,975.49 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE IT COMMUNICATIONS ETS Monitoring @ Stratford, Cherry, & Charter - Oct 2017 145.93 01 General Fund CIVICPLUS INC 18-0094 Rec1 annual software license & implementation - FY18 13,500.00 01 General Fund COMMERCIAL TIRE C14304 Taurus wiper blades + install 19.90 01 General Fund COMPUNET Bid Bond Return for IFB #IT-180-10887 2,500.00 01 General Fund CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY,grout & concrete bollard hole filling at Bear Creek Park x 3 115.00 01 General Fund CTA ARCHITECTS 17-0039 RWT Pathway design services contract October 2017 3,603.29 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY cable crimps for trailers - qty 12 19.08 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY cables & crimps for ATV plow repair - qty 22 12.12 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY Dog Food - Qty 1 Bag 47.99 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY Locking Pin for Radar Trailer 2.99 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY pins, bolts, tie downs - qty 35 50.84 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY trailer parts - qty 2 14.48 01 General Fund DYNA SYSTEMS nuts, bolts, screws for Parks Shop - qty 685 202.65 01 General Fund ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE SUPPLY CO conduit & fittings for Bear Creek Park mainline repairs x 16 9.70 01 General Fund FAMILY TANG SOO DO instructor fee - Martial Arts 10/3-10/27/17 - qty 25 728.00 01 General Fund FASTENAL COMPANY zip ties for Parks Shop - qty 700 20.30 01 General Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.ductile 90 part for Bear Creek Park irrigation - qty 1 91.95 01 General Fund GALL'S INC.Cuff Cutters for CID and Patrol Supervisor Cars - Qty 6 149.94 01 General Fund GALL'S INC.Shipping Credit for Holsters (45.45) 01 General Fund GEM STATE PAPER & SUPPLY CO grip-n-grabs - qty 15 321.65 01 General Fund GEM STATE PAPER & SUPPLY CO miscellaneous restroom supplies - qty 81 585.70 01 General Fund GLASS DOCTOR 220/windshield repair, MF039 65.00 01 General Fund GLASS DOCTOR 220/Windshield repair, T-31 398.97 01 General Fund GOSNEY MANAGEMENT, LLC.instructor fee - Draw/Paint, Family Art Day 10/5-10/28/17; 8 320.00 01 General Fund GOVERLAN, INC.Enterprise Edition 1 Month Bakcdated Maintenance, Profession 3,108.67 01 General Fund GYM OUTFITTERS Cleaned & Serviced Gym Equipment 55.00 01 General Fund H.D. FOWLER COMPANY credit on fittings for Tully Park filter install - qty 8 (29.16) Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 2 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 01 General Fund H.D. FOWLER COMPANY ice melt tank parts - qty 9 24.78 01 General Fund H.D. FOWLER COMPANY irrigation fittings for Bear Creek mainline - qty 17 108.42 01 General Fund H.D. FOWLER COMPANY irrigation fittings for Bear Creek Park mainline repairsx27 245.65 01 General Fund H.D. FOWLER COMPANY Rainbird irrigation decoder - qty 1 111.32 01 General Fund HIGHLAND GOLF Kleiner Park golf cart repair 555.93 01 General Fund HOBSON FABRICATION CORP HVAC Repair - Chief's Office 212.50 01 General Fund HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES epoxy for Generations Plaza plaques - qty 2 11.14 01 General Fund HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Outlet Box Extenders & Outlet Covers for Patrol Workstations 23.88 01 General Fund HRE LLC Tenzinga Performance Management Annual License Fee(Annual Pe 480.00 01 General Fund IDAHO BRUSH CONTROL Mowing, Trimming and Weed Abatement for 1265 E. Drucker 225.00 01 General Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING A. Rudan, Case# 340303, Child Support November 2017 481.00 01 General Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING B. Caldwell, Case# 251042, Child Support November 2017 245.00 01 General Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING B. Day, Case# 175578, Child Support November 2017 325.00 01 General Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING G. Stark, Case# 352890, Child Support November 2017 1,070.95 01 General Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING M. Gould, Case# 321962, Child Support November 2017 821.71 01 General Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING M. Payne, Case# 311213, Child Support November 2017 317.00 01 General Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING T. Bryner, Case# 262519, Child Support November 2017 1,174.00 01 General Fund IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES Business Cards-S.Leonard and B.Cherry 92.50 01 General Fund IDAHO POWER CO WO#27494714, Power Pull for Street Lights @ CarMax on Frankl 485.00 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice for 11/16/17 PH for Timberline Sub, 10/27/17 43.66 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice for Ord 17-1751, Temporary Use Permits, 10/27/1 91.02 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice, Ord 17-1747 to Re-Zone in Verona Sub#4 246.22 01 General Fund IMPACT PEST SERVICES K9 Bldg Pest Control 49.00 01 General Fund IMPACT PEST SERVICES PD Admin Pest Control 139.00 01 General Fund INTERMOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS Portable Radio Repair for Serial# 205CHM3920 92.40 01 General Fund INTERMOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS Portable Radio Repair for Serial# 205CHM3933 106.40 01 General Fund INTERMOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS Portable Radio Repair for Serial# 205CMH3452 149.18 01 General Fund INTERMOUNTAIN TRAFFIC Install Opticom in Unit #525 475.00 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 3 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 01 General Fund JAYKER WHOLESALE NURSERY Patmore Ash trees for Kleiner Memorial Plaza - qty 4 999.80 01 General Fund JAYKER WHOLESALE NURSERY Red Oak tree for Bear Creek Park - qty 1 298.50 01 General Fund LAFEVER ROOFING INC 220/Roof repair, St. 2 750.00 01 General Fund LIGHTHOUSE UNIFORM CO 220/Class A pants & shirt, Campbell - Qty 2 142.80 01 General Fund MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION prof services/testing-FiveMileCreekPathH2 10/16-10/29/17 551.68 01 General Fund MR APPLIANCE OF SW IDAHO Repair to dishwasher in Council conference room 85.00 01 General Fund NORCO cylinder rental for welding gas, qty 4 - October 2017 42.16 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.2 drawer file cabinet - qty 1 89.99 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.220/Staples, envelopes, & copy paper - qty 3 45.37 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Cartridge, TPE, 1in, Bk on YW - Qty 1 8.69 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Chair and Loveseat for Interview Room at PD 469.98 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Copy Paper & Batteries - Qty 2 44.31 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.markers, copy paper, tape, note pads - qty 7 96.35 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Paper/Expo Markers/Divider Sheets/Sheet Protectors/Brads 170.49 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Paperclips, #1, Astd, 1000Co - Qty 1 Box 3.97 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.pen,pencil,thumbdrive,badgereels,laminatingfilm x 7 62.70 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.pencils, laser pointer, laminating film - qty 3 51.97 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Plate, Coated 9in 120pk, Bowl Coated White 12oz, Cup, Hot OD 103.61 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Post Cards for Historical Preservation Committee - Qty 2 Box 16.88 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Receipt Paper for Patrol 307.77 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Stools for Patrol Desks 179.98 01 General Fund OFFICE TEAM Temp Labor, J. Hale, w/e 10/20/17, 30.25 Hrs, Records Retent 553.88 01 General Fund OFFICE TEAM Temp Labor, J. Hale, w/e 10/27/17, 37.75Hrs - Records Retent 691.20 01 General Fund OFFICE TEAM Temp Labor, J. Hale, w/e 11/3/17, 26.5Hrs - Records Retentio 485.22 01 General Fund OFFICE TEAM Temp Labor, John Hale, W/E 11/10/17, 31.5 Hrs-Records Retent 576.77 01 General Fund OFFICE TEAM Temp Labor,John Hale, W/E 10/6/17, 38.25 Hrs - Records Reten 700.36 01 General Fund OFFICE VALUE - MERIDIAN Clip on Chair Bottom Protector - Qty 1 5.14 01 General Fund OFFICE VALUE - MERIDIAN Clip on Chair Bottom Protectors - Qty 11 56.54 01 General Fund OFFICE VALUE - MERIDIAN Credit for Clip on Chair Bottoms - Qty 12 (73.92) 01 General Fund OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY Replaced 2 Springs on East Sallyport Door 740.82 01 General Fund OXARC, INC.220/ Medical oxygen, qty 3 20.20 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 4 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 01 General Fund P.O.S.T. ACADEMY Registration, M. Price, Patrol Rifle Instructor Course, Kuna 400.00 01 General Fund P.O.S.T. ACADEMY Training Registration for C.McGilvery Rifle Instruction 400.00 01 General Fund PAUL'S MERIDIAN STINKER unleaded fuel for fleet truck 29 68.20 01 General Fund PLATT Light Bulbs for K-9 Building Fluorescent Lights - Qty 30 78.60 01 General Fund PLATT Protectors for Lights in Fitness Facility - Qty 24 92.88 01 General Fund PORTAPROS, LLC portable toilets at Jabil field 9/12-10/9/17 249.00 01 General Fund PORTAPROS, LLC portable toilets for HMS ball fields 9/25-10/12/17 320.14 01 General Fund PORTAPROS, LLC portable toilets for Jabil fields 10/10-10/27/17 160.07 01 General Fund PRIMEPAY, LLC.City of Meridian Nov 2017 Payroll FSA Deductions 20,185.82 01 General Fund RAIDER TACTICAL Registration, R. Rhoades, E. Stoffle, T. Erickson, Arrestlin 1,500.00 01 General Fund RANDY S LATTIMER instructor fee - Line Dancing 10/1-10/29/17 - qty 28 448.00 01 General Fund RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING CO, IN E-Collar, Holder for Remote & Pinch Collar for K9 Unit 404.97 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86111894, Copier Lease 11/17 & Additional Copies 10/17 480.73 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86121202, Copier Lease 11/17 & Additional Copies 10/17-PSTC 305.93 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86172112, Copier Lease 11/17 & Additional Copies 10/17-Reco 263.44 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86172150, Copier Lease 11/17 & Additional Copies 10/17-Patr 546.47 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86172157, Copier Lease 11/17 & Additional Copies 10/17 -CID 472.30 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86172509, Copier Lease 11/17 & Additional Copies 10/17-Code 118.73 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86173707, Copier Lease 11/1-30/17 + addt'l pages 10/17 634.26 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86197400, Additional Copies for Comm Service - Oct 2017 56.66 01 General Fund SAFETY ENTERPRISE, INC.10/17 training: Cold Weather, Driving Safety 75.00 01 General Fund SECURITY GATE SYSTEMS, LLC Reset Drive Motor on Admin West Gate Operator 70.00 01 General Fund SHRED-IT USA, LLC.Document Shredding for MUBS, Finance, Clerks - October 2017 119.23 01 General Fund SIGNS, ETC 220/remove graphics from MF020 85.00 01 General Fund SILVER CREEK Christmas tree lights for City Hall - qty 120 1,594.00 01 General Fund SILVER CREEK light bulbs for City Hall snowflakes - qty 6 6.90 01 General Fund SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LABS, INC Evidence Drying Filters/Hepa Filters 1,529.75 01 General Fund SNAKE RIVER YAMAHA Yamaha Big Bear ATV repairs 731.56 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 5 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 01 General Fund SOUTHEASTERN SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC. background checks for contracted instructor & volunteer-qty2 37.00 01 General Fund SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY 2017 Trunk or Treat traffic control 850.00 01 General Fund SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY liquid ice melt - qty 1,900 gallons & 1 Tank/Hose 2,328.00 01 General Fund SPF WATER ENGINEERING, LLC 16-0374 prof svcs Storey Park well engineering - 10/2017 2,705.75 01 General Fund SPRAGUE CO, INC.220/Spray Fire Safety Center for bugs 165.00 01 General Fund SPRAGUE CO, INC.220/spray for spiders 825.00 01 General Fund SUE VANASOUK Traffic Box Wrap Award for Artwork Titled 'Finite 3' from MA 300.00 01 General Fund SUNBELT RENTALS air compressor rental for sprinkler blowouts 10/23-10/27/17 1,362.62 01 General Fund SUNSHINE LANDSCAPE add sprinkler check valves at Ten Mile South Medians 1,021.28 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON 220/envelopes, credit for tax to follow - Qty 1 Box 18.19 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON 220/Workrite pants for new recruits - Qty 16 1,620.90 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON Avery Tabs & Dividers - Qty 16 55.57 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON DisplayPort to HDMI Adapter, UAG Microsoft Surface Pro 2017 118.69 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON DVD+R Spindle for Building - Qty 1 Pk of 100 22.30 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON Flip It sign for BParsons 15.27 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON Lenovo 64W DC Travel Adapter - Qty 1 50.26 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON New Hire Items-Calculator,Eng Scales,Pens,Wrist Rest Pad Set 81.39 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON Rubber Bands - Qty 2 Bags 11.10 01 General Fund SYRINGA NETWORKS, LLC 18-0041 Dark Fiber Lease (4 Strands) - November 2017 1,150.00 01 General Fund SYRINGA NETWORKS, LLC Order 078073 Internet B/W (100MB) Order 078075 Internet B/W 800.00 01 General Fund TATES RENTS (GENERAL OFFICE)2017 Trunk or Treat booth power rental 10/26-10/30/17 315.00 01 General Fund TATES RENTS (GENERAL OFFICE)2017 Trunk or Treat stage rental 10/26-10/27/17 188.00 01 General Fund TATES RENTS (GENERAL OFFICE)extension ladder rental for City Hall snowflakes 11/7/17 20.20 01 General Fund THE BLIND GALLERY window blinds for Community Center - qty 5 452.00 01 General Fund THE CAR PARK October 2017 Courthouse Parking 70.00 01 General Fund THE LAND GROUP, INC.17-0217 Lemp/Larkwood Path design services October 2017 1,564.00 01 General Fund THE UPS STORE Postage to mail Evidence to Lab 53.55 01 General Fund THE UPS STORE Postage to mail Helmet for Repair 10.64 01 General Fund THE UPS STORE Postage to send Evidence to Lab 71.05 01 General Fund TRADEMASTER, INC 220/MobileEyes Inspection Software Maint 12/1/17-11/30/18 6,234.00 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 6 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 01 General Fund TREASURE VALLEY COFFEE Coffee, Hot Chocolate, Cream, Sugar & Stir Sticks for PD 305.15 01 General Fund UNIFORMS 2 GEAR 18-0064 Three Balistic Shields 20,000.00 01 General Fund UNITED HERITAGE INSURANCE FICA third party / STD benefit payments qtr end 9/30/17 427.89 01 General Fund UNITED WAY OF TREASURE VALLEY #17426 November 2017 Donations 366.00 01 General Fund USSSOA Flag Football officials 11/6-11/10/17 - qty 6 475.02 01 General Fund USSSOA Flag Football officiating 10/30-11/3/17 - qty 6 475.02 01 General Fund USSSOA volleyball officials for games 11/6-11/10/17 - qty 69 1,505.75 01 General Fund USSSOA volleyball officiating for games 10/30-11/3/17 - qty 47 1,025.65 01 General Fund VERIZON FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC. BELLEVUE 742047228-00001 Parks HPN Modems FY18, 10/2/17-11/1/17 174.24 01 General Fund WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 17-0111, credit for over charge one case of sopa (33.93) 01 General Fund WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY Kleenex, TP, Soap, Liners, Seat Covers, Purell - Qty 103 3,742.72 01 General Fund WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY Tissue - Qty 3 8.38 01 General Fund WSCFF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TRUST November 2017 MERP Contributions 3,900.00 Total 01 General Fund 285,661.61 07 Impact Fund ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE SUPPLY CO anchors for mounting toilet paper dispensers-KBird & RHuskey 22.94 07 Impact Fund ESI, INC 17-0262, Reta Huskey Park CM Services - 10/1/17-10/31/17 21,946.25 07 Impact Fund GEM STATE PAPER & SUPPLY CO mop buckets for KBird,RHuskey,Hillsdale Parks - qty 3 520.38 07 Impact Fund GEM STATE PAPER & SUPPLY CO soap dispensers for KBird & RHuskey Parks - qty 2 19.36 07 Impact Fund GEM STATE PAPER & SUPPLY CO soap dispensers for RHuskey & KBird Parks - qty 8 77.44 07 Impact Fund STEPHANIE INMAN 17-0306, Signs for Reta Huskey Park, Thru 10/30/17 - Final I 8,600.00 07 Impact Fund STEPHANIE INMAN 17-0307, Keith Bird Legacy Park Signage - Final Invoice 9,275.00 07 Impact Fund THE LAND GROUP, INC.16-0186 prof svcs KBird Legacy Park master plan 10/2017 330.00 07 Impact Fund THE LAND GROUP, INC.16-0355 A&E design services for S Meridian Reg Park 10/2017 68,427.78 07 Impact Fund THE RUSSELL CORPORATION 17-0234, CM Services for Hillsdale Park, 10/1/17-10/31/17 222,237.43 07 Impact Fund THE RUSSELL CORPORATION 17-0235, CM Services for Keith Bird Legacy Park, 10/1-10/31/ 172,262.56 Total 07 Impact Fund 503,719.14 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 7 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 60 Enterprise Fund 2109 S. COVEY AVE. TRUST Refund, 3772022803, Wat/Sew/Trash, 2109 S Covey Ave, Custome 25.17 60 Enterprise Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Name plates for D. Heaton & A. Erickson 20.00 60 Enterprise Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Stamps rebuild & repair, Ink Pad Qty 4 27.00 60 Enterprise Fund ANTHONY L. & PAMELA J. TRABBIE Refund, 9901096501, Dumpster, 3774 N Legacy Common Ave, Dump 76.23 60 Enterprise Fund ASPEN TECHNOLOGY INC 18-0109 AspenTech Premier Support:1:mTell Previse:01-Nov-201 14,905.00 60 Enterprise Fund BHS SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 18-0038 Ferric Chloride 7,146.00 60 Enterprise Fund BILLING DOCUMENT SPECIALISTS 18-0031, IVR Processing - October 2017 949.50 60 Enterprise Fund BILLING DOCUMENT SPECIALISTS 18-0032, Lockbox Processing - October 2017 1,772.97 60 Enterprise Fund BILLING DOCUMENT SPECIALISTS Bill Forms Stock - Qty 172,200 4,305.00 60 Enterprise Fund BOWEN COLLINS & ASSOCIATES, INC 17-0319,SCADA System Upgrades PRV's,10/1-10/27/17 12,719.00 60 Enterprise Fund BUSY BEE SAND & GRAVEL, INC.Asphalt Dump 30.00 60 Enterprise Fund BUSY BEE SAND & GRAVEL, INC.Haul out of Materials 30.00 60 Enterprise Fund BUSY BEE SAND & GRAVEL, INC.Haul Out Qty 3 90.00 60 Enterprise Fund BYRON & TIFFANIE HOLBROOK Refund, 3232441402, Wat/Sew/Trash, 2347 E Clifton Dr, Custom 101.57 60 Enterprise Fund CAREER UNIFORMS 2 shirts for Max Jensen 53.90 60 Enterprise Fund CAREER UNIFORMS Oct Employee Clothing Order Qty 119 1,150.30 60 Enterprise Fund CARRIER CORP Service maint agreement on chiller in Lab - Oct-Dec 2017 1,129.50 60 Enterprise Fund CHERI WHITE Refund, 9901095701, Dumpster, 398 E Cassidy Dr, Job is Compl 57.88 60 Enterprise Fund COLUMBIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY Momentary Pushbutton to add HOA sw to panel @ Oaks lift stat 31.06 60 Enterprise Fund COLUMBINE CONTROL CO.6 inch varec cover plate gasket (4 qty)166.60 60 Enterprise Fund CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY,Homex Expansion Joint Material Qty 60 19.80 60 Enterprise Fund CORE & MAIN LP 10761 Noshok, Glange Adapter, Saddle Pip Supt, Qty 5 1,441.68 60 Enterprise Fund CORE & MAIN LP 8inch MT Plug, 8inc Regular Gasket Qty 2 64.37 60 Enterprise Fund CORE & MAIN LP Brass Coupling Qty 10 222.90 60 Enterprise Fund CORE & MAIN LP IPS Ply Tubing, Brass Reducer Qty 116 145.00 60 Enterprise Fund CSS GROUP Digline/Translore Monthly Service Fee 10/1 to 10/31/17 185.00 60 Enterprise Fund CUES Labor & parts to repair camera 1,300.21 60 Enterprise Fund D & B SUPPLY High light (1gal), nylon caps, reducer bushing, clamshell 66.25 60 Enterprise Fund D & B SUPPLY Impact Wrench Kit, Anvil Hex Adapter Qty 2 317.48 60 Enterprise Fund DC ENGINEERING 17-0405,Meridian WWTP Electrical Dist System Design,9/30/17 2,050.00 60 Enterprise Fund DC FROST ASSOCIATES, INC 18-0056 UV lamp & o-ring sleeve sealings (5 qty)463.60 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 8 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 60 Enterprise Fund DIGLINE, INC.Digline Monthly Tickets Qty 746 1,273.95 60 Enterprise Fund DIVISION OF BLDG SAFETY Annual certification fee for Admin elevator 125.00 60 Enterprise Fund ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC.Phosphorus digestion vessels - Qty 1Pkg of 500 145.11 60 Enterprise Fund ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC.Sample caps - Qty 20 Bags of 25 Each 138.18 60 Enterprise Fund ENVIRONMENTAL EXPRESS, INC.Solids filters (15 qty)458.68 60 Enterprise Fund EWING CO., INC.17-0304,WRRF Headworks Upgrades,10/1-10/31/17 244,323.00 60 Enterprise Fund FASTENAL COMPANY HCS 3/4inch Qty 40 30.19 60 Enterprise Fund FASTENAL COMPANY RR Arbor Hex Shk Qty 1 13.19 60 Enterprise Fund FASTENAL COMPANY Xs Dipped Glove, Qty 24 43.59 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.17-0406 Sensus Fl-6502-GB-RF Meter Transmitters Qty 3 26,216.19 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.8MJ Gasket, 8MJ C153 Sld Plug Qty 2 62.70 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.DBL Check BFP Brass Qty 12 245.24 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Generac XC6500 Generator Set Qty 1 2,049.00 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Grip Joint Coupling Qty 12 300.50 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Hose clamp (10 qty)20.40 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.LF 3/4inch Brass 90 Qty 7 35.43 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Main Vlave repair Kit Complete Qty 2 1,204.11 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.PVC coupler to repair discharge boot on centrifuge 2,30.11 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Repair Mis PRV Parts, Bushings, Nipples, Ball Valves, Qty 80 372.47 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Round Meter Box/Meter Vault Qty 3 330.60 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Tapping Saddle, Valve, Roll Poly, Gasket Kit Qty 108 565.30 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Upper Hydrant Parts, Upper Stem F Qty 1 474.44 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.Upper Stem F Qty 1 224.44 60 Enterprise Fund FISHER SCIENTIFIC Dust masks(metals) (3 qty), FIA tubes, tubing, reagent weigh 381.61 60 Enterprise Fund FLETCHER PETROLEUM Refund, 9901086201, Dumpster, 3860 S McGuire St, Job is Comp 32.84 60 Enterprise Fund GREGORY S. BALL Refund, 1020032204, Wat/Sew/Trash, 3724 N Morning Sky Pl, Cu 114.01 60 Enterprise Fund H.D. FOWLER COMPANY Ford CTS Grip Joint Coupling Qty 2 34.50 60 Enterprise Fund HACH COMPANY 18-0096 FIA Lab Instrumentation Serv Agrmnt -10/1/17-9/30/18 12,492.00 60 Enterprise Fund HACH COMPANY FIA reagent (2 qty)151.19 60 Enterprise Fund HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Strut to repair discharge boot at centrifuge 2, qty 2 105.64 60 Enterprise Fund HWR LLC.Refund, 7700950001, Unclaimed Funds Acct Refund, Payments Ma 112.80 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING B. Arte, Case# 352719, Child Support November 2017 420.00 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING B. Kerr, Case# 344238, Child Support November 2017 405.00 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 9 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING N. Howell, Case# 326566, Child Support November 2017 299.00 60 Enterprise Fund IRMINGER CONSTRUCTION 17-0326,WRRF Boise Outfall Pump Station Upgrades, 10/30/17 160,114.04 60 Enterprise Fund JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES INC Bank Fees - October 2017 655.74 60 Enterprise Fund JC CONSTRUCTORS INC 17-0146,18-0102,WRRF Capacity Exp FY15, as of 10/31/17 2,019,188.29 60 Enterprise Fund JENNIFER TAVARES Refund, 4530022702, Wat/Sew/Trash, 3924 S Shimmering Way, Cu 39.03 60 Enterprise Fund JERRY JR. & LEAH M. DUCK Refund, 4790120502, Wat/Sew/Trash, 3897 E Brentor St, Custom 209.71 60 Enterprise Fund JOAL & CHELSEA CURTIS Refund, 3232436803, Wat/Sew/Trash, 701 S Woodhaven Ave, Cust 71.94 60 Enterprise Fund JOHN & CHRISTINE TRACHSEL Refund, 3688130503, Wat/Sew/Trash, 279 E Whitehall St, Title 172.16 60 Enterprise Fund JOHN & JANEAN HENDRICKSON Refund, 2595072803, Wat/Sew/Trash, 1038 N Portchester Ave, C 75.17 60 Enterprise Fund JOSEF ADRIANY Refund, 3669053402, Wat/Sew/Trash, 1087 E Peacock St, Custom 48.77 60 Enterprise Fund JUSTIN & MISTY BARNES Refund, 0448050502, Wat/Sew/Trash, 502 W Ramsbrook St, Custo 83.86 60 Enterprise Fund KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES bearings to rebuild spare pump, backwash w/shaft, tertiary 389.78 60 Enterprise Fund KEIR CONSTRUCTION Refund, 9901088701, Dumpster, 98 S Main St, Customer Overpai 2,969.23 60 Enterprise Fund L2 EXCAVATION, LLC.4th Street/ Broadway to Maple Waterline Repair 3,995.28 60 Enterprise Fund LABCOM LLC.Refund, 2250463804, Wat/Sew/Trash, 36 E Pine Ave, Customer P 185.14 60 Enterprise Fund LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES WW Superintendent Reposting 80.00 60 Enterprise Fund MARNE WRIGHT Refund, 3669120601, Wat/Sew/Trash, 2056 SE 3rd Way, Customer 438.29 60 Enterprise Fund MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION 16-0408,WRRF Centrate Modifications,10/2-10/15/17 150.00 