Loading...
2018-01-16CE IDIAN,--- MY CONOL REGULAR MEETING X10 N UTES City Council Chambers 33 Fast Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, January 16, 2016 at 6:00 PM Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance X Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer _X Treg Bernt X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener _X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance Item 3: Community Invocation by Justin Jordan with Real life Ministries Item 4: Adoption of Agenda Adopted Item 5: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Item 6: Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of January 9, 2016 City Council Workshop Meeting Approved B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Settlers Square Subdivison (PP 150014) by Seagle Three, LLC Located at the Northwest Corner of West Ustick Road and North Venable Avenue Approved C. Final Order for Fall Creek Meadows (H-2017-0160) by Thomas Coleman, Toll I® I, LLC located South of W. Overland Road on the Fast Side of S. Linder Road Approved D. Approval of Agreement to BRIO®N, INC. for the LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $117,400.00. Approved E. Agreement Between MDC and City for Contribution to 2010 Meridian Farmer's Market Approved F. Jump gime Water Main Easement Approved G. AF Invoices for Payment - $1,744,814.93 Item 7: Items Moved From The Consent Agenda Item 8: Community Items/Presentations Approved A. Community Development: Meridian's Community Development Block Grant Downtown Redevelopment Report and Area Designation i Resolution No. 17-2052: A resolution approving submission and adoption of the City of Meridian Redevelopment Report and Area Designation to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and attest the same on behalf of the City of Meridian; and approving an effective date. Item 9: Action Items A. Final Plat for Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2107-0162) by M3 Companies, LLC located north of Chinden Blvd, south of the Phyllis Canal and approximately 112 mile east of N. Black Cat Road Continued to January 23, 2018 Approved B. Final Plat Modification for Paramount No. 29 (H2017-0168) by Peter Harris Construction Inc. located west of N. Meridian Road, north of W. Ensenada Drive 1. Request to modify plat note #14 of Paramount No. 29 to allow Lot 15, Block 76 take access to N. Borgnine Avenue instead of the abutting common driveway (Lot 16, Block 76) Approved C. Public bearing for Proposed Impact Fees Ordinance No. 18-1760: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2), Meridian City Code, Known As The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; To Provide For An Amendment To The Police, Fire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee Schedules; And Providing An Effective Date. D. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG 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 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 11-31-1-413.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. Remanded back to Planning and Zoning Commission E. Public Hearing for Proposed New Fees for Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation, Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation that includes provision of lessons or instruction to a group of 7 or more students, and Review of Landscape Plan revisions 1. Resolution No. 18-2057: Adoption of New Fees for Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation, Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation that includes provision of lessons or instruction to a group of 7 or more students, and Review of Landscape Plan revisions Continued to January 23, 2018 Item 10: Department Reports Approved A. Police: Budget Amendment for Animal Control Services Not -to - Exceed $11,000 Item 11: Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 18-1762: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Meridian City Code as Codified at Title 11, Section 3 Entitled the Unified Development Code, of the Meridian City Code; Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date. Continued to January 23, 2018 Otevn 12: Future Meeting Topics Adjourned at 12:06am Meridian City Council January 16, 2018. A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 16, 2018, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy De Weerd, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam, Ty Palmer, Luke Cavener, Anne Little Roberts and Treg Bernt. Others Present: Bill Nary, C.Jay Coles, Caleb Hood, Sonya Allen, Kyle Radek, Berle Stokes, Mark Niemeyer, Steven Siddoway, Chris Pope 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: Okay. I'm going to go ahead and start tonight's meeting. First I would like to welcome all of you to our City Council meeting. For the record it is Tuesday, January 16th. It's a few minutes after 6:00. We will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Justin Jordan with Real Life Ministries De Weerd: Okay. Item 3. Pastor Jordan is ill tonight. Item 4: Adoption of Agenda De Weerd: So, we will skip to Item 4, adoption of the agenda. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Item -- there are no changes made to the agenda, so I would move that we adopt the agenda as published. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 107 Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda is published. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) De Weerd: Mr. Clerk? Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We had a few sign-ups this evening, providing the -- a description of redesignation of Old Town. However, that is an item on your agenda this evening at 8-A. De Weerd: Okay. If you will call the names who signed up and if the testimony does belong under 8-A, if you would concede to delaying your comments until that time. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The first on the list was Patricia Yost in redesignation of Old Town. De Weerd: Patricia, is it okay to hear it under the -- the item -- okay. Awesome. Coles: Next is Al Fleming, redesignation of Old Town. De Weerd: Mr. Fleming, would you be okay to hear your comments -- okay. Thank you so much. Coles: Teresa Dominick. Same description. Redesignation of Old Town. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Coles: John Dominick the same. And that was all the sign-ups. Item 6: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of January 9, 2018 City Council Workshop Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Settlers Square Subdivision (PP 15-0014) by Seagle Three, LLC Located at the Northwest Corner of West Ustick Road and North Venable Avenue C. Final Order for Fall Creek Meadows (H-2017-0160) by Thomas Coleman, Toll ID I, LLC located South of W. Overland Road on Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 107 the East Side of S. Linder Road D. Approval of Agreement to BRICON, INC. for the LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING project for a Not-To-Exceed amount of $117,400.00. E. Agreement Between MDC and City for Contribution to 2018 Meridian Farmer's Market F. Jump Time Water Main Easement G. AP Invoices for Payment - $1,744,814.93 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 6 is our Consent Agenda. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: No additions to the Consent Agenda, I would move that we adopt and approve the Consent Agenda as published 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. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved From The Consent Agenda De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Community Items/Presentations A. Community Development: Meridian's Community Development Block Grant Downtown Redevelopment Report and Area Designation 1. Resolution No.17-2052: A resolution approving submission and adoption of the City of Meridian Redevelopment Report and Area Designation to the United States Department of Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 107 Housing and Urban Development; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and attest the same on behalf of the City of Meridian; and approving an effective date. De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8-A under our Community Development Department on the CDBG redevelopment report and area designation. Good evening, Chris. Pope: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Does this one work? There we go. Okay. Just before I start, can I get a show of hands who is here for this agenda item, just so I can get an idea? Okay. Madam Mayor, with your permission -- would you mind if I flipped the podium around, so I'm addressing them, rather than you all? This is information I presented to you guys before. I just wanted to -- De Weerd: I think that sounds just fine. Pope: Okay. So, for those of you who are here because you received a letter in the mail in the last few weeks about a proposed redevelopment report and area designation regarding property that you own in the downtown area, this presentation will hopefully answer some of your questions that you may have, but a lot of it is probably going to be reiterated from the detail that's in the letter. The City Council, about a month ago on December 12, has already received this -- essentially this exact same presentation, so they are aware. But we will take some questions from them as well and there will be an opportunity to provide some feedback if you have any questions or concerns later. But I guess I will move forward with this. So, this agenda item is regarding the Community Development Block Grant or CDBG redevelopment report and area designation in the downtown area. To give a little bit of a background, the City of Meridian receives funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development on an annual basis to provide for the needs in terms of development and services of individuals and areas in the community. Those funds go towards specific projects in the community and each year there is an application process in order to review whether our project is eligible, what kind of funds are available, and, then, to strive to carry out and meet those needs. Under the CDBG program there is three specific areas where you can actually have an eligible project in order to receive funding. The first is a project that benefits low to moderate income residents and that's done on an area basis. So, certain census blocks that have at least 35 percent of the residents living in them that are low or moderate income are eligible. Projects can be based within that area without real question. Then there is also on a clientele basis. So, reaching out specifically to those individuals who are residents in Meridian who are low to moderate income. That's something that is pretty separate than what we are going to talk about tonight. I want to jump to the third bullet here. The third I guess little bucket that we can -- in terms of projects that we can fund are based on urgent needs in the community. This is something that Meridian has never really experienced or put money towards. Most of it is faced towards pretty heavy emergencies and natural disasters. We haven't had anything too pressing. I mean last year's Snowmageddon was pretty -- was pretty pressing for a lot of us; right? But in terms of mobilizing funds in order to meet specific Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 5 of 107 projects and needs, this program has not been done in Meridian. The second bullet here is the one we are talking about today and that's -- these funds can be used for projects that do anything to eradicate substandard conditions that can lead to or contribute to any kind of slum or blight in the community. This is something that we have never founded a project for yet. Generally speaking funding has gone to clientele or the areas that are already determined to be benefiting low to moderate income residents of the community. We haven't really looked at trying to address any substandard conditions in our community at all, but that's kind of what we are -- we are hoping to address with the expansion of this plan, this area designation, is opening up a substandard conditions base so the projects to be funded through CDBG moving forward in a specific area of the downtown core. In order to do this we have to define a redevelopment area according to federal guidelines. That requires us to determine an area to assess, looking at conditions based on local and state codes that we are actually assessing, and developing a forum by which we can assess properties, going out and, then, doing the assessments and, then, pulling the data together to see if that area meets the eligibility guidelines set forth by -- by HUD or the Housing and Urban Development and, then, developing some kind of formal report or proposal that outlines what we are -- what we are talking about and what we are trying to accomplish here. There is a group of stakeholders kind of brought together on the planning side of things. Most of them are city employees, but also some engineers that we consulted with, members of the Historical Society and other commissions, including the administrator of the Meridian Development Corporation. We didn't involve community stakeholders or property owners, because this is a planning process and there wasn't really any situation in which we are proposing any kind of projects or anything like that. But your feedback is going to be helpful to us as we move forward after this, but in terms of the day-to-day, going out and trying to figure out what the needs are and defining this area, it was something that the planners were already working on and that's what we are moving forward with at this point. So, to give you an idea of what the CDBG eligible assessment area looks like, everything that you see here that is in green is considered to be eligible for CDBG funding under the benefit to low to moderate income resident or area guidelines. These census tracks in the block groups are eligible for projects to be used. But as you can see there is -- there is a pretty significant portion of the downtown area that isn't eligible for these funds and so whatever the need might be in this -- this little portion of downtown that isn't in the green, funding can't be used to help meet those needs. So, the assessment area that we came up with was what's here in the brownish yellow kind of color. This allows us to move forward with prioritizing this area of downtown as one that we can reinvest some funding into to help meet the needs that you as property owners have defined as important and try to -- to reinvest these funds in a way that could help improve public infrastructure, sidewalks, street lights, other things of the sort. So, what we were looking for in terms of the methodology when we go out, we are looking for conditions that present any kind of physical deterioration, abandonment of properties, high occupancy turnover rates, declines in property values, environmental contamination, public improvements that are in a state of deterioration or any kind of property that presents any kind of danger or illness or any aspect of a property that does that. Now, finding any of these things does not automatically mean a negative thing for this property or this assessment and moving forward in terms of what Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 6 of 107 we looked at, we did create an assessment form that for each property that's in this area, we went through and assessed the properties based on what we saw the day that we were there. Are there any hazardous conditions, any faulty signage or display problems, like graffiti or things of the sort, any building elements that are damaged, like facades or window -- or broken windows and the underutilized properties, just a substandard property condition or any kind of code violations and for each property we tallied up these things to get an understanding of what the property looks like in general. Based on the number of substandard criteria that each property met, it would put the property into a certain category for the sake of this assessment. Having any more than four substandard criteria met for any given property would label it as either fair or poor and that would -- that rating scale essentially allows that property to count towards eligibility requirements for defining this area as a redevelopment area. So, in terms of determining the eligibility of the area as a whole going through each property and tallied everything up, all of the properties in the area had to be assessed and at least one quarter or 25 percent of -- oh, my goodness. Sorry. I didn't even touch it that hard. All of the -- all of the assessed properties, at least 25 percent or one quarter had to fall in the fair or the poor range to qualify for funding as a redevelopment area and so, again, this area is not saying that they are substandard criteria that are met by all properties throughout the area, just that there are fair or poor scored properties on at least one quarter of the properties in the area. So, the minimum to be met was 25 percent and the actual that we found was 30 percent of the properties in the area fell into one of those two categories. Essentially, these findings here show that there is a strong basis for defining the study area as a mix of older properties and intermittent newer development that presents the characteristics of substandard conditions in which we can, then, define as a redevelopment area and start funding to get rid of those substandard conditions based on community input and need. So, some of the findings, to give you an idea of the things that -- the biggest contributing factors of substandardness, the number one was just the sidewalks -- damaged or missing sidewalks and I -- for those of you who live in that area that's nothing new. You understand that there -- there is a big lack of sidewalks, particularly in the residential areas of this particular area. In addition, cracking facades or facades that are broken or dilapidated and, in addition to that, we also see landscaping -- neglected landscaping being -- being an issue here that contributes and these are just some pictures. I apologize if any of these are your properties. I didn't think about that before adding this here. But I do want to highlight these, because, generally speaking, in the bottom left- hand corner of this slide here you can see a sidewalk that is right next to an open waterway that is broken. Those are two pretty hazardous conditions in general. Those are things that we -- we want to fix and we want to explore opportunities to -- to remedy. In addition to a canal that's going through a property, neglected landscaping or underutilized property with damaged facades, these are things that we saw throughout the particular areas of the community that we want -- we want to strive to -- to open the doors to help fix. To give you an idea of the next steps that we are looking at for this process, I kind of just outlined the planning process, how we develop this report and the idea that we have. So, those of you who are property owners who are here, over the last couple of weeks you received a letter and were invited to come here and talk today, if you have any comments, and to learn more about this. That happened at the end of Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 7 of 107 December. Today we are proposing that the Council adopt a resolution that adopts this report and designates the area. I will talk a little bit more about what that actually means in the long term, but it's kind of the first step of -- of what we want to do here. Tomorrow, assuming that there is an adoption of that resolution in the area, we will -- I will send the plan and the report to the federal government for review and approval. Assuming that we get that approval, throughout this year we are going to start exploring ways to address the needs of the area. Now, first and foremost we need to know what you think is important for us to address. So, there will be plenty of outreach that's done in order to get your ideas, to get your input to see what you want to see change in the area, what you see are the main goals and priorities to look at and that kind of information will happen through a number of meetings over the next couple of years, probably, in order to really make sure that we are not going amiss with projects that we are trying to put forward in your area. And, then, to kind of give you an idea what else goes on, is the committee that originally met to plan is meeting every six months or so to just make sure we are doing things right. Intermittently there will be meetings with you all. We are hoping to do kind of more of a targeted outreach with -- with property owners as well to kind of set up some informal conversation with you all about what we want to do. In 2022, which I know is a far -- a far ways away, we will reassess the properties, update the plans and, then, every decade the federal government requires us to go through this entire process again to make sure that this is still an area that we want to focus on and it's still an area that has needs. So, this is what we are looking at over the next ten years, just in terms of a process. So, in terms of public outreach, again, you received a two -- two or three page letter -- two pages of a letter and a map that was sent to over 187 property owners that own property within this area. The redevelopment report is online and available for anybody to access and read in its full entirety with -- with other maps and pictures that you might want to look at. Comments and questions I have been fielding and other staff members have been fielding for the last few weeks about any concerns or ambiguities you may have after receiving this letter and I'm hoping that this presentation does something to inform you -- to give a little bit more detail what we are talking about when we are talking about redefining or creating his redevelopment area. In this meeting here I hope we will have the opportunity for some of you to -- to ask some questions directly to Council and to myself in order to make sure that your concerns are heard in that. So, I do want to address the general frequently asked questions, because I have had a lot of the same questions asked. First and foremost, if you live outside of this area that we are talking about, which I think is the majority of you who are here today for other agenda items, how does this redevelopment report and area designation affect you, your property, and your status as a property owner in Meridian? It absolutely does not. If you live outside this area there is literally no effect of this area on any of those things in terms of your status as a property owner, your property, or you as a resident and for those of you who live inside of the area, which those of you who are -- can you raise your hand one more time, just so I can -- okay. Wonderful. Thank you. How does this redevelopment area or report and area designation affect my finances, my tax bill, my property's value or land use, the physical structure or appearance of facilities, built or building on my property or my status as a property owner. Now, that sounds like a lot of things and I lumped them together for a very specific reason, because it doesn't affect any of those Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 8 of 107 things. The process that we are undergoing today with this report and this area designation does not affect any of those things for you as a property holder in this area. But -- there is a but here. Because as we have conversations over the next few years about what things you want to see changing, there will be some effect. You will have some say in different things. Now, we are not tearing down houses. We are not redeveloping property. A lot of what we see as needs, according to this assessment, is really looking at public infrastructure, public facilities like street lights, looking at landscaping, looking at sidewalks. There has been a lot of comments about public utilities. There are a lot of different things that we want to start looking at, but, generally speaking, this is not -- and I think I can speak for Council and the Mayor on this, that we have no intention of doing anything to your property. No intention of taking it. No intention of tearing it down. No intention of doing anything. And, frankly, this program and its funds don't allow for any kind of activity like that. We are here to help -- we are hoping to understand what you want to see happening in your community and this process is simply to open the door, so that we can put money toward some of those needs and that's kind of -- that's all. And I know that there is some -- some vagueness about what was in the letter in terms of what does this mean for me, what does this mean for my land use, what does it mean for my property and my facilities. There is -- there is no physical or financial effect on any of those things period and there won't be. But there will be enhancements to the neighborhood as we start to define projects and understand where we can put funding moving forward. I just want to calm those concerns, because I know that they have been voiced to me and there is no intention, both by the Community Development Department or the City Council, to have any negative effects on the community as it stands. Other general FAQs. How much money are you giving to this area. That's TBD or to be determined on every year we -- we receive a grant and some of that grant money goes to different places, depending on the priorities in the community and the priorities that we see from the residents and also with City Council. So, how much money is coming every year? We have no idea. How much money can go to this area? We have no idea. But we want to start that conversation and say, well, there might be some money, so let's see what we might do with it in your area. The next question is what projects are you planning to fund in this area with this money? Again, to be determined. We have no idea and -- and I know that -- that doesn't answer a lot of very specific questions, because I received a lot of questions about is this project eligible, is this not eligible. We just don't know what's going to happen yet. We haven't had those conversations. This is the first step of a hundred in terms of determining what needs we can meet, what needs there are period and how this -- this funding can help make a positive change in the community. As of now there are -- this plan and this area designation do not propose or commit any funds to any project to fix any need in this community -- in this particular area of the community. Those types of conversations will happen with you all as we go forward. So, with that I think that we will -- we will get the chance to hear from you all, but before we do so, in order to stay on -- kind of really focused on topic here today, because we have a lot of people here for a lot of different agenda items -- you can feel free to say whatever if you want, but, in general, if you have questions or comments about any of these things that are listed here, let's talk later. We are going to talk later. We are going to have conversations about how you get grant money for your property or the Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 9 of 107 community, any kind of case or property -- specific project ideas, any current needs, any future ideas, any -- any types of projects in terms of it being eligible. Is this idea eligible? I don't know. Or anything similar to that. We are going to have conversations with you all specifically as we move forward. As we go throughout this year and we engage in more -- more letters, more meetings, I know nobody is really excited about more letters and more meetings, but we want to -- we want to be able to have a venue where we can spend more than the limited amount of time that we have here today at City Council meeting to talk about these things. So, in general, we are talking just about the proposal to designate the area and have -- and any questions regarding the opportunity that comes -- are concerns that come based on that action. Anything else about projects or funding we will talk about as we move forward and I'm always available to answer those questions as you need. If you have the letter you have my contact information. But with that I will turn this back around and, Madam Mayor, we would advise taking any comments from any property -- property owners in the area that have any comments or questions. De Weerd: Chris, I will first ask if there is any questions at this point from City Council. Thank you. Pope: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, we can start with the names that signed up under the -- the first area and, then, we will go to the sheet. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The first on that list was Patricia Yost. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Yost: Patricia Yost. 330 East 3rd Street in Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Patricia, can you pull -- yeah. Either move over or pull it over. Thank you. Yost: Madam Mayor, City Council, I am really -- I went through what was like a 200 page proposal and it had a lot to do with housing and my understanding in living here, just knowing that there is -- we have a situation here. We have drugs, alcohol problems, a lot of children that are without parents. I have held single women's groups. Work in my church community. This has been an area that has struggled and so I welcome anything that would benefit people that are in need. So, I have been raised in poverty. My mom was a single mom with five children. So, I know what it is. But my concern is will we be adding to that situation? Will this be redeveloping into adding more housing and -- which does not designate the issues that are already here, because we have code enforcement. I don't understand why code enforcement doesn't take care of a lot of these issues as far as the run down part of it, that's -- you know, we have lived here, we see these homes just -- just go and nobody's taking anything to do -- we have eight code enforcement here. Officers. Boise has five. So, it's been a -- Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 10 of 107 kind of a mystery to us as to why this doesn't get taken care of. And, then, what -- this sounds like it's going to be a long process, so do you get the funding first and we decide what happens with it and where it goes? Or is the decision first to let us have the knowledge of what is about to change to us, how our community is going to change. Another question -- I have quit a few -- would be -- so, we were in that designated area. We don't have that funding. Just outside of that designated area do they already have that funding? De Weerd: Those are all good questions that we will ask Chris to -- to answer at the end. Yost: Okay. So -- De Weerd: I guess -- do you have more questions? Yost: Well, it depends on answers, actually. What I'm here for is information. I did -- thought that this was -- this seems like a pretty big deal. This is our historical area. This is the heart of Meridian. This has been ignored. Ten Mile out -- it's been developed. Eagle out has been developed. This has been ignored. I have been here 18 years, I have had businesses in this area and we just -- and we have -- obviously, you know about the -- whatever neighbors label -- little Tamarack behind us. Another article blamed boondoggle. Four years of being -- for that project behind us has done nothing but intrude on all of the neighboring homes and been extremely evasive on -- on what is going on. So, is that going to be continued? You can understand our apprehension on that. Like we just are really -- we don't -- we feel like there is a lot of duplicitous behavior with the city and so we would like answers before and full knowledge. I understand that's my three minutes. De Weerd: Chris, I guess -- Patricia has asked some good questions. How is this different from the CDBG money that is already received and what kind of projects typically are seen in other communities that have these designations? Maybe we will start with that. Pope: Well, Madam Mayor, Ms. Yost, this is the exact same thing that we use with our other CDBG funds, which if you're not familiar with, we receive an annual grant and we have an annual application cycle. Those funds, in terms of what might be available for projects in this area, are rarely more than 200,000 dollars a year if that. So, the -- the idea of being able to afford or subsidize housing in any way, shape or form in the area is just simply outside the bounds of the budget, let alone outside the bounds of priorities and a lot of what we are focusing on here is public facilities and infrastructure. As was noted, the number one need is sidewalks according to our assessment. We will talk with you more later on about whether you agree with that or not and see what we can do. But each year there is -- there is a small amount of money that we can put into the community and it almost certainly won't go to housing and in addition to that there are some areas that are around downtown, to answer your question, that do -- are eligible for these funds based on the income requirements of those areas and this area Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 11 of 107 specifically, mostly due to the industrial portion of this designated area, do not meet those income requirements, which is why they are not eligible currently. In terms of other cities and what they do, a lot of it really is focused on -- on being able to target public infrastructure and facility improvements outside of the area that's already inherently eligible for CDBG funding. As it was noted, any project that looks at getting -- or at -- supporting change in a positive direction away from any of these criteria that have been listed in terms of being substandard, are eligible. Housing projects are generally very rarely used, mostly due to costs, but also it's just not -- not a thing that I think is going to be what we pursue. And, again, we will have conversations more specifically with the property owners about what you want to see and where you want the money to go and where you don't want it to go and how much money there is even, but a lot of that is still to be determined and we only know on a cyclical basis whether we even have money to utilize in the area. De Weerd: So, this is the initial step to determine the area to see if funding can be available, what it would -- how much it would be and, then, work with the -- the qualified property owners on, what improvements they see as a need and to prioritize that. Pope: Madam Mayor, absolutely. Yost: Would it change our Old Town -- De Weerd: I'm sorry. Ms. Yost. Yost: Would it change our Old Town status? We are OT. Old Town. Would that change that? De Weerd: No. Yost: We would stay grandfathered into the situation we are now? Okay. Pope: No zoning or land use changing at all. And I'm pretty confident in saying that won't happen any time in the future either. At least with these funds. I can speak to this program at least. Yost: Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles Al Fleming was next on the list. De Weerd: Okay. Sir, in order to even say that we need you on the record. But we did get the hint. You would like to talk to Mr. Pope off the record. If you will state your name, first, for the record. Fleming: My name is Alan Fleming. I live at 310 East 3rd Street. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 12 of 107 De Weerd: Yes. If you will restate your name and address. Fleming: Okay. My name is Alan Fleming. I live at 310 East 3rd Street here in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Fleming: The comment I formally made, Mr. Pope addressed most of my questions and concerns that I had relative to the scope of this meeting. However, my concern is focused more on the implementation once funding is granted and how that will relate to the actions on the part of the Planning and Zoning board and that's my only comment. So, I would like -- I would like to communicate with Mr. Pope offline and we will discuss those issues. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Fleming. Fleming: Thank you. Coles: Teresa Dominick is next on the list. John Dominick. That was all that was signed up, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: And no sign-ups on the other sheet? Coles: Madam Mayor, there was -- we did not create an additional -- De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Coles: -- sign-in sheet for the -- De Weerd: Is there any other of our downtown property owners or residents that would like to make comment on this? Please. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Wilshire: My name is Benjamin Wilshire. I'm on 7th here in downtown Meridian. I also work downtown here for a local manufacturer. I had three questions. I'm coming from the perspective of working, as opposed to residing in these development areas that have been proposed. Assuming that this is approved, what are we looking at in terms of, first, eminent domain, things that may come into play there as far as the redevelopment goes. Number two, when the assessments were made, the survey that was mentioned in the presentation, did we have anyone that was an architect, a structural engineer or a credentialed building inspector involved in that process? And, then, my last question was in terms of infrastructure. We have heard quite a bit as far as the planned light -- streetlights, sidewalks that sort of thing. Is there any other infrastructure developments that we are looking at as far as new phone lines, high speed internet, things like that? New cabling and whatnot as far as that stuff goes? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 13 of 107 Something that would actually require connecting to different structures in the area? Thank you. De Weerd: Excellent questions. Chris. Pope: Madam Mayor. Mr. Wilshire, I can't specifically speak to the eminent domain question. That is with -- far out of my responsibility or authority with this program or with these funds. I generally understand that it's a pretty unpopular route to go in local government as it is, so I wouldn't think so. I will leave that up to Council to make comment there. In terms of qualified individuals who help participate, we -- we consulted with an engineering firm who do these assessments regularly throughout the area -- the region really and they had a staff of at least three engineers on site. We also have our planning division manager Caleb Hood, who is also authorized to interpret and enforce code as needed. So, yes, there were some people out there who were -- who were definitely qualified to do that and if you look at the report you will see that there isn't a huge focus on structural issues that we see, but we did have people out there. That is a requirement of the federal mandates for this type of thing. So, we have to make sure that was there. In terms of new infrastructure, this is all part of the conversation. We don't have a clue what we want to talk about, what the needs are, but I can tell you off face value that would technically be considered an eligible project. Who that affects, how it affects, how much it costs to kind of -- to get on Mr. Fleming's comment earlier is the implementation side of it that we are just not even close to. We have to have these conversations about needs and priorities before we can even explore options. But in terms of eligibility, it wouldn't meet -- and we can have a conversation offline a little bit more about what you're thinking, what the needs might be and you will definitely be engaged moving forward and we are hoping to -- this, in one way or another, becomes a boon and a benefit to residents and professionals in the area. Wilshire: Thank you. That was pretty much all I have. De Weerd: Thank you. Other questions? Yes. In the back. Good evening. Nesmith: Good evening. John Nesmith. I work at 505 North Main Street. Something I'm a little bit familiar with, the CDBG funds. We were turned down for a grant for a façade improvement because we are in a flood zone. I just didn't know if they had considered a couple of things that -- putting that under CDBG designation if that affected the fact that the south side of the railroad tracks is in a flood zone, at least a lot of the areas are, whether or not you guys consider that or not. And, then, the other thing I think that we ran into it -- that being under federal jurisdiction or their requirements that you have to pay Davis Bacon wages and, then, that also made a difference on the cost of projects and that kind of stuff, if you considered that, too, as well. So, that's all I have. Bernt: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 14 of 107 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bernt. Bernt: What type of wages? What wages did you say? Excuse me. Nesmith: Davis Bacon -- De Weerd: Davis Bacon. Nesmith: -- wages, which is -- De Weerd: Federal wages. Nesmith: -- anything under federal, then, the price of the projects go up considerably, so -- and I certainly support if we could put sidewalks in. That whole area needs sidewalks, curbs, and gutters and that kind of stuff. But just didn't know if it raises the price on it and, there again, it takes a small grant and I don't know, I just -- De Weerd: A small grant that makes it big. Nesmith: That makes it -- De Weerd: Yeah. Nesmith: -- hard to use because the price goes up, so -- and, then, if you consider the flood zone that's -- De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nesmith. Yes, Chris. Pope: Madam Mayor, if I may. Yeah. There are -- and I don't think this is any surprise to anybody and I know that Council has given criticism to this in the past, but there are strings attached. This is a HUD grant, which does take into consideration FEMA's flood mapping. Projects -- certain projects will be eligible, certain projects won't be, depending on what they look like. Again, a case specific or property specific thing I can't really comment on until we kind of get into the planning stages there and -- but there are -- it is going to cost a little bit more generally speaking because of those labor requirements and because of those areas -- of this area that are in the flood plain. But those are things that we work regularly with with other projects that utilize these funds and we think that it's -- we can get through them, depending on what we are talking about. All of those kind of eligibility and implication cost factors that we generally got into today are definitely things we will have conversations about. So, as we talk about façade improvements opportunities again, again, we listed it as the second -- the second largest contributing condition in the area, we have to have those conversations about, well, what can we do, can we work on facades. The answer is yes. Now, what's the cost going to be, what do the grants look like, where is it going to be, is it in a flood plain, all those are kind of case specific things that we can have conversations about moving forward. But you're absolutely correct, that there are some strings that are Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 15 of 107 attached here in terms of meeting federal regulations as we use these funds in this area. De Weerd: And in some cases I think these dollars can be used with Ada County Highway District sidewalk programs that are federal dollars, already having to pay Davis Bacon wages. They can be leveraged with some of the activities of the Meridian Development Corporation. In particular they are focused in the flood zone and how they can reduce the footprint of that. So, there are certain things at play that maybe this can work in concert with. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Your frustration is not lost with us. If -- ultimately what I hear you say is there is a federal agency to provide funding to redevelop part of your community that another federal agency prevents you from redeveloping. Nesmith: Correct. That's my concern. Borton: Yeah. You just can't -- Nesmith: The only thing I brought up is is it really helping or -- I don't know. I mean just as a concern. In other words, somebody who went through a bidding process to do a facade and, then, when I was dealing with contractors half of them didn't even want to bid it, because they were dealing with trying to figure out what their labor costs were. It -- it added a complexity to it that made it -- especially the property owner that just wanted to improve his property -- it made it kind of a pain, so -- to take advantage of the funds. Now, I guess if you guys can build sidewalks and infrastructure that -- you know. And that's -- you know, I'm certainly supportive of it, I'm not against it, and I'm just wondering if it -- is it designated as an area, does it come with some complexities that are being thought through. That's all. So -- Pope: Madam Mayor, if I may comment on that. And this may be worth everything or nothing to you and that's okay. But my job is here to -- to try and reduce that burden on you. My job is literally here to manage the program and the projects, so that the costs are low for you, the labor requirements, the scheduling requirements, they are all lower for you. I do this with other projects throughout the community. I mean as we open this door, this is something that we are going to be engaged. If you have ideas, you have projects, there is complexity involved, there are strings attached, but my job is to make sure that we limit that for the residents. That you can get what you need without any of the repercussions or those strings and now that's not always easy to do and it really depends on the project, the more we are talking and what we are talking, but that's my job and I'm committed to helping how we can, where we can, as we move forward with this. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 16 of 107 Nesmith: Sure. Makes sense. De Weerd: Thanks, John. Nesmith: You bet. De Weerd: Additional testimony? Okay. Well, thank you to our downtown property owners and residents for joining us and, Chris, next steps? Pope: Madam Mayor, at this time I would -- I would advise -- staff would recommend the approval of the resolution 17-2052, which approves this plan and the area designation as constituted in that plan, which has been shared with everybody today. As noted afterwards, this will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to review and, then, we will move forward with everything we have talked about today with these conversations, with these meetings, then, actually trying to see how we can get around that complexity in helping to meet the needs of the community in this area with the funds we have available. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: To touch on -- I don't think anyone has touched on the -- answering the eminent domain question. As for myself, I have no interest in ever participating in eminent domain. The sad case of the gentleman who owned the property that is now the parking lot of this building is something that came before me and, hopefully, we will never do something like that again. But with that I move we approved resolution 17- 2052. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution 17-2052. Any discussion? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I realize that I have no direct benefit from this, but I just wanted to disclose I do own property within this designation. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 17 of 107 Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you, Chris, and thank you again to the property owners. This is just the start and so Mr. Pope will be available for further dialogue. Item 9: Action Items A. Final Plat for Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2107-0162) by M3 Companies, LLC located north of Chinden Blvd, south of the Phyllis Canal and approximately 1/2 mile east of N. Black Cat Road De Weerd: Okay. Under 9-A. This -- this has been requested to continue to January 23rd. I guess I would ask staff at this time if you can tell the cause behind this request. Allen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant requested a continuance to the January 23rd hearing, because they needed additional time to resolve an easement issue. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? If none, I would entertain a motion to continue. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we continue Item 9-B, H-2017-01 -- oh. Excuse me. H-2107? Is that correct? 2107? Allen: 0162. De Weerd: Two zero. Borton: 2017-0162 to January 23rd, 2018. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue 9-A to January 23rd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 18 of 107 B. Final Plat Modification for Paramount No. 29 (H-2017-0168) by Peter Harris Construction Inc. located west of N. Meridian Road, north of W. Ensenada Drive 1. Request to modify plat note #14 of Paramount No. 29 to allow Lot 15, Block 76 take access to N. Borgnine Avenue instead of the abutting common driveway (Lot 16, Block 76) De Weerd: Item 9-B is a final plat for H-2017-0168. Allen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the first application before you tonight is a request for a final plat modification. This site consists of .17 of an acre of land. It's zoned R-8 and located at 5260 North Borgnine Avenue. This property -- final plat for this property was approved in 2015. The applicant is requesting approval to modify Note No. 14 on the Paramount Subdivision numbered 29 recorded plat -- and that's the highlighted area there -- to allow Lot 15, Block 76, to take access from the abutting street, which is North Borgnine Avenue, rather than the adjacent common driveway on Lot 16 along the south boundary of that lot. The UDC requires any property that abuts a common driveway to take access from the driveway unless the abutting property has the required minimum street frontage and the property's driveway is located on the opposite side of the lot away from the common driveway. The applicant has provided an exhibit as shown that demonstrates how the home is to be oriented on the lot with the driveway on the opposite side of the lot from the common driveway, consistent with UDC standards. Solid fencing is restricted from being located along the common driveway because a five foot landscape buffer does not exist per UDC standards. Staff is recommending that Lot 15, Block 76 be removed from Plat Note No. 14 per the staff report. No written testimony was received on this application. Staff is recommending approval. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? If not, do I have a motion? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move we approve 9-B, H-2017-0168. Milam: Second. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-B. If there is no discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 19 of 107 Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing for Proposed Impact Fees 1. Ordinance No. 18-1760: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2), Meridian City Code, Known As The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; To Provide For An Amendment To The Police, Fire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee Schedules; And Providing An Effective Date. De Weerd: Item 9-C is a public hearing for proposed impact fees. Is this -- following three hearings on Ordinance 18-1760. Mr. Nary, who is presenting this? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I thought there was someone from the -- from the committee. Oh, there he is. De Weerd: Oh. Matt. Nary: Didn't see him in the crowd. Adams: Thanks for having us. De Weerd: Thank you for being here. Adams: I think C.Jay is putting our presentation up. Again, thank you. Matthew Adams. I reside at 1273 East Legacy View Drive in Meridian and I am the spokesman or the representative for the Meridian City Impact Fee Committee. So, it's not just me, there is a group of us that works with city staff to educate ourselves, learn about the needs of parks, fire and police and, then, to review the work done by staff or consultants on impact fee recommendations and, then, we make a recommendation to Council on how to proceed, so -- and I don't know if I can ask a question -- I don't know how much time I'm given to present. De Weerd: We usually -- I don't know. Bernt: Less than an hour. Adams: Well, I -- Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 20 of 107 De Weerd: I think everyone behind you would like you to keep it short. Adams: I think I need five minutes. Okay. So, the first thing I would like us to talk about is what is an impact fee and more importantly maybe what is not an impact fee. Impact fees are utilized in the state of Idaho and in the City of Meridian for fire, parks and police departments to collect revenue from future development, a building permit process, to construct new facilities for areas of growth. An example of what that might be would be a fire department or a fire station, possibly park land purchase or park construction and, then, police substation construction, things that are not impact fee eligible or not -- impact fees are not used for very specifically at schools, water, sewer and very important is the -- the ongoing operations of these facilities are not paid for by impact fees. It's simply the construction of new facilities needed for new growth and the state statutes and the ordinance are very specific that if you build a facility -- let's say you build a fire station and ten percent of the response area is existing development, you're only 90 percent impact fee eligible. So, impact fees do not pay for facilities that provide services to existing residents. So, important distinction to make as we talk about this. Really, what I'm here to do is make a proposal that the Council accept the 2014 impact fee recommendation. So, if we go back to 2014, the city hired a consultant to do a study. That consultant came up with recommended impact fees based on the needs it understood was necessary for parks, fire, and police as determined by the city's parks, fire, police professionals. So, they determined what capital improvements needed to be made. They looked at future growth projections and, then, made a recommendation on fees that should be collected. The Council at that time went through the process of reviewing that information, hearing public testimony, and the Council determined that they would accept a slightly reduced fee. So, on the screen what you see now is the comparison of the fees that were actually adopted in 2014 versus the proposed impact fee from 2014 and I was part of that committee that we recommended adoption of the full recommended fee and just to put them up side by side. Okay. So, what we wanted to ask today is that starting in 2018 and after this hearing if this is accepted, that the Council -- or that the city would receive the full 2014 recommended fee. So, what does that mean? So, if we would have been receiving the full 2014 fees since 2014, we would have collected an additional 2.7 -- just under 2.7 million dollars and that's a lot of money and what the impact of not collecting that has been has really delayed improvements for the city. Parks, fire, and police will construct facilities over time and they -- especially fire and police, they will need to build facilities to have proper response time and service to the community. Not collecting these fees has resulted in a delay to some of this construction, which has increased the cost to the city. So, there is a negative impact from that. One other negative impact, if we were to accept the fees that our committee truly understands, is that this is a cost on people who buy new property and it is a cost on the building community and the development community and we are not -- we are not ignorant of that fact and we know that's an important thing. After many discussions and meeting quarterly over the last four years, our committee feels that it's really more appropriate for new growth to pay for these new facilities and if new growth does not, that burden or that 2.7 million is shifted onto the existing residents of the community. So, I think, really, what we want to leave you with Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 21 of 107 is that any inaction on this now is really a delay in your ability to meet the demands of growth and will certainly add cost to construction of new facilities as moving forward. De Weerd: Thank you, Matthew. Adams: That was it. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I am curious where we sit on our impact fee funds presently. There is Finance. A lot of people in the room. Adams: I'm going to hang out, so I avoid the awkward back and forth. De Weerd: That's a -- Palmer: So, you have the awkward hang out and wait. De Weerd: Generally following the city's policy, we save before we spend, and so we should have some in there in particular, since we will be building Fire Station No. 6. These funds are most likely already committed. Not spent. Mr. Lavoie. Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, the question is what's our current fund balance for the impact fees. So, this is unaudited as of 9/30/2017, which is a couple months ago. Your parks department has a little over 4.5 million available in its fund balance, but as the Mayor stated, most of that's already accounted for for future projects. The fire department has a little over 392,000. And, then, your police department has a little over 1.1 million. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Borton: There was mention of projects that have been delayed. I understand, you know, for example, with the south Meridian park that's about to be built, it's going to be built in phases due to a lack of funds. Are there some examples with fire and police of projects that we would build now if we had that 2.7, I think you said, million? Had we accepted this in 2014. Adams: Councilman Palmer, Mayor, I do. From our meetings with the department heads and the fire chief and police chief it's my understanding that the fire station specifically could have gotten off the ground earlier if we would have had full collection Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 22 of 107 of the fees. I don't know -- I'm not part of that consultant team or that development, so -- in the planning stages, so I don't know the exact answer to that. But I do know that since we enacted these fees, the cost of construction has gone up dramatically, which affects the city and the development community. So, we are all trying to grapple with how to deal with that and delaying cost -- or delaying the collection of fees will certainly delay the ability to start projects. But I don't know if there is a specific fire station that was delayed and by how long. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Station 6 was mentioned. How much impact fee dollars are being used for the construction of Station 6? Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, we plan to use one hundred percent of the construction cost needs for the development of Station 6 out of the impact fees, as long as we have enough in the impact fees. Again, we have not finalized the final architectural design and construction costs, but right now our full intention is to use the impact fees to pay for that structure. If we do not have the fees, then, we will be coming back to you for General Fund property tax dollars. Niemeyer: Madam Mayor -- I'm guilty. Madam Mayor, Council, Councilman Palmer, to give you an idea of where we are at, when we built the CIP that applied these impact fees back in 2014, cost per square foot was 250 dollars. Today the low end cost that we are getting from our architects is 350 dollars per square foot. We have budgeted three and a half million dollars for this fire station. That is up considerably from the 2.2. we spent on Fire Station 5. So, as you can see the cost of doing business and the cost of materials, along with the current times of construction, are going up. So, we are hoping that our current impact fee collection is going to cover that cost, including the purchase of the fire engine and the reimbursement to the fire district commissioners for Station 5. Certainly if we would have done the full cost recovery we would have been sitting better. What it's going to boil down to if we don't have enough funding for the fire station is simply cutting things that we would like to put in the fire station. We have discussed this in the past, the community room slash training room that we have discussed as a -- as a nice amenity for the community in south Meridian, we may have to cut that just to get our cost contained within the budget we have through impact fee collection. Hopefully that answered your question. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I'm also curious if there is anything from police that has been delayed or that -- that we have needed that we haven't gotten due to a lack of impact fees. Stokes: Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, I don't have any specifics on what is slated for the impact fees for the police department. It's my understanding it's pretty limited scope what we can use those monies for, like buildings. So, potentially, future Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 23 of 107 substations. But I have not had this conversation with the chief. So, I don't know what is in the works, if anything, at this point. De Weerd: I think that substations have not been delayed, it's just been more in looking at partnering with other assets, be bit it the park or the fire substations and leveraging those efforts. Any other questions from Council? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Ms. Milam. Milam: Do you have a -- this is not a Todd question. Sorry. A slide that shows where we stand communitywide compared to other cities with our impact fees in the valley? Adams: Council Member, Mayor, I do not have that slide right now, but -- and I don't know if Todd might have anecdotal information on that. Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, we do not have a slide prepared for you tonight, but we have the data available and we would be happy to provide it to you after this meeting. Again, something we do track on an annual basis for you. Milam: And as I recall, it was -- we were toward the low end. Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, you are correct. Of the cities that we compare ourselves to, we were on the lower end if you compare dollar for dollar. De Weerd: Okay. Other questions from Council? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Question. In your -- in your committee was the vote -- or was your support unanimous for this -- for this resolution? Adams: Yeah. Mayor and Councilman Trent -- Bernt, we reached consensus and it was not easy and it didn't happen right away. I think it took -- it really was those 12 to 16 meetings. Let me back up a little bit. When we made the recognition for the full proposal in 2014 and Council did not accept it, we met as a group and we really wanted to understand why and wanted to -- I guess do a better job of making a recommendation that we felt the Council could follow. So, we have done a lot of meetings with parks, fire, police and the development community. We met with the BCA. We met and understood what it takes to permit and entitle a project, all these kinds of different things, and after that process we did reach a unanimous consensus to move forward with this recommendation. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 24 of 107 De Weerd: And that did come out of Council's suggestion is to meet more frequently to -- to seek to have a better base of knowledge and it's been action packed. Thank you. Any other questions from Council? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I got another one. Do we have any statistical data about -- I guess -- how many people live -- the average number of people that live in a multi-family residential unit compared to a single family home? I know there is range in sizes, but -- does the question make any sense? Is the average number of people to live in a single family home the same as the average number of people that live in a multi-family residential unit? Siddoway: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Steve. Siddoway: I see confused looks and for good reason. I have been trying to look into that question and I will give you the best answer I can, but the -- the true answer is -- is still eluding me, but here is what I have found so far. The 2010 census breaks down populations per household for ownership versus renters. Now renters will include both multi-family and rented single family. So, we need to be up front and clear about that. The 2010 census had the owners owned residences at 2.95 persons per household and the rented at 2.97. So, basically, the same. Slightly higher. There are some more recent ones that are through -- not the census, but the new version called the ACS, the American Community Survey -- is that correct, Caleb? Where they do -- instead of a full census, a two to three percent random sample survey of a community. They published a 2016 five year average of ownership at 2.85 and rented at 2.72. There is a 2016 one year that has a little more differentiation as ownership at 3.02 and rented at 2.31, but whether or not that's a one year anomaly it's hard to say, which is why they also give you the five year average, which is much closer. So, that's the numbers I have. Palmer: That's great. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Other questions? Thank you, Todd. Thank you, Matthew. Adams: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have people signed up? Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have a full sheet of sign-ups here. However, looking over this list, I think a lot of them are actually intended for the following item, but I will read their names to see if they intended for this item. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 25 of 107 De Weerd: Okay. Coles: I do see Dave Yorgason on this list in favor, but not wishing to -- to testify. Is that -- De Weerd: Hello, Mr. Yorgason. Thank you for joining us. Yorgason: Good evening. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Yorgason: You're welcome. Dave Yorgason. The address is 14254 West Battenberg Drive, Boise, Idaho. Here on behalf of the Building Contractors Association. I know a lot of knowledge about impact fees for a lot of reasons. One of which is I am -- your sister city next door for several years served on their development impact fee advisory committee and so I'm very familiar with process and very similar with a lot of parts of how complex this could be and I'm so grateful to hear the numbers that Steve Siddoway just shared, because I would highly advise you to not get too complicated in splitting up your impact fees based on number of units or size of units or types of units. The city of Boise is house to house to house and actually look at it from square footage differences and they have different census data and it just was really complicated at the end of the day. But that's what that council chose to do and so that council wanted to get that level of detail. I would not advise you to go there for lots of reasons, including to the fee payer and based on the numbers I heard tonight you don't need to. Also I would like to say I want to thank those who came to the BCA who did speak to us. These gentlemen here spake -- spoke to us. I'm not sure the fire -- fire, yes, parks, yes. Police had a representative there and thank them for coming, as well as the gentleman that spoke here on behalf of the committee. I would not say there is consensus. I do know one member who is on the committee who has told me personally and he represents the building community, that he did not support this full increase and the reason why is there is a couple of clarifications, one which is multi-family and also if you split out parks, police, fire, should full increase be appropriate. The other question that's hanging out there, the elephant in the room, is a new CIP is probably coming -- a new capital improvements plan is probably coming by the city in a couple years. It is typically the cities do these every five years. So, the question is is the city prepared to and want to raise these fees today and, then, in two years from now do it again. The building community is concerned with that, especially since some have maybe made some financial decisions based on baseline information and, then, one increase is one thing, but two increases within a short period of time is -- is concerning. I can tell you tonight that the BCA has not had the chance to make a formal position statement, because our board meets on Thursday and due to the timing of the fact that our December, Christmas holidays, whatever, we did not have a meeting in between of when this notice came out. So, I apologize I do not have a formal position for you tonight. If you want to wait for a formal decision I can get that to you after Thursday night's meeting, but I can just share with you some of the general comments and Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 26 of 107 concerns of which I just shared with you tonight. We also would like to add one more -- or I would like to add one -- a personal comment and that is this: We all recognize costs are going up. We try to partner with the city and I think you will find us as an association supporting fee increases, but as you recognize sometimes that we may come out with unopposed, there is a strategic reason for that as we sympathize with the position the city is in trying to meet the needs of maintaining levels of service. Last comment is I appreciate the comment by the fire chief. Maintaining level of service is -- is a hard thing to categorize. There is lots of different parts and pieces to what existing levels of service is and that includes not only fire stations, but also within your parks and so I support your efforts here. But I highly encourage you to maintain level of service and not add to community centers or those types of desirable amenities to be upon the backs of new construction. Those are my comments. I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. And I think you know that impact fees cannot improve the level of service and our impact fee is very cognizant of that. Yorgason: Thank you for that comment. De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Yorgason? Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: Thank you. Coles: Donna Smith signed up on this sign-in sheet. And Fred Smith. Andy Roman? De Weerd: That's fine. Thank you for that. We will add you to the other sheet. Coles: Miiah Brown. De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. Brown: Good evening. Just second here. Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: If you have handouts you can give it to our clerk. Brown: There we go. De Weerd: Okay. Brown: Madam Mayor, City Council, my name is Miiah Brown. My address is 12064 West Fiddler Drive and that's in Boise. I'm 1.1 miles away from Meridian and I consider myself to be a step citizen of the city, considering my son goes to school in the Meridian Joint School District and we spend 95 percent of our time in Meridian parks and everything else. So, I want to apologize that I don't have as well of a presentation as Matthew Adams. I only found out about this meeting on Sunday when I was looking up for the town hall meeting that's going to be for the bond and levy elections. So, what you have in front of you is what I came up this morning. So, for Idaho growth, you guys Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 27 of 107 probably know Idaho is now the fastest growing state in the nation. We are a 2.2 percent growth as of last year. We are -- two-thirds of our newcomers are expected to settle in urban areas, primarily Ada, Canyon and Kootenai counties. In 2006 Ada and Canyon county grew in population by 15,173 citizens and this is a percentage growth of 2.4 percent and 2.2 percent respectively. So, that basically means that Ada county is higher than the state average for growth. The median price for Ada county homes as of August last year reached 278,000. Now that is -- that is new homes and old homes. So, new homes are, obviously, generally more expensive than older homes, so that could be slightly larger. I don't have that exact number. And the map you will see on the bottom right of that first page is lots that are approved to have homes built on them. The last figures I have that currently there is 14,582 lots. In -- in the West Ada School District area that's on this map there is another 2,700 in the bottom right-hand corner that are kind of Meridian-Boise area. So, the -- as far as for the current proposal for the impact fee rates, you will see that there is a lot of growth and it's kind of scattered all over Ada county and personally I'm a firm believer in impact fees for these new structures. I love our parks. I know that Mayor de Weerd works really hard to try and give us a lot of fun places for our kids to play. I go to Settlers to watch movies during the summer and as far as for police and the fire department, I hope to never need them, like most citizens, but the closer they are to our houses I feel the better response time they will have and the better off we will be. But I hope with this other information that I want to give you it's a little bit more enlightening for what we need to look at for the future of impact fees. Now, I understand that Idaho state law does not allow fees for public schools or libraries. In fact, there are only about 12 states that are for schools and 13 states that do allow impact fees for libraries, but some things to kind of consider as we start moving forward is maybe talking to state department and legislature about looking into this, because over the next -- we are basically growing at a thousand students a year in the school district. West Ada School District will never break up. We can't afford to, because with all of the different tax rates that are going on. So, I guess my time is up. So, if you guys could just look over that. If you have any questions my card is on there and I would be happy to answer them for you. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you so much, Mr. Brown. Council, any questions? Thank you. Coles: Next on the list was Larry Eastman. Terry Glassinge. Julie Jim. Al and Shelley Fleming. Tony Brownlee. Jennifer Blackwelder. Annette Alonso. And you're signed up against this particular item; is that correct? Very good. Tony Alonso signed up against, not wishing to testify. David Kline. Wendy McKinney. That was all the sign-ups. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this? Weedon: Madam Mayor de Weerd, Members of the Council, my name is Seldon Weedon and I live on Easy Jet -- De Weerd: Seldon, can you pull that closer to your -- thank you. Weedon: Is that good? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 28 of 107 De Weerd: Yes. Weedon: Thank you. De Weerd: Much better. Weedon: In September there was a report of a house fire down the street from me about a half block. So, naturally, I drifted down, being curious to see what was going on. Could not believe how long it took the fire department to get there and I noticed the first engine to arrive wasn't the engine from Station 4 that was a half a block away. Apparently they were busy somewhere else. In October I'm out at the park watching a playoff softball game and the guy sitting beside me, through no fault of my own, appears to be having a heart attack. Get on the phone, dial 911, report it. It took 20 minutes to get an ambulance and an engine to the scene of that heart attack and I couldn't believe how long it took. Of course, we were giving him first aid. There was an AED on the scene, but he was okay. The house fire turned out to be okay, too. It was -- it ended up being insignificant. But that registers. I am a member of the impact fee committee, but I'm not speaking for them, I'm speaking as a taxpayer on Easy Jet. I was sitting at the light -- in fact, I was sitting through three lights trying to get off of the interstate onto Eagle Road the other today and Eagle Road is gridlocked and it occurs to me that in my first 30 years being around -- I was in the metro DC area and the place -- the growth rate was absolutely unbelievable. So bad I moved west and I'm out here in Idaho now, but I can't -- I fear that what we are encountering here in Idaho is -- is what we encountered in the early '80s, late '70s in the metro DC area where more than just congress is gridlocked. The freaking highways are -- so, I certainly support the -- the impact fee increase that was proposed to you. I think it's a small way that Council can help keep our cost to the taxpayer that lives in Meridian down and I know -- I speak for a lot of taxpayers when I say we appreciate that. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Weedon: Any questions? De Weerd: No. Any additional testimony? Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just some -- some historical context to the request. The way that I view this -- this isn't necessarily, one, asking for an impact fee increase, so much as -- what I understood Mr. Adams and the committee asking for is -- is trying to recapture impact fees that -- that could have been collected back in 2014, but the Council made a decision at that time to -- to gradually impose those upon development and I think the minutes in 2014 reflect that discussion. It wasn't so much a concern that the Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 29 of 107 methodology upon which the fee was based was -- was something to question, but it was a big change and it had been -- not been changed in a while, so the discussion in 2014 was rolled out in pieces. It seemed to me that the conversation contemplated this very discussion. So, that's just one comment at least that I think is important to consider. As to the comment on -- on the impact fee and what it's based on and what it is allocated towards, if we accept the premise that growth is to pay for itself, the impact fee analysis done back then -- there is a 112 page study and it includes the capital improvements for police, fire, and parks of the buildings and the park land and the specifics that we all plan to develop as Meridian grows and, then, that study takes a portion of each of those -- sometimes it's zero, sometimes it's more, that is growth related. So, every dollar that's in our capital improvement fund today is allocated and every dollar that's collected is allocated towards those capital improvements in our existing capital improvement plan. Nothing is undesignated necessarily now or going forward. I think the comment -- this last comment from the public, which speaks to who is to pay for growth, is a really good one that -- that we really have to consider when we make those decisions to forego the ability to capture the cost of capital improvements with new growth, we are at the same time making the decision that we would rather have our existing taxpayers pay for that growth caused by additional growth to our community and that's a -- that's a pretty big decision to make. So, I think that's another important consideration. So, I thought this -- returning to this level was what was -- was contemplated. The listed items within the existing capital improvement plan -- I didn't see question raised in 2014 as to those and I don't see question raised to them now, so the methodology still seems to be as valid as it was then, which, then, would imply if those costs are valid and the costs are created by new growth, that if we agree with that question that the premise that new growth is to pay for itself, then, it would necessitate the first time capturing the full cost of that growth. So, I'm always open to hear different viewpoints or other critiques of the methodology perhaps, but I haven't heard it. I know the BCA -- where is Mr. Yorgason? He might have left. So, the BCA -- I think their input is always valuable and appreciated. If it necessitates waiting a week to get anything more from them, I don't have a problem with that. At least that's where I -- where I saw us take action in 2014 leading to today. The change as of now seemed to be appropriate to me. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Borton. Any other comments from Council? Borton: And Madam Mayor? I will make one more. I detest impact fees, because it is a cost put on -- on new construction and new homeowners, but part of the problem is created by us in a sense, because the size of an impact is somewhat proportional to the growth of the community and when a community grows extremely fast it has to try and recapture all those capital costs by the new growth and that number is really big. Well, it's because we are growing really quick. So, it is somewhat proportional to the -- to the pace at which we approve new projects and if there is a new CIP to be done in a couple of years in the normal course, the fee very well may go down. It doesn't necessarily have to go up. It's -- it's a byproduct of what the capital improvement plan is anyway, which we don't know until that -- that happens, so -- last editorial comment. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 30 of 107 De Weerd: Thank you for your editorial. Any other comments or questions, direction? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: If there is no other questions or comments, I will chime in real briefly. One, I want to thank the committee for bringing this back to us. I appreciate having the opportunity to revisit the discussion that I, for one, had to take on as a very green and very naive new city council member and to have the opportunity to revisit this now the discussion has been very appreciated. I appreciate the feedback from the citizens on this as well. I, for one, have to say I agree with the methodology behind the study. We as a council made a decision to take less for a wide variety of reasons and to Council Member Borton's comments, it was very much contemplated this would be reviewed and readjusted if needed and I think that's what we are here to do today. So, I, for one, don't need to wait a week to hear from an official comment for the BCA. I think Mr. Yorgason did a substantial job of conveying what he believes to be the opinion of his organization and if there aren't any other comments or questions, I'd be ready to make a motion. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments from Council? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move we approve ordinance 18-1760. Milam: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-C. Any discussion? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, I understand that Dave was here and had a chance to chime in, but I think they are an essential partner with the city in helping us understand the -- the thoughts of those who are investing more than anybody in our city and I think it's important that we give them a chance to meet and be able to present to us an official position of their board. So, with that I would make it a substitute motion that we continue this item to February 6th. February 6th, because I would really like to be here when we make that decision and I will not be here next week and we don't have a meeting the week after. De Weerd: Okay. I have a substitute motion. Is there a second? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 31 of 107 Bernt: We need him to second your motion and vote against it. Borton: I will second your motion. De Weerd: There is a motion and a second to continue this to February 6th and I would ask all those in favor say aye. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I'm sorry. Cavener: Before we vote a comment if I may. If I recall when we discussed this a number of months ago, this date was recommended by the BCA. We extended our -- the day that we were going to have this hearing even further to accommodate them. That's an organization of a considerable means and education and if they are unable to form a board meeting to get before a city council something that we have noticed multiple times, to, then, ask us to delay things even further for a trade organization, something we wouldn't do for an average citizen, I can't in any good form support a motion. De Weerd: Okay. I would say those in favor of continuing this, please, indicate by saying aye. Okay. Those opposed say nay. Okay. The nays have it. We do have an original motion on the floor to approve Ordinance 18-1760. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Coles: Madam Mayor, before I do that, I believe I need to read the title -- De Weerd: Oh, yes. Coles: -- for the third reading. De Weerd: Would you, please, since this is the third reading. Coles: I would be glad to. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 18-1760, an ordinance to amend the municipal code of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2), Meridian City Code, known as the Meridian impact fee ordinance fee schedule. To provide for an amendment to the police, fire, and parks and recreation impact fee schedules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: This is the third and final reading and we do have a motion to approve Ordinance 18-1760. If there is no further discussion from Council, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 32 of 107 De Weerd: The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. D. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG 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 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: And thank you to the committee for having several times to stand in front of us. Okay. Item 9-D is a public hearing H-2017-0088. I know we have had -- I will open this public hearing. We have had a review of the public record and I will ask Mr. Nary if he will first discuss that. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Based upon some inquiries that were received from the public since the public hearing on November 21st of 2017, regarding this application for Linder Village, we did with the assistance of our IT department, my department, reviewed all of the incoming e-mails that had come both through the clerk's office and, then, also through the Mayor's office, the Mayor directly and the individual departments, as well as the individual council members and trying to determine if there were other ones that may not have made it into the record and there was approximately 3,974 e-mails that we reviewed during that process. We found one that had not made it in the record prior to November 21st. We have added that one to the record. We had a couple that were -- that were subsequent to November 21st that didn't go through the clerk's office and came through other parts of our IT system. They have all been added to the record. So, we are comfortable at this juncture that every e-mail that we could locate within our system that had come to the city under this project, either under this project number, or this project name, this project location, we have been able to locate and all of them are included in the public record on our laserfiche that are available both for the council members who have reviewed prior to tonight, as well as the public is able to review. We think all of that has been -- been captured and so we wanted to make sure that was clear on the record, because we did Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 33 of 107 have questions from the public on whether we had been able to discern if all of their comments had made it into the record and we believe they have. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, we received an e-mail from Andrea Carroll, from Carroll Law, concerned about that the disclosure that I made during our meeting in November, because I had mentioned that in September I had a conversation with a lady, but I didn't mention her name and Ms. Carroll wanted to know who that was. That was Sally Reynolds and was also concerned when I had mentioned that I read in hundreds -- actually, I think my words were many, many, many, many e-mails and was concerned that some of those e-mails might not have been on the record. Just wanted to clarify that I never received any e-mails on the topic, to any personally e-mail or any other e- mail account, other than the City Council e-mail and that every one of those is accounted for and on the record. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Prior to January 2nd, 2018, I was a member of the city's Planning and Zoning Commission. I was present for and voted on this application when it was presented to P&Z on October 19, 2017. I have reviewed the record in this application and believe that I can listen and consider all information in the record and make a decision on this matter before the City Council this evening based upon the entire record of these proceedings. Additionally, I would like to make note -- I did talk to Sally Reynolds as a P&Z commissioner after DMG's application was presented, after public testimony was given, and after we voted as a P&Z commission. Our conversation mostly had to do with her helping Council Member Cavener and I's city council campaigns. However, I remember a brief discussion about possible revisions to the developer's application, I want to make note and I want to be very clear this evening I did not view, nor did we speak about what those revisions look like. At that time we both agreed that it wouldn't be a good idea at that time. So, I just wanted to make that clear this evening before we proceed with these -- before -- with this application. De Weerd: Okay. And you don't feel that you have a conflict? Bernt: No conflict. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 34 of 107 Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: In the theme of disclosures, I just want to share that since our last public hearing I, as well as the City Council, received a significant amount of e-mail from our citizens, both in favor and against. I responded to each of those e-mails as they have come in thanking them for their feedback and encouraging them to stay in the process. Have not made a comment in support or opposition to the application, but did respond to each e-mail that came in. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further? Okay. Thank you. So, I will turn this over to staff. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Just a little update. This project was heard by the City Council on November 21st, 2017. It did come forward with a recommendation of denial from the Commission. This was based on the Commission's belief that the proposed conceptual development plan was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the mixed use community future land use designation and the applicant's unwillingness at that time to revise the plan as recommended in the staff report. Prior to the Council meeting in November the applicant did submit a revised concept plan that addressed some of the issues noted in a staff report and held a new neighborhood meeting to discuss the changes with neighbors. The Council continued the project to January 16th, tonight's meeting, in order to allow the applicant additional time to obtain updated traffic counts and submit an updated traffic impact study to Ada County Highway District based on revisions to the plans and get a report from Ada County Highway District. On December 11th staff met with the applicant and their traffic engineer, ACHD and ITD staff, to discuss changes to the concept plan and timing of an updated traffic impact study, which they stated would be six weeks after updated traffic counts were collected. The applicant states that updated traffic counts have been completed, however, an updated traffic impact study has not yet been submitted to ACHD for review. Therefore, a staff report is still not available from ACHD. Staff has included the updated plan submitted by the applicant. Since the last meeting there has been another set submitted, which I will show to you tonight here and included conditions of approval in Exhibit B of the staff report if the Council should decide to move forward with a decision prior to receiving a staff report from ACHD. Staff has not included a requirement for the expansion of Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26 to be completed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies within the development. If that is the intent of Council, a development agreement provision should be added accordingly. As shown here this is the concept plan that was submitted at the previous meeting that Council reviewed. Since that hearing the applicant, like I said, did submit a revised concept plan as shown that addresses some of the issues noted in the staff report, comments from the Commission, City Council, and public testimony. The revised concept plan depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store, WinCo, as an anchor for the development. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 35 of 107 It's kind of oriented across the southwest corner of the site. Three mid-size anchors towards the center of the site, a fuel sales facility along Chinden. Smaller office, retail, restaurant, live-work uses. A plaza and future office retail development on the east end of the site. 