60 Enterprise Fund MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION 17-0135,WRRF Capacity Exp FY15, 10/2-10/15/17 10,828.70 60 Enterprise Fund MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION 17-0354,WRRF Boise Outfall Pump Station,10/16-10/29/17 510.80 60 Enterprise Fund MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION Concrete Insp @Collections Equipment Facility, 10/2-10/15/17 320.90 60 Enterprise Fund McCALL INDUSTRIAL Coupling, nipple & bushing - qty 18 62.77 60 Enterprise Fund MERIDIAN AUTOMOTIVE & MACHINE Replaced driver side window motor, C12445 413.27 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 10 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 60 Enterprise Fund MERIDIAN TROPHY Awards to restaruant owners that demonstrate exceptional 201.00 60 Enterprise Fund MICHAEL & MARISA KEITH Refund, 3535020604, Wat/Sew/Trash, 2950 S Givens Way, Auto P 160.55 60 Enterprise Fund MICHAEL & TAMARA EDGAR Refund, 0808140803, Wat/Sew/Trash, 3556 N Lefores Pl, Auto P 138.51 60 Enterprise Fund MONTSERRAT BURKHART Refund, 1521224801, Wat/Sew/Trash, 3118 W Kandice St, Custom 58.06 60 Enterprise Fund MOTION & FLOW CONTROL PRODUCTS 3x2 1.5 Male Adapter Qty 1 141.90 60 Enterprise Fund MOUNTAIN WATERWORKS, INC 17-0218,WRRF Boise River Outfall Upgrades, as of 10/27/17 6,134.00 60 Enterprise Fund MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.Ceiling fans to replace fans in tertiary filter bldg - qty 2 342.70 60 Enterprise Fund MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.Chains & binders for bobcat (4 qty)248.50 60 Enterprise Fund MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.Drill for new mechanic - qty 1 199.00 60 Enterprise Fund MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.Emery cloth (40 qty)67.40 60 Enterprise Fund MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.Eye bolts (4 qty)49.64 60 Enterprise Fund MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.Hex bit - qty 1 9.02 60 Enterprise Fund NORCO Crown Ratchet, Welding Gloves Qty 11 145.91 60 Enterprise Fund NORCO Plasma Table Cutting Blades - Qty 2 468.00 60 Enterprise Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Copier Paper - Qty 4 Cases 119.96 60 Enterprise Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Pens, Post-Its, Toner - Qty 5 347.12 60 Enterprise Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Toner for Front Counter Copier - Qty 1 117.07 60 Enterprise Fund OFFICE VALUE - MERIDIAN Copy Paper Qty 2 77.98 60 Enterprise Fund OFFICE VALUE - MERIDIAN DMR report folders, pens, post it notes & operator notebooks 103.23 60 Enterprise Fund OFFICE VALUE - MERIDIAN File Folders Qty 3 38.97 60 Enterprise Fund OFFICE VALUE - MERIDIAN Mech Pencil, Post it pads, Note Pads Qty 6 51.25 60 Enterprise Fund OXARC, INC.18-0091, Sodium Hypochlorite - Qy 1450 Gal 2,405.50 60 Enterprise Fund OXARC, INC.18-0091, Soduim Hyplochlorite Delivery Qty 1290gl 2,144.70 60 Enterprise Fund OXARC, INC.18-0091, Soduim Hypochlorite Delivery Qty 1215gl 2,022.45 60 Enterprise Fund OXARC, INC.First Aid Kit Metal Box Qty 1 52.32 60 Enterprise Fund PARADIGM PROPERTY SOLUTIONS Refund, 1521115005, Wat/Sew/Trash, 2392 N Maxie Wy, Both Pre 226.27 60 Enterprise Fund PRIMEPAY, LLC.City of Meridian Nov 2017 Payroll FSA Deductions 5,769.32 60 Enterprise Fund REBECCA BLUTCHES Refund, 9901096201, Dumpster, 26 S Rose Cir, Job is Complete 54.15 60 Enterprise Fund RED WING SHOES Steel-Toed Boots for C. Cassell - Qty 1 200.00 60 Enterprise Fund RED WING SHOES Steel-Toed Boots for J. Rodriguez - Qty 1 200.00 60 Enterprise Fund RED WING SHOES Steel-Toed Boots for M. Flesher - Qty 1 200.00 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 11 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 60 Enterprise Fund REPUBLIC SERVICES - TRANSFER STATION Biosolid disposal for Oct 2017 12,906.18 60 Enterprise Fund RICOH USA, INC C86079565, E174M911988 Copier Lease 11/17 & Copies 10/17 334.02 60 Enterprise Fund RICOH USA, INC C86108123, E205M560104 Copier Lease 11/17 & Copies 10/17 100.17 60 Enterprise Fund ROBERT & DINIA CHRISTENSEN Refund, 1631326201, Wat/Sew/Trash, 1180 W Kingswood Ct, Cust 100.00 60 Enterprise Fund ROBERT W. & DONALD R. BLEWETT REfund, Wat/Sew/Trash, 921 N Maura Pl, Title Company Overpai 326.20 60 Enterprise Fund ROBERTSON SUPPLY, INC.High Input NACio Pump Qty 1 4,694.49 60 Enterprise Fund ROCKY MOUNTAIN VALVES & AUTOMATIONS, INC. Ball check valve & plug valves to install on RAS line -qty 3 3,459.10 60 Enterprise Fund SERVPRO Refund, 9900031903, Dumpster, 3300 S Cosmo Ave, Job is Compl 27.48 60 Enterprise Fund SHRED-IT USA, LLC.Document Shredding for MUBS, Finance, Clerks - October 2017 64.84 60 Enterprise Fund SIGNS, ETC No parking signs (4 qty)128.00 60 Enterprise Fund SPECIALTY PLASTICS & FAB, INC Adapters, bushing, nipple & union (19 qty)104.79 60 Enterprise Fund STAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC 17-0323,Well 26, construction services as of 10/27/17 220,806.41 60 Enterprise Fund STEPHEN & JEAN GUTHRIE Refund, 6600012202, Wat/Sew/Trash, 4130 W Sugar Tree Dr, Aut 37.84 60 Enterprise Fund SULLIVAN REBERGER 17-0409, lobbing fees for October 2018 4,000.00 60 Enterprise Fund SYNCB/AMAZON Lock out tag out items for Water & Wastewater Div (3 qty) 82.02 60 Enterprise Fund T-ZERS SHIRT SHOP Embroidry of city logo on hi-vis clothing, O. Valentine-Qty9 54.00 60 Enterprise Fund TELANSWER, INC After Hour Answering Service 11/1 to 11/30/2017 144.20 60 Enterprise Fund THE UPS STORE Shipping for WET and 2/year sampling 696.28 60 Enterprise Fund ULINE, INC.Draw String Ice Bags, Metal Paint Can w/lid Qty 6 683.44 60 Enterprise Fund UNITED WAY OF TREASURE VALLEY #17426 November 2017 Donations 136.66 60 Enterprise Fund USA BLUEBOOK 50ft Coil 3/8 OD, 100ft Coil 1/8inch OD - Qty 5 97.88 60 Enterprise Fund USA BLUEBOOK Dispenser Refill, Qty 8 410.20 60 Enterprise Fund USA BLUEBOOK Gasket 1-1.5 Meter Flange Gasket Qty 50 114.50 60 Enterprise Fund USA BLUEBOOK Hach Monochlor Powder Qty 1 32.39 60 Enterprise Fund USA BLUEBOOK Meter rubber Gasket, Inverted Paint Blue & Green Qty 11 398.39 60 Enterprise Fund USA BLUEBOOK Safety glasses, circular chart, snapper band attachments, 747.80 60 Enterprise Fund VALLEY STORAGE 17-0337, Black Cat Trunk Sewer Ph5, as of 10/27/17 5,986.68 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 12 City Of Meridian Invoices Selected for Payment - Invoices for Payment - Amie Code Fund Fund Title Vendor Name Invoice/Credit Description Invoice Amount 60 Enterprise Fund WARRIOR ENTERPRISES Refund, 2250165602, Wat/Sew/Trash, 1203 N Main St, Title Com 156.27 60 Enterprise Fund WILLIAM WHITAKER Refund, 0520030202, Wat/Sew/Trash, 1337 E San Pedro St, Auto 44.08 60 Enterprise Fund XYLEM WATER SOLUTIONS USA, INC Mixer rebuild kit to repair pump, internal return recycle,996.48 Total 60 Enterprise Fund 2,825,661.52 Report Total 3,615,042.27 Date: 11/16/17 12:13:14 PM Page: 13 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 6U PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Meridian, Idaho, Setting Forth Certain Findings And Purposes To Declare Surplus Property And Authorizing The Mayor Of The City Of Meridian To Donate Certain Boards, Bricks And Pavers To The United Way. 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. /7- BY 7 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, SETTING FORTH CERTAIN FINDINGS AND PURPOSES TO DECLARE SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO DONATE CERTAIN BOARDS, BRICKS AND PAVERS TO THE UNITED WAY. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Meridian to declare that a certain Bricks, Boards and Pavers as attached in Exhibit "A" as surplus as this particular item is no longer needed or used by the City of Meridian; WHEREAS, the City of Meridian's purchasing policy allows surplus City property to be donated to non-profit agencies when the value of the property in question is of nominal value, that is, valued at less than the cost of disposing of the property; WHEREAS, the cost of maintaining the Boards, Bricks and Pavers would result in the unnecessary expenditure of City funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian desires to donate the Boards, Bricks and Pavers listed in Exhibit "A" to United Way, a non-profit organization, the mission of which is to fight for the health, education, and financial stability of every person in every community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and declare that a certain Boards, Bricks and Pavers as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is surplus property. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize the conveyance of the Boards, Bricks and Pavers listed in Exhibit "A" to the United Way. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this a) day of November, 2017. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this �/ day of November, 2017. APPROVED: O0NTEDg00 ATTEST - T G � a � for o .� w IAY: Mayor T y de Weerd m SE IDAHO C. y Col ,City Clerk AL P r�Rolrhe TREP,6\3 v RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION OF BOARDS, BRICKS AND PAVERS TO UNITED WAY IDIT T -- DEPARTMENT A �Other Government C-zW1 111 � � /-, i I r) I DEPARTMENT CONTACT CITY OF MERIDIAN HR PROPERTY INFORMATION CITY TAG # DESCRIPTION LOCATION N/A Old wood planks, Old pavers, and Old cement bricks WWTP MODEL MANUFACTURER SERIAL / VIN # N/A N/A N/A ACQUISITION DATE ORIGINAL COST VENDOR LIFESPAN N/A N/A N/A N/A Addition (No additional information required) 1 f Y i7El�ir-�rr����sia►r.c�wi �� »aa ■wa:�raaax'� �� DISPOSAL METHODS Give a brief description of how you plan on disposing the asset Auction/Sell The City would like to donate the Old wood planks, Old pavers, and Old cement bricks from the Old Creamery and parks projects currently being stored at the R Donation/Transfer WWTP to the United Way. The Old wood planks, Old pavers, and Old cement Trade In bricks will be auctioned on behalf of the United Way and all proceeds will be Discard/Recycle delivered to the United Way. "Please remove all identifying logos prior to disposal REASON FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY The material is not planned for any future use for the City. Donating the material to the United Way will allow the City to provide donations to the United Way in exchance for the materials. CONDITION OF PROPERTY TO BE DISPOSED Used Department Director Approval Date Z',(t03,1 p Mayor App FOR FINANCE USE ONLY Date Date FA# GL Code: Resolution No.: Approved by Council Date: Final Disposition of Property: C:\Users\lberg\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\DOSONHZK\Old Wood and Bricks Donation Form.xlsx 1 of 2 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 8A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Meridian Arts Commission Mural Project Update 1. Memorandum of Agreement for Contribution to Public Art Project: Meridian Mill Mural with Meridian Development Corporation for Not -to -Exceed $16,000 2. Homecourt Mural rabmer- v MEETING NOTES L✓i APPROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC ART PROJECT: MERIDIAN MILL MURAL This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR CONTRIBPTION TO PUBLIC ART PROJECT: ZAMZOW'S MURAL ("Agreement") is made this �7 day of November, 2017 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("City"), and Meridian Development Corporation, an urban renewal agency organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("MDC"). WHEREAS, City and MDC desire that public art will be a component of the Meridian community and to that end, wish to install a mural on the south side of the Meridian Mill ("Project"), located at 611 N. Main Street, in downtown Meridian, with permission from the property owner, the Zamzow family, dba JCJ Holdings, LLC ("the Zamzows"), as a benefit to the public; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: I. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES. A. Project installation. Between November 15, 2017 and September 30, 2018, City agrees to invest MDC's contribution in sei vices, materials, and equipment related to design and installation of the Project. The selection of staff and/or vendors for Project shall be made by City and the Zamzows. B. Selection of art. City shall include MDC in the process of selecting or artwork for the Project. With regard to decisions related to selection of artist(s), artwork, or specific installation specifications, City shall duly consider MDC input and shall make a reasonable effort to come to consensus. City and the Zamzows shall be responsible for the final decision regarding selection of artists, artwork design, and/or specific installation locations. C. Acknowledgment of contribution. If City acknowledges contributors to the Project, City shall acknowledge MDC. D. Invoice AMC. By December 31, 2017, City shall remit to MDC one (1) invoice for MDC's contribution to the Project, in a total amount not to exceed sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000.00). II. MDC's RESPONSIBILITIES. A. Reimbursement. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of City's invoice, MDC shall provide payment to City in the amount of such invoice, in a total amount not to exceed sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000.00). MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR MDC's CONTRIBUTION TO THE MERIDIAN MILL MURAL PROJECT PAGE 1 OF 3 B. Appropriation. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, MDC's obligations under this Agreement to provide payment to City as described herein shall be subject to and dependent upon appropriations being made by the MDC governing board for such purpose. The officer or administrator charged with the responsibility of preparing MDC's Fiscal Year 2018 budget shall include in the proposed budget the amount noted herein, which will be duly considered by the Board along with the other proposed expenditures for Fiscal Year 2018. III. GENERAL TERMS. A. Term. This Agreement begins immediately upon execution and shall remain in effect through September 30, 2018. B. Notice. Notice required to be provided by either of the parties under this Agreement shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when mailed by United States Mail, addressed as follows: City: City of Meridian MDC: Meridian Development Corporation City Attorney's Office Ashley Squyres, Administrator 33 E. Broadway Avenue 104 East Fairview Avenue #239 Meridian ID 83642 Meridian ID 83642 Either party may change its address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving formal notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. C. Entire agreement; modification. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations, representations, and discussions, whether verbal or written, of the parties pertaining to that subject matter. The Agreement may not be changed, amended, or superseded unless by means of writing executed by both Parties hereto. D. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement in whole, or in part, due to convenience, nonappropriation, or when either or both parties agree that the continuation of the Project is not in the parties' best interest, by providing thirty (30) days written notice. If MDC is the terminating party, City shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for payments made toward completion of Project as of the date of termination. E. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is reasonably capable of completion. The invalidity or unenforceability of any particular provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if any invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted. F. Applicable Law. The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Idaho and MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR MDUS CONTRIBUTION TO THE MERIDIAN MILL MURAL PROJECT PAGE 2 OF 3 jurisdiction for any disputes arising hereunder shall be in the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, State of Idaho. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the Effective Date first written above. MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVED: n Ihsalone, Chairman ATTEST: By: Nathan Mueller, Secretary/Treasurer Meridian Development Corporation CITY OF MERIDIAN PIED AUGU AOS Qo� Sri ATTEST: '1P 0 City or w E IDIS IANC- By: Tammy dA.Jay IDAHO /Clerk W rd, Mayor sSE/ MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FORMDC's CONTRIBUTION TO THE MERIDIAN MILL MURAL PROJECT PAGE 3 OF 3 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM TITLE: ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: Approve Letter Required by the Public Finance Authority of Wisconsin for Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds for the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine (ICOM) MEETING NOTES 9 Ar"2TROVED Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS �E IDIAN-"-.-IAHO June 20, 2017 To: Public Finance Authority c/o Wisconsin Counties Association 22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 900 Madison, Wisconsin 53703 RE: Public Finance Authority Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine Project) Series 2017 To Whom It May Concern: Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam Ty Palmer Anne Little Roberts The Public Finance Authority ("Authority") proposes to issue not to exceed $55,000,000 principal amount of its revenue Bonds captioned above (the "Bonds") to finance or refinance certain costs in connection with the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine project for Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine, LLC (the "Borrower") to be located entirely within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (the "Project"). This letter shall constitute approval by the City of Meridian, of such financing of the Project by the Authority for purposes of Section 66.0304(11)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The undersigned certifies that she is the highest ranking executive or administrator of the City of Meridian. This approval does not constitute an endorsement of the Project. This letter may be produced as evidence, and shall be conclusive proof, of the approval granted herein in connection with any proceedings relating to the issuance of the Bonds and may be relied upon any party thereto in connection therewith. Sincerely, Tammy;Oeoerd Mayor Office of the Mayor . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-888-4433 . Fax 208-884-8119 . www.meridiancity.org SUMMARY STATEMENT Bonds: The Public Finance Authority Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine Project) Series 2017, in the total principal amount of $50,000,000' (the "Bonds") are being issued by the Public Finance Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to Section 66.0304 of the Wisconsin Statutes (the "Act"), a Joint Exercise Agreement executed by certain Wisconsin political subdivisions, an authorizing resolution of the Authority and an Indenture of Trust, dated as of August 1, 2017 (the "Indenture"), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"). The Bonds are being issued and delivered in fully registered form and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the registered owner and nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"). The Bonds are being issued in Book -Entry Form. Interest: Interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing on February 1, 2018. Principal: Principal of the Bonds is payable on August 1, 2023, the maturity date of the Bonds. Redemption: The Bonds are subject to extraordinary, optional and mandatory redemption in the manner and under the circumstances described in the Indenture. The Authority: Pursuant to the Act and Section 66.0304 to the Wisconsin Statutes, the Authority is a unit of government and a body corporate and politic separate and distinct from, and independent of, the State of Wisconsin and the Authority Members. The Authority was established by local governments, primarily for local governments, for the public purpose of providing local governments a means to efficiently and reliably finance projects that benefit local governments and nonprofit organizations, and other eligible private borrowers in the State of Wisconsin and throughout the country. The Company: The Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine, LLC (the "Company") is a single -purpose limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Idaho for the purposes of owning and operating a college of osteopathic medicine (the "College"). The Project: Proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the Authority to the Company pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2017, between the Authority and the Company (the "Loan Agreement"), and applied, together with other available moneys, (i) to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a facility (the "Facility") for the operation of a college of osteopathic medicine (the "College"); (ii) to fund the Debt Service Reserve Fund established pursuant to the Indenture; (iii) to fund a portion of capitalized interest with respect to the Bonds; and (iv) to pay certain costs of issuance (collectively, the "Project"). Certain funds of the Company have been or shall be (i) applied to pay certain costs of issuance; (ii) applied to satisfy working capital requirements for the College; (iii) applied to fund a portion of capitalized interest with respect to the Bonds; (iv) applied to fund an operating reserve fund (the "Operating Reserve Account") as required by the American Osteopathic Association's Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation ("COCA"); and (v) deposited into an escrow account (the "Teach -Out Reserve Account") as required by COCA and the Idaho State Board of Education (the "SBOE"), pursuant to a Four -Party Account Agreement, dated as of May 3, 2017 (the "Escrow Agreement"), by and between the Company, the SBOE, Southwest Capital Bank (the "Depository") and COCA Holders of the Bonds shall have no interest in the Operating Reserve Account or the Teach -Out Reserve Account or funds on deposit therein (other than investment income from the accounts), which must remain unencumbered in accordance with * Preliminary; subject to change S-1 the requirements of COCA and the SBOE, until released. The Facility will be located on property (the "Project Site") within the ISU-Meridian Health Science Center of Idaho State University ("ISU") in Meridian, Idaho, leased from ISU pursuant to a Ground Lease, by and between the Company, the SBOE and ISU. ISU is a doctoral research and teaching institution founded in 1901. At the main campus in Pocatello, and at locations in Meridian, Idaho Falls and Twin Falls, ISU offers access to more than 250 programs. Over 14,000 students attend ISU. Idaho State University is the state's designated lead institution in health professions. The ISU-Meridian Health Science Center, which spans four acres, houses nine distance -learning classrooms; the L.S. Skaggs Pharmacy Complex; Counseling and Speech and Language clinics; and human patient simulation and clinical/medical science laboratories. The Delta Dental of Idaho Dental Residency Clinic, which opened in 2011, provides advanced training for dentists and treatment for underserved patients. The College will be a privately -funded, fully -accredited college of medicine. The mission of the College is to provide a critically -needed solution to acute physician shortages in Idaho and the contiguous Rocky Mountain States' region: Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota. The College is not part of Idaho State University. The Facility is planned as a three-story building with an area of approximately 90,000 square feet located on the Project Site. In accordance with a Collaborative Affiliation Agreement (the "Affiliation Agreement") between the Company and ISU, ISU will provide certain services with respect to the College, including access to information technology and computer labs, library services, health center and fitness center access and emergency notifications, all of which are to be operating expenses of the College. The stated purpose of the Affiliation Agreement is to allow ISU to facilitate and advance its health science mission, core themes and strategic plans, and to assist the Company in its mission to establish a private College of Osteopathic Medicine on the University's Meridian Campus. Operation of a college of osteopathic medicine in the United States requires accreditation from COCA, which is designated by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit institutions granting the osteopathic degree. The requirements for pre -accreditation include funding of sufficient escrows to provide for operation of the College until graduation of the first class of students. Funds deposited into the Escrow Account are intended to satisfy that requirement. Security: In the Loan Agreement, the Company has agreed to repay amounts in installments which will be sufficient to pay, when due, the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, and to fund and replenish various funds established under the Indenture. The Authority has assigned all of its right, title and interest under and pursuant to the Loan Agreement (except for its rights to receive certain payments relating to indemnification and attorneys' fees and expenses and to receive notices thereunder) to the Trustee to secure payment of the Bonds. To secure its obligations under the Loan Agreement, the Company will execute a Leasehold Deed of Trust, Security Agreement, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Fixture Filing (the "Deed of Trust") for the benefit of the Trustee, encumbering the Facility and other property interest of the Company and the leasehold interests of the Company in the Project Site. There has been established with the Trustee the Debt Service Reserve Fund with respect to the Bonds. There will initially be deposited in the Debt Service Reserve Fund from proceeds of the Bonds an amount equal to the Debt Service Reserve Fund Requirement, preliminarily estimated at $2,500,000*. If there are insufficient funds in the Bond Fund created pursuant to the Indenture, the Trustee will transfer from the Debt Service Reserve Fund to the Bond Fund amounts necessary to make such payment of principal or interest on the day on which such payment is due. * Preliminary, subject to change S-2 Neither the Authority nor any Authority Member or Sponsor, nor any political subdivision or agency of the State of Wisconsin, will be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon except from funds held by the Trustee under the Indenture, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Wisconsin or any political subdivision or agency thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. The Authority has no taxing power. The Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine at Idaho State University is a free-standing, privately funded, separately licensed and accredited and independently operated entity and is not part of Idaho State University. Idaho law prohibits ISU from using public funds to support a private college such as the College. The Bonds are offered in a transaction not involving a public offering to sophisticated investors who, in making their investment decision, rely solely on the financial viability of the Project. The Company has been organized specifically for the purpose of establishing and operating the College, and no source of revenue is anticipated for the Company beyond student tuition and operating income of the College. No guaranty of payment of the Bonds will be made by any member of the Company or any entity affiliated with the Company. Each initial purchaser must execute an investor letter. The issuance of the Bonds does not obligate, directly, indirectly or contingently, the State of Wisconsin or any political subdivision thereof to levy any taxes or appropriate or expend any funds for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. S-3 June 20, 2017 To: Public Finance Authority c/o Wisconsin Counties Association 22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 900 Madison, Wisconsin 53703 RE: Public Finance Authority Taxable Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine Project) Series 2017 To Whom It May Concern: Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam Ty Palmer Anne Little Roberts The Public Finance Authority ("Authority") proposes to issue not to exceed $55,000,000 principal amount of its revenue Bonds captioned above (the "Bonds") to finance or refinance certain costs in connection with the Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine project for Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine, LLC (the "Borrower") to be located entirely within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (the "Project"). This letter shall constitute approval by the City of Meridian, of such financing of the Project by the Authority for purposes of Section 66.0304(11)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The undersigned certifies that she is the highest ranking executive or administrator of the City of Meridian. This approval does not constitute an endorsement of the Project. This letter may be produced as evidence, and shall be conclusive proof, of the approval granted herein in connection with any proceedings relating to the issuance of the Bonds and may be relied upon any party thereto in connection therewith. Sincerely, TammyZ;eerd Mayor Office of the Mayor . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-888-4433 . Fax 208-884-8119 . www.meridiancity.org POLICY RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS April 6, 2016 This POLICY RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ("Policy") is adopted by the Board of Directors of the Authority ("Board") effective as of the date stated above. BACKGROUND Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.0304(11)(a) imposes the following requirement ("Local Ap- proval Requirement") with respect to Bonds issued by the Authority: "A commission may not issue bonds to finance a capital improvement project in any state or territory of the United States unless a political subdivision within whose boundaries theproject is to be located has approved the financing of the project. A commission may not issue bonds to finance a capital improvement project in this state unless all of thepolitical subdivisions within whose boundaries the project is to be lo- cated has approved the financing of the project." Section 4 of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise Agreement Relating to the Public Finance Authority dated September 28, 2010 (the "Joint Exercise Agreement") contains a sub- stantially identical requirement: "[t]he Commission shall not issue Bonds to finance any capital improvement pro- ject unless one or more political subdivisions ("Approving Agency"), within whose boundaries the project is to be located, as and to the extent required by the Joint Exercise of Powers Law, shall have approved the financing of the project. Such approval may be evidenced by resolution, certificate, order, report or such other means of written approval as may be selected by the Approving Agency. No such approval shall be required in connection with Bonds that are issued to refund Bonds previously issued." REASONS FOR POLICY The term "capital improvement project" is not defined in either Section 66.0304 or in the Joint Exercise Agreement. The absence of a precise definition has the potential of resulting in uncertainty and confusion and inconsistent application of the Local Approval Requirement, all of which the Board believes can be detrimental to and undermine the Authority's public purposes as contemplated by Section 66.0304 and by the Joint Exercise Agreement. Further, Program Staff advises the Board that attempts to obtain local approval are often frustrated by the reluctance (and occasional refusal) of local government officials outside Wisconsin to commit in writing to approve a financing by a Wisconsin agency with which they are unfamiliar under a Wisconsin law with which they are unfamiliar, as well as and in addition to the frequently -expressed con- cern that by giving such approval the local government will become liable on the Bonds. The Board believes that to the extent the inability to obtain local approval results from such factors that are or appear to be unrelated to the project itself, it similarly has the potential of undermin- ing the Authority's public purposes. This Policy is intended to address the concerns expressed above by establishing a definition of "capital improvement project" that can be universally and consistently applied to all future financings by the Authority. Further, the Authority was established by local governments, primarily for local govern- ments, for the public purpose of providing local governments a means to efficiently, and reliably finance projects that benefit local governments and nonprofit organizations and other eligible private borrowers in the State of Wisconsin and throughout the country. In light of the forego- ing, the Board may determine that, notwithstanding that a project being financed is excluded from the definition of "capital improvement project," local approval of the financing by the Au- thority is appropriate as a matter of Board policy. POLICY Local approval as prescribed by Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.0304(11)(a) and Section 4 of the Joint Exercise Agreement will be required for all Authority tax-exempt or taxable bond issues that finance or refinance the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of real property un- less two tests are met: FIRST, the project must fall outside the definition of "capital improve- ment project" articulated below, and SECOND, the Board must determine as a matter of policy that not obtaining local approval does not frustrate or undermine the public purposes for which the Authority was established. Test 1: Definition A project is a "capital improvement project" if the proceeds of tax-exempt or taxable Bonds issued by the Authority are used by a participant, in whole or in part, to finance the acqui- sition of real property (a "Facili ," which term shall include land, buildings and other structures, and permanent fixtures appurtenant thereto) or to refinance outstanding indebtedness previously used to acquire, construct or rehabilitate a Facility already owned by the participant, or which indebtedness is secured by such Facility, unless all of the following are true: a. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to pay the costs of the construc- tion, demolition, expansion, rehabilitation, renovation, upgrading, addition to or re- modeling of the Facility being acquired or refinanced ("Disquali in Costs"); and 26399381_3.DOCX b. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will "replace" other funds of the participant that have previously been earmarked or set aside to pay Disqualifying Costs, includ- ing, without limitation (i) indirectly financing Disqualifying Costs incurred by the seller of a Facility as a condition to or otherwise in connection with sale of the Facili- ty to the participant and built into the purchase price, and (ii) refinancing one or more outstanding loans that were (A) incurred within one year prior to (or, if earlier, in an- ticipation of) the Authority issuing Bonds to refinance such loans, and (B) the pro- ceeds of which loans were used to pay Disqualifying Costs. Test 2: Board Policy Even if a project is not a "capital improvement project" as defined above, local approval as prescribed by Wisconsin Statutes Section 66.0304(11)(a) and Section 4 of the Joint Exercise Agreement will be required if the Board determines that local approval is appropriate, taking into consideration the impact of the financing on the local community based on any factors the Board may deem appropriate to consider in making such determination. Such factors might include (by way of illustration and not limitation) the continuity of ownership, management or operation of the project; whether approval of the Facility by a local political subdivision was obtained for any other purpose at an earlier date; the level of state or local regulation or licensing of the Facility or the ownership or management thereof; the quality, experience and reputation of the owner, man- ager or operator of the Facility; and whether there is any evidence of material complaints, legal violations or problems in the local community with the Facility or its owner, manager or opera- tor. APPLICABILITY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Nothing in this Policy shall prohibit a participant from seeking and obtaining local approval although not required under this Policy. Before the Authority issues Bonds it shall require that the facts demonstrating to its satis- faction that the project is not a "capital improvement project" and that support the Board's de- terminations under the Board Policy test articulated above be certified to by the applicable partic- ipant or participants through its or their representations and warranties set forth in the Bond doc- umentation. This Policy may be amended, supplemented or revoked by the Board at any time. The in- terpretation of this Policy is within the Board's sole and exclusive discretion and any determina- tion by the Board in respect thereof shall be final, binding and conclusive. The Authority shall have no pecuniary liability for any costs, losses or damages arising out of any person's reliance on this Policy or the Board interpretation or application thereof. This Policy shall be superseded by any provisions of applicable law inconsistent herewith. 26399381 3.DOCX Changes to Agenda: Item #9B: Rockbury Subdivision – FP (H-2017-0131) – Request for continuance to Dec. 5th (Applicant is working with ACHD & ITD on a revised TIS). Item #9E: Linder Village – AZ, PP (H-2017-0088) Application(s): Annexation & Zoning Preliminary Plat Variance Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 78+/- acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at the SEC of N. Linder Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C (54+/- acres) & MDR (24+/- acres) Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to annex & zone 81.61 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C (64.75 acres) and the R-8 zoning districts (16.87 acres) in the City. The proposed zoning is consistent with the FLUM designations of MU-C & MDR for this site although the proposed residential area is approximately 7 acres less than depicted on the FLUM for the MDR designated area. A conceptual development plan was submitted with the annexation application that depicts how the site is proposed to develop in the future. Based on Staff’s recommendation to the Commission, testimony provided at the public hearing, the Commission’s belief that the plan wasn’t consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the MU-C FLUM designation, and the applicant’s unwillingness to revise the plan per the staff report, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the application to the City Council. Since the Commission hearing, the applicant has submitted a revised concept plan that addresses some of the issues noted in the staff report. A new neighborhood meeting was also held with adjacent property owners within 300’ of the property boundary. The revised concept plan depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store (Winco) as an anchor for the development; (3) mid- size anchors; a fuel sales facility; smaller office, retail, restaurant, live/work uses; and a plaza. One of the potential mid anchor buildings may be 50,000 s.f. which exceeds the 30,000 s.f. limitation in the MU-C designation which will require additional public & quasi-public uses to support the development commensurate with the increase in size. The orientation of the rear of the Winco building has been shifted to the corner of Linder & the future public street away from the adjacent residents. A circulation plan was submitted that shows access to the site via 3 accesses from N. Linder Road and 2 accesses via Chinden/SH 20- 26; a traffic signal is planned at the southernmost access via Linder and the eastern access via SH 20-26 when warranted. Because the UDC prohibits new accesses via a state highway, a variance is requested for those accesses. There are 3 local stub streets to this site from the adjacent residential neighborhood at the south & east boundaries of the site. The plan also depicts pedestrian walkways throughout the development; backage roads; extension of stub streets from adjacent residential development, connections to the east boundary for future connection to N. Fox Run Way and the signal, a bus stop and a future signal on Chinden. A cross-access/ingress- egress easement and driveway should be provided to the property at the southwest corner of the site an effort to decrease access points to the arterial street (i.e. Linder Rd.). A vehicular connection should also be provided between the existing & future residential uses and the commercial uses. A staff report has not yet been received from ACHD on this application; ACHD is requiring the applicant to update the TIS prior to taking formal action on the preliminary plat application. The revised plan is still not entirely consistent with the MU-C designation in that the most intense commercial uses are still proposed adjacent to SFR uses rather than transitioning outward from the residential uses with live/work and less intense to more intense commercial uses as set forth in the Comp Plan. Vehicular connectivity should also be provided between the residential & commercial development so that area residents don’t have to venture out onto adjacent arterial streets to access the site. A revised preliminary plat was submitted that matches the configuration of the revised concept plan that depicts 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 1 common lot and 3 other lots for future ROW dedication. The applicant intends to re-subdivide the lots depicted for “future development” into smaller lots in the future. Street buffer landscaping is required in accord with UDC standards; a 35’ wide street buffer is required along both Linder & Chinden, both entryway corridors. A 10’ pathway is required as part of the City’s regional pathway system within the street buffers along Linder & SH 20-26. A semi-private wood screen wall is proposed along the south boundary of commercial property on the eastern portion of t he site adjacent to the future residential development. An 8’ tall CMU wall is proposed behind the community grocer/retail area. A cross- section was submitted for the southern boundary of the site showing the sound/screen walls, street, landscape berm/buffer, and walkways. Business hours of operation in the C-C zoning district are limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm when the property abuts a residential use or district; extended hours of operation may be requested through a CUP. The Winco store is proposed to operate 24 hours/day. Once the property is subdivided as proposed, the Winco lot will not abut a residential use; until then, the property as a whole do es abut residential uses. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor (Winco), the mid anchor and the retail shops as shown. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split face CMU, metal panel siding and stone and brick veneer accents. Non- residential buildings are required to be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. Future buildings are required to be consistent with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Commission Recommendation: Denial Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: David McKinney, DMG Real Estate Partners, Applicant; Brian Ballard, Attorney with Hawley, Troxell, Ennis and Hawley; Craig Slocum, CSHQA Architects; Bob Taunton; Diane Wolford; Greg Brown, Russell Corporation; Nate Wheeler; Chris Williams; and Chad Lamer, counsel for Winco Foods. ii. In opposition: Andrea Carroll, land use attorney, representing Protect Meridian; David McKinney (adjacent property owner); Sally Reynolds, representing a group of Paramount residents; Jonathan Kahnoski; Casey Babendure; Roger Lyngaas; Doug Twitchell; Alicia Muhlestein; Lori Badigian; Catherine Turek; and Tony Brownlee. iii. Commenting: John Ringert, Traffic Engineer, Kittelson & Associates; Joe Marshall representing Smart Growth Meridian; and Doug Stewart. iv. Written testimony: David McKinney, Applicant; many letters of testimony have been received (see public record). v. Key Issue(s): a. Lack of detail on pedestrian and vehicular interconnectivity with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and walkability of the site; b. Concern regarding the large size of the box buildings/stores and their arrangement on the site in proximity to adjacent residential properties; c. Concern regarding access via SH 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and the future signal at Chinden/Bergman and resulting traffic impacts (i.e. congestion) and safety; d. Lack of transition and buffering from existing residences to proposed commercial development (i.e. lesser intense uses should be adjacent to residential uses and transition outward to higher intense commercial uses); e. Opposition to “strip mall” configuration of buildings and massive parking lots; f. Winco loading docks and trash dumpsters oriented toward residential neighborhood and associated noise and light impacts on neighbors from proposed 24 hour operation; g. Inadequacy of proposed buffer (6’ wall & trees) between the rear of the Winco building and adjacent residents; h. Would like the site to be redesigned to be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use (smaller neighborhood friendly uses/services) and design/layout of the site; i. Traffic impact on adjacent streets (i.e. Linder Rd. and SH 20-26/Chinden) and within adjacent neighborhoods generated from the proposed uses and safety of elementary school children walking to/from school; j. Proposed building elevations do not blend with nearby structures; k. Not enough common area and poorly placed; l. Objectivity to not having a complete conceptual development plan for the area proposed to be annexed; and, m. Infrastructure on SH 20-26/Chinden Blvd and Linder Rd. is not sufficient for a major development such as this & no consideration of public transportation (i.e. bus stop, bus-bicycle hub). Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Location of the Winco building at the rear of the site adjacent to residential uses rather than adjacent to the state highway (i.e. Chinden)/arterial street (i.e. Linder Rd.); ii. Concern regarding proposed 24 hour operation of the Winco store and associated noise and light impacts on adjacent residents from deliveries at the loading docks located at the rear of the building; iii. Design of the site plan should be “flipped” with larger more intense commercial uses located adjacent to the state highway and arterial street (i.e. Linder Rd.) with less intense neighborhood friendly uses located near the single-family residential uses – not consistent with MU-C designation; iv. Extent of improvements to SH 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and timing thereof. v. Would like to see how a public street connects from Linder Road to the east boundary of the site for future connection to Fox Run; vi. Lack of integration between the proposed development and the adjacent residential neighborhood; and, vii. Location of the live/work units at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Chinden in the commercial area rather than adjacent to residential properties at the south boundary. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. The Commission voted to deny the project based on the following: proposed site design/layout (i.e. lack of transition and integration with adjacent residential properties), lack of detail on the concept plan for the eastern and southern portions of the annexation area (i.e. no pedestrian or vehicular connectivity with adjacent residential neighborhood and no plan for a street connection between Linder Road and the east boundary for future connection to N. Fox Run Way), the proximity of higher intense commercial uses to single-family residential uses, 24-hour operation of the Winco store and impacts on adjacent residents; traffic; and access – general consensus that the proposed development plan is not consistent with the MU-C designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Council should determine if the revisions made to the concept plan adequately address the concerns from the Commission hearing and conditions of approval noted in the original staff report. If so, the City Council should direct staff to prepare an updated staff report based on the revisions to the plan and either remand the application back to the Commission for review and a new recommendation; or, continue the project to a subsequent Council meeting for review and action. If not, the Council may vote to deny the application. Further, if Council votes to continue the application to a subsequent Council meeting for an updated staff report, staff recommends continuing the project for a couple of months in order for the applicant to update the TIS and for ACHD to issue a report. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many letters of public testimony have been received since the Commission meeting (see the public record). Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0088, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 21, 2017: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0088, as presented during the hearing on November 21, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0088 to the hearing date of November 21, 2017 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #9E: Linder Village Vicinity/Zoning Map FLUM Original Conceptual Development Plan REVISED Conceptual Development Plan Use Area Plan Circulation Plan REVISED Preliminary Plat Pedestrian Path Winco Screen Wall Retail & Market Perspectives Winco Site Plan & Building Elevations Conceptual Building Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 9B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0131 ITEM TITLE: Rockbury Subdivision Final Plat Continued from November 8, 2017 for Rockbury Subdivision (H-2017-0131) by Rock Harbor Church, Inc. located at 6437 N. Tree Haven Way 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: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0139 ITEM TITLE: AT&T Stor-It Public Hearing for AT&T Stor-It (H-2017-0139) by Justin Hadley located at 1776 N. Avest Lane 1. Request: City Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a wireless communications facility at 1776 N. Avest Lane 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 XC. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: November 21, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0139 AT&T Stor- It 9C Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (YIN) L V-41tlGO Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM TITLE: ITEM NUMBER: 9D PROJECT NUMBER: Public Hearing for Adoption of 2015 International Building Code, 2012 International Residential Code, 2015 International Existing Building Code, 2017 Idaho State Plumbing Code, 2015 International Fire Code, and proposed local amendments Fdrelr- - AD 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 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: November 21, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: Adoption of the International Buidling code Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 1 OF 32 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ________________ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, ADOPTING THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, 2012 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, 2015 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO; AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 2, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, ADOPTING THE 2017 IDAHO STATE PLUMBING CODE, PERMIT REQUIRED, APPLICATION ISSUANCE, FEES, INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS, AND PENALTIES; AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, ADOPTING THE 2017 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO, PERMIT APPLICATION, ISSUANCE, AND FEES; AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 4, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, ADOPTING THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-2, LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 7-2-8, REGARDING PARKING IN FIRE LANE; ADOPTING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code section 39-4116(4)(b), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), the 2012 Idaho Residential Code (IRC), the 2012 and 2015 International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC), and the 2015 International Existing Building Code, and that such amendments are reasonably necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare; WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-2619, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2017 Idaho State Plumbing Code (ISPC); WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-1001C, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC); WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301, 41-253(1), and 41-256(1), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2015 International Fire Code (IFC); WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-5016(4), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC); DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 2 OF 32 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that the following amendments do establish at least an equivalent level of protection to that of 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IFC, and 2012 IMC; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code section 39-4116(4)(b), a public hearing on the amendments to the IBC, IRC, and IECC was conducted on November 21, 2017, following provision of the proposed language of this ordinance to Associated General Contractors of America, Associated builders and contractors, Association of Idaho Cities, Idaho Association of Building Officials, Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho Association of REALTORS®, Idaho Building Contractors Association, American Institute of Architects Idaho Chapter, Idaho Fire Chiefs Association, Idaho Society of Professional Engineers, Idaho State Independent Living Council, Southwest Idaho Building Trades, and Idaho Building Trades, by U.S. mail, on October 11, 2017, and publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the Meridian Press on October 20, 2017; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That the following sections of Title 10, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, shall be amended as follows: 10-1-1: ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: The following codes, published by the International Code Council, including all appendices thereto, are hereby adopted and incorporated in full as if set forth at length herein, and shall apply and control within the city of Meridian, save and except such portions as hereinafter deleted, modified or amended: A. The 2012 2015 edition of the International Building Code (hereinafter IBC), as amended by section 10-1-2 of this chapter; B. The 2012 edition of the International Residential Code (hereinafter IRC), as amended by section 10-1-3 of this chapter; and C. As to residential occupancies, tThe 2012 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (hereinafter IECC), as amended by section 10-1-4 of this chapter.; and as to commercial occupancies, the 2015 edition of the IECC, as amended by section 10-1-4 of this chapter, and; D. The 2015 edition of the International Existing Building code (hereinafter IEBC). 10-1-2: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE: The following amendments to the IBC shall apply: DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 3 OF 32 A. IBC section 105.2, exception1 under “Building,” shall be amended to read as follows: Building: 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, emissions testing facilities, and similar uses, provided the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet (11m2). A.B. IBC section 107.2.5 shall be amended to read as follows: Site Plan. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing, to scale, the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades, and the proposed finished grades. The site plan shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or when otherwise warranted. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. B.C. IBC section 109.2 shall be amended to provide as follows: Permit Fees. The fee for each permit shall be as set forth pursuant to a schedule of permit fees as established by resolution of the city council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this code shall be made by the building official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. Final building permit valuation shall be set by the building official for all permits that require initial estimated valuation and final estimated valuation by the applicant. Payment of permit fees is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued or considered valid until fees are paid. C.D. A new section, section 109.6.1, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Permit Fee Refunds. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the fees paid for a valid permit may be refunded to the permit holder upon request. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the building official no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. D.E. A new section, section 109.7, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Permit Transfer. A building permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 4 OF 32 the building official. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the building official; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the building official, such permit shall be deemed void. E.F. IBC section 312.1 shall be amended with the deletion of the requirement for agricultural buildings to comply with the IECC IBC. F. A new section, section 908.7.2, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Where Required In Existing Dwellings. Where interior work requiring a permit occurs within existing dwellings that have attached garages, or in existing dwellings with fuel-fired appliances, carbon monoxide alarms shall be provided in accordance with section 908.7. G. IBC section 1612 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Flood Loads. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. H. A new section, section 1805.3.3 1805.3.4, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Waterproofing Hydraulic Elevator Shaft Pits. Elevator shafts shall be designed to prevent the intrusion of water into the hydraulic elevator shaft pit, with accommodation made for the high groundwater table in the city of Meridian, in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers standard A17.1, section 2.2.2.3. I. IBC section 1807.1.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Wood Footings Or Foundations. Regardless of the provisions of the IRC or IBC, this chapter, related chapters, appendices or tables, the city of Meridian shall not allow the use of wood, treated or otherwise, for footings or foundations. J. IBC section 3002.4 shall be amended to provide as follows: Elevator Car To Accommodate Ambulance Stretcher. Where elevators are provided in buildings two (2) or more stories above, or two (2) or more stories below, grade plane, at least one (1) elevator shall be provided for fire department emergency access to all floors. The elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher twenty-four by eighty-four inches (24" x 84") with not less than five inches (5") radius corners, in the horizontal, open position and shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall not be less than three inches (3") high, and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoistway door frame. K. IBC section 305.2.3 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Twelve (12) Or Fewer Children In A Dwelling Unit. A facility such as the above within a DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 5 OF 32 dwelling unit and having twelve (12) or fewer children receiving such daycare shall be classified as a group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the IRC. L. IBC section 308.6.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Persons Receiving Care In A Dwelling Unit. A facility such as the above within a dwelling unit and having twelve (12) or fewer children receiving daycare or having five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care shall be classified as a group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the IRC. M. IBC section 310.5 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Residential Group R-3. Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in natures and not classified as group R-1, R-2, R-4, E, or I, including: 1. Buildings that do not contain more than two (2) dwelling units; 2. Boarding houses (non-transient) with sixteen (16) or fewer occupants; 3. Boarding houses (transient) with ten (10) or fewer occupants; 4. Care facilities that provide accommodations for five (5) or fewer persons receiving care; 5. Congregate living facilities (non-transient) with sixteen (16) or fewer occupants; 6. Congregate living facilities (transient) with ten (10) or fewer occupants; or 7. Dwelling units providing daycare for twelve (12) or fewer children. 8. Lodging house with five or fewer guest rooms. N. IBC section 310.5.1 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Care Facilities Within A Dwelling. Care facilities for twelve (12) or fewer children receiving daycare or for five (5) or fewer persons receiving care that are within a single-family dwelling are permitted to comply with the IRC. O. Add footnote (f) in the header row of the table column labeled “Drinking fountains” of Table 2902.1 Minimum Number of Required Plumbing Fixtures, and add footnote (f) under Table 2902.1 to state the following: Drinking fountains are not required for an occupant load of (30) or fewer. P.O. Footnote (f) to table 2902.1, Footnote (e)Minimum Number Of Required Plumbing Fixtures, IBC section 2902.6 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Drinking fountains are shall not be required for an occupant load of thirty (30) or fewer. Q. Footnote (g) (e) to table 2902.1, Minimum Number Of Required Plumbing Fixtures, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: For business occupancies, excluding restaurants, and mercantile occupancies with an occupant load of thirty (30) or fewer, service sinks shall not be required. Q. The appendices of the international building code shall be amended with the deletion of appendices A (employee qualification); C (agricultural buildings); G (flood-resistant DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 6 OF 32 construction); J (grading); K (administrative and electrical); and M (tsunami -generated flood hazard). All other appendices shall be mandator y. R. IBC Appendices B, E, F, H, I, and L shall be mandatory. 10-1-3: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE: The following amendments to the IRC shall apply: A. Parts VII (plumbing) and VIII (electrical), and appendix L (permit fees) shall be deleted. B. Exception 1 of IRC section R101.2, Scope, shall be deleted. C. Exception 2 of IRC section R101.2, Scope, shall be deleted and replaced with language to provide as follows: Exception: Owner-occupied lodging houses with three (3) five (5) or fewer guestrooms shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the IRC for one- and two-family dwellings. Such occupancies shall be required to install smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms in accordance with sections R314 and R315, respectively, of the IRC or one- and two- family dwellings. D. Item 2 of the "Building" subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt From Permit, shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Fences not over six feet (6') high may be exempted from the requirement for a building permit in the absence of any other applicable land use regulations governing the installation, height, type, or other aspect thereof. D. E. Item 7 of the "Building" subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt From Permit, shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Prefabricated swimming pools that are not greater than four (4) feet deep. E. F. A new item, no. 11, shall be added to the "Building" subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt From Permit: Flagpoles. G. F. H. A new section, section R108.5.1, shall be added to the IRC to provide as follows: Permit Fee Refunds. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the fees paid for a valid permit may be refunded to the permit holder upon request. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the community development director or designee no later than one hundred eighty DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 7 OF 32 (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. G. I. A new section, section R108.5.2, shall be added to the IRC to provide as follows: Permit Transfer. A building permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the community development director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the community development director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval, such permit shall be deemed void. H. Table R201.2(1), Climate and Geographic Design Criteria, shall be completed with criteria as follows: GROUND SNOW LOAD: 20 psf. Design roof load shall not be less than a uniform snow load of 25 psf. WIND DESIGN SPEED (mph): 115 mph for risk occupancy II or less; 120 mph for risk occupancy III or greater. WIND DESIGN TOPOGRAPHIC EFFECTS: No, in accordance with Section R301.2.1.5 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: C WEATHERING: Severe FROST LINE DEPTH: 24 inches TERMITE: Slight to Moderate WINTER DESIGN TEMP: 10 degrees F (annual mean temperature: 51.1 degrees F). The outdoor design dry-bulb temperature shall be selected from the columns of 97 ½ percent values for winter from Appendix D of the Idaho State Plumbing Code or as determined by the Building Official. ICE BARRIER UNDER LAYMENT REQUIRED: No FLOOD HAZARDS: Refer to Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, Flood Damage Prevention. I. J. IRC section R301.2.4, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Floodplain Construction. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. K. The column of IRC table R302.1(1) entitled Minimum Fire Separation Distance shall be deleted and replaced with language to provide as follows: Minimum Fire Separation Distance: Minimum Fire Separation Distance: Projections (fire-resistance rated): < Three (3) feet Projections (not fire-resistance rated): = Three (3) feet Minimum Fire Separation Distance: Walls (fire-resistance rated): < Three (3) feet Walls (not fire-resistance rated): = Three (3) feet DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 8 OF 32 J. IRC Table R302.1(1), Exterior Walls shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: EXTERIOR WALL ELEMENT MINIMUM FIRE- RESISTANCE RATING MINIMUM FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE Walls Fire-resistance rated 1 hour-tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL263 with exposure from both sides < 3 feet Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours ≥ 3 feet Projections Fire-resistance rated 1 hour on the underside ≥ 2 feet to < 3 feet Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours ≥ 3 feet Openings in Walls Not allowed N/A < 3 feet 25% maximum of wall area 0 hours ≥ 3 feet to < 5 feet Unlimited 0 hours 5 feet Penetrations All Comply with Section R302.4 < 3 feet None required ≥ 3 feet K. L. The exception to IRC section R302.2, Townhouses, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Exception: Two (2) one-hour fire-resistance rated wall assemblies or a common two-hour fire-resistance rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263 is permitted for townhouses. If two (2) one-hour rated walls are used, plumbing and electrical installations within the wall cavity shall conform with fire-resistance penetration requirements in accordance with section R302.4 through R302.4.2 for each of the two (2) one-hour rated walls. The two-hour fire-resistance rated common wall shall not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts, or vents within its wall cavity. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against the exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with section R302.4. L. M. IRC section R302.6, Dwelling/Garage Fire Separation, shall be amended to provide as follows: Dwelling/Garage Fire Separation. Walls and ceiling of garages shall be covered with not less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) type X gypsum board or equivalent. M. N. IRC section R303.4 shall be deleted. and replaced with language to provide as follows; DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 9 OF 32 Dwelling units shall be provided with whole-house mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section M1507.3. Exception: Where the air infiltration rate of a dwelling unit is equal to 5 air changes per hour or greater when tested with a blower door at a pressure of 0.2 inch w.c. (50 pa) in accordance with Section N1102.4.1.2. N. O. The exception to IRC section R313.1, Townhouse Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Exception: Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall not be required in townhouses where either two (2) one-hour fire-resistance rated walls or a common two-hour fire- resistance rated wall is installed between dwelling units or when additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire sprinkler system installed. O. P. IRC section R313.2 shall be deleted. P. Q. New language shall be added to IRC section R315.3 to provide as follows: Exception: Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings. Q. R. IRC section R322 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Flood-Resistant Construction. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. R. S. IRC section R402.1 shall be amended to provide as follows: Wood. Regardless of the provisions of the IBC or IRC, this chapter, related chapters, appendices or tables, the city of Meridian shall not allow the use of wood, treated or otherwise, for footings or foundations. S. T. IRC section R501.3 and its exceptions shall be deleted. T. U. IRC section R602.10 shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Wall Bracing. Buildings shall be braced in accordance with this section or, when applicable section R602.12, or the most current edition of APA System Report SR-102 as an alternate method. Where a building, or portion thereof, does not comply with one (1) or more of the bracing requirements in this section, those portions shall be designated and constructed in accordance with section R301.1. U. V. The following sections and tables of IRC chapter 11 shall be amended in accordance with the requirements contained below: DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 10 OF 32 1. Table N1102.1.1 (IECC table R402.1.1), Insulation And Fenestration Requirements By Component; 2. Table N1102.1.3 (IECC table R402.1.3), Equivalent U-Factors; 3. Table N1102.2.6 (IECC table R402.2.6), Steel-Frame Ceiling, Wall And Floor Insulation (R-Value); 4. Section N1102.4.1 (IECC R402.4.1), Building Thermal Envelope; 5. Section N1102.4.1.1 (IECC R402.4.1.1), Installation; 6. Table N1102.4.1.1 (IECC table R402.4.1.1), Air Barrier And Insulation Installation; 7. Section N1102.4.1.2 (IECC R402.4.1.2), Testing Option; 8. Add section N1102.4.1.3 (IECC R402.4.1.3), Visual Inspection Option; 9. Add section N1102.6 (IECC R402.6), Residential Log Home Thermal Envelope; 10. Add table N1102.6 (IECC table R402.6), Log Home Prescriptive Thermal Envelope Requirements By Component; and 11. Section N1104.1 (IECC R404.1), Lighting Equipment. V. IRC Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K shall be mandatory. 10-1-4: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE: The following amendments to the IECC shall apply: A. The residential provisions of the 2015 IECC (chapters 1 through 6, including Appendix RA), shall be deleted, and replaced with the residential provisions of the 2012 IECC (chapters 1 through 5) and as such provisions may be further amended in this section. B. The values contained in the 2012 IECC table R402.1.1 (IRC table N1102.1.1), shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Table R402.1.1 INSULATION AND FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS BY COMPONENT Climate Zone Fene- stration U- Factorb Sky- light U- Factor b Glazed Fene- stration SHGCb, e Ceiling R- Value Wood Frame Wall R- Value Mass Wall R- Valuei Floor R- Value Base- ment Wall R- Valuec Slab R- Valued Crawl- space Wall R- Valuec 5 and marine 4 0.35 0.60 NR 38 20 or 13+5h 13/17 30g 10/13 10, 2 ft 10/13 6 0.35 0.60 NR 49 20 or 13+5h 15/19 30g 15/19 10, 4 ft 10/13 a. R-values are minimums, U-factors and SHGC are maximums, R-19 batts compressed into a nominal 2 x 6 framing cavity such that the R-value is reduced by R-1 or more shall be marked with the compressed batt R-value in addition to the full thickness R-value. b. The fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights. The SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration. c. “15/19” means R-15 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home or R-19 cavity insulation at the interior of the basement wall. “15/19” shall be permitted to be met with R-13 cavity insulation on the interior of the basement wall plus R -5 continuous insulated sheathing on the DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 11 OF 32 C. B. The following footnote shall be added to the title of IRC table 402.1.1, Insulation And Fenestration Requirements By Component: k. For residential log home building thermal envelope construction requirements see section 402.6. D. C. The values contained in 2012 IECC table R402.1.3 (IRC table N1102.1.3) for climate zone “5 and marine 4” and climate zone "6" shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Table R402.1.3 EQUIVALENT U-FACTORS E. D. 2012 IECC Table R402.2.6 (IRC table N1102.2.6) shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Wood Frame R-Value Requirement Cold-Formed Steel Equivalent R-Valuea Steel truss ceilings R-30 R-38 or R-30 + 3 or R-26 + 5 interior or exterior of the home. “10/13” means R-10 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home or R-13 cavity insulation at the interior of the basement wall. d. R-5 shall be added to the required slab edge R-values for heated slabs. Insulation depth shall be the depth of the footing or 2 feet, whichever is less in Zones 1 through 3 for heated slabs. e. There are no SHGC requirements in the Marine Zone. f. Basement wall insulation is not required in warm-humid locations as defined by Figure 301.1 and Table 301.1. g. Or insulation sufficient to fill the framing cavity, R -19 minimum. h. “13+5” means R-13 cavity insulation plus R-5 insulated sheathing. If structural sheathing covers 25 percent or less of the exterior, insulating sheathing is not required where structural sheathing is used. If structural sheathing covers more than 25 percent of exterior , structural sheathing shall be supplemented with insulated sheathing of at least R-2. i. The second R-value applies when more than half the insulation is on the interior of the mass wall. j. For impact rated fenestration complying with Section R301.2.1.2 of the IRC or Section 1608.1.2 of the IBC, maximum U-factor shall be 0.75 in Zone 2 and 0.65 in Zone 3. Climate Zone Fene- stration U- Factor Sky- light U- Factor Ceiling R- Value Wood Frame Wall R- Value Mass Wall R- Valueb Floor R- Value Base- ment Wall R- Value Crawl- space Wall R- Value 5 and marine 4 0.35 0.60 0.030 0.057 0.082 0.033 0.59 0.065 6 0.35 0.60 0.026 0.057 0.060 0.033 0.050 0.065 a. Nonfenestration