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. Orientation of the rear of the WinCo building has been shifted to the corner of Linder and a future public street and the mid anchors have been shifted further to the north away from adjacent residences. A circulation plan was submitted as shown that shows access to the site via accesses from a new road. The nearest one to the intersection has been removed that was shown on the previous plan at ACHD's request and two accesses via Chinden, State Highway 20-26. Traffic signals are planned at the southernmost access via Linder Road and the eastern access by the state highway when warranted. Because the UDC prohibits new accesses from a state highway, a variance is requested for those accesses. There are three local stub streets to this site from the adjacent residential neighborhood. At the south here you can see in blue and at the east boundaries of the site that are proposed to be extended with development. One of those here will provide a fairly short, direct route to the grocery store here. The others will connect in with the residential development. The plan depicts pedestrian walkways throughout the development in the kind of orange outline there. A backage road, a connection to the commercial zoned property at the east boundary of the site for future connection to Fox Run and the signal. A bus stop and a future signal on Chinden in alignment with Bergman Way. Cross-access ingress-egress easement and driveway should be provided to the property at the southwest corner of the site and that is -- if you can see right here where my pointer is -- in an effort to decrease access points to Linder Road. So, this is just a revised open space exhibit and a revised preliminary plat that was submitted that matches the configuration of the revised concept plan that depicts 16 commercial building lots, one residential building lot, and one common lot and three other lots for future right of way dedication. The applicant does intend to resubdivide the lots depicted in future development and smaller lots in the future. 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 uses. Concept building elevations were submitted for the main anchor as shown. The mid anchors, the retail shops, and the residential area. 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. Really, the only outstanding issue for Council tonight is to determine if the revisions made to the concept plan adequately address the concerns from the previous Commission and Council hearings. Also, if the Council wants to wait for a report to be issued from Ada County Highway District. And, then, finally, if any -- if Council deems that the associated improvements to the state highway should be made prior to issuance of any occupancies within this development. Staff will stand for questions. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 36 of 107 De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this point? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Can one of the options be to send it back to P&Z if we feel necessary? Allen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, certainly. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. Sonya, could you go back to the one where WinCo -- how WinCo is situated. I guess I'm not following how it does not abut residential. Because is it across the road residential? Allen: Madam Mayor, Councilman, that is across an arterial street, so our code doesn't require the hours be limited for that reason. Little Roberts: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Sonya, you said that one of the accesses off of Linder has been removed by ACHD? That's not an access any longer? Allen: Madam Mayor, Councilman, no. It has been removed from the plan. Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Cavener: Sonya, just -- I guess get me educated -- we don't have a report from ACHD, but they have already requested the removal of a -- of an access. Can you just help me see where the clarity is? If we haven't had a final report from ACHD based on the traffic study, but they have already requested the removal of an access point. Allen: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, Councilman Cavener, we have -- we, along with ACHD, have met with the applicants at several different points along this process. The Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 37 of 107 applicant can probably provide more information than that for me, but from what I understand they didn't feel it was warranted to have another access and the applicant agreed to remove it. Cavener: Madam Mayor, maybe one just additional question. Sonya, that -- that access, the secondary one that's by the rear of the store, if you follow to the future residential development, there is a red line indicated and when I -- to the left a little further and -- right there. Yeah. What's the red line supposed to be indicating? Allen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I believe that that is what they have indicated is the end of the collector street, but the applicant, again, could probably answer that question. That's what I assume it to be. Cavener: Great. I will ask them. Thanks, Sonya. I appreciate it. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Maybe the end of that or -- it's right in line with that pathway -- Allen: It may be across Block 2. Palmer: Yeah. Allen: Again, the applicant can respond to that. De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further, we will ask the applicant to make comment. Howell: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Ken Howell. I'm a partner in the law firm of Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley. My business address is 877 West Main, Boise, Idaho. Mr. Ballard, who had previously been involved in these proceedings, had to leave for Washington DC for language school for his wife's new posting as a commerce department employee in Buenos Aires. So, hopefully, he's going to get well trained in language and won't provoke an international incident while he's there. So, he asked me to step in for these proceedings tonight. De Weerd: Thank you. Howell: Tonight we also -- I will be calling up some additional people to make specific presentations, primarily Greg Slocum from CSHQA architects to address the specific changes that were made and I think he will be able to answer some of the questions that council members have already raised tonight. First, as staff noted, we did have a previous November 21 meeting on this project. The application was in the rebuttal portion of that public hearing when it was continued. The continuation was allowed to Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 38 of 107 give staff additional time to address the revisions that had been made up to that point and -- and for the applicant to consider questions and input from the Council, from the staff and public testimony and we have done that and have presented a new revised plan to the staff and to Council to this body on January 5. There was also the desire that we could hopefully seek additional input from ACHD and perhaps advance that ball further on what their comments were. The traffic study is still in process. The traffic counts have been completed and show, essentially, no change from the prior traffic counts that have been completed. Some uses down, some uses up, but overall about the same. But the traffic study itself is not completed and will not be completed until about the end of the month or the first part of February and, then, thereafter, we know that it's at least six weeks for ACHD to process that if they were to issue comments back to the Council at that time. That decision was known at the time of the November 21st hearing. There was commentary in the record that they were scheduling meetings already at that time out into February and it was unlikely that we would get decisions back anytime soon. There are really four main issues I think that -- that frame the discussion of the changes that are before you tonight and those were, first, orientation of the development from less intense commercial uses to more intense uses as you transitioned away from existing residential uses, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the MUC designation. The adequacy of transition and buffering between existing residential uses and the project, location and orientation of the WinCo store and specifically those loading docks and, then, pedestrian and traffic flow concerns and, then, finally, this issue of access to Chinden via Bergman or access to Highway 20-26. We do have some constraints that were noted in the record previously. The ACHD, even though has previously been provided with traffic studies, has declined to take action specifically on this project until they get a better idea of what's going to happen here with approval of the project from this body and so we are a little bit in a chicken and the egg problem on that, although, admittedly, we don't yet have the current traffic counts and impact study to ACHD. That's in process. ITD has approved the conceptual design of access to Chinden at Bergman and I will address some of the -- the issues that were raised in the staff report after Mr. Slocum makes his presentation. So, on -- in December there was a combined omnibus meeting with the applicant, with ITD, with ACHD and city staff and as a result of that meeting all of ACHD's concerns listed in its November 20 correspondence were addressed, except for access to Chinden at Bergman and we know they object to that and -- but they -- even they note that their objection is not something that's within their jurisdiction. So, at this time what I'd like to do is call to present the specific changes to the site Craig Slocum and, then, I will return afterwards to address kind of finally the impacts of where we are in terms of concerns that were raised at the last Council meeting for that. Craig. Slocum: Thanks, Ken. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Craig Slocum. 200 North Broad Street, Boise, Idaho. After ten years working on Linder Village they finally asked me to get up and talk. De Weerd: And that's about the time you show you can't. Do you have a cold? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 39 of 107 Slocum: What you will see before you right now is -- is really what we have been working on in the seven weeks since we last presented to this Council and what we -- what we heard from both Council, public, staff is -- there was some difficulty in visioning what it was we were proposing. Our team has modeled the entire proposed project and have now inserted that model into a three dimensional aerial that I think helps understand the project and how it fits into the -- the context of what is the built environment at that intersection. We have got a second image. This one is, obviously, facing southeast. The second image is facing northeast. I think it truly depicts the distances between existing -- the built environment and what this project proposes. We wanted to address I guess in two parts -- staff, when we last met, still had two points of -- that we needed to address and they really are tied together. If you can go to the next slide. As we look at the comp plan and we have dealt with this in Planning and Zoning and Council, the question was the transition of density and the second item was the location of the live-work and of the plan as a team I think we have addressed both those items. I will start with -- I guess the transition of density and if you pull the next one, we will talk about how we have moved the larger intense user throughout this process. This plan you see in front of you Council has not seen. It was presented to P&Z and certainly met with a lot of feedback. You will notice the truck dock actually faces the residential. The WinCo is -- while it provided three or four hundred feet of separation from the existing residential, it was closer. If you pull the next slide. This is what Council saw on November 21st. There was still, obviously, from public and Council concern about that transition of density and the location of the intense user. We had flipped the truck docks so it faced Linder, but in our seven weeks since -- if you will pull up the next slide -- we have shifted that building another 66 feet, approximately, to the north. What this has provided is additional residential -- proposed residential at the corner of Arliss and, then, a commercial pad on the south side of the future collector. We have taken the live-work from -- if you recall was near the intersection of Chinden and Linder and brought it down to be adjacent to the proposed higher density residential. So, from the standpoint of transition, we have got existing residential, some new single family residential, some townhomes and, then, live-work, some retail shops and then -- and, finally, the more intense use of WinCo. If you go to the next slide. So, just think from a -- it's tough with an 80 acre site to really understand distances. You see the -- the truck dock is 577 feet from any existing residential. The building itself to the corner is almost 350. Additionally, you will notice the -- and this came up at both P&Z and City Council. We have added some eight foot screen walls at the truck dock, a small dock area on WinCo and, then, on the landscape berm to the south of WinCo. In addition, there is probably twice as much landscape buffer between the WinCo delivery area and the future collector street and, then, there is an additional 73 feet of landscaping on the south side of that collector street. Then -- if you go to the next one. This kind of depicts where we have moved the use. If you recall previously the live- work, which is the lime green, was up in combination with the specialty retail. Now, there was some concern about that and it kind of solved the concern I think that Council had, as well as it addressed the transition of density issue that staff had. Next. This is some of the modeling we did. Again, as we heard from Council and the public, I think it's hard to maybe picture exactly what we have got in two dimensions. As I mentioned, we modeled the whole thing. This is the live-work, future townhomes ones behind it. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 40 of 107 Then single family. And, then, the existing residential behind that. Just some of the amenities as well. I'm sorry. Plaza area. If we go to the next. As we met with ACHD, one of the things that staff mentioned that you will notice, is that we have relocated the collector street farther to the north. ACHD felt it was important to line that up with the existing northern access of the city fire station. Actually, it provided what I believe is a better plan, some additional landscaping between the property to the south. As I mentioned before, the opportunity to bring some light commercial adjacent to future residential and the existing residential. Part of the ACHD comments that were received just before Council meeting on the 21st, they -- one of their comments was access from that collector into the commercial and it's shown on the concept plan. It's a small -- it's a drive between the live-work and the retail. If you will pull up the next one, which is our -- sorry, I missed this one. This would be the view looking down that collector street that we have shifted to the north to line up with the fire station and you can see the extensive landscaping. Berming. You can see the sound wall at the WinCo. It really shows how -- how much distance and how much separation there is from adjacent existing properties. If you go to the next slide. It's our circulation plan, which I know was brought up a lot by Council on the 21st and staff has mentioned the orange defines what would be pedestrian circulation throughout the site. It also represents access from the existing residential and future residents into plaza areas, to the shopping areas, the future office areas. This also depicts, as I mentioned, the access into the commercial from the collector street. There is a secondary access that would be provided when the future office retail development is provided and those were the concerns that both staff and ACHD had and we believe the revised concept plans address all those. The last image is -- is just -- there was some expression from a few of the council members that they were concerned with pedestrian access throughout the site. Our desire is that you can park one place and walk to everything else that is built there and this is just a depiction of the size of those landscape and walk areas that we have proposed. This one just happens to be leading from the northern area down to the WinCo. I have one more image. This just shows -- to try to I guess express to the Council and to the public the kind of development that's proposed here. This is the image -- the larger image shows an outdoor market area, large plaza gathering area for neighborhood events. Well landscaped median islands. Very walkable. Very pedestrian oriented. That kind of concludes mine, other than if we -- I got about a 90 second video we would love to show, but I do want Ken to come up and close it. So, maybe while you potentially play that, I will have Ken come back. (Video played.) Howell: So, that's the summary of the changes that we have made to the site and we think that these changes were made directly in response to the concerns expressed by Council at the last public meeting, taking into consideration the constructive criticism that we received from the public testimony and addressing as many of the staff concerns and comments as we were able to do on this site and as Mr. Slocum indicated, we also addressed those portions of the ACHD concerns that we were aware of based on the meetings that we had and made substantial revisions to the site. I see my time is rapidly winding down, but I did want to call attention specifically to the Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 41 of 107 submittal made in the record by Brian Ballard on January 8th, correspondence that he issued to Council, and I would recommend to you the chart that starts on page three that lays out the specific feedback that we heard and received at the last public meetings and the very specific things that we did in response to that feedback to address the concerns that were made and to improve the project to meet those concerns. I won't go over them at this time, but those are in the record and they are found on page three of Brian's January 8, 2018, correspondence. I'd stand for questions at this time or certainly at the end of rebuttal. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Howell. Council, any questions? Little Roberts: Mr. President? Borton: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Ken, regarding STARS and WinCo and all of that, has the change in one anchor, has that impacted that plan at all? Because, obviously, we have got a lot of concern with traffic on Chinden. Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Little Roberts, no, it has not changed the plan for STARS at all. On STARS, as was mentioned at the last public meeting -- and, obviously, you remember that -- we have made an arrangement with ITD on the STARS program to improve and widen Chinden through this area to four lanes and make some other improvements. That work is underway. We have retained a contract to do the preliminary design of that roadway. Once that design is complete it goes to ITD for their work and there is a meeting currently scheduled for January 26th on that -- those designs and improvements. So, the STARS project is very much still underway and it's designed to eliminate as many of the problems on Chinden in that area as we possibly can. Little Roberts: Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Madam Mayor, thank you. A question for staff about the access being removed off of Linder. Sonya indicated that was a recommendation from ACHD and the developer agreed to that. I guess you're the experts. Explain to me why, as a developer, you're on board with less access into your project. Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, what -- what ACHD was concerned about was a third access point off of Linder being close -- closer to the intersection with Highway 20-26. They were concerned about traffic flow in and out. We, in looking at what the specific concern they had primarily for life and safety, we concluded that we could have adequate access in off of Linder Road with the two other access points, Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 42 of 107 bearing in mind that also part and parcel of this application is the right-in, right-out on Chinden and the future signalized intersections at Bergman. So, we think with that combination of access, we would certainly have adequate access to the site without impinging on the intersection of Linder and 20-26. Cavener: Thank you. Madam Mayor, additional -- the red lines, as I had mentioned with staff about and I don't know if that's a question for Craig. And I think he's behind you. I'm just trying to get a better understanding -- I'm seeing a few of them on your -- your development plan and I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what they mean. Slocum: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Cavener, the -- those are depicting a change in material and color for pedestrian pathways at places where we have got walkways. So, you will see them throughout the site and the one you specifically asked about at the collector, it's just a change in material, change in color -- Cavener: Thank you. Slocum: -- of the walkway. De Weerd: Any further questions at this point by Council? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Not necessarily a question, just -- I had some praise. At the last meeting we had just -- without the satellite view around it and I think we were all kind of asking for a better perception of what was going on here and you brought it. I have never seen such an extreme shift in presentation materials. So, that was very much appreciated. Thanks. Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, thank you. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Madam Mayor. Because of that sizable shift, it's my opinion that we remand this back to Planning and Zoning, so they have the -- they take a look at it. They were the original body that looked at this -- this application. There has been significant change in it. I think it would be prudent and wise to have them take a look at it and see what their thoughts are, whether approval, denial, continue, whatever. That would be my thought. De Weerd: Any -- any comment to that? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 43 of 107 Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I appreciate that sentiment and that is certainly your prerogative as a city council member to make that observation and to vote that way if you choose to. I think, however, that in this instance the changes that were made to the site were made as a result primarily of the issues of concerns that were raised at the City Council meeting, that were raised by the public and we have addressed those concerns and I think as part of the process of approval, that give and take is a natural inherent strength of the system and to choose to penalize the developer for saying, well, now you have made all these changes, let's send you back and make you start all over again, would tend to discourage those kind of changes and being responsive to concerns of the Council and community in the future. So, I think that that -- that would be counterproductive, but I understand your state of concern. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I certainly -- we can have a difference of opinion. I certainly don't look at it as penalizing the developer. I look at it as a very prudent decision based upon the City of Meridian's growth. I believe growth is important. I also believe that smart growth is even more important. We have a Planning and Zoning Commission for a reason and -- to put a set of eyeballs on these -- on these developments is important and so I hope I didn't come across as penalizing your project. It was certainly not the case. Howell: Madam Mayor and Councilman Bernt, no pejorative intent taken whatsoever. I just think that's the -- from my perspective the net practical effect of that. But I certainly don't impugn any -- any pejorative intent for that. Bernt: I understand. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further comments or questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: A couple either for you or for Craig. One is does the inclusion of the live-work constitute residential and create a CUP problem that didn't otherwise think having a -- the WinCo parcel adjacent to residential? Does that constitute a residential parcel? Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I think I can probably address that and maybe Craig can chime in. I don't think so, especially given the fact that this is a mixed use. That's inherent in the concept of mixed use is that you will have commercial and residential uses adjacent and so that's inherited in mixed use. If -- if that's not the case, then, mixed use doesn't ever work anywhere. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 44 of 107 Borton: Madam Mayor, the other question is probably for Craig. There was comment originally about additional open space to account for the mass of the building and where that's located or how -- how do you balance that? Slocum: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Borton, the open space plan that we have submitted, the green is open space -- meets the definition of open space. You will see there is some extremely large areas. If you consider this as 80 acres. If you just look at the park plaza area, that is substantial. The green space, as you can see at the top, is 6.38 acres. I believe staff's report indicated we needed 3.59 acres. So, we are almost double what is required to raise that threshold. Borton: Madam Mayor? One other question. I don't know who wants to field it, but there is reference in the record throughout with regards to Chinden -- a couple questions, actually, and the STARS agreement and one of the things that if it's there I missed it and for the benefit of the public, too, watching or they are here, can either of you describe for me the specific improvements to be provided on Chinden Road and the dates by which those improvements are to be installed and I ask it with specificity. I couldn't find it and I see the -- the STARS agreement as a totally separate matter, a vehicle to perhaps fund and reimburse the developer for those improvements, but ACHD's November 20th letter made reference to it, that there is a lot of unknowns with that and clearly if there was a necessity to have specific delineated improvements to Chinden be incorporated as part -- as part of his project to be -- to make it successful, regardless of whether there is STARS funding, are you able to provide those specifics, which I, then, would assume would be included in a development agreement? Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, the short answer is yes, but it's not me or Craig, so if I could call up John, who is actually the project engineer that's working on developing that -- the plan that I mentioned earlier that is going to go to ITD. So, you want to come up and address that specifically on the -- De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Ringert: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, my name is John Ringert. Work for Kittelson and Associates, 101 South Capital Boulevard, Suite 301, Boise, Idaho. We had an exhibit in the last presentation to this body -- I don't know if it is still somewhere, but I can put this up. Okay. I just thought this would make it easier. Borton: Sure. I will try to find it myself. Ringert: Yeah. It was deep in the other presentation. Okay. Thank you very much. So, what you see here is a presentation slide we had from the last -- from the presentation I gave at the last meeting before it was continued. This shows the improvements in -- it's kind of a greenish cyan and, then, pink or a pinkish red. The pinkish red are the only real designational differences, those are along side frontage. The improvements to the east along Chinden are in there -- are in the -- you know, in Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 45 of 107 the cyanish, greenish, and, then, we also have some improvements on Linder south of the site that are -- that just show what ACHD is already working on and will be done prior to -- about the same time as this site, if not prior. That's currently -- the current project. All of this is proposed to be done, essentially, as part of phase one of the project. So, essentially, we are coming up with -- we are basically in the later stages, we are in the second version of the concept design with ITD to widen, essentially, from about halfway between Locust Grove and Meridian through -- through Linder Road and while Linder Road is already widened right at the intersection -- it's not actually widened to where it should be, it's been offset and there is some turn lanes missing and some alignment stuff, so we will be going through -- all the way through to Linder intersection. That's all planned to be -- to be done as part of the development. I say phase one. I mean as you -- you saw is a mix -- it's a mixture of retail buildings, most of -- basically pretty much west of the main drive isle onto Chinden. When that will be done specific to each building is still to be determined. We haven't seen the conditions -- you know, this body as well -- as well as ACHD and ITD, we don't know how that's all going to be worked, whether it's going to be the first building's occupancy or whatever -- or it's probably going to depend upon some specific improvements and -- and if you only have one building you probably don't need a signal, for instance, on Chinden right away. So, the actual timing with respect to -- like the actual date, basically, it's still be -- it's shooting for opening of the center, but, you know, based on right of way and stuff, some stuff might shift a little bit, but it's all assumed in what we call the first phase of development. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: So, it says widen through Meridian Road and, then, future widening to Locust Grove. Ringert: Yeah. So, right now ITD has some design plans started for Eagle Road to Locust Grove. They have a fairly -- a fairly long process, you know, to go through their design, so it's going to take them to get -- it's going to take them until 2021 to get their design and right of way done for that project. So, what we -- what we have in the STAR agreement is, essentially, of what we call a phase two option where if they get theirs done, what we -- what we would do is tack on the widening from Locust Grove to connect the projects, so that we don't have a short section of a thousand feet that isn't widened on Chinden, because we did the widening in phase one, which got us east of Meridian, they came in 2021, did the widening to Locust Grove and there is a little -- a little area in there. But that wouldn't be done until they had their project already to go and it dovetail in, essentially -- their project would, essentially be to the public expanded, but they can't expand it due to funding constraints, so we would come in and expand that project and build that connection at the same time, so that to the public it would look like it would go from Eagle all the way to our widening east of Meridian Road. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 46 of 107 Milam: Madam Mayor? So, when you're -- you're using really general terms that this will be done when opening. Can I have an estimation -- because this really doesn't solve the traffic problem, except for from Meridian Road to Linder. So, we are still going to notice a bottleneck from Eagle Road to Meridian Road and so I don't just see that really being a solution, unless you're really close in your timeline. So, what -- when do you project opening and getting that roadwork done? Ringert: I believe we are still projecting like fall of 2019. Milam: So, for two years we will have -- Ringert: Well, no, that's the part -- the center I don't believe can be -- the center is going to take that long to get WinCo built. So, this would happen when the center opened, essentially. I can't control -- I don't know how to push ITD any faster. Milam: I understand. I'm just trying to make sure that I have the information correct. Ringert: So, really, what's probably going to happen, Madam Mayor, Councilman, is this project is going to go through the next year -- roughly a year and a half designing these improvements and irrespective of whether they are funded through the STAR agreement -- the STAR agreement is a separate thing, it's just a funding mechanism -- Milam: Sure. Ringert: -- it's a funding mechanism. So, those improvements will get done. There will be a lag. There will be -- there will be a time where you will come through Locust Grove and, then, you will get halfway to Meridian Road and all of a sudden you will open up project funded, it's in development, it would be very expensive and troublesome to try to do that through -- you know, through this project. So, that's why we included that other little phase, so at least it -- at least we don't have a tiny little bottleneck, this will really -- is really obvious to the public later. I hope -- does that answer your question? Milam: Thank you. Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, ITD has indicated to us that they think they have a possibility of moving some funding to allow those improvements to occur concurrently with development of the site, but I think, as John indicated, you know, we -- I don't think ether one of us could stand here and absolutely swear to you that that's going to take place in a particular time frame, simply because we don't control it, but it's certainly their intent to do that as quickly as they can. They recognize the issues as much as anybody that's traveled down Chinden Road in the past ten years knows. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions from Council at this point? Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 47 of 107 Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I guess before we start inviting the public up for testimony, I guess I -- I would like to make a motion -- when we had this last heard before us I supported sending this back to Planning and Zoning Commission, but the Council didn't agree at that time and that's -- that's fine, but I have heard at least a new council member who has felt the way that I do, so rather than have our public go through the process of testifying and, then, we making that same motion, I'm at least going to maybe potentially save time and I'm going to make a motion right now that we remand this back to Planning and Zoning Commission. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to remand this back to Planning and Zoning without listening to the citizens who have come here to weigh in and so -- Cavener: I'm aware of that. De Weerd: Okay. And I do have a motion and a second to continue this or remand it back to our Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor indicate -- Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I'm sorry. Palmer: Are we going to discuss it, the motion? De Weerd: Usually on -- yes, would you like to have discussion? Palmer: I would love to. De Weerd: Okay. Palmer: Madam Mayor, if I may, I think Council Bernt made a good point that we do have a Planning and Zoning Commission for a reason and what came out of that meeting was a significant amount of information, which led to some adjustments, which brought it to Council, understanding their concerns and, then, many adjustments and, then, some more adjustments since our last meeting. But who is more well versed in this project at this point than -- than Council? You know, we were elected by those in the room and those around the city to make these decisions. We do have Planning and Zoning for a reason, to -- to help prepare projects better to come before us, but it's here, the citizens are here to -- they have testified before us a few times, I'm looking forward to hearing from them again tonight, but I know if I was in the audience I would want to come back as few times more as possible and if we send it back to Planning and Zoning Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 48 of 107 it's not going to die, it's going to start over and, eventually, be here again I imagine. So, I think that we were elected for a reason, to give it an up or down hopefully tonight. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: This is -- this is a really tough one. I feel enough -- a significant amount of changes have been made, we probably should have remanded this in November. I like what you have done. I wish -- to you guys I wish this was closer to my house and I could walk there. This is a very nice project. That doesn't mean it's perfect. So, the plaza -- I like the idea, the concept, but it's probably just some unused space, so maybe you could do something a little bit more creative with that, but -- so, there are some tweaks that need to be made. I think that the way that we have gone about this process isn't really the right way to do it and our -- our citizens have asked us to send this back. If this project was brought to P&Z or real close to this the first time, this whole thing that's happened -- going back and forth and all the neighbors are mad, probably wouldn't have happened. This is a much, much nicer project than what we first had. But because of that and because of all the changes after P&Z recommended denial, I think they need to take another look at it. De Weerd: Okay. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: My concern is for the citizens that have been waiting here tonight to testify. Is it possible to leave the motion on hold and hear from them? De Weerd: No. When a motion is made and seconded and there is no further discussion, a vote needs to be taken, unless it's withdrawn. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Verification then from legal. Should a motion be made and fail, that motion can be made again at a later point in time? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, yes. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 49 of 107 Milam: With respect to our audience and people who have come here to testify, is there a way to poll them and find out if they'd rather testify or save their breath. They may not want to testify and, then, have to do it all over again. They may want to and if that -- if they want to I'm happy -- more than happy to listen tonight. De Weerd: I'm certainly not a parliamentarian, but I don't think so, but -- I do have an active motion on the table. Any further discussion? Motion -- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Councilman Cavener sounded like he might have a way out, so to speak. If the consensus might be to do a remand, if -- if Councilman Cavener wants to withdraw the motion, withdraw the second, see if the public -- if anybody here, who spent their evening wishes to provide testimony, it's helpful to us, it could be helpful to the applicant, with the understanding, though, that it very well might be followed with the motion to remand it, if that's where this is going. At least that affords you the opportunity to -- Cavener: Sure. Borton: -- what Councilwoman Milam is suggesting. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I guess maybe to answer Council Member Borton's kind of proposal, for me tonight my goal was to -- again, in November I believe the project changed substantially and should have went back to Planning and Zoning at that point. It's changed even more since then. I wanted to give the developer the opportunity to explain to me why we needed to hear from them tonight. I didn't hear any compelling reason as to why we shouldn't send this back to P&Z tonight, hence the reason why I wanted to make my motion. I don't think that -- there may be a compelling reason to come from the public to vote on this night and I'm -- I'm open to hearing that. I just felt because the project had changed substantially it warranted being remanded back to P&Z. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, my concern here is that the punting is -- is the -- the wrong choice in that if they wouldn't have made any changes we would have said, okay, we are going to back up what Planning and Zoning says, you didn't make any changes that everyone here was demanding. They made a whole bunch of changes to adhere to Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 50 of 107 most everything -- of the concerns and now we are saying because you made all these changes, because of what everyone was asking for, we are going to send you back anyway. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: See this sausage making conversation. I don't -- I don't believe at all that this is -- this is punting. We still have yet to receive a report from ACHD. I, for one, am not comfortable even approving something without that coming in, despite what we have heard from the applicant here tonight. Also after, again, reviewing the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the developer said they had no intention of making any changes to this -- to this project and, then, proceeded to make a substantial amount of changes. Hence the reason to me, I believe, it should go back to the original body. De Weerd: Just to weigh in, just because I can, this is the public process and the Council made a decision to move forward that they said these changes were made because of the public testimony and the comments by Planning and Zoning and determined to continue to listen and to proceed forward with a public hearing. Usually the applications that we get at Council are not what we see -- what the Planning and Zoning Commission sees, again, because that is the -- the process of taking public comment and responding and many of our developments are different when they come to City Council and they are even more different when they are voted on with a final decision by Council. So, you do have that choice and I don't know if it's public fatigue and who can outlast the next, but I think -- you have information in front of you. If you do not have the information you need from ACHD, you have yet another choice, send it back to -- remand it back to Planning and Zoning, continue the public hearing after receiving testimony, and continuing this for specific information from Ada County Highway District, so you can make a determination. So, you do have a number of options and I would like to make good use of our public's time and our applicant's time as well. So, that said, we have a motion and a second to remand this back to Planning and Zoning. Those in favor indicate by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. Okay. Can I get a -- maybe a hand vote. Roll call. Mr. Clerk. I kind of like the hand vote, though, you know. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Milam. Milam: I just want to clarify. So, this is to send it back to P&Z without -- without allowing public testimony tonight. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 51 of 107 Roll call: Borton, nay; Milam, nay; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, nay; Bernt, nay. MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. FIVE NAYS. De Weerd: Okay. Now I will open it up for public comment. Mr. Clerk. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Michael Battaglia signed up as neutral, not wishing to testify. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, I do have a question. We do have a ten minute slot for a -- the spokesperson, whether it's an HOA or a spokesperson for the neighborhood and, then, anyone else that would testify gets their three minutes. We won't add them all together and give you 12, but -- so, maybe we can start this by -- if there is an official spokesperson and, if not, we will do the three minutes. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Reynolds: Good evening, Madam Mayor. My name is Sally Reynolds. I reside at 1166 West Bacall Street in Meridian, Idaho. One quick clarification maybe before you start my time. And, please, excuse my voice in coming -- it went away and it's just barely coming back. So, if you can't hear me have me repeat it. De Weerd: If you will just pull the mic a little closer. There. Thank you. Reynolds: I am not officially a representative of Paramount Subdivision. Paramount Subdivision has an HOA, but it is currently controlled by the Brighton Corporation and the Brighton Corporation has told us that they have decided to take a neutral stance on this application. As such we have members in Paramount who are on an HOA advisory board, but with differing opinions in Paramount. I am not going to say that I represent Paramount. Does that make sense? Bernt: Makes sense. Reynolds: Okay. So, I am here representing -- De Weerd: As clear as mud. Reynolds: Okay. There is some -- De Weerd: I think it's resemblant of what we have been talking about. Reynolds: Okay. Great. So, I am representing a group of residents called Smart Group -- or Smart Growth For Meridian and at the same Planning and Zoning meeting where Linder Village was heard, an application for the eight acres to the south was also heard. Many residents left after the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously decided to recommend denial of Linder Village, but a handful of us stayed after for the Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 52 of 107 Linder mixed use application. You see, the developer was asking for a mixture of 113 apartments, 213 parking spaces, along with some commercial pads directly below this. Due to current overcrowding in schools and the fact that these apartments would bring the total number of multi-family units in the square mile to almost 700, the residents asked for a continuance and for the developer to bring back an alternate plan. He was communicative, responsive and proactive in searching for solutions that would minimize the impact on our schools and neighborhoods. Within four short weeks he brought back a different plan that scrapped the apartments and included a preschool, a daycare, and the dance studio and the 10,000 square foot dance recital hall. We were thrilled. At the last Planning and Zoning meeting we got up and we gave positive feedback, so that that application would be approved. So, I would want on the record that we are pro- development, that we are pro-business, that we do want to see these services come to our community. Now, on that note does Meridian need a WinCo on this corner? As you sifted through thousands of e-mails you have probably seen varying opinions. Personally -- and I know many others who agree with me -- who believe or still believe the answer is no -- WinCo is a regional grocery store. Residents in north Meridian already have a Walmart, Fred Meyer, two Albertsons and a Target within one to two miles of our home. If that isn't convenient I don't know what is. Other people say yes, as WinCo has proudly counted. In our day and age people want to boil it down to a yes or no decision, but you know it's not as easy as that. So, I say to myself, well, a lot of other people want to link up and even though I don't think it might be the right decision, how can we come together on a compromise for a plan that benefits everyone? As an Idaho based company could WinCo find a way to bring jobs, services, and tax revenue to the city, but also be a good neighbor? I would hope so. The residents who are amenable to WinCo in occupying this space would like to see a couple of things in order of importance. If WinCo locates here, operating and delivering hours are restricted and limited between 11:00 and 6:00 p.m. Walgreens on the corner of Linder and McMillan agreed to do it. Walmart on Ten Mile did it. And both of those stores operate on the 24/7 business model. Number two. And this is a big one for us. City Council work with ACHD to ensure the connecting roads from the site to Paramount are not an easy thoroughfare, especially when Chinden and Linder are under construction. All of the site plans, until this one, limited pass-through traffic from the commercial site to the residential portion. It is one of the few things the developers and the residents agreed on. But ACHD pushed for connectivity. Mayor Tammy said at the last hearing one of the positive aspects of the plan was that, quote, it doesn't connect into the commercial aspect, which grows greater confidence that the traffic isn't going to inundate one of our premier subdivisions. Close quote. Number three is the building sizes. They do not fall in line with the maximum footprint. A variance can be given for WinCo, but there is still two other stores who exceed the maximum footprint for a mixed use community subdivision. Number four. Widening Chinden. You have already discussed this, so I'm not going to add anything into it, except that we are really worried about bottlenecks going to the east. So, the development on this corner will impact a large number of Meridian residents who have waited patiently for seven months and we followed the proper public process to express valid concerns. These concerns were submitted to the city with factual data and qualitative data. For example, deviations from -- from this plan and the city's Comprehensive Plan were presented by someone who actually helped Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 53 of 107 create the Meridian comprehensive city plan. The number of children in the walk zone came from West Ada School District numbers. Videos of decibel readings from WinCo delivery trucks were submitted. Videos of sound from the WinCo Fairview store were submitted and, then, the liberties and the definitions of the city guidelines and taken by the developer with respect to timelines, were noted by an attorney. We also submitted public comments, letters and petitions. As Mr. Cavener has said, this plan has gotten a little better every time it's gone back to the drawing board, but it's only gone back to the drawing board when the residents' concerns are brought before the city in a public hearing and are on the record. We are asking you to put that on the record again. Our first preference would be for the Council to remand the application back to the P&Z Commission. The applicant has cited all of the numerous changes and improvements that have been made to the plan. We appreciate those steps in the right direction. Given all these changes, the proper channel for this application would be to go back to P&Z for a full review by the staff, one that takes more than four days, because I noticed the plan came in last Tuesday and it was ready on Friday, and the recommendation on this plan from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is why they exist. They are the experts in planning and zoning. At the last hearing Mr. Cavener stated, you know, Madam Mayor, we have heard a lot of correspondence from the citizens and many of the e-mails that I read I know maybe had referenced something, Madam Mayor, that you 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 remand it back to them and give them another opportunity to look at this. We have seen with the application each time a second set of eyes is placed on it the quality of product improves and I think the applicant has indicated there is a high demand for this type of product in the 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 the P&Z Commission is absolutely appropriate and I think the right course of action for this Council to take. We wholeheartedly support that. So, what would this timeline be? And according to our ACHD liaison that I have talked to about this, she said it's going to be at least be six weeks from when the rumble strips were put out until she gets a report from Kittelson and Associates. That puts us until the end of January. She said ACHD turnaround times were two to four weeks. That will put us about the middle of February, at which time after they have the report they will schedule the public hearing. After we attend the public hearing, then, they will fine-tune their reports and, then, they will be able to give those back to the applicant. The applicant will not receive a final sign off on the plat from ACHD and be able to continue to the final plat until he -- until they have that sign off from ACHD. So, in essence, a six week or an eight week going back to P&Z and, then, coming back here, it's -- it's not going to disadvantage the developer at all. I would also like to point out that the plat we are looking at here tonight is different than the one given to ACHD and different than the one printed for Meridian Press on January 12th. Now, if City Council wants to continue at this level, as Madam Mayor has kind of alluded to, we ask you to provide clear directions to the applicant on what we -- how you would like to see this plan change and what modifications need to be made. I would like to end on a personal note. So, let me state for the record that the following are my sole remarks and not those for Smart Growth For Meridian. So, many of you don't know me, but I am not a person who likes Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 54 of 107 conflicts and like many of you I play many roles, that of wife and mother and daughter and neighbor and friend and this is not a role that I thought that I would ever be in, speaking on behalf of other residents. From the beginning of his application, just like the Council Woman Milam referred to, I wish there would have been open communication, so it could have been resolved efficiently, because uncertainty breeds fear and I can definitely attest to the fact that this has divided the city. It's been a strain on our community and even cost people friendships. From the beginning our group has been clear on what we would like to see. Our message has not changed. We would like a true mixed-use community village. It was only after denial by P&Z that the developer reached out to us. I was excited at the little changes I started to see and communicated to them -- like the plaza, that if they would come to the last city hearing and ask for a continuance we would support them in that effort, but if they asked for approval we would ask for denial, because it showed that they were done making concessions when they had barely scratched the surface. Since, then, more changes have been made and that's great. Again, I ask if they are asking for a continuance -- but, again, they said they are not. I wish they were, so I could come here tonight in support of that. With that, the only question that I have is actually for staff -- if I may. De Weerd: You can ask it through me and I will ask staff to address. Reynolds: Okay. So, on the open space -- I know that it's calculated commensurate with the size of the buildings being increased, so WinCo was already accounted for when we saw that application last time, but mid anchors, too, and, then, the future retail development, those both exceed 30,000 square feet. So, excuse me, the -- the increase in that needs to be increased in the open space amount and so I was wondering if staff has had time to look at those numbers to make sure that they are right and to qualify that all of the open space actually counts and, then, it's not the landscape buffering. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I -- I guess either Mr. Nary or Sonya -- Nary: It sounds like a calculation question. De Weerd: Yes. The building sizes conforms to our Comprehensive Plan and our -- our land use designation, as well as the UDC and the evaluation as submitted. Correct? That was fewer words, but -- Reynolds: Yeah. De Weerd: Does that represent your -- Reynolds: Yeah. Is the open space right now calculated correctly for that -- De Weerd: Open space and the size of the -- the buildings. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 55 of 107 Reynolds: Well, the size of the building should be right, because that's what she -- they calculate the open space off of. De Weerd: Okay. Reynolds: So -- Allen: Madam Mayor, Council, this is a concept plan that's before you tonight. If -- if building sizes come forward with actual development that do go beyond those desired in MUC designated area and do require additional qualified open space, staff will review those numbers in detail at that time. Right now it's just a concept plan. It appears that they -- they meet the minimum requirements for that. However, I will concede that it appears they have counted areas that would not count also. That will be determined at a later date when more detailed plans come in. De Weerd: So, those calculations are usually done when they start submitting more definite plans? Allen: That's correct, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Reynolds: Okay. Great. And I think we would also like to see some of the open space not just landscaping along the busy roads and on the out land, but maybe somewhere where the community can gather just besides that plaza, which was mostly businesses, so -- De Weerd: Thank you, Sally. Any questions? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. Sally, you said the group is Smart Growth. Could you tell me how many members or how many you represent? Reynolds: Sure. Probably close to 1,000, so -- and about 700 of those had signed a petition way back in June, July with these same things that we are requesting. Approximately 350 of those petitioners were homeowners within Paramount and the other 300 came from homeowners outside of Paramount. I have given two already ten minute really long PowerPoint presentations with tons of factual data and I actually mapped every single one of those 350 homeowners in Paramount. So, you can see where the distribution and where they are. So, it is in the public testimony if you would like to see that. Little Roberts: Follow up? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 56 of 107 De Weerd: Uh-huh. Little Roberts: You mentioned -- and I apologize if I didn't hear you correctly, but your group is against connectivity between the residents and the project? Reynolds: Right. So, in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan usually when there is residents in a mixed-use community, they do encourage connectivity and we would -- if it was -- if this was being developed in line with mixed-use community, we would welcome that connectivity and, ACHD, they also require connectivity and from their site they are over our neighborhood roads and they are over Linder Road. So, it is to their benefit to funnel traffic through the neighborhood to keep the arterials more clear. The unique situation we have with this is that it's not really conforming -- I mean even if you tried to push WinCo to the side and look at everything else, it's not really going as a mixed-use community format and so we are saying if it's going to be more of a commercial area, then, can we, please, limit that with our major concern being Arliss. If there was just one that we could say, please, don't do, it's Arliss. I can't -- if you look at the high school traffic, they come out right there and they make a right and they can go down Arliss and will cut right through to the commercial during their lunch break, in the mornings, just to get around traffic they will probably come out at this traffic light. So, our major concern is also for the safety of the children on Arliss, because those frontage roads -- ACHD, as you will notice, these -- the residential, the applicant had to turn them, because this is a collector road. Well, Arliss is not technically a collector road. We have homes facing that road and to us we feel like that would become a collector road, again, unsafe conditions. So, we are asking for no connectivity. Little Roberts: Thank you. Follow-up? De Weerd: Can you tell me which one is Arliss? Reynolds: Oh, sure. The commercial pad at the south -- that one. That's Arliss right there. De Weerd: Okay. Reynolds: I travel that street regularly at 20 miles an hour. There are parked cars on either side. Granted the CC&Rs say they are not supposed to be there. It doesn't say -- that doesn't mean they always are. They are there that if one person comes, the other person can't pass and I have driven down that street where a little boy has run out in front of a pickup truck and I'm going 20 miles an hour and I slammed and that is the closest that I have ever come and as a mother I was just shaking in my car, so grateful that I did not hit him. I do not know what that would do -- not only to the mother, but to a high school student who had to live with that for the rest of their life. I know it's fear or whatever and maybe it will never happen and I hope that it doesn't, but I think that we can take preventative measures that are smart to limit that and our fear was -- if we go before ACHD at the public hearing and we say, please, limit this, they are going to say, Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 57 of 107 no, we have to go through and we will say -- but the land use is commercial and they say that's a land use, go talk to City Council. But if we talk to City Council about roads, it's -- you know, ACHD is -- so, we would really like some cooperation between the agencies to decide what's safe. Little Roberts: And, Madam Mayor, just a comment. I'm surprised regarding the connectivity, because as I was reading through all the e-mails, one of the things that I made -- kept making note of was requests for connectivity. So, I think that's one of those situations that we have got a lot of people on both sides. Reynolds: Sure. And, you know, those -- those people -- I would be happy to address and I don't know where the safety issues outweigh the convenience. That might be something that we need to bring before ACHD and before the Council again at the next hearing. And maybe if they are here to testify they can let us know why. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for Mrs. Reynolds? Thank you so much. Mr. Clerk. Coles: Thank you. Michael Battaglia signed up as neutral, not wishing to testify. Michael Arnold signed up against, not wishing to testify. Barbara Badigian signed up against, not wishing to testify. Lori Badigian signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: I was thinking you didn't look like Lori, but -- good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Badigian: My name is Jeff Badigian. I live at 6161 North Booth Avenue in Meridian. So, I am in the Paramount Subdivision as well. So, I would just like to start by saying I'm not opposed to this development, I'm just opposed to this development as it stands and I -- I think that you will hear a lot of people come up here tonight in support of this -- this development and I think that they maybe won't be directly affected by the way the development progresses. You know, in November the City Council did hear that Planning and Zoning denied this unanimously and -- and I think that it's interesting that -- I think historically you guys probably listen to Planning and Zoning a lot and if it's a unanimous decision to deny, that you would at least ask some questions and not just push it through and continue the process. So, anyways, we are where we are now and it's not -- not that we can't change it. You know, I love that you talk about Smart Growth For Meridian and I know that your Twitter tag is, you know, hashtag My Meridian and I love that and I just want that to stay the way that it is. My Meridian. I'd hate for it to be hashtag Your Meridian. So, I guess that Sally really said it all. I -- I totally back up everything she says. I think that we should -- as you motioned -- remand this back to P&Z, let them make the decision. There is still a few things on -- even on this new map that they are showing, the Comprehensive -- I'm sorry -- their -- their new plan. That -- yeah. So, over here on the east side, which is -- abuts our house. There really is no transition to the future office and retail development. It's just a walking path where the water district has their land and, then, the homes and a parking lot right behind that. So, there is a lot of things I think that need to be changed. You know, I know that they Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 58 of 107 -- they moved the WinCo store a little bit north and they turned it and, then, they moved it again. They showed on their plans 66 feet to the north. I can throw a rock that far. I mean it's just not really that big of a change. I think that we expected a little more and, again, that connectivity for this size of a development into our neighborhood is I think just too much and there is going to be a lot of traffic, because there is not really a lot of access out from Chinden and Linder and I -- honestly, we don't even know if ACHD is going to allow the light at Bergman. So, there is a lot of things that need to happen and, as Sally said, an eight week time frame to go back to P&Z -- if we go back now and they start reviewing it, ACHD will have their -- their timeline done, their -- their plan done and I think that in that amount of time maybe we can move forward, so thank you for your time tonight. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor. Jeff, one of the concerns you brought up was the location of the WinCo building. Is your concern with the -- the proximity of the building itself to the residences or the loading dock? What facet of WinCo are you concerned about? Badigian: Well, Councilman Palmer, thank you for that question and I think that the building itself -- it doesn't represent the way that the land use -- I'm sorry. And I don't know the terms. Future land use map doesn't really say that this should go from residential to commercial. You know, there was a transition plan in place and I think that it would be prudent for us to move that out to the corner -- or move it farther north than it is now. It should, in my opinion, be residential, you know, mixed use, small mixed use, and, then, have that gradually transitioned into the larger store. Palmer: Madam Mayor, follow up? And, Jeff -- and the additional structures that were added in between -- not only the sound wall, but the -- you know, the pad site there and the live-work structures, that's -- to you that's an inadequate transition? Badigian: I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Palmer: So, there on the screen between the WinCo and the residences -- Badigian: Yes. Palmer: -- they added some structures there, the live-work structures and that small pad site right there at the corner. Badigian: I do see that and I just -- you know, I thought that there was going to be a two transition phase into the commercial development. Not to mention that this -- this is kind of a large commercial development, as opposed to what it was supposed to be on the future land where it was a mixed use community. So, we have changed that a lot and I just don't feel that that is an adequate transition into that larger of commercial. De Weerd: You thank. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 59 of 107 Badigian: You thank. Coles: David Eastman signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Eastman: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. My name is Dave Eastman. Or David Eastman. Sorry. I live at 1192 West Bacall Street. I'd like to kind of give you a little bit of my background, just to help you understand a little bit more that we are not just a bunch of NIMBYs who don't want anything behind us on that -- on that land. I have been responsible for commercial development all over the U.S., in a couple of countries in South America, several places in Idaho, probably upwards of, oh, about one hundred million dollars spent on development. I have worked with city councils, I have worked with mayors, I have worked with county commissioners, I have worked with economic development. I have even worked with the lieutenant governor who gave me a surprise call, but if you have ever talked to him he doesn't really announce it, so I just got, hey, Dave, this is Brad and I had to kind of guess who he was and one thing he told me was to never drop names. So, I'm glad I -- anyway, after all that I have seen we kind of come to where we are right now. We have a proposed development -- as you know, Planning and Zoning has recommended denial unanimously. We don't have ACHD recommendations. Citizens have very legitimate and serious concerns about the development and, fortunately, there is other people to elaborate on that more than I am. I'm also losing my voice. You have an uncertain timeline with ITD on Chinden, various -- various problems and, yet, the developer is here tonight and they are asking you to approve it. They are not asking for a continuance and, again, this is a really awkward situation and all that I have seen it kind of boggles my mind and what I think I can come down to is they perceive that you guys are careless enough to just give them a blanket approval on as it is without addressing any of these concerns. I don't think you're careless. In fact, if we did think you were careless I mean we would vote somebody else into these positions, so we think you are competent and we think you are smart and that's why you are here making these decisions and what I would propose is that this get sent back either to Planning and Zoning or it gets denied outright. Give them some time to go back and to make the changes that are necessary, use your powers and negotiate something that works for the community. Use your power to negotiate something that will be remembered as a good development that makes good use of a very important intersection. It's -- it's kind of interesting to see the whole development of this also in that only changes get made when -- when the city agency or Council kicks this a little bit down the road and forces them to make adjustments. So, send them back, tell them they cannot have 24 hour operations abutting or next to -- I won't use the official word -- next to residential development. Tell them they need to address issues like connectivity, like traffic on Chinden, and I know you guys can do it, you're competent, we have faith in you, and you have the power to do this and I recommend and I implore you to do that. One question for planning staff, if I may -- De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 60 of 107 Eastman: -- Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Your time is up, but one question. Eastman: Okay. I noticed on Friday, the 12th, that the staff recommendations changed from recommending denial to just recommending. I'm just wondering what influenced that decision. It went out at one point and, then, it went back out at another point totally different. So, I'm just wondering why that changed. What influenced that decision? De Weerd: I can't answer that. Eastman: Oh. Could staff by chance, possibly? Maybe? Allen: Madam Mayor, would you like me to respond? De Weerd: Oh, please, help me, because I wasn't part of that. Allen: Madam Mayor, Council, staff only makes a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. From that point on the Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. Based on the last Council hearing staff was under the impression that Council would like to have conditions of approval -- possible conditions of approval moving forward should they vote to approve the application at tonight's hearing. The hearing in November did not have conditions of approval associated with that, because the Commission had recommended denial. Staff's out at this point. Eastman: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Allen: However, if the application is remanded back to the Commission, then, staff would at that point go through the whole staff report and likely make an amendment based on the revised plans. De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor. Mr. Eastman, thanks for coming to testifying. Just like to make sure that I understand all of your concerns. It seems like the main points you wanted to -- is for us to wait to hear from other government agencies on their opinions on the project, but, then, you did mention one of the changes -- you mentioned a lot about the word change, but the only -- only change I think I heard you mention was your concern with the 24 hour facility and its proximity to residential units. Is there a scenario on the property in which you would be okay with a 24 hour facility or just -- or are you okay with WinCo with limited hours? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 61 of 107 Eastman: Councilman Palmer, thank you for your question. You know, that's all -- the problem is -- and I'm going to give you a very long answer to a short question. I apologize for those coming after me. The problem is in asking that question you're making the assumption that the developer would be willing to do this and we have gone through this basically at loggerheads with the developer and the developers only make changes when it's absolutely been necessary. Would I personally come to a point where a 24 hour operation could be acceptable if they move the WinCo far away -- oh, I'm sorry -- far enough away from residential. I think so. I mean this could be a wonderful location and WinCo is not going anywhere, because they see that this is a good location. I mean it really is. So, why don't we use that to make it right for the community and make it something where we go, oh, this is a wonderful location, we are happy and nobody's driving past it cursing like many of the other intersections around here and everybody is happy with it. So, to answer your question, I said it would be long, I think it is possible. I mean we are not, again, a bunch of NIMBYs who are saying we don't want anything back there. Palmer: Madam Mayor. And I asked the question without any assumption as to what they might or might not do. They can ask whatever they want and, then, we will make a decision. But I guess when it comes to operations -- and this just came to mind. I don't know if it's to yourself or the audience, maybe, as to whether they don't want -- they just don't want it open to customers? Would you be okay with the restocking and whatever or just it's shut down for the night? Eastman: Councilman Palmer, thanks again for the question. I would say operations means any operations, so -- but if they are receiving shipping it has to be within reasonable hours. I mean the city has ordinances dictating this and I just respectfully request that they -- that the city enforce those ordinances. Palmer: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Eastman: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, is a 24 hour operation allowed in this designation? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes. So, it's in either one of two forms. As you have heard, it's where the property is adjacent to residential property and adjacent in our code means the property lines abut each other. So, they touch. In this case that's been the direction from staff is that the property lines, as -- as this is subdivided, no longer are abutting, so there are no restrictions on their operation. If they were abutting it's still not prohibited, it's allowed through a conditional use where the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Council if it were to be appealed, would set whatever conditions they feel would be appropriate to lessen or mitigate some of the impacts to the neighborhood. Not necessarily eliminate all the impacts, but to mitigate or lessen some of those impacts. So, in either scenario it's allowed in this location. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 62 of 107 One requires a conditional use if it is -- if the property lines do abut each other. The other does not have any restriction on that. So, I hope that answers your question. But it is allowed in either scenario in this circumstance. One just requires a conditional use permit instead of just being allowed outright. De Weerd: And as proposed it would not need a conditional use permit? Nary: That's correct. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk. Coles: Justin Carpenter signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Carpenter: Justin Carpenter. 5991 North Arliss. De Weerd: Thank you. Carpenter: I know there has been some -- you know, I guess abutting -- it's got a clear definition to everybody in this development, but I am, in my opinion, abutting this. I am on Arliss. I am touching this project and it affects me and my family. Saying that, we are not against this development. We bought this house and we are excited for something to be built there. But we don't love this. You know, especially the -- you know, I like the changes the developer has made with this most recent revision, but, then, they have added that building, that pad there on the south side that actually touches my property and, you know, I -- I want definite restrictions. I don't want a three story office building going in, you know, looking down in my backyard. Now, I did hear them say that there was going to be some congruence of the skyline to meet the surrounding, so, you know, hopefully, there can be restrictions to -- to limit what gets built in that southern pad if it does go in. A lot of my other neighbors have also said that that joining of the neighborhood through that red line that's come up a couple of times, I think that that's just going to lead to problems. You know, Arliss was not designed as a through street and there is currently no stop sign on Bacall. So, you have people trying to use that through street, you have no stop sign on Bacall. That might be a discussion for another time, but that's definitely a public safety issue that's going to have to be taken into consideration. I have had numerous close calls with people not realizing my house is right back in that corner and they just come whipping around making that left- hand turn and nearly take us out. You know, what I see with this plan mostly is, you know, when you go to the grocery store you take your car, you know, you're filling up with groceries and, you know, if this was really what the developer is trying to advertise it to be, you know, it seems like it should be inverted, you know, because you're going to -- you know, if I could walk to a retail -- if I could walk to a restaurant in the evening I would. I would prefer that. I mean we have some beautiful summer nights and, you know, I just think that this is just -- it's flipped the wrong way. All of the pedestrian traffic Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 63 of 107 -- you know, probably 90 percent of it would be coming from the Paramount Subdivision, you know, and you put -- you put those shops furthest away from them you're not going to get pedestrians walking over from Fred Meyers or from the Fox Run area. This just doesn't make congruent sense to me, you know. If it's going to be there for us and most of us do want something. You know, my concern is 24 hour access, that through street, and -- you know. And the potential for residential affecting the school district. You know, Paramount Elementary and the middle schools are all overburdened. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. Any questions from Council? Thank you. Carpenter: Thanks. Coles: Mary Eastman signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Eva Eastman signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Dorothy Pefferle signed up against, not wishing to testify. Linda Bayford signed up against, not wishing to testify. Bruce Penske signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Penske: My name is Bruce Penske. My address 998 West Bacall. My property is immediately abutting his property, a little -- I'm three houses from Bergman Street and you have heard of Bergman. Madam Mayor and Council Members, a couple of items. I was disappointed when your prior motion failed. I would much prefer to come back and have the whole Council have more information from Planning and Zoning than try to make a decision tonight that may become an uninformed decision. The -- WinCo has moved their store 66 feet. They say that they have met with the neighborhood a second time. I was never notified of that. Any changes that they have made to their plan have been very reluctantly and very small changes, in my opinion. There is still a huge issue with the traffic on Chinden that could be tied up for years and I travel Chinden quite often living right there on the north side. If you approved it tonight, from Planning and Zoning they said that you could approve it with conditions of approval, but you still don't have all the information you need to make any kind of approval and it should be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning again, to gather all the information that you really need. I don't think you should be rushed into a bad decision, because you will have to live with it for the rest of your lives and everyone in -- in Meridian will, too, and even as far away as Caldwell -- the people that commute from Caldwell across Chinden Boulevard, which is a state highway and to tie it up, the light at Bergman is crazy. The ITD website says that when stoplights are at a half mile intersection it reduces the speed limits to 36 miles an hour average. When you put them in at a quarter mile, which is what Bergman would be, it reduces that average speed to 18 miles an hour and that's on the ITD website. So, that would be a huge bottleneck from Caldwell to Boise by way of Highway 20-26. So, go with your initial thoughts and remand it back to the Planning and Zoning for further study. Thank you. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 64 of 107 De Weerd: Mr. Penske, I have a question for you. Then you think that rather than having the light there at Bergman you would want it at Fox Run and funnel all the traffic out this -- out of this development onto a subdivision lighted signalization? Penske: Well, as someone else said, they don't want the connectivity and that's another thing is do we or don't we and it depends on what's built out there. Other people have talked about the size of the stores, but Fox Run doesn't give you access unless on the east side of this those other streets come through into this development and Bergman, which is three doors from me and Arliss all go in, then, people could turn in Fox Run and come through. There has been talk about getting access through property that Brighton owns right near Veranda Living Center, across from there on Fox Run. That would be sort of a frontage road that would give access and by way of a light, but coming through the residential area is not a good option. As Sally said, the -- the traffic on Arliss will be a major -- major thoroughfare on Arliss, which it isn't built for. De Weerd: So, you are advocating, then, that this not get the light and that all of that traffic, then, would go to Fox Run? Penske: Well, Fox Run or the entrances on Linder Road. But to put another light so that you have one at Linder, Bergman, Fox Run and Meridian Road -- to have four lights in a mile stretch is too many lights and just slows traffic down to a state highway. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Coles: James Sweet signed up against, not wishing testify. Ginger Sweet signed up against, not wishing to testify. Pat Brown signed up against, not wishing to testify. Roger Lyngaas signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for sticking with us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Lyngaas: My name is Robert Lyngaas, 12713 Renwick. I do need a favor. I would like to call up on the screen the open space exhibit. Thank you. After reviewing the plan changes, my comments are such -- my first question is where did the green space go? As you saw in the video, that's virtual reality. What we need to realize is -- where is this mouse? Okay. See where the plaza is? That is not exactly green space. That's going to be concrete. So, the color green -- I just want to make sure we understand -- is not green space. Oops. I'm -- okay. Thank you. In light of that, there is significant improvements in this design and I appreciate that. There are a few other things I want to point out with this map. If you look where the mouse is, there was a point made in the presentations that the distance from here to over here is 567 feet. Perhaps that's so. However, the trucks are coming through here and they are making a lot of noise right here, if you understand shipping. That is probably less than 300 feet. We don't have an exact number. Which is less than a hundred yards. I just want everyone to be aware of that. Now, where is the bus stop? I heard someone talk about a bus stop just once. For a development like this, I honestly believe you need a major bus stop, not a Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 65 of 107 minor one. People are going to be going down Chinden all the way into Boise on buses. Where is it? Could someone point that out to me? I'm sorry, I didn't hear anything. So, perhaps that will wait for Planning and Zoning. Lastly, which plan is the developer really submitting? I have seen several plans. None have been recommended for approval by our Planning and Zoning Commission. In light of that, I actually encourage you to reject the project entirely. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? To your question on the location of the -- the bus stop. Lyngaas: Yes. Borton: The pointer is showing its location. Whether it's the appropriate size or not, at least that's -- Lyngaas: Oh, where would I like it? Thank you. I'd love it right where the plaza is. That's easy access for elderly people for all the stores. Okay? My mother would love that. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Coles: Shantel Archuleta signed up against, not wishing to testify. Frank Turner signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Dena Uhlenkoff signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Bob Uhlenkoff signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Andrea Carroll signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will -- not grab that. Carroll: Good evening. My name is Andrea Carroll. I represented a group of citizens that -- Protect Meridian. My address is 714 West State Street. That's my office address. I'm an attorney. I'm a land use attorney and I have been in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council several times on -- hello? Okay. Bernt: Thank you, C.Jay. That was fantastic. De Weerd: That fixed it. Carroll: Yeah. So, whenever you're approving an annexation or providing initial zoning or handling a rezone request, what you're doing is you're providing a very important legal entitlement to the developer. Once you give that away -- and if you do that by approving with conditions of approval that they comply with ACHD and ITD -- once you give that away you put yourself in an inferior position to address the issues that might come up as these plans develop, because this is a concept plan. As they have emphasized, it's not -- it could change quite a bit and so once you give that entitlement to the developer, you have lost a lot of your bargaining power to be able to address the Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 66 of 107 issues that the community has brought forward to you. You also lose the ability to hear from the citizens when they are able to look at, for instance, the traffic counts. They were -- they were very quickly addressed by the developer this evening and it was stated that they are the same, but I would like to point out to the -- to the Council that no traffic counts have ever been entered into the record, that even the original traffic impact study was never entered into the record. We are waiting for an updated traffic impact study. There is virtually nothing in the record to support the Council's findings that this would not be an adverse impact to public safety and those findings, even if you put as conditions of approval to comply with ACHD and ITD, what are you going to base those findings on? What is in the record is an evaluation from COMPASS and that came in right at the tail end of the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of this application and I haven't heard it addressed very much in front of City Council, but what COMPASS had to say -- and they take a very holistic view, unlike ACHD that looks at one part of the problem, and ITD that looks at a different part of the problem and City of Meridian that's looking just at the land -- land use problem. They are looking holistically and what they have said is the proposal exceeds growth forecasted for this neighborhood and transportation infrastructure may not be able to support demand. I think that puts it on the City of Meridian to get a little more information than what the developer has provided you tonight to feel comfortable that this is not going to be detrimental to the safety of the citizens of Meridian. It's -- it's not good enough what they have proposed with the STAR plan and Chinden. It's not good enough. It doesn't protect citizens. The plan that's been presented with Arliss with -- with children at the schools that are in an open campus going to and from WinCo and the children and the site -- and it's not even a collector street. It's not good enough. I ask that you deny and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. I'm going to call a five minute break. Just -- we will reconvene then. (Recess: 9:14 p.m. to 9:23 p.m.) De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and ask that this meeting come back to order and we will ask Mr. Clerk to resume from the list. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Next on the list Annette Alonzo, signed up against, wishing testifying. De Weerd: Good evening. Alonzo: Hi. I'm Annette Alonzo. I live at 2204 East Hyper Drive in Meridian and I'm representing the Southern Rim Coalition, whose is banding together with this group. We are trying to help each other through things like this in our community with Meridian. So, I know there was a letter sent to you today. I'm not sure if all of you got to read it, but I'm just going to kind of summarize some of those things and add a few anecdotes and that will just be quick for you. So, Southern Rim Coalition has been monitoring this Linder Village. I was here at the October meeting when it was very clear that Planning Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 67 of 107 and Zoning wanted that WinCo moved up onto the Chinden corner, rather than down where it is now and the developer definitely said they were not going to do any kind of redraw. So, I listened to that myself. The Linder Village outcome will set a precedent -- a city-wide precedent for development up against residential areas in our livable neighborhoods and so we urge the City Council take time to get this right. We need to remand this back to Planning and Zoning. Planning and Zoning needs to look at all the detail and there is not -- all the detail has not been given here. So, I don't even know how a decision could be made. The latest iteration was submitted a week ago. I don't think that gave adequate time for the people -- the residents to even review this. One week was not a long enough time for them to be able to go through this and really look at their options and talk to the people they needed to talk to. The present reiteration is virtually a new application. So, of course, Planning and Zoning should see it. They have made several changes -- multiple changes in this. The application still doesn't address all the issues that the residents wanted. The thing about the time that the store is going to be open -- I don't think they have an issue with WinCo, I think people like WinCo. It's one of our local groups. We like it. I think it's just with -- about where it is located, the noise it has -- I know I lived for six months upon on the corner of McMillan and Eagle Road in The Legends. I was down McMillan away from the Albertsons. At 4:00 o'clock in the morning the garbage trucks came and it shot me out of bed every day that those dumped in there and they dumped three or four times. So, I know how much noise and I was probably 200 or more yards away from that. So, I know how much noise a grocery store area can make and these people have legitimate reasons for not wanting the hours and those things going like that. So, we are not against growth. We need these services. Our communities need these services. It just needed to be smart, because once these decisions are made it impacts us forever. We can't go back and change it. So, we need to make sure we make smart decisions now and really think about this and look at all the data before we make a decision. Questions? De Weerd: Thank you. Alonzo: Thank you very much. Coles: Tony Alonzo, signed up against, not wishing to testify. Jonathan Khanoski signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Khanoski: Good evening. I'm Jonathan Khanoski. I live at three -- my wife and I live at 357 West Heston Court. That's in Paramount. Madam Mayor and Council Members, I would like to make three points. Contrary to a lot of expressions tonight, the changes that have been made are really rather minor and cosmetic. It's the same sea of parking, with the same buildings scattered about with no center of gravity. Imagine working in the retail on the east side and wanting to go to one of the restaurants, how far you have to walk. How many lanes of traffic you have to cross. This isn't pedestrian friendly at all. It's the same concept that you see all up and down Eagle Road, with the same strip mall appearance. One of the objections that I have and why I wish to have this denied Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 68 of 107 and have them go back and start with a clean sheet is because this is really tweaking around the edges. It's not a major revamp, a whole new design. I would also note -- I have been in a dense forest up at Fort Lewis, Washington, in the middle of the night and I have heard trucks running and I have heard doors slamming and I have heard conversations from three and four hundred feet -- even two, three hundred yards away, because at night travel -- sound travels much, much further than during the day. There is no ambient noise to drown out those noises. So, a line of trees is not going to protect the nearby neighborhood. Point two. Why are we here? This proposed project or application started in gross violation of the Comprehensive Plan multiple use community zoning and after months in consideration and going back and forth, the developer has made minimal changes and only begrudgingly and never considered a whole new design. The primary tenant has made no meaningful compromise on either location or hours of operation. This should be a no brainer. Deny it. Period. Number three. This decision -- not to make too much of it, but the decision having to do with this decides the future. Deny this application and you uphold the Comprehensive Plan. Approve this and you say we have a Comprehensive Plan, but it's negotiable and it opens the door to the next guy and the next guy and the next guy wanting similar treatment and we citizens can no longer count on the Comprehensive Plan to have any meaning and offer any protection to us. Deny this application and you say Meridian stands for smart, elegant growth. Approve it and you say this application and Meridian is just another burb, like all of the other burbs chasing growth, even if it leads to ugly sprawl. The future is in your hands. Thank you. Questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do have one question for you. Which do you think is worse -- or -- or is a bigger problem to try to solve, the hours of operation at the location where the WinCo is or the size of the footprint of the store itself? Because one necessitates a large parking lot regardless of the hours of operation. Or are either of those a greater evil? Khanoski: I would say in terms of the impact on -- on the surrounding community, it's the noise. Now, whether that's harder to solve -- and I -- frankly, any grocery store in an MUC should not be 10,000 -- whatever this is. Eighty-five thousand square feet, 24/7. That's an industrial-sized operation. It should be something like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's, something in the 20 to 30 thousand square foot range, so that it fits in and it doesn't need 500 acres of parking. It can be done much smaller. I did a -- there was an article in the Wall Street Journal a while back and if you like I will send it to all of you, but it was describing how retail is coming back. But it isn't going in the malls, it's going in next to -- next to residential and they highlighted one -- one place in -- I think it was Fort Worth, Texas, and I went and looked at their website and so forth and that's what -- they had two -- it was one big long pedestrian kind of expression. There was an REI at one end and it was a Whole Foods at the other and lots of local -- I don't think it was a single national chain -- certainly nothing fast food drive-thru in that entire complex. There were two parking lots, it was a separate building off, but the -- the pedestrians Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 69 of 107 walked only a short distance from one cluster of buildings to the other. So, it was minimal exposure to traffic. And that's the kind of design that should be here. Not restaurants up on the road for visibility, because that's what the chain restaurants want, and not -- you have three, four, five different centers of gravity. If I shop in the plaza and I want to eat, how far do I have to walk? Or now I want to go to the movie. Look how far back I want to go if that -- that one building down there is -- is going to be a movie theater. I mean if you want jogging trails this thing is great. But for -- for the average person going out and shopping and dining and hanging out, having a glass of wine after dinner, this is a nightmare and dodging cars the whole time. Coles: Keith Jones signed up in favor, wishing to testify. Jones: Madam Mayor, Council Members, good evening. Thank you. I had not prepared words, had not known that was -- De Weerd: Can you, please, state your name and address first. Jones: Oh. Keith Jones. 