U-factors shall be obtained from measurement, calculation or an approved source. b. When more than half the insulation is on the interior, the mass wall U-factors shall be a maximum of 0.17 in Zone 1, 0.14 in Zone 2, 0.12 in Zone 3, 0.10 in Zone4 except Marine, and the same as the frame wall U- factor in Marine Zone 4 and Zones 5 through 8. c. Basement wall U-factor of 0.360 in warm-humid locations as defined by Figure 301.1 and Table 301.1. DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 12 OF 32 R-38 R-49 or R-38 +3 R-49 R-38 +5 Steel joist ceilings R-30 R-38 in 2 x 4 or 2 x 6 or 2 x 8 R-49 in any framing R-38 R-49 in 2 x 4 or 2 x 6 or 2 x 8 or 2 x 10 Steel-framed wall R-13 R-13 + 5 or R-15 + 4 or R-21 + 3 or R-0 + 10 R-19 R-13 + 9 or R-19 + 8 or R-25 + 7 R-21 R-13 + 10 or R-19 + 9 or R-25 + 8 Steel joist floor R-13 R-19 in 2 x 6 R-19 + 6 in 2 x 8 or 2 x 10 R-19 R-19 + 6 in 2 x 6 R-19 + 12 in 2 x 8 or 2 x 10 a. Cavity insulation R-value is listed first, followed by continuous insulation R-value. b. Insulation exceeding the height of the framing shall cover the framing. F. E. 2012 IECC section 402.4.1 (IRC N1102.4.1) shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Building Thermal Envelope. The building thermal envelope shall comply with sections R402.1.1 and either section R402.4.1.2 or R402.4.1.3. The sealing methods between dissimilar materials shall allow for differential expansion and contraction. G. F. 2012 IECC section 402.4.1.1 (IRC N1102.4.1.1) shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Installation. The components of the building thermal envelope as listed in table R402.4.1.1 shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the criteria listed in table R402.4.1.1, as applicable to the method of construction. H. G. The criteria requirement for the "Fireplace" component of 2012 IECC table R402.4.1.1 (IRC table N1102.4.1.1), Air Barrier And Insulation Installation, and replace with the following: An air barrier shall be installed on fireplace walls. I. H. 2012 IECC section 402.4.1.2 (IRC N1102.4.1.2) shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Testing Option. Building envelope tightness and insulation installation shall be considered acceptable when tested air leakage is less than seven (7) air changes per hour (ACH) when tested with a blower door at a pressure of 33.5 psf (50 Pa). Testing shall occur after rough in and after installation of penetrations of the building envelope, including penetrations for utilities, plumbing, electrical, ventilation and combustion appliances. During testing: 1. Exterior windows and doors, fireplace and stove doors shall be closed, but not sealed; DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 13 OF 32 2. Dampers shall be closed, but not sealed, including exhaust, intake, makeup air, backdraft and flue dampers; 3. Interior doors shall be open; 4. Exterior openings for continuous ventilation systems and heat recovery ventilators shall be closed and sealed; 5. Heating and cooling system(s) shall be turned off; 6. HVAC ducts shall not be sealed; and 7. Supply and return registers shall not be sealed. J. I. New language shall be added to IRC section 402.4.1.3 (IRC N1102.4.1.3) to provide as follows: Visual Inspection Option. Building envelope tightness and insulation installation shall be considered acceptable when the items listed in table 402.4.1.1, applicable to the method of construction, are field verified. Where required by code official an approved party independent from the installer of the insulation shall inspect the air barrier and insulation. K. J. A new section, section R402.6 (IRC N1102.6), Residential Log Home Thermal Envelope, shall be added to the 2012 IECC: Residential log home construction shall comply with sections 401 (General), 402.4 (Air Leakage), 402.5 (Maximum Fenestration U-Factor And SHGC), 403.1 (Controls), 403.2.2 (Sealing), 403.2.3 (Building Cavities), sections 403.3 through 403.9 (referred to as the mandatory provisions), section 404 (Electrical Power And Lighting Systems), and either subparagraph 004.04.b.i., ii., or iii. as follows: 1. Sections 402.2 through 402.3, 403.2.1, 404.1 and table 402.6; 2. Section 405 Simulated Performance Alternative (Performance); or 3. REScheck (U.S. department of energy building codes program). L. K. A new table, table R402.6 (IRC table N1102.6), Log Home Prescriptive Thermal Envelope Requirements By Component, shall be added, to be used only in accordance with subparagraph 004.04.b.i. above, to appear as follows: to be used only in accordance with item i. of section R402.6 above, shall be added to 2012 IECC , to appear as follows: Table R402.6 LOG HOME PRESCRIPTIVE THERMAL ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS BY COMPONENT For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm. Climate Zone Fene- stration U- Factora Sky- light U- Factor Glazed Fene- stration SHGC Ceiling R- Value Min. Average LOG Size In Inches Floor R- Value Base- ment Wall R- Value Slab R- Value & DEPTHb Crawl- space Wall R- Valued 5, 6 - high effici- ency 0.32 0.60 NR 49 5 30 15/19 10, 4 ft 10/13 DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 14 OF 32 equip- ment pathc 5 0.32 0.60 NR 49 8 30 10/13 10, 2 ft 10/13 6 0.30 0.60 NR 49 8 30 15/19 10, 4 ft 10/13 a. The fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights. The SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration. b. R-5 shall be added to the required slab edge R-values for heated slabs. c. 90% AFUE natural gas or propane, 84% AFUE oil, or 15 SEER heat pump heating equipment (zonal electric resistance heating equipment such as electric base board electric resistance heating equipment as the sole source for heating is considered compliant with the high efficiency equipment path). d. "15/19" means R-15 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home or R-19 cavity insulation at the interior of the basement wall. "15/19" shall be permitted to be met with R-13 cavity insulation on the interior of the basement wall plus R-5 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home. "10/13" means R-10 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home or R-13 cavity insulation at the interior of the basement wall. M. L. 2012 IECC section R404.1 (IRC N1104.1) shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Lighting Equipment (Mandatory). A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the lamps in permanently installed lighting fixtures shall be high-efficacy lamps or a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the permanently installed lighting fixtures shall contain only high efficacy lamps. N. Add the following to 2015 IECC as new subsection C101.5.3: Industrial, electronic, and manufacturing equipment. Buildings or portions thereof that are heated or cooled exclusively to maintain the required operating temperature of industrial, electronic, or manufacturing equipment shall be exempt from the provisions of this code. Such buildings or portions thereof shall be separated from connected conditioned space by building thermal enevelope assemblies complying with this code. O. Add the following exception No. (10) under 2015 IECC section C403.3 Economizers (Prescriptive): Unusual outdoor air contaminate conditions – Systems where special outside air filtration and treatment for the reduction and treatment of unusual outdoor contaminants, makes an air economizer infeasible. Section 2. That the following sections of Title 10, Chapter 2, Meridian City Code, shall be amended as follows: 10-2-1: PLUMBING CODE ADOPTED; LOCAL AMENDMENTS: A. Adoption: The 2017 Idaho State Plumbing Code (“ISPC”), as amended as set forth in this chapter, is hereby adopted by the city for the purpose of establishing minimum standards of design, materials and workmanship for all plumbing hereafter installed, altered or repaired, DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 15 OF 32 and to establish methods of procedure within the city limits. The same is hereby adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, and from the date on which this chapter shall take effect, the provisions thereof shall control the installation, alteration or repairing of plumbing within the corporate limits of the city. B. Local Amendments: The following amendments to the ISPC are also hereby adopted, which amendments, if in conflict with the ISPC, shall overrule the ISPC: That IDAPA 07.02.06.011.05, amending ISPC section 412, shall not be adopted; instead, section 2902.1 of the international building code shall apply. That IDAPA 07.02.06.011.06, amending ISPC table 412.1, shall not be adopted; instead, table 2902.1 of the international building code shall apply. 10-2-2: STATE LICENSES REQUIRED: It shall be unlawful for any person to carry on the business of plumbing without first having secured a state license. 10-2-3: PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; ISSUANCE, FEES: A. Permit Required: It shall be unlawful for any person to place or install in any building any plumbing apparatus or fixture, or to make any alterations or changes in, or additions to, any plumbing apparatus or fixtures for such use, without first obtaining from the city building department a written plumbing permit to do such work. A. B. Contents Of Permit; Submission Of Plan: Such permit shall state the kind of work to be done and the amount, and shall cover only work so specified. The contractor, person, firm or corporation shall submit a plan of the plumbing system to be followed, if deemed necessary by the plumbing inspector. Said permit shall also state the location by street and number of the building where such work is to be done, and shall be valid only for the location stated. C. Exception; Inspection And Approval: Provided, however, that this section shall not be construed as requiring a permit for ordinary repairs to old installations where the cost value of such repairs, including material and labor, does not exceed fifty dollars ($50.00), but in all cases, the plumbing inspector must be notified immediately upon the completion of such work for his inspection and approval. B. D. Permit And Inspection Fees: Fees for permits and inspections shall be fixed by the city council by resolution. 1. Payment Due Upon Issuance: Payment for all permit types is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued until fees are paid. 2. Permit Fee Refunds: Up to eighty percent (80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the public works director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 16 OF 32 following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. 3. Permit Transfer: A permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the public works director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department public works director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department public works director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. 10-2-4: INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS: A. Notice For Inspection; Tag By Inspector: Except as provided in subsection B2 of this section, it It shall be the duty of the city plumbing inspector, or the state inspector if the city so chooses, to inspect or cause to be inspected any and all work for which permits have been issued by the close of business on the next business day following inspection scheduling, or as soon thereafter as is feasible. within forty eight (48) hours (Sundays and holidays excluded) after time of notice, in writing, by the person doing the said work that same is ready for inspection, which will not be considered ready for inspection and covering until all enclosed plumbing, steam heating, furnace work and gas fittings are in place. Inspection shall, when necessary, be made two (2) or three (3) times during progress of installation; first when work is roughed in, and last, when work is completed, and it shall be the duty of the city plumbing inspector or person qualified and delegated by him and his qualified representative to indicate inspection of any work by a tag or label which shall state the date and whether first or final inspection has been made and it shall be unlawful for any workman or other person to conceal any plumbing pipes until such first inspection tag has been placed. B. Issuance Of Certificate Of Inspection: 1. Upon application for inspection of any plumbing apparatus, or appliances as hereinafter provided, the city inspector shall, after inspection and examination, issue a certificate showing the results of such examinations and require the necessary corrections be made. 2. Upon the completion of the plumbing in or on any building and prior to being covered up in any fashion, it shall be the duty of the corporation, copartnership, firm or individual doing the same to notify the city plumbing inspector, who shall inspect the plumbing within three (3) working days after the notification to him that the plumbing has been completed. If the city plumbing inspector does not inspect within three (3) days, the plumbing may be covered; however, the licensee shall still be required to obtain the certificate of inspection. If the plumbing is approved by the city plumbing inspector, he shall issue a certificate of proper inspection which shall contain the date of inspection and an outline of the result. It shall be unlawful for any person to turn on or connect the water with such installation until such certificate shall be issued; and it shall be unlawful to make any change, alteration or extension in or to the plumbing of any building after inspection without first notifying said city plumbing inspector and procuring a permit therefor. C. Disconnect Defective Plumbing Facilities: DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 17 OF 32 1. If the said city plumbing inspector shall find any part of any plumbing apparatus or fixtures in or on any building in the city to have been installed without a permit or not in accordance with the provisions of this chapter or to be dangerous to life or property, the city plumbing inspector shall have the right and power and it is hereby made his duty to disconnect such defective plumbing and place a seal upon it. He shall at the same time give written notice of such disconnection to the owner or occupant of the building. 2. After such disconnected plumbing apparatus or fixtures have been put in the condition required by this chapter, the seal or seals so placed shall be removed by said city plumbing inspector. It shall be unlawful for any person to use any water through, or by means of, such disconnected plumbing apparatus or fixtures or to attach other pipes for the supply of water to such disconnected plumbing apparatus or fixtures or to remove, break or deface any seal so placed. D. Right Of Entry: The city plumbing inspector shall have the right to enter any premises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting the same. E. Inspection Fees: Before any inspection is undertaken, the applicant shall pay to the city building department an inspection fee as established by the city plumbing inspector and approved by the city council by resolution, which inspection fee, or schedule thereof, shall be available at the city clerk's and building department's office during regular business hours. 10-2-5: PERMIT FEES: A. Permit And Inspection Fees: Fees for permits and inspections shall be as established by fee schedule duly adopted by the city council by resolution. 1. Payment Due Upon Issuance: Payment for all permit types is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued until fees are paid. 2. Permit Fee Refunds: Up to eighty percent (80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the community development department director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. 3. Permit Transfer: A permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the community development department director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the community development department director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the community development department director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. 10-2-65: PENALTIES: A. Misdemeanor; Penalty Imposed: A violation of this chapter is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor and any person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of this chapter or of the ISPC, as adopted and amended herein, or who violates or fails to comply with any order made thereunder, or who builds in violation of any detailed statement of DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 18 OF 32 specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder, or any certificate or permit issued thereunder, or fails to comply with such an order as affirmed or modified by the building official or board of appeals or by a court of competent jurisdiction, within the required time, shall severally for each and every such violation and noncompliance, respectively, be guilty of a misdemeanor. The imposition of one penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or defects within a reasonable time; and when not otherwise specified, each ten (10) days that prohibitive conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. B. Removal of Prohibitive Conditions: The application of the above penalties shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibitive conditions. C. Civil Action: Whenever it appears to the city council that any person has engaged or is about to engage in any act or practice violating any provision of this chapter, the city council may institute a civil action in the district court to enforce compliance with this chapter. Upon a showing that a person has engaged or is about to engage in an act or practice constituting a violation of this chapter, a permit or temporary injunction, restraining order or other such relief as the court deems appropriate may be granted. D. Working Without Permit: Any person who commences or causes the commencement of work for which a permit is required, without first obtaining each and every required permit, shall, upon application for such permit or permits, pay a doubled permit fee or fees, as established by fee schedule. This provision shall not apply to emergency repair work performed during off business hours, where such emergency repair work is undertaken in order to reinstate operational status, so long as each and every applicable permit is obtained on the next business day. Section 3. That the following sections of Title 10, Chapter 3, Meridian City Code, shall be amended as follows: 10-3-1: ADOPTION OF NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: The 2014 2017 edition of the National Electrical Code (hereinafter NEC), published by the National Fire Protection Association, including all appendices thereto, are hereby adopted and incorporated in full as if set forth at length herein, and shall apply and control within the city of Meridian, save and except such portions as hereinafter deleted, modified or amended. 10-3-2: AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE: A. Article 210.8(A)(7) shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Sinks located in areas other than kitchens where receptacles are installed within six (6) feet of the outside edge of the sink. B. Article 210.8(A)(10) shall be deleted. DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 19 OF 32 C. Article 210.8(D) shall be deleted. D. Article 210.12 shall be amended by the addition of the following language: Definition. Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter is a device intended to provide protection from the effects of arc faults by recognizing characteristics unique to arcing and b y functioning to de- energize the circuit when an arc fault is detected. Dwelling Unit Bedrooms. All one hundred twenty (120)-volt, single phase, fifteen (15)- ampere and twenty (20)-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination type installed to provide protection of the branch circuit. Compliance with Article 210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Article 210.12 shall apply in full. Exception: In dwelling units Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection shall only apply to all branch circuits and outlets supplying bedrooms. All other location in dwelling units are exempt from the requirements of Article 210.12. E. Article 210.52(E)(3) shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Balconies, decks, and porches having an overall area of twenty (20) square feet or more that are accessible from inside the dwelling unit shall have at least one (1) receptacle outlet installed within the perimeter of the balcony, deck, or porch. The receptacle shall not be located more than six and one half (61/2) feet above the balcony, deck, or porch surface. F. Article 320.23 334.10(A) shall be amended by the addition of the following language: 3. Where the height of a crawl space does not exceed four and one half (41/2) feet it shall be permissible to secure NM cables, that run at angles with joist, to the bottom edge of joist. NM cables that run within seven (7) feet of crawl space access shall comply with article 320.23. G. Article 550.32(B) shall be amended by the addition of the following language: Compliance with article 550.32(B) shall limit installation of a service on a manufactured home to those homes manufactured after January 1, 1992. H. Article 675.8(B) shall be amended by the addition of the following language: Compliance with article 675.8(B) will include the additional requirement that a disconnecting means always be provided at the point of service from the utility no matter where the disconnecting means for the machine is located. I. Poles used as lighting standards that are forty (40) feet or less in nominal height and that support no more than four (4) luminaires operating at a nominal voltage of three hundred DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 20 OF 32 (300) volts or less, shall not be considered to constitute a structure as that term is defined by the national electrical code (NEC). The disconnecting means shall not be mounted to the pole. The disconnecting means may be permitted elsewhere in accordance with NEC, article 225.32, exception 3. SEC special purpose fuseable connectors (model SEC 1791-DF or model SEC 1791-SF) or equivalent shall be installed in a listed handhole (underground) enclosure. The enclosure shall be appropriately grounded and bonded per the requirements of the NEC applicable to article 230-Services. Overcurrent protection shall be provided by a (fast-acting - minimum - 100K RMS amps 600 VAC) rated fuse. Wiring within the pole for the luminaires shall be protected by supplementary overcurrent device (time-delay - minimum - 10K RMS amps 600 VAC) in breakaway fuse holder accessible from the hand hole. Any poles supporting or incorporating utilization equipment or exceeding the prescribed number of luminaires, or in excess of forty (40) feet, shall be considered structures, and an appropriate service disconnecting means shall be required per the NEC. All luminaire-supporting poles shall be appropriately grounded and bonded per the NEC. 10-3-3: PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; ISSUANCE: A. Permit Required: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to place or install in any building, structure, or premises any wiring, apparatus or fixture for the use of electric current for light, heat or power, or to make any alterations or changes in, or additions to any wiring, apparatus or fixtures for such use, without first obtaining from the city a written permit to do such work. Permits shall be required for any type of electrical work including emergency repairs and other maintenance or repair work as well as new installations. The permit application shall be in such form required by the building department. B. Addition Or Alteration Of Approved Plans: Any addition or alteration of approved plans and/or permitted work shall require resubmittal and approval before issuance of certificate of occupancy. C. Copy Of Permit To Be Posted: A copy of the permit shall be posted or otherwise readily accessible at each work site. C. D. Permit Validity Conditioned On Inspections: The validity of all electrical permits shall be conditioned upon the completion of the following inspections by the city electrical inspector: 1. Roughed In Inspection: When electrical work for which a permit was issued is roughed in, permittee shall, in writing, notify the city electrical inspector of such, and upon payment of any inspection fee per fee schedule, the electrical inspector shall inspect such work following receipt of such written notice and fee. Upon completion of such roughed in inspection, the city electrical inspector shall indicate such by affixing a tag or label stating the date of inspection. It shall be unlawful for any person to conceal any electrical work prior to such inspection. 2. Final Inspection: When electrical work for which a permit was issued is ready for final inspection, the permittee shall, in writing, notify the city electrical inspector of such, and upon payment of any inspection fee per fee schedule, the city electrical inspector shall inspect such work following receipt of such written notice and fee. "Ready for final inspection", for purposes of this section, shall be defined as the completion of all enclosed DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 21 OF 32 plumbing, heating, furnace work, and/or gas fittings. Where, upon final inspection, the city electrical inspector finds the installation to be in conformity with the statutes of all applicable laws and standards, the city electrical inspector shall issue a certificate of approval authorizing the connection to the supply of electricity and shall send written notice of such authorization to the supplier of electric service. It shall be unlawful for any person to make connection to a supply for electricity or to supply electricity to any electrical equipment installation for which no valid permit is in effect or that has been disconnected or ordered to be disconnected. D. E. Revocation Of Permits: 1. The city electrical inspector shall be authorized to revoke a permit or approval issued if any violation of the NEC or of this chapter is found upon inspection. 2. The city electrical inspector shall be authorized to revoke a permit or approval issued if there are any false statements or misrepresentations submitted in the permit application or plans on which the permit or approval was based. 3. Any person who engages in any business, operation, or occupation, or uses any building, structure, or premises after the permit issued therefor is suspended or revoked pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall be in violation of this chapter unless such suspended permit is reinstated or a new permit is issued. E. F. Permit And Inspection Fees: Fees for permits and inspections shall be fixed by the city council by resolution. 1. Payment Due Upon Issuance: Payment for all permit types is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued until fees are paid. 2. Permit Fee Refunds: Up to eighty percent (80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the Community Development Department public works director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. 3. Permit Transfer: A permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the Community Development Department public works director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department public works director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department public works director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. Section 4. That the following sections of Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, shall be amended as follows: 10-4-1: FIRE CODE ADOPTED: There is hereby adopted by the mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, State of Idaho, for the purpose of regulating and governing the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 22 OF 32 occupancy of buildings and premises in the City of Meridian, Idaho, and providing for the issuance of permits for hazardous uses or operations; and each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, terms, and appendices of such International Fire Code, 2012 2015 edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., and the same are hereby adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, with the revisions, additions, and deletions thereto as set forth in this chapter. From the date in which this chapter shall take effect, the provisions of the International Fire Code, 2012 2015 edition, and the revisions, additions, and deletions thereto as set forth in this chapter shall be controlling within the limits of the City of Meridian. 10-4-2: AMENDMENTS TO THE FIRE CODE: To the extent that any provision of the international fire code, 2012 2015 edition (hereinafter IFC), conflicts with a provision of Idaho Code, the provision of Idaho Code shall prevail. Additionally, the following amendments to the IFC shall apply: IFC section 103.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 103.2 Appointment. The code official shall be the fire chief of the city of Meridian. In the absence or by designation of the fire chief, the deputy chief/fire prevention or designee shall be the code official. IFC section 103.2 shall be amended as follows: Section 103.2 Appointment. Delete the following language: “… and the fire code official shall not be removed from office except for cause and after full opportunity to be heard on specific and relevant charges by and before the appointing authority.” IFC section 103.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 103.3 Deputies. In accordance with the prescribed procedures of the city of Meridian the fire chief shall have the authority to appoint a deputy fire chief/fire prevention, or other technical officer, inspectors and other employees. IFC section 104.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 104.1 General. The fire code official is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended and shall have the authority to render interpretations of the IFC as herein adopted and amended, and to adopt policies, procedures, rules and regulations in order to clarify the application of such provisions. Such interpretations, policies, procedures, rules and regulations shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of the IFC as herein adopted and amended and shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in the IFC as herein adopted and amended. The fire chief is authorized to administer and enforce the IFC as herein adopted and amended. Under the fire chief's direction, the fire department is authorized to enforce all ordinances of the City of Meridian jurisdiction pertaining to: a. The prevention of fires; b. The suppression or extinguishment of dangerous or hazardous fires; DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 23 OF 32 c. The storage, use and handling of hazardous materials; d. The installation and maintenance of automatic, manual and other private fire alarm systems and fire-extinguishing equipment; e. The maintenance and regulation of fire escapes; f. The maintenance of fire protection and the elimination of fire hazards on land and in buildings, and other property, including those under construction; g. The maintenance of means of egress; and h. The investigation of the cause, origin and circumstances of fire and unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, except that for authority related to control and investigation of emergency scenes, IFC section 104.11 shall apply. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 104.10.2 Fire Prevention Personnel And Police. As requested by the fire chief, the chief of police shall be authorized to assign such available police officers as necessary to assist the fire department in enforcing the provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended. IFC section 105.1.1 shall be amended as follows: Delete “the required permit” from the last sentence of Section 105.1.1 of the International Fire Code and add “a permit if required by the Meridian Fire Department.” A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 105.3.9 Working Without Permit. Any person who commences or causes the commencement of work for which a permit is required under the IFC as herein adopted and amended or under other provision of law without first obtaining each and every required permit, shall, upon application for such permit or permits, pay a doubled permit fee or fees, as established by fee schedule. This provision shall not apply to emergency repair work performed during off-business hours, where such emergency repair work is undertaken in order to reinstate operational status, so long as each and every applicable permit is obtained on the next business day. IFC section 109.4 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 109.4 Violation Penalties. Except as otherwise set forth in Meridian city code, persons who shall violate a provision of the IFC as herein adopted and amended or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00 dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 24 OF 32 IFC section 111.4 shall be amended to read as follows: deleted. Section 111.4 Failure To Comply. Any person who shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to a fine of not less than $100.00 dollars and not more than $500.00 dollars. IFC section 113.5 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 113.5 Permit Fee Refunds. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the Community Development Department public works director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 113.6 Permit Transfer. A permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the Community Development Department public works director or designee Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department public works director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department public works director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. These definitions shall be added to IFC section 202: Add “DRIVEWAY. A vehicular ingress and egress route that serves no more than six (6) single family dwellings, not including accessory structures.” Add “FIRE STATION: A building, or portion of a building that provides, at a minimum, all weather protection for fire apparatus. Temperatures inside the building used for this purpose must be maintained at above thirty-two (32) degrees Fahrenheit.” IFC section 308.1.6.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 308.1.6.3 Sky lanterns. It shall be unlawful for any person to release a sky lantern or cause a sky lantern to be released, whether tethered or untethered. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell sky lanterns inside the boundaries of the City of Meridian. IFC section 501.3 shall be amended as follows: After the phrase “Construction documents for proposed,” add the word “driveways.” IFC section 501.4 shall be amended as follows: After the phrase “When fire apparatus access roads,” add the word “driveways.” A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 501.4.1 Fire Hydrant Installation Timing. All necessary fire hydrants shall be installed and operational before any combustible materials, as such term is defined by the international building code, 2012 2015 edition, may be brought onto the site. Failure to comply with this provision will result in a stop work order which shall be effective until all necessary fire hydrants are installed and operational. DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 25 OF 32 The following words shall be added to IFC section 502: DRIVEWAY FIRE STATION The following words shall be added to the heading of IFC section 503: AND DRIVEWAYS IFC section 503.1.1 shall be amended as follows: Add the following sentence: “Driveways shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.13.” IFC section 503.6 shall be amended as follows: Delete the sentence, “The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire chief.” A new section, section 503.7, shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 503.7 Driveways. Driveways shall be provided when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of a building is located more than 150 feet (45720mm) from a fire apparatus access road. Driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet (3658mm) and a minimum unobstructed height of 13 feet 6 inches (4115mm). Driveways in excess of 150 feet (45720mm) in length shall be provided with turnarounds. Driveways in excess of 200 feet (60960mm) in length and less than 20 feet (6096mm) in width may require turnouts in addition to turnarounds. Section 503.7.1 Limits. A driveway shall not serve in excess of six single family dwellings. Section 503.7.2 Turnarounds. See Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Section 503.7.3 Turnouts. Where line of sight along a driveway is obstructed by a man-made or natural feature, turnouts shall be located as may be required by the fire code official to provide for safe passage of vehicles. Driveway turnouts shall be of an all-weather road surface at least 10 feet (3048mm) wide and 30 feet (9144mm) long. Section 503.7.4 Bridge Load Limits. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges on driveways and private roads. Design loads for bridges shall be established by the fire code official. Section 503.7.5 Address markers. All buildings shall have a permanently posted address, which shall be placed at each driveway entrance and be visible from both directions of travel along the road. In all cases, the address shall be posted at the beginning of construction and maintained thereafter. The address shall be visible and legible from the road on which the road on which the address is located. Address signs along one-way roads shall be visible from both the intended direction of travel and the opposite direction. Where multiple addresses are required at a single driveway, they shall be mounted on a single post, and additional signs shall be posted at locations where driveways divide. DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 26 OF 32 Section 503.7.6 Grade. The gradient for driveways shall not exceed 10 percent unless approved by the fire code official. Section 503.7.7 Security Gates. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. Section 503.7.8 Surface. Driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of local responding fire apparatus and shall be surfaced as to provide all weather driving capabilities. IFC section 505.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 505.1.1 Address Numbers Identification. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers, or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall have a minimum stroke width of one-half inch (0.5"), and of a color contrasting with the background. The required height of each address number shall be calculated by the distance of the addressed building from the road, as follows: where the building is less than one hundred feet (100') from the road, the height of each address number shall be six inches (6") in height; where the building is one hundred feet to one hundred fifty feet (100 - 150') from the road, the height of each address number shall be at least eight inches (8") in height; where the building is one hundred fifty-one feet to two hundred feet (151 - 200') from the road, the height of each address number shall be ten inches (10") in height; where the building is two hundred one feet to two hundred fifty-one feet (201 - 251') from the road, the height of each address number shall be twelve inches (12") in height. IFC section 507.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 507.2 Type Of Water Supply. A water supply shall consist of water delivered by fire apparatus, reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains, or other sources approved by the fire code official capable of providing the required fire flow, except that the water supply required by this code shall only apply to structures served by a municipal fire department or a fire protection district and within ten miles (16093m) of a responding fire station. The exceptions to IFC section 507.5.1 shall not apply. IFC section 605.5.4 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 605.5.4 Grounding. Extension cords without a grounding lug shall not be permitted. IFC section 903.3.7 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 903.3.7 Fire Department Connections. The location of the fire department connection shall be within one hundred feet (100') of a fire hydrant, except that three- and four-plexes do not require a fire department connection. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 27 OF 32 Section 903.3.8 Knox Caps. Each and every fire department connection and/or standpipe shall be equipped with a knox cap. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.1.1 All Buildings That Are Required To Be Sprinklered. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants of each tenant space shall be provided in the interior of the building at a normally attended location within each tenant space with a minimum of one per floor. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.2.1 All Buildings That Are Required To Be Sprinklered. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants of each tenant space shall be provided in the interior of the building at a normally attended location within each tenant space with a minimum of one per floor. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.2.12 Alarms. Approved audible devices and visual alarms with a minimum candela rating of 110 shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system on the exterior of the building per NFPA standard 13 located above the fire department connection. Such audible and visual alarms shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of one (1) sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Where a fire alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building fire alarm system. IFC section 903.4.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 903.4.3 Floor Control Valves. Approved supervised indicating control valves shall be provided at the point of connection to the riser on each floor in institutional and multi-tenant buildings two or more stories in height. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.4 Location Of Fire Sprinkler Controls. Sprinkler riser and appurtenances shall be enclosed in a one hour rated room equipped with an exterior door. The exception to IFC section 906.1(1) shall not apply. IFC section 904.1.1 shall be amended as follows: Section 904.1.1 Alternate Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Systems. Add the following language to the beginning of section 904.1.1 of the International Fire Code, “If required by the authority having jurisdiction,”. IFC section 906.2.1 shall be amended as follows: Section 906.2.1 Portable Fire Extinguishing. Add the following language to the beginning of section 9.6.2.1 of the International Fire Code, “If required by the authority having jurisdiction,”. IFC section 907.1.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 907.1.2 Fire Alarm Shop Drawings. Shop drawings for fire alarm systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to system installation, and shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 28 OF 32 1. A floor plan that indicates the use of all rooms. 2. Locations of alarm-initiating devices. 3. Locations of alarm notification appliances, including candela ratings for visible alarm notification appliances. 4. Location of fire alarm control unit, transponders, and notification power supplies. 5. Annunciators. 6. Power connection. 7. Battery calculations. 8. Conductor type and sizes. 9. Voltage drop calculations. 10. Manufacturers' data sheets indicating model numbers and listing information for equipment, devices and materials. 11. Details of ceiling height and construction. 12. The interface of fire safety control functions. 13. Classification of the supervising station. 14. Fire alarm drawings shall be stand alone and drawn to 1/8" scale. 15. Declaration of occupancy classification(s). A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 907.1.4 Non-Required Fire Alarm Systems. Where fire alarm systems not required by the IFC as herein adopted and amended or other provision of law are installed, any and all notification devices shall meet the minimum design, installation, and occupant notification requirements for systems which are required by the IFC as herein adopted and amended or other provision of law. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 907.1.5 Partial Or Limited Fire Alarm Detection Systems. Where partial or limited fire alarm detection systems are installed, any and all notification devices shall meet the minimum design, installation, and occupant notification requirements applicable to full and/or unlimited fire alarm systems. IFC section 912.4.1 shall be amended to read as follows: DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 29 OF 32 Section 912.4.1 Locking Fire Department Caps . The location of the fire department connection shall be within one hundred feet (100') of a fire hydrant, except that three- and four- plexes do not require a fire department connection. A new section shall be amended to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 912.4.1 Locking Fire Department Caps. Each and every fire department connection and/or standpipe shall be equipped with a locking fire department cap. IFC section 1101.1 shall be amended as follows: Add the following language to the end of section 1101.1 of the International Fire Code, “only, if in the opinion of the fire code official, they constitute a distinct hazard to life or property.” IFC chapter 56 shall be amended as follows: Chapter 56 Explosives And Fireworks. Delete Sections 5601.1.3, 5601.2.2, 5601.2.3, 5601.2.4.1, 5601.2.4.2, and sections 5608.2, 5608.2.1, and 5608.3. IFC chapter 80 shall be amended as follows: Chapter 80 Referenced Standards. Where National Fire Protection Association standards are referenced, such provisions shall refer to the 2010 editions of the National Fire Protection Association standards. Where referenced, the following NFPA standards shall refer to same in the following editions: Delete Add Delete Add 2-2011 2-2016 105-2013 105-2016 11-2010 11-2016 110-2013 110-2016 13-2013 13-2016 111-2013 111-2016 13D-2013 13D-2016 160-2011 160-2016 13R-2013 13R-2016 170-2012 170-2015 14-2013 14-2016 211-2013 211-2016 20-2013 20-2016 265-2011 265-2015 24-2013 24-2016 303-2011 303-2016 30-2012 30-2015 318-2012 318-2015 31-2011 31-2016 326-2010 326-2015 32-2011 32-2016 400-2013 400-2016 35-2011 35-2016 409-2011 409-2016 40-2011 40-2016 410-2010 410-2015 55-2013 55-2016 701-2010 701-2015 56-2012 56-2014 750-2014 750-2015 59A-2013 59A-2016 914-2010 914-2015 72-2013 72-2016 1126-2011 1126-2016 80-2013 80-2016 Appendices Mandatory. All appendices, including appendix A, appendix B, appendix C, appendix D, appendix E, appendix F, appendix G, appendix H, and appendix I, shall be mandatory, with these amendments: DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 30 OF 32 Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, and M, shall be mandatory. Appendix J shall not be adopted. Section 5. That Meridian City Code section 10-5-2 shall be amended as follows: 10-5-2: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE: The following amendments to the IMC shall apply: A. Section 202 Definitions. The following definitions provided in the IMC shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Light-Duty Cooking Appliance: Light-duty cooking appliances include gas and electric ovens (including standard, bake, roasting, revolving, retherm, convection, combination convection/steamer, countertop conveyorized baking/finishing, deck, pastry, and electric and gas conveyor pizza ovens), electric and gas steam jacketed kettles, electric and gas pasta cookers, electric and gas compartment steamers (both pressure and atmospheric) and electric and gas cheesemelters. Medium-Duty Cooking Appliance: Medium-duty cooking appliances include electric discrete element ranges (with or without oven), electric and gas hot-top ranges, electric and gas griddles, electric and gas double sided griddles, electric and gas fryers (including open deep fat fryers, donut fryers, kettle fryers and pressure fryers), electric and gas tilting skillets (braising pans) and electric and gas rotisseries. B. A. The following language shall be added to IMC section 401.1 Scope: Exception: The principles specified in ASHRAE 62-2010 may be used as an alternative to this chapter to demonstrate compliance with required ventilation air for occupants. C. B. The following language shall be added to IMC section 504.6.1 Material And Size: Exception: Dryer duct may be constructed of 0.013 (30 gage) or equivalent if prefabricated 0.016 (28 gage) ducts and fittings are not available. D. C. The following language shall be added to IMC table 603.4 Duct Construction Minimum Sheet Metal Thickness For Single Dwelling Units: Exception: Round duct, enclosed rectangular ducts and fittings less than fourteen (14) inches may be constructed of 0.013 (30 gage) or equivalent if prefabricated 0.016 (28 gage) ducts and fittings are not available. Section 6. That Meridian City Code section 7-2-8 shall be amended as follows: 7-2-8: PARKING IN FIRE LANE: DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 31 OF 32 Except in compliance with law or the direction of a police officer or firefighter, no person shall park a vehicle in any fire apparatus access road in violation of international fire code, 2012 2015 edition, section 503.4, or like provision subsequently adopted, where such fire apparatus access road is marked in accordance with international fire code, 2012 2015 edition, sections 503.3 and D103.6, or like provisions subsequently adopted. The fire code official, and/or his designee, including police and code enforcement officers of the Meridian police department, shall be authorized to enter upon private property open to public use to investigate and enforce violations of this section. Section 7. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the provisions and parts of this ordinance shall be severable. If any paragraph, part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 8. All City of Meridian ordinances, or resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed. Section 9. That this ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 2018. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ____ day of ______________, 2017. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ____ day of ______________, 2017. APPROVED: ATTEST: ______________________________ ______________________________ Tammy de Weerd, Mayor C.Jay Coles, City Clerk DRAFT – 11/21/17 Public Hearing CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2015 IBC, 2012 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2015 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2015 IFC, AND 2012 IMC PAGE 32 OF 32 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 17-_________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, ADOPTING THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, 2012 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, 2015 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO; AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 2, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, ADOPTING THE 2017 IDAHO STATE PLUMBING CODE, PERMIT REQUIRED, APPLICATION ISSUANCE, FEES, INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS, AND PENALTIES; AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, ADOPTING THE 2017 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO, PERMIT APPLICATION, ISSUANCE, AND FEES; AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 4, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, ADOPTING THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-2, LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 7-2-8, REGARDING PARKING IN FIRE LANE; ADOPTING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ____________________________________ City of Meridian Mayor and City Council By: C.Jay Coles, City Clerk First Reading: _________________ Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-902: YES_______ NO_______ Second Reading: ________________ Third Reading: _________________ STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 17-____________ The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance no. 15-_____ of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3). DATED this ______ day of __________________, 2017. ____________________________________ William L.M. Nary, City Attorney November 16, 2017 To: Mayor Tammy DeWeerd Council President, Keith Bird Council Vice President, Joe Borton Councilman Luke Cavener Councilwoman Genesis Milam Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Ty Palmer Re: Exception within City Code for Emission Testing Stations Good Morning: After being present in the November 14, 2017 work session in which a presentation was made by Brent Bjornson, I feel compelled to write you this letter. Please include these comments in the public record on this matter. Concerning the situation facing the Council concerning the permitting of Emission Testing Stations, Garden City found that they faced an identical situation several years ago. As you may already know, an exemption exists for this portion of code. Such an exemption was adopted by the City of Garden City (copy attached). I have also attached a picture of the testing station that was built immediately after the adoption of this exemption. When one of our Emission Testing Station owners, Mr Joe Hanson, first applied to build a Station in Meridian on the property owned by Stinker Stations he had no idea that he would be required tearing out asphalt, dig a foundation and other wise damage the property of another in order to do business in Meridian. Those requirements were never in force previously. Months have passed and several meetings have occurred, all with an eye towards allowing some kind of exemption to the Code adopted by the City of Meridian with regards to these small, usually temporary, structures. Several grossly inaccurately representations were made by Councilman Ty Palmer, comparing these emission testing stations to “Sno-Cone shacks” (see recorded meeting beginning at 2:23:43). For one, Sno-Cone shacks are much smaller than testing stations. The Garden City exemption calls for the City to be the ultimate arbiter for the design of emission testing stations. A similar exemption should easily assuage Councilman Palmer’s concerns. With this adoption there would be no reason for this comparison to be made. I’m certain that no one would compare it to a Sno-Cone shack. I am not familiar enough with the Code in Meridian to know whether the City stands to lose any of the existing emission testing stations upon their sale or other kind of entity transfer. I don’t know if code upgrades are a requirement of a title transfer. I do know, however, that, as time goes by, virtually all of the stations in existence today in Meridian will have to make some kind of physical move, triggering a code upgrade. Unless a change in current policy is made all such stations will disappear with the resulting serious inconvenience to residents in Meridian as well as the loss of a number of small businesses and jobs. I know that this Council would like to avoid that result and implore the immediate adoption of an exemption similar to the one in Garden City. I am available to any and all of you for conversation prior to the hearing next week as having answers to some of your questions will undoubtedly allow for a more expedited and efficient meeting. Regards, Kent F Goldthorpe, Executive Director 7-2-5 AUTO EMISSION TESTING STRUCTURES: SHARE A. Purpose And Policy: Pursuant to state and federal law, motor vehicles registered in Ada County must be tested annually and must pass an air quality emissions test. Until recently, the emission tests have been administered by equipment housed in vans parked in parking lots on heavily traveled streets or highways. The vans have now transitioned into structures similar in construction to equipment sheds or outbuildings. The sheds are not built up to the standards of the building codes adopted by the city. The city recognizes that it would be cost prohibitive to build these temporary structures up to code standards and the city does not desire to have these structures built to be permanent. Recognizing the mandated program and the requirement that the testing facilities be located in Garden City, the city deems it in the best interest of the city to grant this limited exception to the Garden City Code and exempt auto emission testing facilities from the Garden City building code. B. Exemptions And Permits: 1. With the exception of section 108, Temporary Structures, of the 2012 International Building Code, temporary structures located and used for the purpose of performing air quality auto emission tests shall be exempt from the building regulations contained in this chapter. The time limitations set for in section 108 shall also not apply to these structures. All other building regulations contained in this title shall be in full force and effect if applicable. 2. The owners of such facilities shall be required to obtain a certificate of inspection and business compliance from the city in order to use the structure for emission testing. This shall include the existing facilities operating in the city as of the date of passage of the ordinance codified in this section. C. Safety And Operational Standards: The city, by resolution, will establish safety and operational standards for the auto emission testing facilities. Failure for a facility to maintain these standards shall be grounds for revocation of the operator's permit. D. Temporary Nature Of Facilities And Scope Of Operation: 1. The structures are intended to be temporary in nature and not permanently affixed to the ground by a permanent foundation. If the air quality testing program is terminated in Ada County or changed in a nature that eliminates the need for the facilities, the facilities shall be removed within thirty (30) days of the termination or change. 2. The business conducted at these facilities shall be related to the service of automobiles as required by law and no other business shall be conducted by the operators of the facilities. 3. The placement of banners, balloons or the like on or near the structure is prohibited. E. New Facilities: The establishment of a new testing facility after the passage of the ordinance codified in this section must be approved by the Garden City council upon procedures established by the city's development services department. (Ord. 973-14, 12-8-2014) Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21,2017 ITEM NUMBER: 9E PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0088 ITEM TITLE: Linder Village FUNIC Hearing for Linder village - - y ynx Real Estate Parnters, LLC is located at the southeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd. at 1225 W. Chinden Blvd. 1. Request: Annexation and zoning of 81.61 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C -C zoning district (64.75 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (16.87 acres) in the City; 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 1 common lot and 3 other lots for To, mral"AWS IBM 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 PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP / AERIAL IMAGE l l . e. 1 — ° -ii as -tr ss a !" .. t♦.'cr ii ac r �a: �`1 ' .. '4 � � '+ 4 1 �4. �._�'d d f i a n r■ R a i . l a i yam. it c n.. !� +Y • \ 1 ( '1� i �'-�A �:. • ♦f as J•Yn it,�,-nw �.` n fi".,r ^� •�1 (' w R g O Z'J 11 X ,440 W. CHINDEN BLVD. k' - ...... . ti lop _ # d m . FUTURE OFFICEf RETAIL DEVELOPMENT :.. ❑mow a � h � . ........ FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LT — — DEVELOPMENT f� 0 1 UN EPT PLAN yx . .. ...................... ..................................... ........... 39 RETAIL FOOD HALL =TAIL ........... . .... . . .......... - ....... — --------------- . ................ 1 7 - vhvLtwMEHT --LH L rap IE bar 4 Ft. TJRE ---RESIDE'JTIAJ. DEVr;L0PLWffNT M CONCEPT SITE PLAN 6 vcnE r —m PFEUMINAPy FFIII P ETA I L LIVEWURk =aF FIC E U VE)WORK FVTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT M CONCEPT SITE PLAN 6 vcnE r —m PFEUMINAPy Community Support •Letters of support through lindervillage.com: 512 •Total Facebook Page Likes on @YESLinderVillage : 1,404 •Total Facebook Reaction Summary: 955 Likes 50 Loves 5 Angry •Previous Community Engagement: •October 11, 2017 Community BBQ Attendees: appx. 38 •April 26, 2017 Community Open House at Gino’s Attendees: appx. 100 Counts listed above are as of 11/21/17 12:30 pm MDT OLD Concept Site Plan VS NEW Concept Site Plan OLD CONCEPT SITE PLAN NEW RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT TYPES JOHN RINGERT – KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES Key Traffic Challenges McMillan Rd Chinden Blvd Me r i d i a n R d Li n d e r R d Fo x R u n W a y Chinden Blvd McMillan Rd Li n d e r R d Me r i d i a n R d Fo x R u n W a y Site Over Capacity & LOS F in Background (without site development) Close to ACHD/ITD Capacity Thresholds No Signalized Access or Long-Term Full Access ITD Plans for Future CFI with Further Access Restrictions Rin/Rout Be r g m a n W y UNFUNDED ITD Plan for Widening Chinden (US 20-26) to 5 Lanes and Ultimately to 7 Lanes Propose Off-Site Improvements Traffic Solution Proposed by Linder Village •Widen Chinden (US 20-26) •Widen to 5 lanes from east of Meridian Rd through Linder Rd •Extend widening to the ITD funded project that stops at Locust Grove •Expand the Chinden/Linder Intersection •Add dual EB and WB left turn lanes •Install a new signal at the Bergman/Site Access intersection: •Operates acceptably with widening and signal coordination •Reduces impact on Chinden/Linder intersection •Also provides access to Foxtail/Ashbury and Eagle Island Marketplace •Provide for future ITD widening •Dedicate ROW for the 7 lanes in the ITD concept plan •Set buildings back for future CFI at Linder/Chinden intersection Summary •Improvements on Chinden are significant •Widening Chinden is well above what any other developments along the corridor have done •The widening will significantly improve traffic operations on Chinden •Right-of-Way and building set backs will help ITD with future expansions •The new signal at the Bergman/Site Access intersection provides a single combined access point for properties on both sides in Chinden WINCO ELEVATIONS MID BOX ELEVATIONS SHOPS ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: November 21, 2017 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0088 Project Name: Linder Village 9E Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) owq f ✓ AJ A hIllk-1,LE� A fy Al 1-4 tif�: W 06 FOP �InaY• w aI�0rA, 5 � K Wq t� v CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: November 21, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0088 Linder Village 9E Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) tee. ,1 '7 13/ / K� C/ 5 P J r°sh�-rpt LvuiV-e .� 1 v a� '7o 7- 1 L� 1 y �J �le--.' �� ?C 1.✓Gi�� — ✓' �� . W, awy CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: November 21, 2017 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0088 Project Name: Linder Village rL Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) Jn �� c j,ijk(�1'13 D J� V L L L/ L L L L L I L Date: CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 21, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0088 Linder Village 9E Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (YIN) v (r- i N`" r►' c i " u/v �I C LA �I ,-Le-i vi� 10 Jeane �mbrd��o A/n ��,,n� ' NJ 611A Y 000 1l ci Cu f v tl l AT EGLE 2- � Pic Uo� \" A-\, kkA 9rte: Stan Ridgeway Mayor March 24, 2017 Amy Revis District Engineer ITD District 3 8150 W. Chinden Blvd Garden City, ID 83714 City of Eagle P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, Idaho 83616 208-939-6813 SUBJECT: US 20/26 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms. Revis, Council Members: Naomi Preston Jeff Kunz Stan Bastian Craig Soelberg Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the US 20/26 Environmental Assessment. The City recognizes the complexity of planning for this urbanizing corridor and applauds ITD on their efforts to plan in a proactive manner. As previously discussed with Amy Schroder on your staff, the City supports the use of a full Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) at the Linder Road and US 20/26 intersection with the inclusion of a full signalized intersection along Linder Road at the Eagle Island Marketplace commercial complex. Additionally, the City supports the use of half CFI(s) at Meridian Road and Locust Grove with the commitment from ITD to work with the City and landowners to minimize encroachment on residential properties, mitigate the impacts of noise, and appropriately design noise mitigation walls and berms in consultation with the City and the Eagle Design Review Board. The City would encourage ITD to consider the following design modifications for the corridor. The City would encourage ITD to construct a 10 -foot wide detached pathway along the north side of the corridor, from Eagle Road to Linder Road within the City limits. While the City understands that there are right- of-way constraints, US 20/26 is and will continue to be a high speed congested corridor, bicyclist and pedestrians will require additional protection through the separation and buffering of the facility. As the US 20/26 Corridor within the City of Eagle is a residential area, the City also encourages ITD to considered the use of vulcanized rubber paving or other noise reducing pavement options to reduce noise impacts along the corridor. While the City supports the above referenced improvements, the City has significant concern about the following: Page t of 4 K-'WUnnln= DcptXTFU, rwion%20161US 20.26" kl doc Eagle & US 20/26 Half CFI: N The City is very concerned and disappointed with ITD's outreach and communication on this intersection. The City has a history of working proactively with ITD on intersection projects including the State Highway 55 and State Highway 44 intersection and the US 20/26 Corridor plan. Up until the release of the EA and the public open house, the City was not contacted nor made aware that ITD had extended the project terminus to include this intersection. The seemingly last minute addition of the Eagle Road and US 20/26 intersection in the corridor plan was unexpected and poorly communicated. The City's expectations are that ITD would communicate proactively, and most certainly, prior to the release of such significant changes in a public forum. The City is concerned about the impacts of the half CFI at this location. The removal of multi- directional access at the Eagle Marketplace commercial complex on the NE corner of the intersection has been significant. The inclusion of the CFI will further restrict and degrade the economic viability of this complex. Over the past year, the City and the owner of the Eagle Marketplace complex have spent over $1 million to replace landscaping and signage to increase visibility and viability of the complex after ITD's construction of medians. The proposed CFI will remove all the improvements and potentially two structures in the complex. ITD's response to further limiting access to the complex was to suggest that the complex could obtain access from a "future" parallel frontage road extending east to the proposed full signal but, this frontage road is not part of the ITD plan. ITD should include the planning and right-of-way for the parallel frontage road into the plan. Inconsistent Commercial Access: The City is concerned that the EXISTING commercial complexes in Eagle and Boise are being held to a more restrictive access standard than the PROPOSED commercial complexes in Meridian. The existing Eagle Island Marketplace commercial complex, located at the NE corner of Linder Road and US 20/26, is being limited to a single right in/right out access along US 20/26 and a single full access on Linder Road. The existing Eagle Marketplace commercial complex, located as the NE corner of Eagle Road and US 20/26, is being limited to a single right in/right out access along US 20/26 and a single right in/right out access on Eagle Road. Conversely, the proposed Costco/Winco complex at the SE corner of Linder Road and US 20/26 intersection is being contemplated for a signalized intersection on BOTH Linder Road and US 20/26 as well as numerous right-in/right-outs along both Linder Road and US 20/26. Approval of this access plan would require ITD, even before the approval of the proposed EA, to provide numerous variances and waivers to IDAPA standards. ITD should establish consistent access standards for all commercial developments (existing and new) along US 20/26 and not trade access and long term functionality) for short term right-of-way expansion. Sianalization of Bergman Way: The City of Eagle is very aware of the economic growth and benefit that a large commercial complex could provide the City of Meridian and other local taxing districts; however, the City of Eagle does not support the signalization of US 20/26 at N. Bergman Way. The signalization of N. Bergman Way and US 20/26 will have significant impacts to the residential development to the north. As we all know, traffic/travelers want to find the fastest and least congested route possible through an area; the regional transportation model housed at COMPASS works on this "push/pull" principle. The signalization of N. Bergman Way will provide travelers a bypass around the Linder Road and US 20/26 Page 2 of 4 K:ll'1 Wax 11cp1%TrwpoFWion1201MU51016 EA kl.doc intersection (in the interim a highly -congested intersection prior to the continuous flow intersection) and a very complex intersection with the proposed CFI. This bypassing of Chinden & Linder intersection via Temple Drive to Bergman Way would reduce wait and travel time significantly by cutting through an existing residential area. N. Bergman Way is a residential collector that connects Chinden Boulevard to Temple Drive. N. Bergman Way and Temple Drive have been constructed as residential collectors with the purpose and function that the roadway network would provide connectivity between Meridian Road and Linder Road, allowing residents from Gated Gardens, Reynard, Fox Tail and Ashbury Subdivisions to move east/west north of the US 20/26 corridor without accessing the state system. While N. Bergman Way is designed with no front -on housing, Temple Drive (a residential collector) does have front -on housing. Temple Drive connects east/west between Linder Road (and the LDS Temple) to Meridian Road, approximately 1 -mile. Over this 1 -mile section of Temple Drive, there are approximately 50 units that are constructed, under construction, or are planned to have direct access to Temple Drive. The City's opposition to the signalization is that the complexity of the proposed Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) at the US 20/26 and Linder Road intersection coupled with the signalization of N. Bergman Way will create a bypass around the CFI intersection through a residential neighborhood. South bound traffic on Linder Road wanting to access Costco and remaining on the arterial network (Linder Road and US 20/26) must travel through a minimum of five (5) signals along Linder Road in order to enter the Costco site or six (6) signals if they turn east and access from US 20/26. The anticipated travel time through the CFI is six to ten minutes. If N. Bergman Way is signalized, Costco customers traveling south on Linder Road would be able to turn east at Temple Drive and Linder Road signal onto Temple Drive, and then travel south on N. Bergman Way into the Costco site. This bypass reduces the number of signals to two and allows traffic to continue moving with an estimated drive time of less than three minutes. The City continues to support the relocation of the signal at Fox Run Avenue to the half mile (or 340 - feet west) and coordinating the construction of an east/west access road between the Paramount development and the Costco site. While this alternative requires cooperation between three land owners, it also allows for the realignment through vacant (undeveloped property), for commercial traffic to remain on planned commercial roadways, and the opportunity for fencing and buffers to be constructed to mitigate the impacts of the commercial traffic on residential uses. This recommendation also allows for the existing Foxtail subdivision access at Fox Run Avenue to be terminated with a cul- de-sac and primary access to be shifted north to the Ashbury Development as requested by the Foxtail HOA. Additionally, the southernmost property within the Foxtail Subdivision (Lot I, Block 2 or 6479 Fox Run Avenue) was part of the Reynard Subdivision approval which provided three options for connection to the signal at Fox Run Avenue but, to date, has not been platted. While some modifications to the Reynard development plan would be required, this alternative would allow local connectivity to the north, but through a more obscure route in which traffic calming measures could be put in place to discourage cut -through traffic. While the City of Eagle recognizes the economic opportunity being presented to both ITD and the City of Meridian, the proposed signalization of N. Bergman Way will not be mitigatable and will have disproportional impacts on the residents in Eagle. The connection is unsafe and the opportunity for cut - through traffic is too high to support a variance to the IDAPA rules. The City asks ITD to deny the access permit and variance to IDAPA for the signalization of N. Bergman Way and to direct all access to a relocated signal at Fox Run Avenue. Page 3 of 4 KAPlanaiq DepATrvupnnalion120161US 20.266A lcl.Joc The City of Eagle recognizes the importance of long-range corridor planning and applauds LTD's efforts to establish a corridor management plan that will provide ITD authority to acquire right-of-way for the ultimate buildout of the US 20/26 corridor. But, the City of Eagle does not support the waiver of IDAPA standards and/or the incomplete and inconsistent approval of commercial access along the corridor. ITD must include in their planning all necessary access improvements, including frontage roads, as well as, a consistent access spacing in order for the benefits of the CFI and corridor plan to be achieved. Trading access for right-of-way is short sighted and contradictory to long-range planning. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Mayor Ridgeway or Nichoel Baird Spencer in the Eagle Planning and Zoning Department. Sincerely, 5� _2Xc Stan Ridgeway, Mayor , _-( 'Zv_�L Naomi Preston, Council Presidt--- Stanley J. Bastian Cc: Amy Schroder, ITD Adam Rush, ITD ACHD Commission Gary Inselman, ACHD Craig Eisenberg, Eagle Island Marketplace Travis Barney, Eagle Marketplace 1fA Fju Jeff Kunz Craig S g Page 4 of 4 K-M-Waln/ 1ep1%T=pnrW MX20I6\Us 10-76 UA L-Ldoe Proposed Linder Village Meridian City Council November 21, 2017 Paramount Petition Total Residents Opposed to Site Plan = 643 •~350 Paramount Residents •~300 Surrounding Areas WinCo-Backed Petition Supporters = 429 •~20 Paramount Residents •~409 Surrounding and Outlying Areas •6% of petition supports were from Star (indicated a regional draw) Other Remaining Issues: •Several building exceed maximum footprint size •Sea of parking lots •Buffers between mixed uses are only landscaped areas •Non-residential buildings are still not proportional or blend in with adjacent residential buildings Leniency Granted to Developer •Departure from the FLUM 54 Acres MU-C 20% Residential = 10.8 acres Original Residential=24 acres Total Residential = 34.8 acres Current Residential = 16 acres •Minimized open space requirements 54 acres *.05 = 2.7 acres Required added = 0.57 acres Total Min= 3.27 acres Recalculated = 5.46 acres •Waived requirement for community-serving facilities, Staff Report, p11 24 acres RESIDENTIAL 54 Acres MU-C Denying This Application Will: Give WinCo time to decide if they want to be a part of the community. 1 Give the developer time to work with residents. 2 Allow the planning and zoning commission to review and approve a new plan. 3 Send a message that the city council values the well- being of Meridian’s residents. 4 What Could Be With a little more imagination, careful planning, and good-faith responsiveness to community input, Linder Village could be a treasured commercial and residential destination - a distinctive gateway to the city and a source of pride for its residents. Linder Village Development •The property owner has tried to turn this corner from a farm into a Commercial development since 2007. •Residents have relied on Meridian City’s Comprehensive plan as they have purchased homes. •We, as residents, expect you to help maintain a livable community blended appropriately between homes, apartments, services, businesses, schools, libraries, churches, parks, and offices. Good zoning plans and enforcement make for a good community. •There are certain requirements you as a city have specified for this property. They do not include a 24/7 building. They do not include anything larger than 60,000 sq ft. •Please stick with your plan, the Comprehensive Plan. Paramount Subdivision, etc. Actual positioning of the SW Corner of Paramount Neighborhood, from Google Maps between 2013 - 2015 That same corner- flipped This is 2060 ft. When the Walgreens was placed here, the homes in dirt were not there. The closest home was on Fox run as shown. Current SE Corner of Linder and Chinden This is 1460 ft. You can see, even a business built on the very corner would be closer than Walgreens was to current residences at the time it was built. If this developer wants to ask businesses to join our neighborhood, they should be asking the right businesses based on the City of Meridian’s well thought out plan. As it is, their plan is for a C-G, not a C-C. These developers want to go beyond what you as a city have allowed in the Paramount Neighborhood for businesses which were built in a C-G zone. C-G Businesses in SW corner of the Paramount Neighborhood Normally 24 hours, but not here: •Walgreens Hoping for a 24 hour drive-thru, but not here: •Stinker Station What happened that night at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding this Stinker Station? Unanimous decision – no 24 hour drive thru. (“After careful consideration of all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 15-016 as presented during the hearing of October 1st, 2015. With the staff's modification that the drive-thru be restricted -- or with staff recommendations.”) Dr. Chris Kelson and his wife both testified that night. Concerns: safety of their customers. When you visit this property now, you’ll see that all of the Kelson’s concerns are valid. We don’t want the same issues on our corner that they have on theirs. These developers want to be allowed to develop a C- C zone in a way that has not even been permitted in other C-G zones in this neighborhood. What can you do to prevent that? Deny this application. If you accept their proposal to allow businesses within the Linder Village Development to go beyond what is allowed for a larger and more regional development, how can you say that you even have designated zones in this city? By upholding the Planning and Zoning Commission’s unanimous decision to deny this application, you’ll be giving a clear message to this developer and others. Meridian City •Has well established clear standards for development •Listens to the owners of property (residential and business owners) •Has its citizens’ safety and health in mind •Wants properly planned, sustainable growth Uphold the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Deny this application It will take them a year to redo it in compliance with the FLUM. Additional documentation •Sonic hours of operation & description of corner before it was built. •Stinker Station request for 24 hour drive thru •Dr. Kelson’s testimony •Decision to not extend hours for drive-thru http://meridiancity.org/uploadedFiles/Departments/City_Clerk/CZC_Applications/CZC%2015-039%20Sonic.pdf Sonic – Built in a C-G District, already part of Meridian City Hours of Operation- 6 am to 11 pm 7 days a week A Google search of this property reveals: “people typically spend 15 min here.” In a Certificate of Zoning Compliance report dated May 8, 2015, we find this developer’s letter to P&Z staff. It describes the corner before Sonic was built. After the Walgreen’s Pharmacy was built, two additional and recently added businesses to the southwest section of our quadrant: October 1, 2015 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting “It's currently zoned C-G and is located at 1410 West McMillan Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north are residential apartments in Linder Springs, zoned C-G. To the east is an auto repair shop, Christian Brothers, zoned C-G. To the south is West McMillan Road and future commercial uses, zoned C-N. And to the west is a retail store, Walgreens, zoned C-G. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 1, 2015 Page 4 of 15 this property -- designation for this property is commercial. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a drive-thru establishment within three feet of another drive-thru establishment, that being the Walgreens, and extended hours of operation of 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for a convenience store, restaurant, fuel facility and drive-thru restaurant in a C-G zoning district…. Just for clarification, the convenience store, restaurant and fuel facility are permitted uses in the C-G zoning district, only the drive-thru and extended hours of operation require conditional use approval…. (See on-line notes, p.3-4). Lastly, let’s look at what happened with the Stinker Station (1410 W. McMillan Road) http://meridiancity.org/uploadedFiles/Departments/City_Clerk/Planning_and_Zoning_Meetings/2015/Minutes/15Oct01.pdf Daily Dog clean up High Traffic – now making things hazardous Increased surveillance because of loitering from apartments Testimony of Dr. Chris Kelson, used by permission. Re: Stinker Station (1410 W. McMillan Road) See notes, p.3-4 of the October 1, 2015 Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting Staff recommendations: No extended hours for the Stinker Station drive-thru 2007 Developer Initially Presented Project to Residents: •Project is “approved” and “done deal” •“City and Mayor approve” •Told residents that this was going to happen and there would be no changes to the plan. 2007 Actually: •Mayor had not at all approved: 2007 “I do recall meeting with the owners of the property I believe that you are referring, a year or two ago… I would like to be very clear on the fact I did not meet to discuss annexation or any particular plan. While there was no specific discussion on what they might have planned for their property, there were several strong messages that we relayed to these property owners: an expectation of quality development to reflect the surrounding area, no access to Chinden - only at the half mile, the need for a 'backage or frontage' road, and that look of 'big boxes' did not fit the vision of the area. As well, since the area is noted in our Comprehensive Plan as 'mixed use' there would need to be a mix of uses. I am sorry if it was represented to you that I was in favor of a 'plan' I haven't seen… Tammy de Weerd, Mayor City of Meridian” E-mail Dated 8/6/2007 2007 Actually: •ITD had not approved access 2007 Actually: •Planning Staff indicated that they would not accept the application until 1.Access and traffic issues were addressed 2.Neighborhood concerns were addressed 3.The plan more closely reflected the Meridian Comprehensive Use Plan The developer was advised to work with the residents and come back with an acceptable solution. August 30, 2007 meeting at Planning Department 2007 The developer did not contact the residents to work for an acceptable plan. 2007 Petition •450 Signatures (old school) •Submitted to Mayor, City Council, ITD, ACHD, CPASWI •Requests that: No Variances be allowed to the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint for Good Growth until the developer: 1. Addresses access and traffic Issues 2. Submits a plan that more closely reflects the Meridian Comprehensive Use Plan 2007 The developer did not contact the residents to work for an acceptable plan. 2007 In fact, the developer did not get to a point where an application could be submitted to the city. 9/17/2007 June 2017 – After 10 years 2017 June 5th - Application submitted to Planning Staff •No address of resident concerns. •Staff report noted numerous and significant problems with the plan and recommended that developer address them. Plan scheduled for August 3rd P&Z Hearing 2017 August 3rd – P&Z continued to September August 8th – Costco announces that it has chosen a better location on Ten Mile. •Developer is forced to re-visit its plan. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the developer to go back to the residents to work out a community plan. 2017 The developer did not contact the residents to work for an acceptable plan. 2017 September 7th – Developer appears in Planning and Zoning Meeting to request a continuance to October 19th. •Developer had still not removed the Costco building from its application. •Developer claimed that request was to respond to community feedback. 2017 September – Developer did not seek community feedback. Plan submitted on September 20th was dated September 5th (two days before the September 7th continuance request)! 2017 October 19th Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Unanimous Recommendation for Denial Commission Concerns 1.Traffic and access issues 2.Too far from Meridian Comprehensive Plan 3.24/7 Operations 2017 October 19th Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Unanimous Recommendation for Denial Developer made it clear that he would not make any substantive changes to his plan. 2017 Unanimous Recommendation for Denial Bernt: I asked the developer point blank are you willing to change it and he said no. I mean it’s on the record. I purposely asked that question, hoping that he would at least listen to homeowners, listen to staff, listen to the direction that we have given them. (pp. 49-50) 2017 Unanimous Recommendation for Denial McCarvel: The Commission has traditionally granted up to two (continuances) and I guess I was a little disappointed in seeing what finally came out of all that extra time and then with the staff report and everything that is still not addressed from what’s been asked. p.49 2017 November – Developer met with a dozen residents to share tonight’s submission. •Clearly stated that he would do nothing to address: 1.Traffic and access issues 2.The project being too far from the Meridian Comprehensive Use Plan 3.24/7 operations close to residential 2017 Tonight Developer is requesting that City Council: 1.Ignore the importance of the comprehensive plan 2.Ignore the reasoning behind the unanimous decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission 3.Ignore the serious concerns of hundreds of residents in the surrounding community 4.Ignore the council’s own accountability to those who elected them to serve. 2007 - 2017 For 10 years, the developer has shown that he is not interested in developing a community. He has clearly stated that he will not change to address those serious issues of: 1.Traffic and access 2.The project being too far from the Meridian Comprehensive Use Plan 3.24/7 operations close to residential 9/17/2007 11/21/2017 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 1 OA PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Department Reports Continued rom November 14, 2U I /: Updates to City Code provisions regarding Chief Financial Officer/Information Services Director 1. Ordinance No. 17-1753: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-8-1, Regarding Appointment of Department Officials by Mayor; Repealing Title 1, Chapter 8, Article E, Meridian City Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-9-3(G) (7), Regarding Compensation Changes; AmPnrlinn MPrirlinn (-itv (-oHf- SP --r inn 1 -RR -9 R(-,nnrrlinn r)i itiPg MEETING NOTES 0 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. 17—/-75-,3 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-8-1, REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS BY MAYOR; REPEALING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE E, MERIDIAN CITY CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-9-3(G)(7), REGARDING COMPENSATION CHANGES; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-813-2, REGARDING DUTIES OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to her authority under Idaho Code section 50-602, the Mayor, as the chief administrative official of the City of Meridian, and superintendent of all the officers of the city of Meridian, recommends the following changes to the structure of City departments, for the effective administration and operation of the City of Meridian; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian finds that the following changes to the structure of City departments, as recommended by the Mayor, reflect an effective internal structure and such changes will best serve the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: Section 1. That Meridian City Code section 1-8-1 shall be amended as follows: 1-8-1: APPOINTMENTS BY MAYOR: A. The mayor, with the consent of the city council, shall appoint the following department officials of the city of Meridian: including city attorney, public works director, chief of police, fire chief, community development director, parks and recreation director, and stipport serviees Fire^*^r chief financial officer/information services director (city treasurer). The mayor., with the consent of the city council., may add or change other appointed positions as necessary to effectively operate the city. B. Pursuant to the Idaho Code the mayor with the consent of the city council shall appoint a chief financial o ffi .er4eity tr-e sur -e,. and city cleric. Section 2. That Title 1, Chapter 8, Article E shall be repealed. Section 3. That Meridian City Code section 1-9-3(G)(7) shall be amended as follows: 1-9-3: BUDGET POLICY: G. Budget Development: UPDATE TO SUPPORT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CFO PROVISIONS PAGE I OF 4 7. Compensation Changes: Approved compensation changes shall be communicated to the finance department for inclusion in the draft budget through the human resources department. If a new job classification is created the job description must be submitted to the suppoFt seiwiees dir-eotoT human resources manager for approval and salary classification. Section 4. That Meridian City Code section 1-813-2 shall be amended as follows: 1-813-2: DUTIES: The chief financial officer/city treasurer shall have and fulfill all of the duties established by Idaho Code as they may pertain to the city treasurer or the finances of the city, including, without limitation, those duties enumerated in title 18, chapter 57 (public funds and securities); title 50, chapter 2 (city treasurer); title 50, chapter 10 (city finances); title 57, chapter 1 (public depository law); and title 67, chapter 4 (annual audit) of Idaho Code. Additionally, the chief financial officer/city treasurer shall: A. Attend, as necessary, meetings of the city council. B. Implement financial policies and plans at the direction of the mayor and city council. C. Advise the mayor and city council on financial policy considerations, and short and long range financial planning. D. Review and analyze financial methods and performance to find ways to increase effectiveness, improve results or affect economies in financial activities. E. Analyze budget requests for compliance with appropriate rules, regulations, policies, procedures, budget, and capital improvement plan. F. Develop with the necessary staff, the annual budget amendment, including gathering all data, analyzing results and presenting a final report to the mayor, council and the public. (Ord. 16- 1680, 4-5-2016) G. Manage the city's investment portfolio. H. Establish and maintain an internal control structure designed to protect the city from loss of public funds due to fraud, error, or actions inconsistent with the requirements of the laws governing allowable public entity investments. I. Monitor the financial condition of the city and adherence to the budget. J. Ensure the city's budget, financial results, financial transactions, budget calendar, revenue manual, budget development manual, capital improvement plan, annual audit report, and audited financial statements are available to the public. UPDATE TO SUPPORT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CFO PROVISIONS PAGE 2 OF 4 K. Over -see the Supervise, manage, and oversee the various departments of city clerk, inforination technology, and finance departments and delegate or assign duties or tasks as required for the efficient operation of the department departments and fulfillment of the requirements of this code and other law. Section 5. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Sep/tuber, 2017. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ?�'d day of Sep/tuber, 2017. APPROVED: �QTez, tiucusri ATTEST: G 1y 4 of �,7 IDIAN Tam e eerd '°A"° , C.a Col Mayo 5DAL .� City Clerk UPDATE TO SUPPORT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CFO PROVISIONS PAGE 3 OF 4 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-8-1, REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS BY MAYOR; REPEALING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE E, MERIDIAN CITY CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-9-3(G)(7), REGARDING COMPENSATION CHANGES; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 1-813-2, REGARDING DUTIES OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER; AND P OVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE7"'D AUs� C' of e idian c,ry °I 0"'- By: — Mayor and City Council C'E� C.Jay Coles, City Clerk e SEM- ZP) First Reading: l / l Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-902: YES_ NO Second Reading: Third Reading: — STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 17- / 7 The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance no. 17- 175 3 of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3). DATED this -JA day of &4 u '2017. William. L.M. Nary City Attorney UPDATE TO SUPPORT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CFO PROVISIONS PAGE 4 OF 4 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21, 2017 ITEM TITLE: Police ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: Budget Amendment for Animal Control Services Not -to - Exceed $11,000 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 E to PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AND DOG LICENSING BETWEEN THE' CITY OF MERIDIAN AND THE IDAHO HUMANE SOCIETY This Addendum E to the Professional Service Agreement for Animal Control Services and Dog Licensing Between the City of Meridian and the Idaho Humane Society is made this I -1 day of September, 2017 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation prganized under the laws of the State of Idaho (hereinafter "City"), and the Idaho Humane Society, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho (hereinafter "IHS"). WHEREAS, City and IHS entered into a Professional Service Agreement for Animal Control Services and Dog Licensing Between the City of Meridian and the Idaho Humane Society on September 24, 2013 ("September 24, 2013 Agreement"); WHEREAS, IHS has analyzed animal control services needed within Meridian, and requests payment commensurate with the level of services to be provided; WHEREAS, City finds that IHS has the necessary qualifications and capabilities to continue to provide a full range of animal control services to the Meridian community, to protect the community's health and welfare, and to assure that the animals are maintained consistent with the provisions of City Code; NOW, THE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and agreed, and hi consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: I. TEmM. The term of the September 24, 2013 Agreement shall be extended to cover the period beginning the 1 st day of October, 2017, through the 30th day of September, 2018. H. COMPENSATION. City agrees to pay IHS for animal control services provided within Meridian City limits during the Agreement term, as extended by this Addendum, in an amount not to exceed $381,132.00. Such amount shall be payable in twelve equal installments. City shall pay IHS monthly for services rendered in the previous month. City shall not withhold any federal or state income taxes or Social Security tax from any payment made by City to IHS under the terms and conditions of this Agreement; payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums shall be the sole responsibility of IHS. ADDENDUM E TO SEIrrcmmit 24, 2013 PROCESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT wall Ills FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND DOG LICENSING SERVICES PAGE I of 2 III. St;1ry"EMBRR 24, 2013 AGREEM , NT FULLY IN EFFECT. The intent and eiTect of this Addendum is to extend the terns and increase the payment amount for services provided by 114IS as set forth in the September 24, 2013 Agreement. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Addendum does not otherwise modify or alter any term or condition of the September 24, 2013 Agreement in any way. The September 24, 2013 Agreement remains in full effect, and all terms and conditions thereof are incorporated in this Addendum as though hilly set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHE12EOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day of September, 2017. IDAHO HUMANE SOCIR TV, INC.: )k4p-- - Jeff Rosenthal, DVM Chief Executive Officer CITY OF 1V1ERii31AN: =Goer o City of BY. �E IDIAN IDAHO Tommy de W d, lvloy s� SEAL ZRO�the TREPS�� J Attest: C. r Coles, ty Clerk AMENuul►-I 1- To Sepirsmwt24, 2013 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A011821ALNT wrm 11 -IS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND DOG LICENSING SERVICES MAGE 2 of 2 a \ r O O m m L W N d 0 N r_ C O L C m 3 v � 3 C7 ao n �p N Q m c +r C c� _ Q N Ql N N O E N N z 7 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ t o 000 lI1 E 0 t El El F ai p 04 O O O o 3 f1 pE U- a: w n. � E w tz 0 u° fU 0 tl z z z z o�� O p ` 'N id •O N O m N v w N '•I a c > ! c °1 0 E :. O N r 0 3 ._ ❑ ❑ v LL I v d .O u u 0 0 0 a ❑❑ C E 0 to j Y N N N N uu N N N N u a_ M M1 u r N O .-1 C . lu i } .-1 '•I N 0 0 0 y O O O O C Q. LL E 00 u u p O, O SJ 1� � o % m� a ~ et ¢u? n bb c c V u __.._ i+ 0 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E E 0 O y N E Z Z m 2 z w I LL Ln ee 'tt 0000000000000 a \ r O O m m L W N d 0 N O C O L C m 3 v � 3 C7 n �p N Q m c +r C c� _ Q N Ql N N O E N N N 7 �n m N m � o 000 lI1 E 07 t T— O F ai p 04 u 'a ° 3 f1 N U- a: w n. � E w tz 0 u° fU 0 O e O S o�� O p ` M > N O m N v w N '•I a c M 'i c °1 0 E :. O N r 0 O N ._ v F°- ` v LL I v fU U 0 0 0 0 a 0 a U9 a \ N N N N O C m 3 � 3 C7 n �p N O h l' O � c C � _ Q N Ql N N E E N N N N �n m N N v o 000 lI1 � v c u 'a ° 3 f1 > o> 7 a: w n. � E w 0 0 0 0 O O O O S o�� O p N N N N N N .••I N '•I N r•1 M 'i O N O N O N O N v v v v v v v v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to N N N N N N N N .-1 .-1 N N e•1 .-1 '•I N 0 0 0 0 O O O O J C7 N h l' d N N N N N N N N N N N N 'a u } C z p i a� O p N k C Q U W N V 'Z to C N y C 0 Ln S C Q. LL O SJ �.J a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V 'Z 0 Ln W 0 u 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0000000000000 1 i i .•i .•i . 4 . •i � . 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N � N e•1 N e•1 .-1 '•I '•I .-1 rl N N e•I N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 F n A N 0 C I CL x m e P d CL D 0 0 u J Ur) H O C7 d cc -W VC W C GJ Q ed 0 m ~ 2 N E O LL C 0 E C 0 E Q m v co m OD 0 N LL C l0 C 2 O Z, U M m n N '120 v d OIC 4. Q A e u r' E o m ar r-1 } N O U N ULn - VY c 7�NVA7 4^ A7 41� V� 0 E v C a) E Q ID 0 m' co 0 c m C 2 0 U c m Y ° E m ar J Y CL tom u a ara, C m CL U to a, N Y U Y E m CL cu o Y m E m CL ar � aP aL+ O .0 p v l o a y lz Y a m c o 7 m E C m > > N u O m � va) Y m O c m z m m 3 u0i v 0 ° NC } e :3 wM1. u c y n a) 0 N' n bt N V cu LU -O N aP ai c m U u C7 a n t N YN a! N 7 X v « al °X r N al j L a Y O N Y li.. Y ° �� c cu o O c Y al E +' m ? ar o u a 3° ° ., wa E v v CL CL moi; a E aP a) W°�° •_ m a a E a u v L: ° +M h u M d N '^ O v C to w m 00 Y O ? O « m c o0 o c N c m c � c v ^ v E o ` a d w_ Y ° m cy N .0 aD _U M1. � C a W Cl N W c Z C aL+ 0) ai y v 5 N-0 LS N} 7 m YO a) aL+ vOi LL $.. w al d cu C C O a) O w C ° `J C 7 m 3 inm -C c 'L'' y t 3 7 N O E ° O O r.. a`�i c m E o 3 Q1. U Y N c N O m w N -00 O0 N m ° ac �. v m �o m o; fO - E c Q O` m a1 C al o U y ° ° Q ar E m c c "°u " Q C Y Y C -O `1 O. ? n m° Li O Y t Y. L E m b: :. C M C U N N I: W L 3 u L u y u al 3 cu O O 3 w O L'' c. ar ar o c o �, o ^ Q N� M f V l.7 Ln Y LO $ n 00 Qk 0 E v C a) E Q ID 0 m' co 0 c m C 2 0 U Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: November 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 11 ITEM TITLE: Future Meeting Topics PROJECT NUMBER: 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