280 West Corporate Drive, Suite 130. De Weerd: Thank you. Jones: Thank you. Listening here today, same as I did last time, there are many organized intelligent people and I know that you represent many thousands beyond this room and I think there are probably thousands of people that will benefit. Prior to this there were other items on the agenda, all of which required funding. You know, we are looking for -- here we come along, there is a source of funding and it gets pushed away with a stick. I don't -- I can't quite square that circle. I had heard things in this hearing with respect to, you know, how overcrowded the schools -- this is primarily a commercial development. It does have a residential component to it. The Planning and Zoning I think has a -- the planning has eight units per acre. I think it's at about four units per acre. So, I believe the benefits do outweigh the negatives and if there is a way to approve with condition that allows you to speak to some of the remaining concerns -- some of the concerns I'm not sure how to speak to, whether or not the subdivision gets pushed closer to the existing subdivision and the residents, if it goes along to Chinden or vice-versa. I don't know how to square that circle. But whether the changes were reluctantly made or made on -- they were made and it has been a collaborative process and I do see a team here trying to speak to the concerns of the neighbors and the surrounding areas. You have the municipalities. Everybody has their own interest. But how do you move it forward to benefit many thousands that aren't in this room, frankly. I believe there are benefits here. The area is growing. You know many of us have moved here -- I moved here 27 years ago. I got married, moved here, started a family, stated a business. Will die here. There will be many people coming after me that will do the same thing for the same reasons that I'm coming here. I don't think we can control that. However, we can bring services. Another thing that this project does is it expedites planning for Chinden that may take ten years without it. It gets it done now. I think it's more contributory to the solutions to the problems that we have than Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 70 of 107 contributing to the problem and I -- I know there are a lot of smart, concerned people in here and if there is a way that that could be addressed and -- and it could move forward, too, that's, obviously, what I would like to see, but good luck to you and your decision making -- you're making in behalf of many more that are not in this room. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Doreen Carbaugh signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Clarence Carbaugh signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Pam Koch signed up against, not with to testify. Nick Eller signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. David Reyes signed up against, not wishing to testify. Jim Alexander signed up in favor, wishing to testify. Alexander: Good evening. De Weerd: Good evening. Alexander: Hi. My name is Jim Alexander. I live at 1060 West State Street in Meridian. I'd like to request -- if you could put up the architect slide looking northeastern. Can't see it from here, but -- De Weerd: You can see it on the screen in front of you. Alexander: Oh, great. The architect. Yeah. It's showing the back of WinCo looking to the northeast. De Weerd: The flyover one? Alexander: Again -- that's it. As I was sitting here through the presentation I -- when I saw this I was pretty pleased, because I was thinking, you know that new Walmart on Overland to the west of Meridian Road, when you enter the backside of that, there is a residential behind there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe so. And they don't have anything like this. I mean this is a wide area, you know, that people have been talking about, 600 feet or 300 feet. But this is big and if that gentleman that was talking about the forest, hearing garbage trucks, could hear garbage trucks, I think you're going to hear noise no matter where you have it, because we don't have anywhere near that many trees. Obviously I'm in favor of this project. I think that the developer has listened to, you know, a lot of the concerns, made this change, and I think this area shown is a win-win for both the developer and the residents, because this is a beautiful area, you know, compared to what it could be like with that Walmart, you know, and also thinking that WinCo in Boise on Milwaukee, there is residents behind there, too, you know, so this is a pretty wide area and so I think it's a win-win. It has a large buffer area and it's beautiful on both sides. You know, it could be a lot worse. The widening of Chinden I think is a great benefit. I think the developer is spending the money to do that. You guys were talking earlier about impact fees for fire stations, police stations. By him footing the bill on that that saves a lot of people a lot of money. And, then, that open Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 71 of 107 area in the plaza, I think that is a really big, great area. You know, people walk around there, they can hang out there, there is a park behind there. But six and a half acres of open space, compared to only three and half that's requested -- or required, I think there is a lot of concessions and this looks like a really -- a lot better development than it was two months ago. So, thank you for listening and I hope you approve it. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Greg Nalder signed up against, wishing to testify. Nalder: My name is Greg Nalder. I live at 6018 North Booth Avenue in Meridian. If we could go back to the -- the plat that has been on the screen for most of -- most of the hearing. My main concern with the proposed development as it currently stands has to do with something that's been kicked around a bit this evening without any adequate solution, which is the traffic circulation. It has been pointed out that placing stop lights on Chinden Boulevard would not be an acceptable solution. I agree with that. Forcing traffic past my house in Paramount Subdivision in order to access the development is also unacceptable. It is not incumbent upon the citizens of the community to solve that problem. The onus for solving that problem is on the applicant. I have heard, however, some good suggestions during our break from some of my neighbors. David McKinney suggested that the Fox Run access could be enlarged with a roundabout and an east- west thoroughfare could be provided into -- into the Linder Village that would be a preferable route to folks trying to access it, rather than the neighborhood. One final thought. Reiterating, again, something that's already been expressed and that is that though I live about two blocks from the east border of the proposed development, nothing about it is conducive to me wanting to walk there. A reorganization of the shops such that those most amenable or useful to folks without a vehicle be placed near the residential areas would be a vast improvement. Finally, I heard an epithet today at work that seems to have relevance here. It's attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte who said I'm in a hurry, dress me slowly. In other words, I don't have time for a mistake. My recommendation is that this proposal be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Committee. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Sir, you mentioned a roundabout idea. Where exactly? Nalder: That would be on Fox Run just south of Chinden Boulevard. Well, let's see. I believe I have a map. And in this vicinity -- De Weerd: That's not up -- we don't show it. Can you give a different -- hold on for a sec. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 72 of 107 Nalder: Fox Run. So, it would be about here. No, not further south. We would -- we would not want that down in the neighborhood. So, bringing it off of Fox Run in this vicinity before -- before folks are encouraged to enter the neighborhood and try to access the development through the neighborhood. Then a frontage road that would extend through the -- through the planned development, something in this configuration seemed like a plausible alternative. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I thought you were saying put a roundabout on Chinden and I was like, no, that's not what he said. Nalder: No. No, that's not what I said. Any other questions? Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Noel O'Shea. Noel. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. O'Shea: Thank you, Madam Mayor. My name is Noel O'Shea and I live on Bellagio Drive in Meridian, the subdivision across from Sawtooth Middle School. So, I'm -- I'm aware of gridlock during school hours and getting to school and coming through. I also, as a mom, who would really love a WinCo closer to home, I find that there is a lot of throwing the baby out with the bath water, because I'm hearing people say things like, well, Whole Foods, we already have Walmart. If we are going to grow Meridian smart why wouldn't we pick a company that's actually started in Idaho over Walmart. Even Fred Meyer. And I hear a lot of the issues with Arliss and I can't say I don't agree. I absolutely do. Like I said, I am a mom and my kids are impulsive, so I really wouldn't want them to get hit if I lived on Arliss. But I feel like there could be a lot more solutions brought to the table, as opposed to just wanting to throw the whole process away. Chinden already is a backup, if you have ever had to go there at 5:00 o'clock, which I hope you don't have to, but if you do it's already backed up. When these other businesses came in, like Fred Meyer and the Meridian Mormon Temple and other businesses around there, nobody did anything about Chinden then and, to be honest, it was still a mess before they came and still is. So, here we are trying to put in WinCo, which, again, is an Idaho company, would further our growth here and there is all this opposition about what to do on Chinden. And as far as the noise with WinCo and having deliveries -- from a good source I heard that there is only two to four deliveries a day. If the idea is to move WinCo around, I feel like there should be a lot of input from the community about where they want it and not just -- I don't like the greenbelt, I don't like this. What their ideal plan would be to have WinCo there. I think -- and keep in mind we do have a Fred Meyer that has exactly kind of that layout with all the little Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 73 of 107 shops up front that's right across the street. So, I'm absolutely for this. I want this to work for everyone. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Summer Wilson signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Wilson: My name is Summer Wilson. I live at 5809 North Arliss. So, I'm, obviously, one of those moms that has children that live on that street, so -- and I'm a crier and I will cry no matter what, but -- anyway. Stop me right there, huh. So, what I came up here to actually talk about -- I'm -- I want to read a statement from a dentist that is actually right off of Linder. I'm probably not close enough, am I? And his name is Chris Kelson. So, I'm just going to read a statement for him, since he couldn't be here today. My name is Chris Kelson. I own Kelson Orthodontics on Linder. I am concerned not only at the size and scope of the Linder Village development just up the road for my business that caters to teens and young people walking to and from my office, but at the uneven representation allowed on -- allotted on the City of Meridian. You seem to have forgotten the small business owner and the homeowner. These large and perpetually busy businesses create disruption to the flow of people and traffic that we have become accustomed to and have built our homes and businesses to thrive in. Please reconsider this development. Do not allow any 24/7 operations so near our homes. That's the end of the statement. I just -- thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Summer. Coles: Tyler Wilson signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. T.Wilson: Good evening. I'm Tyler Wilson. I live at 5809 North Arliss Avenue. During the time this whole process has been taking place I have set some personal goals and I have shed 60 pounds of fat and I kind of wish the developer would take some consolation in that and do the same at this point, being that this development has made changes, but the major zoning laws that were presented at the very beginning when we started fighting this project, the WinCo is still enormous. They still want 24/7 operation. They barely moved their position despite constant -- constantly being asked to by those that live near it and around it. They have added additional plots that are almost as big, ignoring again what this land is supposed to be used for. They continue to ignore our recommendations in these key areas concerning the traffic light and now we have got access into the subdivision, namely down my street, which I don't know if you have got high school kids, but they don't exactly tend to slow down when they are on lunch break and only have 30 minutes to get to a place to get lunch and get back to school and Arliss becomes a .3 mile instead of a mile -- or a little over a half mile with no lights and no cops. It's going to become the main thoroughfare that they are going to race down to Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 74 of 107 get their lunch and get back to school and that scares me to death, not only for the students that walk and have to go across that little crosswalk there, those kids are going to be turning around and there is trees there which creates a blind spot, not to mention all the cars that are parked on the street in the first place. There are too many issues at this point that are not being addressed that are the major issues that were bought at the very beginning to the Planning and Zoning and to this Council. Those need to be addressed. This needs to go back to Planning and Zoning. This needs to be better than it has been. We can do so much better. We have made suggestions over and over again. Constantly. They have been ignored and we have been told we are not making any changes. Only after being told that they need to work on it by City Council and by Planning and Zoning do they make minor changes to try and appease enough people to get it through. Other businesses have made 24/7 attempts, like Walgreens and the Stinker Station there on the corner of Linder and McMillan. Those got denied. Why is WinCo different? Why do they get the benefit? And how is that benefit going to impact other neighborhoods that are going to have to deal with this in the future? There is too much at stake right now. This is not the plan that we need. This is not the right plan for this area. This should be following the plan that the city has agreed on, that -- we moved here in May. This was our dream home. And now it's going to become this. This isn't right. This isn't worth it. We can do so much better. This area right here where it's supposed to be pedestrian traffic, this is a major throughway for cars going into WinCo. Also up here. I'm not going to walk across that. That's a death trap. That's not pedestrian friendly. We can do so much better and we deserve better. Let's do that, please. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. T.Wilson: Any questions? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam. Milam: I'd like to ask you a question regarding the 24 hour access. We have heard a lot about that tonight. I used to own a 24 hour business and there are businesses that need to be open 24 hours. That's the model. I went before the Council and was told this is not the right location, Ustick and Meridian Road. You need to take this business to Eagle Road or Chinden. Okay. Now we are talking about a business that's 24 hour access on an arterial and a state highway. If that's not the location for 24 hour access, what is? T.Wilson: We have already discussed the fact that most of us would approve the 24 hours if they would get it away from our houses. That's what we have been asking for almost from the beginning was can we, please, just move it -- we talked about -- somebody mentioned the Walmart up on Overland. I work right next to that Walmart. It is right up against Overland and is also facing the street with the docks, unlike this one, which is what we asked where that it faces Linder with the docks. They only turned to Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 75 of 107 45 degrees. The Walmart up there is facing the street. So, it can be done. The Walmart down here on Fairview, its docks are facing away from the residential neighborhood as well. WinCo even has some of their own stores that face against the residential with their docks. There is things that they could do that they are refusing to do and that's what we have a problem with is it -- they could move it up a little further. They could turn it more. There is options. They refuse to do every single one, because somehow this little plot where it is is somehow sacred to them and I don't know why and they have never explained it to anyone. Milam: Can you show me on the plan where would be an acceptable location? Only that location? T.Wilson: I think it could work here. I also think it could work over here. I would even like to see this move over here and even push WinCo up here and, then, you have got the major retail all here and they can share a parking lot, reducing the amount of parking spaces, providing for more green space in the process. There is ways that we can win here for everyone involved and nothing is being done about the major concerns and that's where we are -- we are just having such a conflict and why we are fighting this so hard, because we are feeling ignored and we are feeling like we are not being listened to and that we are getting rushed over on this, when the decision shouldn't be made in a rush. The changes that this is going to impose are going to impact other areas as well. They are asking for leniency in areas that haven't been granted to anyone else in Meridian and if we do that now, who else is going to feel the brunt of that? The developers will get their money and they will walk away and they will be happy. The rest of us that live here are going to have to do -- have to deal with the impacts of that for the entire time we live here. People on NextDoor told me, well, why don't you just move then. I don't want to move. I just got here. It was hard enough the first time and we finally got the house that we wanted and the place that we wanted and we were so excited to move here and now we are having to deal with this and it's been frustrating and challenging and -- but, by golly, it's worth it because if we can get something that's beautiful and gorgeous and that I can really get behind, I am so excited for that opportunity. I think it's there. I think we can do it. Can we just get some help? We have been fighting for that help all this time and we have been ignored. Milam: Thank you. T.Wilson: Any others? Thank you. Coles: Matt Hessing signed up against, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Hessing: Good evening. My name is Matt Hessing. I'm at 1153 West Bacall. I really appreciate all your time this evening and I know it's a lot to be away from your family. I'm a scout master in a local scout group affiliated with my church and a big thing that we talk about with scouts is how much we can make an impact through our local Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 76 of 107 government. I have brought scout troops to City Council before. It's been a great experience. A couple of things that -- that I do want to say is I believe in the public process. I believe that we have the ability to make things good and this is one of those opportunities that we have. I'm not against development at all. I want this to be a good -- a good development. We have heard a lot of the concerns that I'm going to bring forward. I just want to bring forward three of them tonight. The traffic is a main concern coming Arliss. You have heard the majority of that argument and I won't belabor it. I do want to highlight the fact that I have many family and friends that live just south of McMillan that have commented to me that they will be cutting through Paramount neighborhood if there is access given to them off Arliss and other streets. So, it's not just the high school, it's a lot of the surrounding mile, two miles, four mile area that will be cutting up through Paramount. Also Cayuse Creek is -- will become a speed lane. It already is a major issue right now with the high school students. It will become a hundred times worse. I have a question -- I mean I have a concern about the hours and I believe that that's been addressed already. There are future residential developments. The reason why I pose a concern there and questions is I have lived in houses before that there is promises that have been made, plats that have been laid out for future development, and it ends up not necessarily being what's been told. So, I have more questions about what the townhomes involve, what the alley homes involve, what the single family residential involves. If it's truly planned to be that, if they have a developer in line for that or if this is more of a, hey, residents just get off our back, this is what we think is going to happen and, then, two years down the line we just get totally snowballed, because we don't have any impact on that anymore. I have major concern about that, as Mrs. Reynolds commented earlier in her testimony, about the other development that took place that we were able to work with the developer and not have the massive amount of apartments come in. That is my main concern on that. Thank you thank. De Weerd: Thank you. Appreciate it. T.Wilson: Thank you. Coles: Emily Hessing signed up against, wishing to testify. E.Hessing: Hi. I'm Emily Hessing. I live at 1153 West Bacall Street. And I wanted to come and -- in a minute I'm going to talk about Walmart. This is a big topic today and I went to Walmart and talked to people at Walmart. So, we will talk about that in just a second. But first one of my biggest concerns the whole time -- even before my husband and I even moved into our home on Bacall, was I called and talked to C.Jay and I asked him like a lot about this. I even talked to some of the people -- the developer and I'm like is there going to be a through street with like, you know, Arliss and Bergman and like surely they are not going to -- like be a direct route, because that's so dangerous and the developer -- initially they did -- they had a plan, just like the Mayor said at the last meeting, there wasn't a connection there and we were happy about that. That made a lot of us relieved to see that those weren't going to go through. ACHD came back and requested that they add that. So, they did. So, I don't fault the developer for Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 77 of 107 adding that back in. But what I would like to see is the Council say, even if -- if ACHD said that we need it, it's not appropriate and this is the reason why. If you go back to that aerial that we saw that showed some more of the streets -- yes. Right here. What you can't really see is Cayuse Creek right by the high school. So, you have the church and, then, you have the parking lot for the high school and this whole area -- Cayuse Creek, going by the beautiful ponds and all through our neighborhood, at different times of the day it is gridlocked. It is insane. My daughter, who doesn't want to walk because she's almost gotten hit so many times trying to walk to Rocky, will actually drive the, what, maybe .2 miles and she will leave early so she can get through all the traffic to get over there to the Rocky High School, which is like two streets away. And so my daughter is leaving like, you know, a half an hour early to go there and the reason is because all of these neighborhoods to the north and to the east will come and they don't want to wait on Chinden and, then, go down Linder to get into the high school, so they cut through Cayuse Creek and they do the same thing on the way after school and at lunchtime they do the same thing. They go up Linder Road and they go to Fred Meyer or they go down. I mean they each will run -- if you have ever seen the kids come out of Rocky Mountain High School at the end of school, you would think there was a fire going on in the school, because they start running like this and you have never seen these kids run so fast, just so they can beat all the traffic and they can get where they want to go. Well, just imagine that Arliss, which is full of young families, has children, you know, and their cars zooming through at lunchtime, because they have to -- it's not enough time. I don't know why they ever shortened that lunch hour to half an hour. It's not safe at all. But they are zooming around trying to get through there and before and after school they are doing the same thing. I even have kids on Bacall right now who will come down Fox Run and, then, go around. So, I really spoke way too much, didn't I? But my -- the other thing that I just wanted to say is that Walmart -- we are talking a lot about Walmart. I went to Walmart today. I went there shopping and I noticed on the window -- it says it is open from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. What? I thought Walmarts were 24 hours a day. They are not. I went to supervisors and I asked them why is it that you're not open 24 hours a day and they said, oh, no, none of the Walmarts, including the one on Overland and Meridian Road, none of the Treasure Valley Walmarts are open 24 hours a day anymore. Why is that? It's because it wasn't profitable. They were losing money being open that late. And the other reason why is because -- now this is people at Walmart. The supervisors at Walmart. They said it attracted the wrong clientele. So, if Walmart, who may not be the best business model to look at, right, but if they can figure out that it doesn't make any sense to be open 24 hours a day, why can't an Idaho company as well make that exception for this neighborhood and not have it open 24 hours a day? De Weerd: Can I have you summarize? E.Hessing: Yes. So -- De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 78 of 107 E.Hessing: What we would just like is -- the other thing that the Walmart said was they didn't have evening -- any nighttime deliveries, which WinCo said that they had. They only deliver at 2:00, 4:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon. They hold their stock in the back and, then, when it's time they pull it out when the store is closed and they have their stockers there stocking in the middle of the night. There is no, you know, clientele there. So, I don't see why that couldn't happen with WinCo. And we would -- I would be much more supportive if that happened. But thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Cole: Craig Reynolds signed up against, wishing to testify. C.Reynolds: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Craig Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street. And I know you're not supposed to drop names, but I'm married to Sally, so there you go. I actually had a big presentation with handouts and everything like that, but I think everything's been said. So, in the interest of time I will let that go. One thing I was asked to do is clarify something from the Meridian City Code. So, I will just read that now. From the Meridian City Code. Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G districts shall be limited from 6:00 o'clock a.m. to 11:00 o'clock p.m. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Later on in the definitions from the Meridian City Code. Abut or abutting. Having a common border with the subject property. Definition of property. A lot or parcel. The definition of parcel. A tract of unplatted land or contiguous unplatted land held in single ownership. So, please, if you will, remember those definitions, because I believe the response we got was with regard to the land after it had been subdivided, which is not the case here. So, ask you to keep that in mind. Beyond that, you know, the only -- the three things connected through the neighborhood -- obviously, a regional use design that's trying to fit into a C-C designation and, then, also on the same night where the school board is meeting to discuss how to handle the overcrowding of our local schools, to put forth a design that shows additional high density housing. I don't know how we can consider that a responsible decision, but, anyway, thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Chris Eastman signed up against, wishes to testify. C.Eastman: My name is Chrysanthe Eastman. I live at 1192 West Bacall Street. Madam Mayor and City Council Members, the decision you make regarding the proposed development of Linder Village directly impacts my family, my home, and the quality of my life. I am asking as a resident in Meridian and a homeowner in Paramount for you to help us bring the best Linder Village to the corner of Linder and Chinden. When I was deciding where to purchase my home, we took time to look at the future land map in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, which made us call the City of Meridian to confirm. We believed that the City of Meridian would strive to enhance and to protect the quality of our life and the residents around us. We always knew this area would be developed, but we trusted the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan for this Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 79 of 107 area to be mixed use community. Despite the fact that this application violates city code, the zoning regulations, the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, unanimous denial from the Planning and Zoning and it lacks right now the recommended traffic findings from ACHD, I am asking you tonight to help us reach a compromise with the developers. As you have heard tonight, that has not happened. Little steps. Protecting our neighbors -- protecting our neighborhood streets and limiting WinCo's operating hours and nighttime deliveries is an absolute necessity. This area is unique, because it has Paramount Elementary School, Heritage Middle School, and Rocky Mountain High School in such close proximity. One of the reasons why we love living in Paramount is because our kids can walk and ride their bikes to all their schools, like so many other neighborhood kids around us. However, this current application has neighborhood streets connected to Linder Village. You've heard quite a lot about that tonight. A quiet street like Arliss or Bergman now becomes a safety issue due to the large volumes of the high school drivers who will now cut through the neighborhood streets to access this commercial area and I wish you guys could see the kids playing on our streets. They are out there all the time. I'm asking WinCo to limit their nighttime operating hours and delivery hours. WinCo does have two stores in Oregon that operate from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. They are called Warmarts and they would fit here. There are currently three 24 hour WinCos within ten miles of this proposal Linder Village. It can be done. If there is a nighttime emergency for any grocery items you have Ten Mile and you could pick three 24 WinCos to shop at. Costco, who is also proposing to come into an area close by, a residential area, is said to be willing to alter their -- their morning deliveries so they can work with the residents. So, why should we expect anything less from WinCo. The impact of living next to a regional 24 hour seven WinCo would criminally impact our quality of life due to the loud noise of delivery trucks and, yes, the semi-trucks do beep when they back up and one other consideration is that WinCo delivery trucks go up and down Linder Road, it is not completely widened and there are at least three zones on that route. I am hoping that WinCo would chose to be a good neighbor and alter its current plan to be open 24 hour seven or as has been addressed before, move further north, limit nighttime deliveries, and not connect to our neighborhood. Madam Mayor, show the city of Eagle how much better a development can be put together on that corner in the City of Meridian on Linder and Chinden. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I actually think the proposal is better than what's across the street. Just want to point that out. So, one step forward; right? Coles: Tim Graver signed up in favor, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Graver: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council. My name is Tim Graver. I live at 706 East Cholla Hills, Meridian. I live off Chinden. My background is I have lived here 23 years. Have kids. I live and work in Meridian. A lot has been said, so I don't want to repeat a lot of it, but I do think the developer has made a lot of changes and I have been to a neighborhood meeting, I went to the last Council meeting that was here in November and I have listened to, you know, all the -- the comments and changes that Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 80 of 107 have been made tonight and for that I do think that -- that there is enough evidence that this can work. I remember when Eagle Road was two lanes. I didn't think it was that great myself. So, I do like it wider and bigger and I live right off Chinden, so I have to access Chinden on a daily basis to go to work and the other point -- I think there is an advantage here of the developers willing to spend their own money on widening Chinden. I think it's -- you know, I think we can take advantage of that and save taxpayers money. So, I -- I think there is an opportunity here and for that -- for that I, you know, respectfully want you to approve it. So thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Joe Marshall signed up against, wishing to testify. Marshall: Joe Marshall. 5937 North Arliss Avenue. And, please, do ask me a little bit later on why that's a bad interconnectivity, even though I'm very pro interconnectivity. All right. So, I only have three minutes to make four points. Number one, each of you ran for office and I am sure you all heard one major thing and it had to have been either one, two, or three on your list and it's traffic in this valley. This is going to be your legacy. Protect that Chinden corridor at all costs. We have screwed the pooch with Eagle Road. All those access points. Look at the ITD website, look at the ACHD website, look at the COMPASS report, everything says access at the half mile only. Look at -- the City of Meridian goals clearly state do not allow this. Okay. That's point one. Point two. If -- for fifteen years I taught land planning. If you took my introductory course in land planning at Carnegie Mellon, required 45 seat hours. I had over a hundred readings. If by the end of that class you told me this was mixed use you fail my class. This is actually a very nice commercial project shoe horned in as mixed use. It's actually much more attractive than the Fred Meyer across the street. It is. It's more attractive than a lot of the ones we see down on Eagle Road. They tried really hard, but they don't seem to understand what mixed use is. Mixed use actually requires a little different product mix. You can't have your fast food places out on the Chinden Boulevard in a mixed use. It doesn't work. That's why last time I was here I was recommending a food hall, because it actually takes a little higher level food. They don't have to have the face time out on Chinden. You have the -- if they sat with us we can make a better draw than this little plaza. They could make much better use of it. It's not very pedestrian friendly and -- okay. Point number three. WinCo. Staff told me they would make it the Marshall rule, you can't have anything like this anywhere close to residential, even though my house is right behind this thing I am not being NIMBY. I spent seven years on P&Z railing against exactly this for everyone in this city. This is wrong. And I will tell you at 11:00 o'clock at night that damn street sweeper that's clearing up the Fred Meyers, all the way on the other side of Chinden wakes me up every Wednesday night when it first starts up. Eventually I get back to sleep, because it becomes a white noise, but when it first starts up it wakes me up and you think these big trucks right behind my house, the small little berm and a little wall is going to be less noise than that? Are you kidding me? Okay. I did talk to David Turnbull. He is more than willing to allow access to Fox Run. I think it's because he feels it will advantage Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 81 of 107 him down the street and he's going to come ask for a full access to Chinden. Turn him down, too, please. Protect Chinden. I like David Turnbull. Does nice work. De Weerd: Joe, you need to summarize. Marshall: Am I out of time? Okay. And one last thing is, please, staff, that is one building down there, not three. That's a hundred thousand square foot. They share walls and insurance will tell you they will insure it as a single building, multi-tenant. Thank you. I'm sorry. I appreciate the opportunity to remand. Thank you. Do remand, but it really needs a major redesign. It needs a different product. Makes everything else -- a WinCo could work here. We want to work with them. We would love a 24/7 WinCo here, but not the way this is laid out. It needs to be a mixed use product. This is commercial shoehorned in. Thank you. De Weerd: Thanks, Joe. Bernt: Madam Mayor, a question. De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Marshall, thanks for your comments. You said that you are for a WinCo, although previously in your statement you said that you fought against this type of, you know, a WinCo type. Marshall: This close to residential. Bernt: Okay. So, my next question to you is -- and we have asked this question to other -- others in public testimony. Where would you want it? Where would your recommendation be? Marshall: Actually, last time I was here I actually offered up a layout that put it out at the corner. You know, to be honest, there are -- having done this for a living all through the '90s and, then, taught it for another 15 years, there is a million ways to lay this out. I could put in all kinds of places that would work for me. I could put it 45 different places right now off the top of my head that would work for me, but that means I have got to have a whole bunch of layers of light office, stuff that is not intense in between me and it that will block the noise, block the light. If they would shut down at 6:00, 7:00 o'clock. That's fine. I have got a little dance hall that's going to go in right behind me, you know, and they will have little exhibitions on the weekend. You know, I'm all for that. That's okay. Bernt: Mr. Marshall, sorry to interrupt, but a question for you. Marshall: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 82 of 107 Bernt: If they were to move it to the corner are you saying that you would be for a 24/7 operation? Marshall: As long as I have multiple layers of less intense use between it and me. Bernt: Okay. Marshall: There is a lot of ways of doing it. There is a lot of ways of doing it. Bernt: Thank you. Marshall: I'm not sure the corner is the best place for it. Maybe it's over towards the center. I don't know. Bernt: Okay. Thank you, sir. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Jeremy Schroeder signed up against, not wishing to testify. Jamie Femrick signed up against, not wishing to testify. Wendy McKinney signed up against, wishing to testify. McKinney: I turn into a pumpkin at 10:00 p.m., so I'm hoping I can go through this. I'm Wendy McKinney. I live at 1225 West Bacall Street and it would be interesting to have everyone in the room who is on that actual map that shows the residential. Can we get that one back for a second? I'm sorry. I just gave you my new thing. The one that actually shows the plat with the border of the houses that are there in their plan. Yes. That's the one. All right. If everyone whose house is actually on that map could stand right now, please. Thank you. You can see we have wide representation here. If you look at the percentages and you consider that there are a few people whose husband had open art surgery on Thursday who would be here -- I spoke to her personally. This is something that we are passionate about and we want you to basically just stick with the rules that you have put in place. Okay. My presentation, please. Thank you. So, I'm only going to cover the things that haven't been covered, because I know it's very late and I respect your time. So, on slide number two there is the developer's checklist. This is what most developers do. They follow the rules. If your plans don't fit you apply for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. That's what Brighton is doing. So, that's what everyone's expected to do. Work with the Planning and Zoning Commission, get a good development together before taking it to the City Council. Work with residents to be a good neighbor. Work with ITD and ACHD and follow their recommendations. Which one of these things on that checklist has this developer done? Zero. Now, you look at the special checklist that they get. Turn in your plans as late as possible, so not even staff has time to look at them, let alone me, because they have turned in four plans since this started. You know, I have other things to do with my time. So do you. Get as many variances as possible to put whatever building you want in a spot of your choice. Push things through regardless of what Planning and Zoning has said. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 83 of 107 Villainize your opposition and they have done that to us. Energize your customers to swamp the city council with e-mail. I think you noticed that. Don't wait for ITD or ACHD information. Now I'm going to skip to the very end. This is how it will work, because it will work. Everyone wants. Everyone wins. Number one. Wait until you have enough information. You asked for the traffic study, you should wait for it. Have the developer request to amend the Comprehensive Plan like everyone else does and put a CZ in the corner where a WinCo fits. They don't want on the corner. Fine. Have them amend the Comprehensive Plan to fit a C-G where WinCo fits. Those are your rules, not ours. Expect the developer to work with residents. Awe, shocker. Use your commissioners. Send it back to the Planning and Zoning. This ever changing development needs to be looked at again in detail. Let them analyze these issues first and you will hear their expert decision. You still get to look at it and you don't have to look at the next 7,000 e-mails. Thank you. I really appreciate your time. My husband came home at midnight over and over and over again while I had small children at home while he worked on a planning and zoning commission. I really, really appreciate your time. Please remand to P&Z. Thank you. Questions? Okay. Coles: Travis Everett signed up against, not wishing to testify. Rachel Murillo signed up in favor, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Murillo: Thank you. My name is Rachel Murillo and I live at 2077 North Devlin Avenue. De Weerd: Rachel, you want to pull that down towards you? Murillo: Is that better? De Weerd: Yes. That's perfect. Murillo: Uh-huh. Okay. Just a few short points. Everybody over here that lives directly in the area impacted made some good points, especially about Arliss Avenue and such. But I really want a WinCo. I want to see this happen, just like everybody else, and I want to see this make everybody happy I guess. So, just a few points. We are looking at a development that's going to bring jobs from a major local business. That's a really good thing for our community. As far as the traffic concerns, this is going to help develop Chinden probably sooner than we would have gotten to it. So, I think that's great. And we didn't address these issues when things like Fred Meyer and the temple went in down there even, though we still had them then. So, why are -- why are they all of a sudden a problem -- a major problem now? They were already a major problem. We have got exploding growth in the City of Meridian and I think that it warrants the need for another WinCo, you know, in between the other WinCos that we do have. Meridian is one of the fastest growing U.S. cities and young families are moving here and we need this access to these types of things where we live. It's -- you know, run to the grocery store, five minutes away, that's great and I think that that's kind of why Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 84 of 107 people move here. They want that -- maybe like a smaller town feel where they have access to those things closer and, then, if not this, then, what? I have heard a lot of different suggestions, especially pertaining to the WinCo in the corner here. I am hearing people want it, you know, in this corner or in that corner, why can't it go there and I guess we haven't heard why it can't go in another corner, but maybe is it access for trucks to get in? That would be kind of a good question. But overall I'm -- I'm for this. I want to see it work. I want to see these issues with connectivity in the neighborhood addressed, though, because those are excellent points. De Weerd: Thank you. Murillo: Thank you. Coles: Alicia Muhlestein signed up against, wishing to testify. Muhlestein: Hi. I'm Alicia Muhlestein. Pretty close. 584 West Dreyfuss Street. And most of my concerns have been addressed, which are wonderful. A couple things that I did notice. I was at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting when they rejected it at first and I presented a video that showed a couple WinCos, one on Fairview -- Fairview in Boise showing the noise that was behind it, even with a berm and it had a high wall and a bunch of trees, you could still hear the horns -- or the -- the backup beeping. You could hear the air brakes. You could hear loading and unloading of equipment, like slamming far back and we also checked on the WinCo -- the residents near the WinCo on State Street in Eagle. To the east there is a road and some businesses and there is some homes and there was a couple of people that had issues with lights from the deliveries all night long or certain times of the night. They were coming in and they were going through their windows, so they had to build bigger fences. Some of them were hearing -- still hearing the noises. So, we -- I noticed that this -- I was also at the meeting where the developer did meet with some of the residents to present this plan and this was -- he said it was the plan he was going to present. I also see a couple changes that he has already made. There was the roundabout that is gone now. So, he keeps making little changes, which is fine, but we all were concerned about the distance, of course, and the buffering here, which are the green space and the trees. The trees are only in bloom here, what, six months, so that will not even be a buffer for these poor residents there. I'm not in this area, I am farther, but I can see that that will be an issue, because trees that only bloom six months out of the year will not buffer the noise and the lights and all that coming into that corner. We did suggest that they -- and a lot of people said it. If we have to have a large box commercial store in a mixed use community land, that if we could, please, move that up and buffer that with some smaller businesses to transition that noise or, you know, lessen it -- some kind of impact it's so close to those homes. That's all I have to say. And I was super excited when I heard that -- the suggestion to go back to P&Z and I wholeheartedly believe that it does need to go back there, because of the changes that were made and the changes that will hopefully be made to address all the issues. Thank you. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 85 of 107 De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Bill Wallace signed up against, not wishing to testify. Kortney Porter signed up against, not wishing to testify. Sam Koontz signed up against -- De Weerd: You can change your mind. That's all right. Porter: Oh, good. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address. Porter: Cortney Porter and I'm a 950 West Deer Crest Drive. So, I actually live on the south side of the Paramount Subdivision and so a lot of these issues don't impact me directly, but I feel just as ardently as I would have my back, you know, door to this development and so I feel for all of you residents and you're not alone. I'm really excited for a WinCo to come, though. We just moved from Virginia six months ago and I have been so looking forward to shopping at WinCo and I drive ten minutes to go to WinCo now and so I'm so grateful that there will be one, hopefully, even shorter around the corner. But I think that it can be done in the right way to make everyone happy. It seems like it's going to benefit a lot of people, not just people in Paramount, but it seems like a lot of the -- the current proposal is asking the Paramount residents to kind of just deal with the junk as a result of it and that junk would be the traffic on Arliss and if you have never seen the high school students driving through there in the afternoon or the morning, it's kind of terrifying. You know, you just grab your kids and hold them tight and so I really just don't think having any access to that -- to that development through our neighborhood would be a win-win. Quickly look at my notes. And as far as the 24/7 operation, I think if we put it in the right spot a lot of these noise issues and delivery issues can be avoided, despite turning it so that the building itself blocks the noise and I don't think Fred Meyer is going to care if they hear the deliveries in the middle of the night or whatever. So, I want to say thank you for your time. Thank you for hearing all of us. I know it's very late, but we have gotten a lot of energy and all our time put into trying to solve this problem and so thanks for like having us be part of the process and us being heard. The main point 24/7, okay, just the wrong spot and our kids should not be hit by the poor high school students that are driving through there and will be driving and so if we can prevent that from happening it would be great. De Weerd: I wish I had some of your energy. Coles: Dave Koontz signed up against, with no indication of testimony. Same for Richard Miranda, signed up against, no indication of testimony. Alberto Maldonado sign up against, not wishing to testify. Nathan Wheeler signed up in favor, not wishing to testify. Stephanie Robinson signed up against, not wishing to testify. Michael and Sarah Urberaga signed up against, not wishing to testify. Doug Jones signed up as neutral, wishing to testify. De Weerd: Good evening. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 86 of 107 Jones: Good evening, Mayor. De Weerd: If you will state your name and address. Jones: Doug Jones. I live at 1274 West Barrymore Drive. I'm one block off of Bacall and one house back from Arliss and first let me compliment you, Mayor and the Council, for taking the testimony and listening. I served on a planning and zoning board in another part of the state in a previous part of my life. I spent 20 years in elected public office in this state. I know what it is you're going through sitting up there. So, thank you for your time, your patience, the staff's patience, to work through this tonight and listen. Councilman Cavener's motion was premature, but still good, and that's what I would recommend. What you have heard tonight is concerned citizens and they have come and they have spent their long evening here to tell you why they are concerned. Traffic. Noise. Twenty-four hour operation. Poor design. It's a better design than the one across the road at Eagle, but still not as good as it could be. You only have one shot at getting this right. Once you have approved it and once those buildings are put in place, none of us here will live long enough to see that change. So, take your time. Do it right. I suggest you remanded it back to Planning and Zoning, because they have both the time and the expertise to work just on this own piece. Let them bring it back to you when it's ready. But it's not ready yet. So, thank you for your time, your effort. Please remanded it back. And, Madam Mayor, I would be more than willing to volunteer my time and effort to participate and try to get this right, because I live in this neighborhood as well. The traffic is a serious problem. You have got to deal with ACHD and you don't have their report yet. They don't drive up and down Arliss. They don't watch the high school kids drive up and down Arliss. I do. It is a problem there. So, thank you for your time and effort and I'd be happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Jones: Thank you. Coles: I think we have made it through all the sign-ups, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Maybe the sheet that was the wrong sheet. You were going to just get your opportunity. Well, why don't you come on up. If you will state your name and address for the record. Blackwelder: My name is Jennifer Blackwelder. I live at 847 West Barrymore. De Weerd: Thank you. Blackwelder: I moved here in the end of July. I came here from Chandler, Arizona, where they put a WinCo in our backyard. They said they would never put a 24 hour in our neighborhood. They promised us everything. They said you won't hear the noise. The trees -- oh, they are going to make a difference. Nothing made a difference. And Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 87 of 107 what the people in here don't understand is the crime that that 24 hour brought and if they are proposing to let these people drive through our neighborhood, guess what, we have these people driving through our neighborhood. I woke up many times with beer cans on our street, because people were drinking at WinCo in the middle of the night. You can buy beer 24 hours; right? That's what they were doing. They were driving through a neighborhood. Nobody cared. They made so many promises to make sure that our neighborhood was safe and it wasn't. I'm pretty sure that the police officer can probably tell you how many of them sit in our neighborhood right now just trying to catch the kids speeding going to school. What is that going to do when access is granted to everybody, who is going to use it just to go to WinCo that's 24 hours? I don't care if it's on one corner, another corner, whatever, 24 hours is not what we need. I live in Paramount. I hear the cars all the time. I do hear all this stuff that over in Fred Meyers. Decisions you guys make here are the ones that are going to impact us in Paramount, who spend a ton of money to have our houses. I know you have mentioned many times you would be thankful to have it. I welcome you to buy a house in our neighborhood and see how much you would like it, because it is guaranteed a lot of the people -- they don't want it. We want what's safe for our family. We have a pond there that the kids go and play at. It's at the main road. I live right off Cave Creek. I listen to the traffic all the time. I worry about my daughter, who is 17 years old, going to school and not being hit by a car and that's just from fellow classmates. My son, he is eight years old, do I need to worry about him from here on out every single time he wants to go to elementary school? That road should never be allowed to be open to the public. That is Paramount's neighborhood. We live there. There is a sign at the high school that says this is not an access road. This is for Paramount only. So, why are we giving permission for WinCo and everybody else that's going in there, to be able to use our roads to make our neighborhood unsafe? I don't really understand it. I'm trying. I asked our realtor what was going in there before my husband and I purchased our house. We were told I don't know. The second question I asked will they be going through our neighborhood. Who would let anybody drive through your neighborhood to get to another thing. We don't even allow the school. Rocky is not even supposed to. They haven't withheld out either. Think about our neighborhood. De Weerd: Who was your realtor that says a stub street will not go through? Blackwelder: You actually know her. Yeah. And there is a sign that says that Hamilton cannot -- or not Hamilton that's the other -- that Rocky cannot turn right into our neighborhood. I can take a picture -- De Weerd: That's a public street. Yeah. Blackwelder: They posted it. The principal. Every time we have an issue with the school they say, you know what, we have worked on it. We have actually had meetings, we have told the children do not cut through your neighborhood. If that was the case, why do we have police officers in our neighborhood at all times trying to stop the kids from using our neighborhoods across the street. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 88 of 107 De Weerd: I don't think they are violating any law. What we will look for is the speeders, you know, if they are doing something that is against the law. But we -- we can't -- and, lieutenant, correct me if I'm wrong, but -- Stokes: Yeah. Mayor, we can only enforce the -- we can only enforce the law on a public street, which would be speeding or reckless driving, inattentive driving, that kind of thing. De Weerd: And I'm sure that is what they are looking for. Blackwelder: And we have a lot of it, so it's adding to it and to make it even worse. That's -- that's a question. I mean we all want to know. I spent a great deal of money on my house. I didn't buy it to have to deal with this. I actually don't think anybody here -- and I know -- I don't honestly care about the feelings of the people who don't live in Paramount, who this isn't actually going to affect, but the people that it's going to affect are the ones who live there. I mean the builder said that the tiny little bottleneck that's off the Chinden, I don't know anybody who's going to call that tiny. If you don't travel it I welcome you, every day at 5:00 o'clock, get home to your family in time. You won't. And adding this is only going to make it worse. Why can't they fix Chinden before the development even starts? Because you're telling -- asking us to deal with it. Deal with the traffic that's already there. Deal with the semi-trucks that are going to be bringing in all that building material. All the semi-trucks they are going to be laying just mounds of cement that is going to be here. We have to deal with all of that on top of dealing with all the traffic. Why can't that be widened before this project even starts? That's it. De Weerd: Thank you. Did you find that other sheet? Coles: I did find the other sheet. De Weerd: Okay. Coles: So, I will run through these names and if this is your item you can come and testify. So, Donna Smith against, not wishing testify. Fred Smith against, not wishing to testify. Andy Roman in favor, wishing to testify. Tony Brownlee against, wishing to testify. Brownlee: I'm Tony Brownlee, 797 Barrymore. Madam -- Madam Mayor and City Council, someone said earlier that -- why people move here. It's more of why people move back here. I grew up within two miles -- we had a family farm of where I live right now and was away for 23 years professionally and going to university and we looked -- my wife and I had children, we looked for the best area and as you said yourself, the premier place in Idaho when we moved back 13 years ago we felt was Paramount and we -- I had been burned in the past and so we -- we looked into what was going to go there and we were very -- very comfortable with what the future development plans were, because we trusted to you all into holding to what that -- that plan was and it didn't involve 85,000 square foot 24 hour shopping centers that backed up to residential. I Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 89 of 107 noticed it earlier when they drew a line between the corner of WinCo and -- and the nearest property, it wasn't the nearest proposed property, nor was it from the loading dock or the other corner across Linder. There was -- those people that are there, the -- your own staff with your Planning suggested moving the WinCo to that other corner -- to the corner that was up at Linder and Chinden and I believe that Councilman Borton has asked a lot of people why -- or what -- what would you like worse or what would you like better, 24 hours or more a smaller building. Neither of those options fit with your plan. You may not have sat on the Council at that time, but neither of those fit with your plan and so I don't know why you have to choose feast or famine -- or -- you know. I -- I don't understand that. Stick with your plan. Stick -- stick with what it's zoned for. If -- if the light doesn't -- is going to slow things down too much, maybe your darn store is too big and that -- that whole shopping center is too big to accommodate what this thing was planned for when it was all laid out. Is Chinden a problem? Chinden is a problem and none of us want Chinden turned into another Eagle Road. I learned to ride my bike on Eagle Road. I wouldn't think of that now. It wasn't paved at the time. But I wouldn't send my child to play there now. I worry about if this thing goes in of -- of the cross- traffic coming through of the light, pollution of the -- noise pollution, the smells from -- from their garbage that's coming through there and my little girl's window that -- that things are going to wake her up during the night. I worry about that. That's not why I moved back to Meridian. Could have lived anyplace else. I chose here. I thank you very much for time. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Sheldon -- I apologize, I can't read the last name. Weedon perhaps. Against wishing to testify. With that I think I have made it through. At least the ones that I indicated from the previous item that wanted to testify. De Weerd: Is there anyone who has -- yes, sir. Come on up. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Humphreys: Thank you very much for letting me testify, even though I didn't sign up. Glen Humphreys. 6880 North Pira Avenue, Springwing Greens. I don't live right next door to this, but I live about a mile up Chinden Road, which for all intents and purposes is no longer a state highway, it's more of a boulevard. We forgot the elephant in the room, which is Costco about a mile down the road, which they anticipate will add an additional 300 car trips just to the intersection of Ten Mile and Chinden. I heard today -- or tonight some comments about the widening of the road. We have been told that Chinden will be widened from Ten Mile to Black Cat in the first phase prior to opening of Costco. We were also told at our meeting that was held at Challenger School that the other portion of Chinden will be widened from Linder to Locust Grove prior to the opening of the WinCo. I'm hearing tonight that it -- probably that's not what the plan is. That's what we were being sold at the other end of the street. I don't think the developer has got both stories currently straight. The traffic flow as you will know on Chinden is terrible. We are adding more and more -- as I told the Mayor once before -- this small bucket is Chinden and we keep dumping gallons and gallons of more water Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 90 of 107 onto it and is pouring over to the residential area that these folks are going to have to deal with when it starts to pour all over the edge of Chinden. I can't express enough -- I spent 35 years in law enforcement. I know what a state highway is. Chinden is no longer a state highway, it is a small, two lane feeder road in some areas and in some years it's widened up to four lanes. We are talking at a -- basically a boulevard here. It's not a state highway. I'm sure that you're all aware of that at this point. It's designated a state highway. Chinden is not a state highway. Traffic is the major, major concern that we are all going to deal with. Everyone here. And I feel for the folks over there in Paramount, because I will soon have a Costco across the street for me and as you also know, it was never planned for a Costco. Again, they are trying to revise the main plan that the city decided years ago and they also want to get it all revised and get it all changed, so they can put a Costco in. Same problem. Different location a mile down the road. Thank you very much for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who didn't sign up that would like to provide testimony? Yes, sir. Good evening. McKinney: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm David McKinney. l live at 1225 West Bacall Street in the Paramount Subdivision. I know it's late. I will be very brief. I'm opposed to the project -- not as a whole, but in the way it's been presented and I think it needs some major changes and, therefore, it ought to go back to Planning and Zoning. But there is one item -- and let me just say I more or less agree with what Sally Reynolds and Andrea Carroll and, of course, my wife and others have said. There are lots of issues with the project and also, as Joe Marshall mentioned, the issue with the WinCo is there needs to be adequate buffering between the WinCo loading docks and the adjacent residential property. So, there are a hundred ways to do it, but so long as it's moved further away and other uses, like professional office, things that are less intense, buildings in between WinCo loading docks and the residences, that's the most important thing in my mind. With those sorts of changes I would be in favor of it. But there is one additional item that hasn't been mentioned. The applicant hasn't requested and the city hasn't granted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Consequently, the applicant is proceeding under the current Comprehensive Plan as it stands now. Now, the Comprehensive Plan, which includes the future land use map, designates this site, approximately 31 percent, as medium density residential and the remainder as mixed use community. That medium density residential of 31 percent works out to about 24 acres and the remainder is about 54 acres. Now, mixed use community requires at least 20 percent of that property be residential. Well, 20 percent of the 54 acres is about another 11 acres. So, all together that would be the 24 acres that are currently designated to be medium density residential, plus another 11 acres, that works out to about 35 acres. What the applicant is actually proposing to do here is less than 17 acres. Less than half of what the current plan calls for. Now, those sorts of things can be done if they seek an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. They haven't done that. Without that change this Council cannot approve the plan, because it simply doesn't meet the city ordinances for at least that additional reason. The staff report on this project has said that the plan that the applicant is presenting meets -- is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That statement is demonstrably false and a false factual Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 91 of 107 statement in the staff report for this project does not give the Council a legal basis to approve what's being presented. So, that reason, in addition to all the other concerns, means that this Council should send it back. I want a development here. I want a development that's consistent with what I expected when I moved in, because property owners -- adjacent property owners have a legal interest -- a legal realistically legally enforceable expectation that what's going to happen is what the city presents as likely, unless or until legal processes and public processes are undertaken to make a change and I urge this Council to do that. Thank you. De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, I hear the question raised over and over on whether this application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Can you clear the record on that? Nary: Sure. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, so in your staff report your planning staff has made that analysis on comparing the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives with what is being proposed and there is a lot of give and take and you will note that in the report. There was some discussion about some things that staff didn't agree with and suggested more and, again, it is a concept plan and I wouldn't disagree with Mr. McKinney that it is -- it is a requirement and responsibility of the Council to find that it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. At the end of the day it also, then, has to be -- and the court is going to require that it comply with all of your codes. So, it is within this Council's purview to make that determination. Do you agree with the staff report and the findings that the staff has proposed that says this does meet the goals and objectives as required by the Comprehensive Plan. That's within your preview to both evaluate your code, evaluate the analysis that has been provided and that the staff's review of this from both the Planning and Zoning staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission on that particular point that there are adequate findings within your comfort of -- of your interpretation as a Council of your code. Again, at the end of the day the code is what controls here and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan are what the city aspires to achieve through those ordinances. So, again, it is still your interpretation as we have talked about that a number of times, I have been reviewing the staff comments and, again, they are all consistent with prior applications, prior approvals of this Council and prior Councils as to how the -- both the Comprehensive Plan has been interpreted and how you have applied the existing codes to those applications and all of that is contained within the staff report. But, again, it's -- it's all within your preview on your interpretation and, again, the -- you have heard a number of times what your ultimate decision is on whether to approve, deny, remand, make amendments, make changes, make requirements of the applicant. That's still all within - - within your desire, your direction to do, but there is certainly more than the findings contained in this report from the staff, from the analysis of that, that is consistent with our prior findings of both, again, this Council, as well as prior Councils. So I hope that answers your question. But I mean we certainly are -- we certainly have enough information here for you to make that call. De Weerd: Can you summarize? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 92 of 107 Nary: Yes. The answer is yes. There is enough from the staff for you to make the finding if that's your direction. De Weerd: Sonya, do you have anything you want to add? Allen: Madam Mayor, Council, staff's analysis is in the staff report. Mr. Nary is correct, there were some things that staff felt were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and some things that needed to be changed. The analysis is still there. Based on the Council's comments at the last hearing, staff prepared conditions of approval, because it sounded like Council is relatively okay with going forward with that plan, the last one that was submitted. So, it's -- it's entirely -- if you wish to backtrack and remand this back to the Commission, staff will review the whole application over again and -- and provide a new recommendation to Commission if that's what the Council desires. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? Yes, sir. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Minatre: My name is Dirk Minatre. I live at 6864 North Pira in Spurwing Green also. De Weerd: Thank you. Minatre: What's the hurry to kick this ball wildly down the road without having all the information. As I say -- and they said it before. You got reports that are still waiting to come in. Chinden is a joke. It really is a mess. And I can tell you because I drive it enough during different hours of the day to know that I want to avoid it most of the time. We have got Bainbridge building now. We have got a new subdivision going behind us. We have got another subdivision going in Springwing and we have got, you know, Bridgewater Park and it just goes on and on and all the subdivisions are going to continually throw more traffic onto Chinden. The state doesn't have a resolution to this road quickly. You want to put another big shopping center in there and it's going to have a lot more impact I think on traffic overall than -- that we are expecting -- than we even think. I think just take the time. Be responsible. Get the reports in. Do what you need to do. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else who wishes to testify? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond? Howell: Madam Mayor, Members of the -- excuse me. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, let me add my voice to the chorus of people who admire your dedication and the very late hour that you are willing to work on these projects and speaking of that, there is fatigue and I hope that the fatigue simply from listening to testimony that we have had tonight doesn't adversely influence the Council's decision, not by virtue of the content of that testimony, which is important, that's what makes, frankly, our democracy in our country work, but, rather, the time that it's taken to get us to this point. So, I guess a little pep talk is stick with us, we would like to get through this and get a -- have a decision. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 93 of 107 De Weerd: I think you could take a lesson from the one gal. Howell: Yeah. De Weerd: -- you know, and -- Howell: I don't have that energy either, so -- what I would like to do, Madam Mayor and Council, is run through some comments that are probably a little bit more prepared and, then, address at the very end of my time some of the topics that came up during the testimony that I think is important to respond to. But first in terms of this project itself and where we came to today, with the plan that is before you, we very painstakingly took into account the feedback and concerns that was expressed at Planning and Zoning, that was expressed at the November 21 meeting before this Council, that was expressed by staff in the staff report that is concluded and that's what led to the submittal that was made with the revisions to this plan on January 5 and the staff report -- the staff had time to review that and their comments and their report was not issued until January 12th. So, there was some comments that maybe they only had a few days to review and it was submitted at the last minute. It was submitted fully in conformance with what Meridian's processes and procedures require and staff did have the period of time that they are allowed in which to respond. So, that's the system we are all dealing with and I think it was a mischaracterization to say they only had a couple of days to do that and I think it's even a more gross mischaracterization to say somehow the developer has been dragging his feet and submitting things at the very last minute and demonizing, I just think that's, frankly, unfair and just not true. We followed the process that the city has established. There were a number of specific concerns that we took away from the last public meeting and the public testimony. The first of this is a lack of detail on pedestrian and vehicular interconnectivity and I think we have addressed that in this submittal with the very detailed plans that have been made. The concept site plan has been revised to show increased interconnectivity and workability and the circulation plan incorporates some of the suggestions that we received not only from staff and the public comment, but also from ACHD. There has been concern expressed about the large size of the buildings and the arrangement on the site in proximity to adjacent residential properties. Most notably in this case the WinCo facility has been moved further north and further west in response to those concerns and someone can say, well, I can throw a rock further than it's been moved. But the reality is we have listened to those comments and we have moved it -- not just for the sake of moving it, but to address the specific concerns that was expressed by City Council, by staff, and by the public and one thing -- De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt you. Mr. Marshall, would you stop it. You need to sit down. Please. You are distracting and we can't listen to the summary here, so -- I'm sorry. You were on Planning and Zoning, Joe. Okay. I apologize. But I was trying to pay attention to what you were saying and I was reading his sign language and it just doesn't work, so -- Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 94 of 107 Howell: Madam Mayor, thank you. I was oblivious to that. But I'm glad that -- if it was distracting you -- De Weerd: I wish I was. Howell: -- you raised it, so -- with respect to the WinCo facility itself, there have been a number of very specific changes that are designed to address the very comments that the public and this City Council identified before and that's the direction of the loading dock. Staff asked that the building be rotated so that the loading dock faces Linder. The building has been rotated and moved further towards Linder such that the loading dock directly faces Linder. The only way to make that more face Linder is to rotate the building even further and make it point due north, in which case, then, you have the front of the building and all of the parking and all of the lights in the parking more directly impacting the residential area. Right now the building and the side of the building blocks all of that, together with the additional uses that are interspersed between the existing residential uses. We have added residences between them. We have added work -- work-live locations between there. We have moved in everything that the Comprehensive Plan aspires to have and, sure, somebody's going to say and the public has said, well, that's not enough. We want more of that. We want more of that. Well, the Comprehensive Plan doesn't require a specific quantum. It requires that you have a transition and a buffer area. We have the transition and the buffer area and how much can you say you need more than that? We have met that need. We have met the public concern and we have met the concern of City Council in that regard. I want to take a little bit of time to talk about the whole Chinden Boulevard issue and traffic, because traffic is a concern and anybody that's lived in this community -- and I have lived here my entire life and we all know the traffic is a concern. This development alone is not going to fix Chinden. It's not going to fix Chinden to the east. It's not going to fix Chinden to the west. We are doing I think more than our fair share by adding the lanes to Chinden that we are adding, which are taking away from the northern part of this parcel that no other development up and down Chinden is doing. This is a responsible community oriented developer that has listened to the feedback from this Council and from the community to do those tasks and I wish we could wave a magic wand and say we will fix it from Glenwood to Caldwell, but that's not going to happen and some of the public comment -- I think that Mr. Humphreys' comments to say that while Chinden is no longer a state highway, it's really a boulevard, maybe sadly is the truth, but for purposes of jurisdiction it is a state highway and that's something we all deal with in our communities where we have other jurisdictions responsible for roadways in our communities and in this case it's ITD that has the responsible -- responsibility for Chinden and ITD has submitted letters that are in the record that indicate they are comfortable with the development we are doing, they agree to the changes that we are proposing, they recommend signalization of Bergman when warranted at Bergman and Chinden for this development and I know that we addressed this at length in the last City Council meeting about why we are in this situation with this parcel to begin with and why we can't put access at the half mile. We have already been told, no, we can't have access at the half mile. We don't have access to Fox Run. The owner of that development has told us no repeatedly. We would love to do that, but Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 95 of 107 we don't have that and we can't force them to do it and I don't think anybody has any interest in trying to have eminent domain to compel that. So, we just have that access. That is why we are here asking for the variance and meeting every one of the three conditions for the variance and those -- that information is in the record. A couple of other things before I run out of time for my rebuttal. The buffer that we placed in there has been inaccurately described as just some trees. There are at least three buffer walls of varying height and composition between any residential use and the WinCo building, including an additional buffer wall that is directly adjacent to the loading dock. There is another buffer wall there. So, we have met those kind of concerns. The access right along Chinden Boulevard that I wanted to specifically mention, the three conditions for the variance, it must not be a special right or privilege that isn't otherwise allowed in the district. We have provided in our initial submittal letter dated November 14th that's in the record of a host of other specific examples that are in this exact same circumstance and that that -- that change has been allowed. It relieves an undue hardship. That undue hardship is not of our making, because we don't have access to the Fox Run intersection and this parcel is otherwise fully landlocked in the northeast corner and partially landlocked all along Chinden and it's not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and I want to specifically mention something that is in the record from the staff's report that -- that really establishes that. First staff notes that due to the extendage of frontage on Chinden sole access to this site via Linder and the existing residential stub streets would be difficult and inefficient and they go on to say that staff specifically finds -- and this is in Exhibit D to the staff report. Staff specifically finds that if the highway -- if Chinden is widened to four lanes as intended, as we have indicated through the STAR funding, the proposed access shouldn't be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare if appropriate improvements are constructed as determined by ITD. So, even though staff in the report recommended denial of the variance, because they can't make the required findings, they have already told you, those findings are there. Follow what ITD says to do with this and it will meet the requirements of public health and safety. So, I see my time is up, I want to be respectful of the time we have all been here, I would urge that this -- this project be approved as in its current iteration. The concept of sending this back to Planning and onal changes. None of the testimony that you have heard tonight says what would be different at Planning and Zoning than what you have heard here. What would be different? Nothing would be different at Planning and Zoning. The same issues, the same staff, the same code, the same comprehensive plan. These are the changes we are dealing with tonight and I think it meets all of the concerns and comments that have been expressed previously. We would urge its approval. I would certainly stand for any questions that the Council might have and certainly indicate that we are willing to provide to you any additional information or facts that you may require before you close the public meeting to make sure you have got all the information you need to make a decision. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions for the applicant or any of those that provided testimony? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 96 of 107 Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. Ken, you mentioned that the developer says no regarding Fox Run. Do you mind naming the developer and see if there is any opportunity for further discussion there before we call that done? Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Little Roberts, it is Brighton. That's the -- the owner there. We have had repeated conversations with them and they have said, no, I don't think so. They -- they aren't willing to provide that access. I know it's sprinkled throughout the public record. There is some testimony -- or not testimony, some staff report -- staff comments I think that says, well, those discussions are ongoing and we hope they would bear fruit and so do we. Those discussions have been ongoing for months and months and months and months, if not years. They have been going on for a long time and we have not gotten anywhere and to ask us to wait forever until someone decides to give us access I don't think it's fair, nor is it in keeping with our processes and procedures. So, I would love it if we had access, it doesn't appear we are going to get it. Little Roberts: Thank you. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And I understand things change and I won't hold you to this, but as of now kind of what's your anticipated timeline between -- I understand you had a little bit of a comment on -- on the timeline of the roads, so between the lay of WinCo and the other structures and kind of what's your cast at the moment? Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, I think the best guess that we have is that if we were approved and can commence once we -- because I'm sure it would be approved with the conditions of ITD and ACHD reports and compliance with whatever reports they may have. I think we are probably looking at construction not starting anytime until very late, probably, in 2018 -- fall of 2018 and I think we would commence moving thereafter as -- as quickly as we could and the plan is that whatever gets constructed and approved is going to have to be constructed and approved kind of simultaneously with the changes that are made on Chinden. So, I think at the earliest we are probably looking at 2019 -- probably late in 2019. Now, yes, you know, I -- there is a lot of moving parts here, but we would like to get moving as quickly as we can. We have been working on this project for a very very long time. De Weerd: I guess I would ask if you had -- if the developer to your east worked with you with the landing area or this stacking area, would that work? I think that ITD, this Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 97 of 107 development -- Brighton did get together and talk about it, if I'm correct, but does that work? Can you work -- is that designed to make it work at the half mile? Howell: Madam Mayor, we have been down that road a lot and I think -- I'm sure I will be corrected if that's not right -- yeah, we could work with that, but we are getting indications that there isn't that approval to allow us to have that access. I know we would all like that, but I don't think that's in the cards and this is -- we know we can do what is before you and that's what we are asking to be approved. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Okay. Howell: I forgot one thing, if I could beg an indulgence to have about a minute to talk about one particular issue. De Weerd: Council? Okay. Howell: This is the issue of the 24 hour usage on this site. As your counsel has told you, as developed this site will not abut. Therefore, as developed this site is eligible, under current zoning standards, for 27/7 operation. That's what the current -- that's what the MUC would do for this project and that's what the zoning and use chart allows. There has been this issue raised, both in written testimony and very late in public testimony, that somehow the law requires that because of the definition of property in your planning documents in the city code, that we are required to apply for a CUP prior and I think that's a gross mischaracterization of what your city code requires. The approval for this site is to be given as it is to be developed, not as it is today. It makes no sense to say you have to get a CUP for an RUT use property and, then, later transfer that to the MUC zoning. That simply makes no sense under the code. It's a very sophistic reading of Meridian City Code that I don't think any court would uphold and I think it's contrary to the advice you're getting from your own counsel as to what is required for this site. This site as zoned for MUC would be eligible for 24/7 operations and we have done as much as possible as we can to mitigate those by rotating the building, sound walls, barriers, berms, all of that -- things that we have all talked about to mitigate that impact on the adjacent residential needs. It is eligible for 24/7. Thank you. Thank you for the indulgence. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I will ask you one question -- was one of the legal ones that came up late, but, first, a comment I think. I think the public has provided great input and has been receptive to the discussion today and an earlier meeting, but one of the things that I think is important to note -- we always watch everyone and their reaction and, quite frankly, appreciate your response, Mr. Slocum, and as you're hearing difficult comments from the public often you are taking veracious notes and have a clear intention to try and make something work here and that's noticed and appreciated. One of the legal Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 98 of 107 questions that came up, which was interesting, rose late with regards to the Comprehensive Plan and the mixed use community requirement that -- that notes the 20 percent portion of that development area needs to be residential. The staff report actually does mention that as well, that obligation to be compliant with that provision of the mixed use community and, then, I had forgotten the report also notes that the portion that is proposed to be mixed use residential -- or medium density residential is approximately seven acres less than the future land use map. I think Mr. McKinney was trying to reference those as being, perhaps, a basis that might make this proposal inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and necessitate -- and Mr. Nary commented on it, but the mixed use community portion clearly doesn't have 20 percent residential within it. Is that a problem? Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, no, I don't think it's a problem. I don't think it's a problem for a variety of reasons. First, it's not a problem -- as your counsel has indicated to you. Staff report did note that was not an issue with this project and I don't think that -- and you do have the information in front of you from which you can conclude that it meets your Comprehensive Plan as your aspirational document. The second issue is while Mr. McKinney's argument was pretty clearly presented, I think he misrepresented what residential uses are in this site. If you see the block that's in front of you with the MUC area in the medium density residential area, you will note -- if we can now go back to the plot of the project, Sonya, we can go back to the plot. There we go. Thank you. You will note that there is a big chunk of this residential that is incorporated into the area that is the MUC area, not -- it's extended over from where just the medium density residential area is in place. So, I think we comply with that. I think we comply with it as a matter of fact and I think we comply with it as a matter of what your staff report indicates we comply with. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor? A quick follow up. Sorry about that. Quick follow up. So, is it -- is it confirming that the -- the mixed use community necessitates the 20 percent within it, but the -- the portion just below the mid anchor, one, two and three, satisfies that 20 percent requirement or -- I'm not following. Howell: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I think a portion of that residential area does satisfy it. If you're asking me to do the exact calculation for you, I'm going to tell you I can't do that. So, I'm going to have to have Craig come up and address that issue for you. I think my point is it -- it does comply in that your staff report indicates that it does comply and it meets the standards that are required for this application. You have that information in front of you from which you can draw that conclusion and, you know, if somebody wants to go file an appeal and argue about that in court, well, it's the old saying, if you have got a piece of paper and filing fee, then, God bless you, you can file an action, so -- Borton: That's helpful. Thank you. De Weerd: Sorry, Dean. You never want to upset Dean. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 99 of 107 Howell: I'm beginning to understand that. De Weerd: In a letter dated the 16th, Mr. Brighton -- or Mr. Brighton. Mr. Turnbull mentions that there was a meeting talking about a backage road and how that could connect to Fox Run and that he was open to -- to that in meeting the needs of this development. Howell: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, what -- the date of the letter again? De Weerd: It's the 16th. Today. Howell: Today? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Howell: I have not seen that letter, so -- De Weerd: You can have my copy. I just -- I just got it before the meeting if you want it. Howell: I can't comment on that -- that letter as I -- as I have not seen it and I certainly didn't participate in that meeting, so I can't tell you that. But it is important to note that as part of our development with the collector road on the southern portion that goes across and, then, up above, there is a connection that we have left, if we do have access in the future and we can connect, we are able to do that and so to hear Mr. Turnbull say he's open to that, I think, first, that's different than saying I agree to it. He's been open to the discussions we have had all along, but he's not agreed to it. We have provide -- provided the ability that, yeah, if we do have that access in the future we can connect to it. I'm sorry I can't answer your -- what appears to be your question about what that conversation was about, because I wasn't a part of it. De Weerd: Sorry. I just was reading the letter. Howell: Well -- and I understand, Madam Mayor, but, I'm sorry, I can't comment on -- on the letter, I have not read it -- De Weerd: Okay. Howell: -- and I certainly didn't see it before coming here tonight. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Thank you. Howell: Again, thank you all. De Weerd: Any other comment? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 100 of 107 Allen: Madam Mayor, Council, if I may clarify something. On the 20 percent residential that keeps coming up, staff does not necessarily have an issue with this property providing 20 percent of this site as residential. The reason why is because we look at the overall mixed use designation on the comp plan that's before you -- it's the brown area and if you will notice -- so, this property that's before you, this yellow part right here and this brown part -- okay. If you see all the property to the corner along the frontage of Chinden is also designated mixed use -- clear to the -- Meridian Road -- actually east of Meridian Road. If you remember, we do have a recently constructed assisted living facility that Brighton constructed here at Paramount Veranda and, then, also an age restricted single family detached and attached residential development here. So, overall -- if you look at the overall area there is -- there is more than 20 percent of the overall mixed use designated area with residential use. So, staff's not necessarily opposed to the -- not -- not so much residential on this portion. I just wanted to clarify. De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. Council, any other questions for staff? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, I move we close the public hearing an Item 9-D. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: In light of this letter -- I mean this letter makes it clear that -- that Brighton is -- is willing to connect it, not just wanting to talk about it, but the letter says there -- had a conversation with ACHD and ITD that they are willing to connect it to Fox Run and if that's at all a possibility that's the way it should be. That was kind of a first time here for me not -- to disapprove a project, but I move we remand H-2017-0088 to Planning -- back to Planning and Zoning. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to remand this application back to Planning and zoning. Any discussion? Palmer: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 101 of 107 De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I love it as it is, but with that connection to Fox Run and without that light. Wanted that to be clear. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, when we have a motion to remand back do we do it in its entirety? Do we do it to certain points of -- can it be as broad or as narrow -- I guess seeking direction. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, so you can do it either way. I mean you can remand the entire thing back -- the only thing I would clarify is that Madam Mayor read this letter. Is it in the record? Okay. Because I don't see it here in this -- in what I'm looking at, so I just wanted to make sure it was in the record. Coles: It is. It's listed under Brighton Corporation. It was put in at 4:09 this afternoon. Nary: Okay. Coles: I received it at 4:06. Nary: Okay. So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, you can remand the entire project back for review. You can remand it back for a specific purpose if you wish. Either -- either one is in your purview, so --- De Weerd: Procedural question? Okay. Council has no issues. Howell: The procedural question is -- is whether those are all the options and for an item that entered the public record unbeknownst to I think anyone, except perhaps the City Council, it seems to me that another option, as a matter of procedure, would also be for a deferral, so that we can understand that without having to go back and start over at Planning and Zoning and so I think that perhaps I'm asking is there another option, simply to defer and place this over on the calendar to a later City Council hearing, rather than the binary choice being send it back to -- send it back to Planning and Zoning. Thank you. Palmer: Madam Mayor, if I could field that? My concern is -- I mean judging by the plainness of the letter this connection can happen and if you were to make that connection, the additional changes that would require would mean there is no way I have the votes to make that happen without sending it back to Planning and Zoning anyway. So, you're going to save time by doing it now I think. De Weerd: Any further discussion on the -- the motion? Bernt: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 102 of 107 De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I want to -- I want to thank the developer and his team for coming this evening and spending time with us. Your project has gotten better and appreciate it. I also wanted to thank all of the people from the surrounding area and I'm grateful for your voice, whether you are for or whether you are against. This is -- this type of process is what makes me so grateful for city government. You guys come, you guys make -- have a voice, we listen, and we make decisions and I want to thank you for that. It's a big deal and I appreciate your time. I personally believe that there is -- there is just too many moving parts to approve this tonight and too many unanswered questions, specifically with ACHD and the report. We were elected to be prudent and to make prudent decisions based upon our city -- our wonderful city that we live in and I don't believe that we would be making a prudent decision at this time to have it go forward. With that said, I am in support of remanding it back to Planning and Zoning, so they can look at this and continue this process to make sure that -- to get to the very best development and application we can get. So, that's my opinion. De Weerd: If there is no further comment -- Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Yes, we are sending this back and partially due to the fact that Fox Run will work as -- as an intersection light to get in, but also I hope that you really consider the comments that you heard tonight that there were some other big issues that were brought up with Arliss and the safety of that road, as well as either the -- the location of the WinCo building and the 24 hour access. I don't think that is going to go away overnight by ignoring what the community members are saying. So, you're going to be moving some stuff around anyway, really take a deep look at this again and see if there is any way that you can make this happen -- this is a great project, but make it happen in a way that is kind to the neighbors and I'm not saying -- there is a lot of stuff out here and I'm not saying you can do every single thing that everybody wants, because you're never going to please everybody. But there were a couple of major issues that I would like to see work done. De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Okay. Is this a voice vote or roll call? Nary: It is your call, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 103 of 107 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I'm just -- I'm seeing members of the public mouthing if we know an approximate date for the P&Z hearing. I think they were just trying to plan. I don't know if we have any idea or if staff can maybe grab a couple of the folks and give them some ballpark figure. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can really answer that. We would have to renotice this entire thing, so it probably won't get to Planning and Zoning on their schedule until at least the second meeting in February, which would be February 15th is the earliest I could see at this juncture, just because of the timing of noticing. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I'm just going to call a five minute recess. (Recess: 11:52 p.m. to 12:01 a.m.) De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and pick up where we left off. Okay. 9-E is a public hearing for a proposed -- I don't think anyone is going to be here. Should we continue this? Just in case. Milam: Madam Mayor, I meant to ask you earlier, but we had already opened the other public hearing -- but maybe jump ahead and see if anybody was here for that one. Cavener: We had two people sign up I think. De Weerd: Well -- they signed up on the wrong sheet? Oh. We can continue this. Hood: Madam Mayor, I would just ask if you continue this one also continue 11-A, please, because they are tied together and we want to have effective dates that match up. De Weerd: Okay. Hood: So, there you go. Helped you out even more. Nary: And, Madam Mayor, if you would just make sure to open the public hearing, so we can continue. E. Public Hearing for Proposed New Fees for Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation, Accessory Use Permit for Home Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 104 of 107 Occupation that includes provision of lessons or instruction to a group of 7 or more students, and Review of Landscape Plan revisions 1. Resolution No. 18-2057: Adoption of New Fees for Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation, Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation that includes provision of lessons or instruction to a group of 7 or more students, and Review of Landscape Plan revisions De Weerd: Okay. I will open the public hearing on Item 9-E, the proposed new fees for accessory use permit for home occupation, accessory use permit for home occupation that includes provision for lessons or instruction to a group of seven or more students and the review of the landscape plan revisions. I would ask Council to continue this to our next meeting. Milam: So moved. Palmer: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this Item 9-E to January 23rd, 2018. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Department Reports A. Police: Budget Amendment for Animal Control Services Not- to Exceed $11,000 De Weerd: Item 10-A is a budget amendment for -- under our Police Department. We heard from IHS and our Police Department earlier. Berle, do you have anything to add? Stokes: No, Mayor. This is the 11,000 dollar referenced from last week's presentation, which is an increase to cover -- I think just more costs over the last few years. I think we were no increase for three years and this is to make up for just changes in prices for providing the service they provide. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for lieutenant? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 105 of 107 Palmer: When this was originally -- it is freaky with the AC off -- was originally happened a few years back, were there -- was it through a bid process? Was there only one person capable of performing the services? Stokes: Mayor, Councilman Palmer, honestly, I can't answer that question. I was not part of the -- the transition or command staff at that point. De Weerd: Mr. Nary? Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor, Member of the Council, Council Member Palmer, so the service normally in the past was provided by city employees and the decision was made -- there were some necessary changes that had to take place at the treatment plant, that was where the facility that was used to house the animals had to be moved and so the discussion was cost of moving and continuing with the service. It was Chief Lavey's desire to not continue providing that service as an employee service, but contracted instead. We did go to Idaho Humane Society, they were the only vendor that was really capable in the valley to handle the volume that we had. There aren't a lot of other services that exist there. I mean there is -- Canyon county has a different service, but there wasn't anything else in Ada county that could seamlessly handle that and take on that. The city negotiated that transition with the employees, as well as the equipment that existed, so we actually traded some vehicles to the Humane Society at the time as a setoff on the cost of the services. That lasted for a few years until the cost of those vehicles were amortized and, then, that's why there was a stable -- stabilization of price for three years just based on that negotiation and then -- then we had this new one with the -- the slight increase. So, it was a desire of the city to get out of the business of doing that with employees and to contract for that service and that was Chief Lavey's desire and it was the only one at the time that could fill those needs. Palmer: Madam Mayor? So, is this an annual contract that happens at the time of budget hearing? Nary: It is. Palmer: Budget? Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other -- Palmer: Did we ask -- I'm sorry, Mayor, if I can. Did -- was there -- do we just assume it was going to be the same? Do we have a conversation and say do you anticipate any need or were we just going to do the same thing until we heard from them that they needed more? De Weerd: No. This was something that was kind of lost in the retirement of Lieutenant Overton, who oversaw the contract. It came after the budget process and so that's why it came in as a budget amendment. As we mentioned to Dr. Rosenthal last -- last week, he's been notified of the budget cycle and, actually, he's well aware of that now. Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 106 of 107 Palmer: Thanks. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: I move that we approve the budget amendment for Animal Control Service, not to exceed 11,000 dollars. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the request under 10-A. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 18-1762: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Meridian City Code as Codified at Title 11, Section 3 Entitled the Unified Development Code, of the Meridian City Code; Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date. De Weerd: 11-A will -- has been requested to continue to the 23rd. Do I have a motion? Little Roberts: So moved. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 11-A to the 23rd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Future Meeting Topics Meridian City Council January 16, 2018 Page 107 of 107 De Weerd: Just a couple of items. MYAC legislative breakfast is this Saturday from 8:00 to 9:00 here at Hall City. City Officials Day at the capitol on the 23rd from 9:00 to 2:00 and lunch at Boise Center East and Town Hall on the 24th from 6:30 to 8:00 at Cole Valley Christian. It's regarding the recycling changes and the upcoming school bond. Anything for this item? If not, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Milam: So moved. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:06 A.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) X -0R TA Y DE WEERD ATTEST: C. JAY CO`t-ES, CITY CLERK / 6 / xI DATE APPROVED City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January9\ 018 Agenda Item Number: Project/File Number: Item Title: 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 discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. Meeting Notes CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN -IN SHEET Date: -- ru . �, � 56Wo*-) 16 ;�1 � 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 Y6S �0 City Council Meeting )U Meeting Date: JanuaryO, 2018 Agenda Item Number: (OA Project/File Number: Item Title: Approve Minutes of January 9, 2018 City Council Workshop Meeting Notes Meridian City Council Workshop January 9, 2018 Page 39 of 39 Milam: So moved. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn? Milam: So moved. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR T ATTEST: C. JA COLE DE WEERD ITY CLERK - /Z /� / Q// DATE APPROVED 5V, NX, 3 _�i City Council Meeting \4 Meeting Date: January4, 2018 Agenda Item Number: % Project/File Number: Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Settlers Square Subdivision Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Settlers Square Subdivision (PP 15-0014) by Seagle Three, LLC Located at the Northwest Corner of West Ustick Road and North Venable Avenue Meeting Notes CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). PP-15-0014 - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for a Preliminary Plat Consisting of twelve (12) commercial building lots on 9.001 Acres of Land in the C-C Zoning District for Settlers Square Subdivision , by Seagle Three, LLC Case No(s). PP-15-0014 For the City Council Hearing Date of: December 3, 2015 (Findings on January 16, 2018) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2015, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2015, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2015, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2015, 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 CASE NO(S). PP-15-0014 - 2 - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2015, 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 a preliminary plat is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of December 3, 2015, 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 December 3, 2015 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 1 �p day of 2017. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT LUKE CAVENER VOTED Y6� COUNCIL MEMBER ANNE LITTLE ROBERTS VOTED `� COUNCIL MEMBER TY PALMER VOTED A COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED & COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM VOTED MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) -- — — Mayor Tamm de Weerd Attest: i Q 0 C. Jay C e City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Attorney. Public Works Department and City By: Dated: I ! I 1p I ZJ City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). PP -15-0014 - 5 e4ler!S S� u-,Zrr— - 3 - Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: December 3, 2015 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision (Preliminary Plat) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Seagle Three, LLC, has submitted an application for preliminary plat (PP) approval of 12 commercial lots on 9.001 acres in the C-C zoning district. See Section IX of the staff report for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed PP applications in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Numbers H-2015-0014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3, 2015, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Numbers H-2015-0014, as presented during the hearing on December 3, 2015, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Numbers H-2015-0014 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 in the NWC of Ustick Road and Venable Ave, Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. B. Owner/Applicant(s): Seagle Three, LLC PO Box 2579 Eagle, ID 83616 Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 2 V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for preliminary plat. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: November 16 and 30, 2015 C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: November 5, 2015 D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: November 23, 2015 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant. B. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The subject site is surrounded by residential subdivisions located on the north and south sides of the proposed development. A commercial development is located east of the subject site with a gas/convenience store and a mix of office uses. C. History of Previous Actions: In 2008, the property was granted annexation (AZ-07-018), approval by the City Council with the C-C zoning district for Settlers Square Subdivision. A development agreement (DA) was approved with the annexation (instrument # 108059803). A preliminary plat (PP-07-021) was also approved concurrently that consisted of 12 commercial lots and 2 common lots on 9.001 acres. The preliminary plat expired in 2010, but the Development Agreement for the property does not expire, and is still in effect. In the Development Agreement that was signed in 2008, the applicant was granted direct access to Ustick Road. Due to policy changes at ACHD the applicant is no longer allowed to have direct access to Ustick Road. However, city staff and ACHD are supportive of a temporary access to Ustick Road until such time as the property to the west develops with an access to Ustick Road that aligns with N. Blairmore Way. D. Utilities: 1. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists in N. Venable Lane. 2. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists in N. Venable Lane and W. Ustick Road. 3. Issues or concerns: Conceptual engineering provided for this development indicates that the applicant proposes to fill the southwest portion of the development in order to provide adequate depth of cover over the proposed sewer mains. This situation creates an undesirable elevation differential between this development and adjacent properties. E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no irrigation canals/ditches located on the site. 2. Hazards: Staff is unaware of any known hazards on the property. 3. Flood Plain: This site does not lie within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 3 VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is currently designated “Mixed Use – Community” (MU-C) with a Neighborhood Center (N.C.) overlay on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In these areas the City seeks a centralized, pedestrian-oriented, identifiable and day-to-day, service-oriented focal point for neighborhood scale development. Neighborhood Centers should serve as public transit locations for future park-and-ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops or other alternative modes of transportation. Neighborhood Center developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual neighborhood center plan. The grid street pattern within the neighborhood allows traffic to disperse, eases congestion, slows traffic, and is safer for residents. In addition to the items listed for the MU-C designation, the following items will be used in reviewing development applications in all MU-C areas with an N.C. overlay:  Four specific design elements should be incorporated into a Neighborhood Center development: a) street connectivity, b) open space, c) pathways, and d) residential density that is eight dwelling units per acre or more.  Most blocks should be no more than 500’ to 600’, similar to Old Town and Heritage Commons; larger blocks are allowed along arterial streets.  Reduced travel lane widths are encouraged.  The design should provide an interconnected circulation pattern that is convenient for automobiles, pedestrians, and transit.  The centers should offer an internal circulation system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods and regional pathways, connecting to and integrated with the larger street and pathway system.  Developments should provide neighborhood accessible commercial services that do not force residents onto arterial streets.  Developments should provide a variety of housing choices and types.  Housing within developments should be arranged in a radiating pattern of lessening densities from the core.  Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, or residential densities. The proposed development is intended to develop with a mix of retail, boutiques, personal service shops, restaurants, and office uses (professional and medical). These types of uses will provide services for the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The applicant has designed the proposed development to be pedestrian oriented. The proposed development will also provide vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to the residential subdivision to the north and the commercial development to the east. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy):  “Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D Page 53) On the submitted concept plan, the Applicant is proposing one private drive access to Ustick Road (arterial) and another private access onto Venable Ave (collector). Both private driveways will provide access and inter-connectivity to the commercial development and adjacent properties. City Staff and ACHD Staff are supportive of the proposed access points, however, ACHD envisions that when the property to the west develops, and a signal is Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 4 installed at the Venable/Ustick intersection, the access to Ustick will be removed. The signal planned at Venable/Ustick is 283 feet away from the proposed access point onto Ustick Road. No direct lot access to Ustick Road and Venable Ave was proposed, and none is approved with these applications.  “Require appropriate landscape and street buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).” (3.06.02F Page 54) Ustick Road is designated as an arterial roadway and Venable Ave is classified as a collector roadway. By City Ordinance, a 25-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Ustick Road and a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required along Venable Ave.  “Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.” (2.01.03B Page 14) The subject site will be responsible for installing and maintaining the appropriate landscape buffers, parking lot landscaping and streetscape landscaping at the time said parcel is developed.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F Page 45) This parcel is contiguous to the city. Sanitary sewer and water are available to this parcel.  “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area.” (3.05.01J Page 51) Staff believes the proposed mix of retail, office, restaurants, and professional services will contribute to the variety of services located within the area and will complement the existing residential developments. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C-C zoning district. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the C-C zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. D. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6B for commercial uses. IX. ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. Preliminary Plat The proposed plat consists of 12 commercial building lots on 9.001 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 5 Dimensional Standards: There are no minimum setbacks, lot size, or street frontage requirements for lots in the C-C zone. The maximum building height allowed in the C-C zone is 50 feet. Future buildings proposed on the subject lots shall meet the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3. Access: The preliminary plat shows two shared driveways into the development. There is an existing north-south public stub street to this property at the north property line, Buckstone Avenue. This street is located 330 feet west of Venable. The applicant is proposing to provide access to the site through the extension of Buckstone with an access easement/driveway. The proposed shared driveway will run from the existing stub of Buckstone Avenue on the north, to Ustick Road on the south boundary of the site. The applicant shall work with ACHD on the design of the turnaround entering the subject property. The proposed east-west private driveway aligns with the existing commercial development to the east and should stub to the western boundary of the site for future connectivity via Cooper Avenue/Lane. The submitted concept and landscape plans do not show this driveway extending all the way to the west property line. Further, a cross-access easement will need to be provided to the property to the west and noted on the face of the final plat. This cross-access will be reciprocated when the property to the west develops in the City and Cooper/Blairmore is constructed. Concept Plan: In the Development Agreement that was signed in 2008, the applicant was granted direct access to Ustick Road. Due to policy changes at ACHD, and city code changes, direct access to Ustick Road is no longer desired by both parties. In working with the applicant, City staff and ACHD are supportive of an interim access to Ustick Road until such time that a public street and/or shared driveway is constructed with the development of the property to the west. To ensure the interim access is terminated in the future, staff recommends that the applicant submit a revised concept plan with a concurrent development agreement modification application prior to adoption of the Findings by City Council that provides details on how the site will be designed after the removal of the temporary access to Ustick Road. NOTE: On the revised preliminary plat, there is a note that states that the proposed access to Ustick is temporary. The draft staff report from ACHD also requires the applicant to enter into a development agreement with ACHD for the temporary access to Ustick Road and provide financial surety for the closure of the driveway. Landscaping: Ustick Road is designated as an arterial roadway and Venable Ave. is classified as a collector. The UDC requires 25-foot wide landscape buffers adjacent to arterial roadways and a 20-foot wide buffer adjacent to collector streets (UDC Table 11-2B-3). On the landscaping plan the applicant is showing a 20 foot landscape buffer adjacent to Venable Ave. and 25 foot landscape buffer along Ustick Road. Land Use Buffers to Residential: To buffer the existing and proposed residential land uses to the north and west from future commercial (C-C) uses on this site, a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer should be installed (UDC Table 11-2B-3). The submitted landscape plan indicates a 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the residential subdivision to the north and a 20-foot buffer along the western property boundary. The applicant is to provide an additional 5 feet of landscaping (25-feet total) to the west property and construct materials in accordance with UDC 11-3B-9 or seek a waiver from the City Council. Internal Landscaping: The submitted landscape plan shows landscaping within the parking lots. The proposed parking areas meet the current landscaping requirements. It is important to note: all internal and parking lot landscaping will be reviewed with a CUP/CZC application. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 6 Fencing: The Applicant is not proposing/showing any new fencing on any of the submitted plans. Permanent fencing is not required. However, if permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit for this site. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The Applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single - point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Building Elevations: Elevations were not submitted with this specific application, but they were provided with the annexation of the property and tied to the recorded Development Agreement. The applicant will be required to submit elevations in accord with the design standards in effect as well as the recorded development agreement. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat request for this site and the recommended conditions listed in Exhibit B of this report in accord with the Findings contained in Exhibit C. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 11/18/15) 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 09/11/2007) B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Exhibit A AZ-15-013; PP-15-017 – Bull Ranch Subdivision PAGE 7 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 8 2. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 11/18/2015) Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 9 3. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 09/11/2007) Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 10 B. AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS/CONDITIONS 1. PLANNING DIVISION 1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 The applicant shall meet the terms of the recorded development agreement number instrument #108059803. 1.1.2 Prior to City Council approval of the Findings for proposed preliminary plat, the existing development agreement (recorded as Instrument No. 108059803) for Settlers Square shall be modified to update the conceptual development plan to show how the site will be designed after the closure of the temporary access to Ustick Road. 1.1.3 The preliminary plat prepared by Aspen Engineers, dated November 18, 2015 (attached in Exhibit A), is approved, with the conditions listed herein. 1.1.4 Except for the two access points noted on the plat, no lot shall have direct access to Ustick Road or Venable Ave. Place a note on the face of the final plat prohibiting direct lot access to Ustick Road and Venable Ave. The single access to Ustick Road shall be terminated at the time the property to the west constructs an access to Ustick Road that aligns with N. Blairmore Way. 1.1.5 A cross-access easement/agreement shall be recorded for all commercial lots within the subdivision. All lots within the subdivision shall have access to the public streets via private drive aisles. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat OR a note shall be added to the face of the final plat granting said cross-access. 1.1.6 A cross-access easement shall be recorded to the property located to the west and the access drive shall be constructed to the property line with the expectation that the access drive will connect to Cooper Avenue/Lane once it is constructed. This cross access shall be noted on the face of the final plat. 1.1.7 The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, dated September 11, 2007, labeled Sheet L-1 (attached in Exhibit A), is approved with the following notes/changes:  Provide a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road and a minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer along Venable Ave. All landscape materials shall be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7, Landscape Street Buffers.  Provide a 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the existing residential uses to the north and west of the site or seek a Council waiver for a reduced buffer width. All landscape material shall be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-9, Landscape Buffers to Adjoining Uses, and create a barrier where the trees touch at the time of maturity.  A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14.  Internal landscaping shall comply with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.  Submit revised landscape plans to the Planning Department with the submittal of the final plat application. 1.1.8 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.1.9 All development improvements including water, sewer, fencing, landscaping and pressurized irrigation shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining Certificates of Occupancy. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 11 1.1.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all required fencing, pressurized irrigation, landscaping, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature of the final plat. 1.1.11 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or assigns. Record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, private streets, and other development features. 1.1.12 The applicant shall record the final plat and obtain the Planning Division’s approval of a certificate of zoning compliance and design review application prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1.2 General Conditions of Approval 1.2.1 Sidewalks/walkways shall be installed within the subdivision and along the adjacent streets pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.2 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.2.3 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance, and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application. 1.2.4 Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. 1.2.5 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.2.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.2.7 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.2.8 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6 for commercial businesses. 1.2.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. 1.3 Ongoing Conditions of Approval 1.3.1 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. 1.3.2 The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site. 1.3.3 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. 1.3.4 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. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 12 1.4 Process Conditions of Approval 1.4.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.4.2 The applicant shall complete all improvements related to public life, safety, and health as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. A surety agreement may be accepted for other improvements in accord with UDC 11-5C-3C. 1.4.3 The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C2. 1.4.4 The applicant shall obtain approval for all successive phases of the preliminary plat within two years of the signature of the City Engineer on the previous final plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7B (if applicable). 1.4.5 The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years; or, 2) gain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2.1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. The plan will need to include type 1 lighting along the frontage of Ustick Road in addition to Type two lighting along Venable Ln and the internal public streets. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 2.1.2 The natural gradient of the undeveloped land falls approximately 5.5 feet, generally from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. The Conceptual Engineering Plan provided for this development indicates that the applicant proposes to fill the southwest portion of the development in order to provide adequate depth of cover over the proposed sewer mains. This situation creates an undesirable elevation differential between this development and adjacent properties. Applicants engineer shall work with the Meridian Public Works Engineering Division and the Ada County Highway District to explore opportunities of directing at least a portion of the sanitary sewer to the existing sewer main in W. Ustick Road near the southwest corner of the development. This sewer is approximately 12.75 feet deep, and would allow sewer mains within the development to fall in the same direction as the natural gradient of the land thereby possibly eliminating the need for fill. 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.2.3 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 Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 13 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 development plan approval. 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to 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 prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.2.6 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. 2.2.7 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 Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 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 Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.2.11 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer and water, fencing, micro- paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.2.12 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. 2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 14 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.2.18 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.2.19 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. 2.2.20 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. 2.2.21 100 Watt and 250 Watt, high-pressure sodium street lights shall be required on all public roadways per the City of Meridian Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. 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. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found on the city of meridian Public Works Department’s website at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. 2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse 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 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. 2.2.23 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, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate 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 887-221. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department has no concerns with this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1.1 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 ½” outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 15 c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the 4 ½” outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4.1.2 Any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. Extend Buckstone Avenue from the north. 4.1.3 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20’ wide. 4.1.4 For all Fire Lanes provide signage “No Parking Fire Lane”. 4.1.5 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all- weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 4.1.6 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 4.1.7 Maintain a separation of 5’ from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 4.1.8 The Fire Dept. has concerns about addressing and the address being visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact the Addressing Specialist at 898-5500 to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 4.1.9 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 4.1.10 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150’ of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 4.1.11 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4.1.12 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 16 4.1.13 Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144mm) or three stories in height shall have at least three means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Two of the access roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Republic Services did not provide comments on this application. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The Parks Department did not provide comments on this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. If the applicant moves forward with final platting after the Ustick Road widening project begins but before it is completed, provide a road trust deposit in the amount of $15,875 for the construction of the sidewalk abutting the site and a road trust deposit in the amount of $3,250 to relocate the existing irrigation facilities outside of the right-of-way. 2. Complete Venable Avenue as a 40-foot street section with pavement widening, vertical curb, gutter, and a 7 foot wide attached concrete sidewalk to match the improvements north of the site, as proposed 3. Enter into a development agreement with ACHD for a temporary driveway onto Ustick Road. The driveway may be allowed as a temporary driveway meeting the requirements outlined below: a. The development agreement shall require the driveway be closed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk when access is available via a public street/drive aisle abutting the site’s west property line. To ensure the temporary driveway is closed when necessary, provide a financial surety in a form acceptable to ACHD in the amount of $3,500.00 for the closure of the driveway. b. The temporary driveway will not be constructed by ACHD as part of the Ustick Road widening project. c. If a public street is constructed abutting the site’s western boundary prior to the applicant moving forward with a final plat for the site, then the temporary driveway onto Ustick Road shall not be allowed. d. IF a public street has not been constructed abutting the site’s western boundary prior to the applicant moving forward with a final plat for the site, the applicant may construct one 30 foot wide temporary full access driveway on to Ustick Road located approximately 330-feet west of Venable Avenue, as part of the final platting process. The temporary driveway should be paved its full width at least 30 feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Ustick Road. 4. Construct one 30 to 36 foot wide full access driveway onto Venable Lane located approximately 320 feet north of Ustick Road in alignment with an existing driveway on the east side of Venable Lane across from the site, as proposed. Pave the driveway its full width at least 30 feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Venable Avenue. 5. Provide public use easement over the private drive aisles within the site to ensure public use. 6. Provide cross access to the parcel to the west in anticipation of a future roadway being constructed abutting the west property line. 7. Payment of impacts fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 17 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). 2. Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 3. In accordance with District policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing non-compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant’s engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. A license agreement and compliance with the District’s Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. 6. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District’s Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 9. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 10. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 11. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. 12. If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission. Exhibit A H-2015-0014 – Settlers Square Subdivision PAGE 18 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information. b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Council or Commission’s attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. The Commission and Council may consider any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. City Coouncil Meeting Meeting Date: January,8; 2018 Agenda Item Number: & r1 _................._............. _.__...... . ......_....................__....._..._.....�._....._........-- -- ......... _ - ._..._.. __-_-- ............ _... _...�_..__.... _ .... Project/File Number: Item Title: Final Order for Fall Creek Meadows Final Order for Fall Creek Meadows (H-2017-0160) by Thomas Coleman, Toll ID I, LLC located South of W. Overland Road on the East Side of S. Linder Road --.....—....... ---- —._.- ... _........... .. - - --- --- - Meeting .._Notes ----.......... __ . 0 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 (H-2017-0160) Page 1 of 3 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: JANUARY 2, 2018 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT CONSISTING OF FIFTY TWO (52) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS AND SEVEN (7) COMMON LOTS ON 17.89 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R-8 ZONING DISTRICT FOR FALL CREEK MEADOWS. BY: COLEMAN HOMES, LLC. APPLICANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. H-2017-0160 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council on January 2, 2018 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 FALL CREEK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION NO. 1, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 2018, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 11/28/2017, MICHAEL S. BYRNS, PLS , SHEET 1 OF 11,” is conditionally approved subject 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 day of SaIAZI-) .2018. GUS Tr" 1 79 y:� ` O CV!J�1P'NO Y rd J Mayor, Ci of Meridian Attest: S�P•ti � yJ y �P CENTER of thg� C. tay Col Us City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant, Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department and City Attorney. By: Oml�LUUU' Dated: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 (H-2017-0160) Page 3 of 3 Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 2, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2017-0160 – Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 I. APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, Thomas Coleman, Toll ID I, LLC, has applied for final plat (FP) approval of 52 single- family residential building lots and 7 common/other lots on 17.89 acres of land in an R-8 (medium- density residential) zoning district. This is the first phase of development of Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 final plat based on the analysis provided below in Section V. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval I move to approve File Number FP-15-021 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 23, 2013, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial I move to deny File Number FP-15-021, as presented during the hearing on June 23, 2015, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number FP-15-021 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 south of W. Overland Road and east of S. Linder Road, in the west ½ of Section 24, T. 3N., R. 1W. B. Applicant: Coleman Homes, LLC 3103 W. Sheryl Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83642 C. Owner: Toll ID I, LLC ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 (H-2017-0160) Page 2 of 3 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 January 2, 2018, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked “Exhibit A” 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 Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 2 250 Gibraltar Road Horsham, PA 19044 D. Representative: Kristi Watkins, JUB Engineers, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood Ave. Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83642 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed final plat depicts 52 building lots and 7 common/other lots on 17.89 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 3.29 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre with a net density of 4.32 d.u. per acre. The average property size is 10,084 square feet (s.f.). All of the lots proposed in this phase are for single-family detached homes and must comply with the dimensional standards of the R-8 zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it in compliance with the aforementioned dimensional standards. A children’s play structure is proposed on Lot 1, Block 4, and a pedestrian pathway is proposed on Lot 6, Block 1 as amenities within this phase along with 2.17 acres of common open space as depicted on the landscape plan. Detached sidewalks with 8-foot wide parkways are proposed within the development. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat in accord with the requirements listed in UDC 11-6B-3C.2. The number of buildable lots is the same as shown on the preliminary plat. Because the number of buildable lots did not increase and the amount of common open space is consistent with what was originally approved, staff finds the proposed final plat in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. VI. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-05-064; Development Agreement Inst. No. 106151232) and preliminary plat (H-2016-0009). 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat by April 5, 2018; or apply for a time extension 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 JUB Engineers, Inc., dated November 28, 2017 by Michael S. Byrns is approved as shown. 5. The landscape plan prepared by Jensen Belts Associates, dated November 14, 2017, shall be revised prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer as follows: a. The applicant shall construct a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway on the site along the east side of Linder Road to the north boundary of the site in accord with the Pathways Master Plan and UDC 11-3A-8. 6. All single-family dwellings constructed within the project shall substantially conform to the materials and elevations proposed and included in Exhibit A.4. The rear or sides of structures on lots that that back up to S. Linder Road (Lots 7-11, Block 1), as well as to W. Kodiak Drive (Lots 2-6, Block 1; Lots 2-10, Block 3; and Lots 26-33, Block 5) will be highly visible; these lots shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 3 7. The applicant shall construct the remaining portion of W. Kodiak Drive prior to submitting a final plat for the Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision to increase vehicular and pedestrian accessibility to the new school. 8. All fencing installed on the site must comply with the fencing plan depicted on the landscape plan, the conditions in this report, and with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 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 for this subdivision. 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. 11. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project which serves more than 30 homes, as set forth in International Fire Code Section D107.1. The two entrances should be separated by no less than ½ the diagonal measurement of the full development as set forth in International Fire Code Section D104.3. The applicant shall provide a stub street to the property to the (west/east/north/south). 12. A street light plan is required to be submitted as a stand-alone plan pursuant to section 6-7 of the 2016 City of Meridian Design Standards. Street light notes are required to be on the plan. Maximum spacing for type 2 street lights is 260' pursuant to Drawing 6C of the 2016 design standards. The supplied street light plan has lights spaced in excess of 300'.. 13. Applicant shall be required to pay their pro-rata share of the outstanding balance of the August 24, 2007, 27-inch Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Agreement, recorded as Ada County Instrument Number 108124038, prior to signature on the final plat. 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. Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 4 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. 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 Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 5 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. V. EXHIIBITS A. Vicinity Map B. Approved Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/13/16) C. Proposed Final Plat (dated: 11/28/17) D. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 5/26/15) Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 6 Exhibit A – Vicinity Map Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 7 Exhibit B – Approved Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/13/16) Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 8 Exhibit C: Proposed Final Plat (dated: 11/28/17) Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 9 Exhibit D –Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 5/26/15) Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 10 Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1 H-2017-0160 PAGE 11 City Council Meeting \\4 Meeting Date: January.% 2018 Agenda Item Number: r „ D _........ .---...._...._..--. _..... .__ _..--- ................. - -.... --- .................._.... ----..._... — ----- --...- -- --- — .._.__........._ Project/File Number: Item Title: Approval of Agreement to Bricon, Inc. Approval of Agreement to BRICON, INC. for the LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING project for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $117,400.00. Meetina Notes 9 CONTRACT CHECKLIST Date: REQUESTING DEPARTMENT Project Name: Project Manager: Contract Amount: Contractor/Consultant/Design Engineer: Is this a change order? Yes No Change Order No. Fund: Budget Available ( Purchasing attach report ): Department Yes No Construction GL Account FY Budget: Task Order Project Number: Enhancement: Yes No Professional Service Equipment Will the project cross fiscal years? Yes No Grant Grant #: Wage Determination Received Wage Verification 10 Days prior to bid due date Debarment Status (Federal Funded) Print and Attach the determination Print, attach and amend bid by addendum (if changed) www.sam.gov Print and attach Master Agreement Category (Bid Results Attached) Yes No (Ratings Attached) Yes No Date MSA Roster Approved: Typical Award Yes No If no please state circumstances and conclusion: Date Award Posted: 7 day protest period ends: PW License Expiration Date: Corporation Status Insurance Certificates Received (Date): Expiration Date: Rating: Payment and Performance Bonds Received (Date): Rating: A Builders Risk Ins. Req'd: Yes No (Only applicabale for projects above $1,000,000) Reason Consultant Selected 1 Performance on past projects Check all that apply Quality of work On Budget On Time Accuracy of Construction Est 2 Qualified Personnel 3 Availability of personnel 4 Local of personnel Description of negotiation process and fee evaluation: Date Submitted to Clerk for Agenda: By: Purchase Order No.: Date Issued: WH5 submitted (Only for PW Construction Projects) NTP Date: Contract Request Checklist.5.24.2016.Final $117,400 Kim Warren If yes, has policy been purchased? Bricon Inc. III. Contract Type II. BUDGET INFORMATION (Project Manager to Complete) 1 5200 93401 10773 TASK ORDER N/A RFP / RFQ BID from 4 vendors due to receiving no bids originally. VII. TASK ORDER SELECTION (Project Manager to Complete) 1/10/2018 Award based on Low Bid Highest Ranked Vendor Selected VIII. AWARD INFORMATION Approval Date Enter Supervisor Name Date Approved Steve Siddoway 1/10/2018 January 11, 2018 I. PROJECT INFORMATION N/A 2018 12/21/2017 Parks and Recreation Linder Road Sidewalk Widening V. BASIS OF AWARD N/A N/A IV. GRANT INFORMATION - to be completed only on Grant funded projects VI. CONTRACTOR / CONSULTANT REQUIRED INFORMATION Project was bid on 9/1/17 with no bids received. This price was negotiated after the bid opening. Received quotes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Goodstanding C-11823 7/31/2018 Page 1 Memo To: C. Jay Coles, City Clerk From: Sandra Ramirez, Purchasing Specialist CC: Mike Barton/PM; Kimberly Warren, Parks PM; Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager Date: 01/11/2018 Re: January 16 th City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the January 16 th City Council Consent Agenda for Council’s consideration. Approval of Agreement to BRICON, INC. for the LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING project for a Not-To-Exceed amount of $117,400.00. The project was bid on 9/1/2017 and received no bids. Parks department received four (4) quotes from different vendors. $117,400 was negotiated with Bricon, Inc. after the bid opening. Recommended Council Action: Award of Agreement to BRICON, INC. for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $117,400.00 and authorize Purchasing Manager to sign the Purchase Order for the Not-to-Exceed amount of $117,400.00. Thank you for your consideration. City of Meridian Purchasing Dept. City Of Meridian Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Rev and Exp Report - Sandra - Unposted Transactions Incfuded In Report 01 - General EUnd 5200-Parks-Admin Erom 10/1/2017 Through 9/30/20t8 Budget with Amendments Current Year Actuaf Budget Remaining Percent of Budget Remaining 93401 Capital Outlay Pathway development Total Capital Outlay DEPT EXPENDITURES TOTAL EXPENDTTURES 643,158 .24 (164 q1, 6q\808, 070. 93 L25.64% 643,158 .24 (L64.912.69\808, 070 . 93 125 .642 643 758.24 ---l)5L'2]?.62 -----q!8,-qLl3 ----------l2E41z 643 158.24 (164,912 .69)808 070.93 125 .64% Datet 1,/3/78 12:43:55 PM Page: 1 Proposal 7244 Ustick Rd. Nampa, lD 83687 T 208-888-3746 F 208-884-3087 hriconl @msn.com 208-888-3746 tr/ike Barton City of tr4eridian 33 E. Broadway Ir/eridian, lD 83642 Date'12121117 Dear [r4ike, Below is the proposal to install approximately 12800s.f. of 5" thick concrete sidewalk on the west side of Linder road according to the plans prepared by The Land Group dated 4/7 /17 . Our bid included demolition of the existing concrete, asphalt, and landscaping and installation of the new sidewalk with curb and gutter and asphalt patches. We exclude landscaping. We have included an allowance for the ACHD permit. lf it is not required it can be subtracted. Thank you for the opportunity to bid on this prolect. lf you have any questions please call me at208-869-4827. Sincerely, c. ,<---"-' It/ark C, Brice, PE Allowance for ACHD permit 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 N/obilization, surveying, and traffic control,1 $5,400.00 $s,400.00 Demolition of concrete and asphalt 1 $14,soo.oo $14,500.00 SWPPP 1 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 Excavation, asphalt, and gravel base 1 $28,ooo.oo $28,000.00 Concrete 1 $60,ooo.oo $60,000.00 Total $117,400.00 Clearwater Landscape 1123 12th Ave Road #269 Nampa, lD 83686 US (208) 869-2023 clearwaterlandscape@hotmail.com ESTIMATE ADDRESS City of Meridian 33. E. Broadway Ave Meridian, lD 83642 CLEARWATER LANDSCAPE ESTIMATE # 1672 DATE 11t30t2017 EXPIRATION DATE 12130/2017 JOB NAME Linder Path Extension LOCATION Meridian DESCRIPTION Linder Path lncludes demo. includes excavation, prep, compaction, asphalt patch, tree protection, tree removal, saw cut, irrigation demo lncludes installation of 10' concrete path, approach, ped ramps, curb and gutter. does not include irrigation repair, landscape repair, 2" emerald queen shown on plans. for performance and payment bond ADD $5,618., 1 @ 9188,267.00 ESC includes esc plan implementation and permit., 1 @ $5,800.00 TOTAL Accepted By Accepted Date AI\4OUNT 188,267.00 5,800.00 $194,067.00 BID FORM LINDER RD SID ALK WIDENING BID NUMBER PKS-I 7 51.10773 COntraCtOr Name: Diamond Contractors, LLC Price assumes a NTP on 31112018 Substantial 120 days from NTP Final 130 days from NTP Total cost to include all labor, applleable taxes material, equipment, freight,bonds, insurance, travel, lodging, in and Certificate of Understanding The undersigned, as bidder, certifies under penalty of perjury that the only persons or partiesinterested in this bid as principars are those named -herein ab uidoer; that this bid is made withoutcollusion with any other person, firm, or corporation; that in submitting this he/she has examined the"General Conditions and lnstructions to bidders" and the plans, speci-fications and other documents;that he/she has examined the location of the proposed work and'is familiar with the local conditionsat the place where the work is to be donel that he/she proposes and agrees if this bid is accepted,he/she will perform all the work and /or furnish all the materials specified in the contl.,aci, in themanner and time therein prescribed, and according to the requirements as therein set forth; and thathe/she willtake in full payment therefore, the pricei setiorth in the attached schedule. The undersigned has checked carefully all the above figures and understands that the city ofMeridian will not be responsible for any errors or omissions on the part of the undersigned in creatingthis bid. The undersigned declares: that he/she holds the position indicated below as a corporate officer orthe owner or a partner in the business entity submittinj ttis bid; that the unoersigned is informed ofthe relevant facts sunounding the preparation and iubmission of this nid, tnrt the undersigned 8of11 MI TONE SCH DULE Milestone 1 Substantial Com from Notice to Proceed60 Milestone 2 Final n from Notice to Proceed70 perrnFualishlaboruimaterials,nda cidein ASntals re iredueqpment,thfor ae namedboveq ect,proj attathe dched rawt aS Snd iocificat n ncl ud ed n bitExhi B ITEM PTIONDES UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE 1 Sidewalk Widening LS 138,145.00 138,145.00 TOTAL BID AMOUNT 138,145.00 THIS BID WILL BE AWARDED ON THE TOTAL ONLY. LINE ITEM PRICING WILL BE USED FOR BID TOTAL VERIFICATION AND ANY ADDITIONAL INCREASES OR DECREASES BASE BID IN WORK RE ESTED BY CITY SCHEDULE E5[Conceptual Budget Estimate Linder Pathway Extension Meridian, lD Based on preliminary plans dated 04t0612017 Total Usable SF 12114t2017 I 01 Surveying 02 Pavernent Patching 03 Concrete 04 Masonry 05 Metals 06 Woods + Plastics 07 ThermaUMoisture Proteclion 08 Doors and \Mndows 09 Finishes 10 Specialties 11 Equipment '12 Fumishings 13 Special Construc{ion 14 Conveyance Systems 21 Fire Suppression 22 Plumbing 23 HVAC 26 Electrical 27 Communications 28 Electronic Safety & Security 5,000 $ 2,000 $ 126,339 $ Weather Conditions Preconstruction Costs General Conditions Wananty lnsuran@ O^,erhead and Profit 0.838% 5.25o/o $ $ $ $ 140,006 $ $ 15,865 $ 1,000 $ 1,315 $ 8,305 $ CoSUSF 15,865 1,000 1,315 8,305 ACT|V|TY / SCOPE DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT PRICE UNIT cosT ,SF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 166,490 $ {66,490 Statement of Probable Cost 462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100 Eagle, ldaho 83616 (208) 939-4041 Fax (208) 939-4445 JOB TITLE: Linder Pathway Extension JOB NUMBER: DATE: 3rc115206 07.'t8.17 Description of WorUMaterials Units Quantity Price per Unit Total SWPPP Measures Demolition, Clearing, & Grubbing Rough Grade Standard Concrete Flatwork Asphalt Paving Crosswalk Markings/Signage ADA Pedestrian Ramps/Detectable Warning Panels Curb and Gutter Utility lnfrastructure Adiustments Landscape & lrrigation Repair Trees Gravel Repair LS SF SF SF SF EA EA LF LS SF EA SF 1 20,525 20,525 12,211 399 1 3 93 1 7,438 2 289 $4,000.00 $1.10 $0.25 $4.50 $3.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $15.00 $10,000.00 $2.00 $450.00 $2.00 $4,000.00 $22,577.48 $5,131.25 $54,949.50 $1,197.87 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,389.30 $10,000.00 $1 4,876.1 0 $900.00 $577.48 Construction Subtotal: $123,598.97 Construction Contingency (10% of Construction Subtotal) Soft Costs Subtotal: $12,359.90 $12,359.90 $24,719.79 Key: LS = Lump Sum SF = Square Foot AC = Acre EA = Each LF = Linear Foot CF= Cubic Foot Please Note: This Statement of Probable cost is based on plans (dated 6.30.17) prepared byThe Lrnd Group. lt is recognized that neitherThe Land Group nor the client has any control over agency requirements, the cost of labor, materials or equipment, over the Contractor's methods of determiningbidpricesorothercompetitivebiddingmarketforces. EidpriceswillvaryfromanyStatementofProbableCostorother estimate/evaluation prepared by The Land Group. LS $2,000.00 Soft Costs: LS LS 1 Total: CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING PROJECT # 10773 THIS CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION is made this day of January , 2018, and entered into by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and BRICON, INC. hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR", whose business address is 7244 Ustick Rd. Nampa, ID 83687 and whose Public Works Contractor License # is C-11823. f1►II:�711L+iiL�1� Whereas, the City has a need forservices involving LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING; and WHEREAS, the Contractor is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform and has agreed to provide such services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Scope of Work: 1.1 CONTRACTOR shall perform and furnish to the City upon execution of this Contract and receipt of the City's written notice to proceed, all services and work, and comply in all respects, as specified in the document titled "Scope of Work" a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, together with any amendments that may be agreed to in writing by the parties. 1.2 All documents, drawings and written work product prepared or produced by the Contractor under this Agreement, including without limitation electronic data files, are the property of the Contractor; provided, however, the City shall have the right to reproduce, publish and use all such work, or any part thereof, in any manner and for any purposes whatsoever and to authorize others to do so. If any such work is copyrightable, the Contractor may copyright the same, except that, as to any work which is copyrighted by the Contractor, the City reserves a royalty -free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish and use such work, or any part thereof, and to authorize others to do so. 1.3 The Contractor shall provide services and work under this Agreement consistent with the requirements and standards established by applicable federal, state and city laws, ordinances, regulations and resolutions. The Contractor LINDER ISD SIDEWALK WIDENING page 1 of 12 Project 10773 represents and warrants that it will perform its work in accordance with generally accepted industry standards and practices for the profession or professions that are used in performance of this Agreement and that are in effect at the time of performance of this Agreement. Except for that representation and any representations made or contained in any proposal submitted by the Contractor and any reports or opinions prepared or issued as part of the work performed by the Contractor under this Agreement, Contractor makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as part of this Agreement. 1 .4 Services and work provided by the Contractor at the City's request under this Agreement will be performed in a timely manner in accordance with a Schedule of Work, which the parties hereto shall agree to. The Schedule of Work may be revised from time to time upon mutual written consent of the parties. 2. Consideration 2.1 The Contractor shall be compensated on a Not-To-Exceed basis as provided in Exhibit B "Payment Schedule" attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $1 17,400.00. 2.3 Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor shall not be entitled to receive from the City any additional consideration, compensation, salary, wages, or other type of remuneration for services rendered under this Agreement including, but not limited to, meals, lodging, transportation, drawings, renderings or mockups. Specifically, Contractor shall not be entitled by virtue of this Agreement to consideration in the form of overtime, health insurance benefits, retirement benefits, paid holidays or other paid leaves of absence of any type or kind whatsoever. 3. Term: 3.1 This agreement shall become effective upon execution by both parties, and shall expire upon (a) completion of the agreed upon work, (b) or unless sooner terminated as provided in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and Section 4 below or unless some other method or time of termination is listed in Exhibit A. 3.2 Should Contractor default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its provisions, City, at City's option, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notification to Contractor. LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Project '10773 page 2 of 12 2.2 The Contractor shall provide the City with a monthly statement and supporting invoices, as the work warrants, of fees earned and costs incurred for services provided during the billing period, which the Citywill paywithin 30 days of receipt of a correct invoice and approval by the City. The City will not withhold any Federal or State income taxes or Social Security Tax from any payment made by City to Contractor under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums is the sole responsibility of Contractor. 3.3 Should City fail to pay Contractor all or any part of the compensation set forth in Exhibit B of this Agreement on the date due, Contractor, at the Contractor's option, may terminate this Agreement if the failure is not remedied by the City within thirty (30) days from the date payment is due. 4. Termination: 4.1 lf, through any c€luse, CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, oragentsfails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, falsifies any record or document required to be prepared under this agreement, engages in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this contract, or if the City Council determines that termination of this Agreement is in the best interest of CITY, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to CONTRACTOR of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least fifteen (15) days before the effective date of such termination. CONTRACTOR may terminate this agreement at any time by giving at least sixty (60) days notice to CITY. ln the event of any termination of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data, and reports prepared by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall, at the option of the CITY, become its property, and CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily complete hereunder. 4.2 Notwithstanding the above, CONTRACTOR shall not be relieved of liability to the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR, and the CITY may withhold any payments to CONTRACTOR for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the CITY from CONTRACTOR is determined. This provision shall survive the termination of this agreement and shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of its liability to the CITY for damages. 5. lndependentContractor: 5.'1 ln all matters pertaining to this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be acting as an independent contractor, and neither CONTRACTOR nor any officer, employee or agent of CONTRACTOR will be deemed an employee of CITY. Except as expressly provided in Exhibit A, Contractor has no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in the City and therefore has no authority to bind or incur any obligation on behalf of the City. The selection and designation of the personnel of the CITY in the performance of this agreement shall be made by the CITY. 5.2 Contractor, its agents, officers, and employees are and at all times during the term of this Agreement shall represent and conduct themselves as independent contractors and not as employees of the City. LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Project '10773 page 3 of '12 5.3 Contractor shall determine the method, details and means of performing the work and services to be provided by Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor shall be responsible to City only for the requirements and results specified in this Agreement and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, shall not be subjected to City's control with respect to the physical action or activities of Contractor in fulfillment of this Agreement. lf in the performance of this Agreement any third persons are employed by Contractor, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction and supervision and control of the Contractor. 6. Sub-Contractors: Contractor shall require that all of its sub-contractors be licensed per State of ldaho Statute # 54-'1901 . 7 . Removal of Unsatisfactory Employees: The Contractor shall only furnish employees who are competent and skilled for work under this contract. lf, in the opinion of the City, an employee of the Contractor is incompetent or disorderly, refuses to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, threatens or uses abusive language while on City property, or is otherwise unsatisfactory, that employee shall be removed from all work under this contract. 8. lndemnification and lnsurance: 8.1 CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY and it's elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses and other costs including litigation costs and attorney's fees, arising out of, resulting from, or in connection with the performance of this Agreement by the CONTRACTOR, its servants, agents, officers, employees, guests, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of CITY or its employees . CONTRACTOR shall maintain. and speciflcallv aqrees that it will maintain. throuqhout th e term of this Aqreement. liabilitv insurance. in which t he CITY shall be named an additional insured in the minimum amounts as follow: General Liability One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per incident or occurrence, Automobile Liability lnsurance One Million Dollars ($1 ,000,000) per incident or occurrence and Workers' Compensation lnsurance, in the statutory limits as required by law.. The limits of insurance shall not be deemed a limitation of the covenants to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY; and if CITY becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance limits, herein provided, CONTRACTOR covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for all such losses, claims, actions, or judgments for damages or injury to persons or property and other costs, including litigation costs and attorneys' fees, arising out of, resulting from , or in connection with the performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or Contractor's officers, employs, agents, representatives or subcontractors and resulting in or attributable to LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING page 4 of '12 Project '10773 personal injury, death, or damage or destruction to tangible or intangible property, including use of. CONTRACTOR shall provide CITY with a Certificate of lnsurance, or other proof of insurance evidencing CONTRACTOR'S compliance with the requirements of this paragraph and file such proof of insurance with the CITY at least ten (10) days prior to the date Contractor begins performance of it's obligations under this Agreement. ln the event the insurance minimums are changed, CONTRACTOR shall immediately submit proof of compliance with the changed limits. Evidence of all insurance shall be submitted to the City Purchasing Agent with a copy to Meridian City Accounting, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ldaho 83642. 8.2 lnsurance is to be placed with an ldaho admitted insurer with a Best's rating of no less than A-. 8.3 Any deductibles, self-insured retention, or named insureds must be declared in writing and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles, self-insured retentions or named insureds; or the Contractor shall provide a bond, cash or letter of credit guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. 8.4 To the extent of the indemnity in this contract, Contractor's lnsurance coverage shall be primary insurance regarding the City's elected officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City or the City's elected officers, officials, employees and volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with Contractor's insurance except as to the extent of City's negligence. 8.5 The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurels liability. 8.6 All insurance coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the insurance and indemnity requirements stated herein. 8.7 The limits of insurance described herein shall not limit the liability of the Contractor and Contractor's agents, representatives, employees orsubcontractors. 9. Time is of the Essence: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Project 10773 page 5 of 12 10. Bonds: Payment and Performance Bonds are required on all Public Works lmprovement Projects per the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications & Drawings to the ISPWC, which by this reference are made a part hereof. Contractor is required to furnish faithful performance and payment bonds in the amount of 100% of the contract price issued by surety licensed to do business in the State of ldaho with a Best's rating of no less than A-. ln the event that the contract is subsequently terminated for failure to perform, the contractor and/or suretywill be liable and assessed for any and all costs for the re-procurement of the contract services. 11. Warranty: All construction and equipment provided under this agreement shall be warranted for 2 years from the date of the City of Meridian acceptance per the ISPWC and the Meridian Supplemental Specifications & Drawings to the ISPWC and any modifications, which by this reference are made a part hereof. All items found to be defective during a warranty inspection and subsequently corrected will require an additional two (2) year warranty from the date of City's acceptance of the corrected work. 12. Changes: The CITY may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Work to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of CONTRACTOR'S compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the CITY and CONTRACTOR, shall be incorporated in written amendments which shall be executed with the same formalities as this Agreement. 13. Taxes: The City of Meridian is exempt from Federal and State taxes and will execute the required exemption certificates for items purchased and used by the City. ltems purchased by the City and used by a contractor are subject to Use Tax. All other taxes are the responsibility of the Contractor and are to be included in the Contractor's Bid pricing. 14. MeridianStormwaterSpecifications: All construction projects require either a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or an erosion sediment control plan (ESCP) as specified in the City of Meridian Construction Stormwater Management Program (CSWMP) manual. The CSWMP manual containing the procedures and guidelines can be found at this address: http://www.meridiancitv.orq/environmental.a spx?id=13618. LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Project 10773 page 6 of 12 Contractor shall retain all stormwater and erosion control documentation generated on site during construction including the SWPPP manual, field inspections and amendments. Prior to final acceptance of the job by the City the contractor shall return the field SWPPP manual and field inspection documents to the City for review. A completed Contractor Request to File Project N.O.T. with the EPA form shall be provided to the City with the documents. These documents shall be retained, reviewed and approved by the City prior to final acceptance of the project. 15. ACHD: Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating with the City to obtain appropriate ACHD permit(s) and will reimburse the City for fees, fines, or penalties City incurs due to Contractor's violation of any ACHD policy. City shall certify to ACHD that Contractor is authorized to obtain a Temporary Highway and RighGof-Way Use Permit from ACHD on City's behalf. The parties acknowledge and agree that the scope of the agency granted by such certification is limited to, and conterminous with, the term and scope of this Agreement. 16. Reports and lnformation: 16.1 At such times and In such forms as the CITY may require, there shall be furnished to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data and information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. '16.2 Contractor shall maintain all writings, documents and records prepared or compiled in connection with the performance of this Agreement for a minimum of four (4) years from the termination or completion of this or Agreement. This includes any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photo static, photographic and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols or any combination thereof. 17. Audits and lnspections: At any time during normal business hours and as often as the CITY may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the CITY for examination all of CONTRACTOR'S records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall permit the CITY to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. 18. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material No material produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country. The CITY shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose and otherwlse use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this Agreement. LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING page 7 ol 12 Project 10773 19. Equal Employment Opportunity: ln performing the work herein, Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of Title Vl and Vll of the Civil Rights Act, Revenue Sharing Act Title 31, U.S. Code Section 2176. Specifically, the Contractor agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, political affiliation, marital status, or handicap. Contractor will take affirmative action during employment or training to insure that employees are treated without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, political affiliation, marital status, or handicap. ln performing the Work required herein, CONTRACTOR shall not unlawfully discriminate in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age or disability. 20. Employment of Bona Fide ldaho Residents: Contractor must comply with ldaho State Statute 44-1002 which states that the Contractor employ ninety-five percent (95%) bona fide ldaho residents. 21. Advice of Attorney: Each party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement. lt has received independent legal advice from its attorney's orthe opportunityto seek such advice. 22. Attorney Fees: 23. ConstructionandSeverability: lf 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. 24. Waiver of Default: Waiver of default by either party to this Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach, and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless this Agreement is modified as provided above. LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Project 10773 page 8 of 12 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 orforfeiture of this Agreement. 25. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral of written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. 26. Assignment: 27. Payment Request: Payment requests shall be submitted to City of Meridian through the City's project management software. The Project Manager will compare the invoice against the Payment Schedule in the Agreement for compliance. Upon approval that the work has been done and is in compliance with the Agreement, the Project Manager will approve the pay request for processing. City of lvleridian payment terms are Net 30 from the date City receives a correct invoice. Final payment will not be released until the City has received a tax release from the Tax Commission. 28. Cleanup: 29. Order of Precedence: The order or precedence shall be the contract agreement, the lnvitation for Bid document, then the winning bidders submitted bid document_ 30. Compliance with Laws: ln performing the scope of work required hereunder, CONTRACTOR sha comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State, and local governments. 31. Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of ldaho, and the ordinances of the City of Meridian. LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Project 10773 page I of 12 It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto, that CONTRACTOR shall not have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate or sell any of its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior express written consent of CITY. Contractor shall keep the worksite clean and free from debris. At completion of work and prior to requesting final inspection, the Contractor shall remove all traces of waste materials and debris resulting from the work. Final payment will not be made if cleanup has not been performed. 32. Notices: Any and all notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when mailed in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY City of Meridian Purchasing Manager 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, 1D 83642 208-489-0417 CONTRACTOR BRICON, INC. Attn: Mark Brice 7244 Ustick Road Nampa, ID 83687 Phone: 208-888-3746 Email: bricon1@a msn.com Idaho Public Works License #011823 Either party may change their address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. 33. Approval Required: This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until approved by the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN BRICON, INC. BY:- m� - - BY: TAMMY de W D, MAYOR Dated: /6P / �l Dated: 1/9/18 r �" �� o�P� Approved by Council: Ep AUGUST,' C/ Q , o� 2 ('ity of Attest `E IDIAN�,_.. W C.JA COLE ITY CLERK s� SEAL Purchasing Approval r� BY: KEITH CIV ur /asfng Manager Dated:: ( / _ Project Manager Mike Barton LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Project 10773 Departm t Approval BY: STEVE SIgDOWAY, Parks & Rec Director Dated:: II 0/1'1 page 10 of 12 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK SPECIFICATIONS / SCOPE OF WORK All construction work shall be done in accordance with the current version of the ldaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC), the 2013 City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC (and any Addendums). See separate attached documents: PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS By The Land Group dated 7-12-2017 (10 of pases) o LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Project '10773 page 11 of 12 Exhibit B MILESTONE / PAYMENT SCHEDULE Total and complete compensation for this Agreement shall not exceed $1 17,400.00. A. LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING Prolect 10773 Milestone 1 Substantial Completion 60 Days from Notice to Proceed Milestone 2 Final Completion 70 Days from Notice to Proceed Contract includes furnishing all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals as required for the LINDER RD SIDEWALK WIDENING. NOT TO EXCEED CONTRACT TOTAL.$11At00-00 Contract is a not to exceed amount. Line item pricing below will be used for invoice verification and any additional increases or decreases in work requested by city. The City will pay the contractor based on actual quantities of each item of work in accordance with the contract documents. Item No.Description Quantity Unit Price 1 Allowance for ACHD permit I $3,000 2 Mobilization, surveying, and traffic control 1 $5,400 3 Demolition of concrete and asphalt 1 $14,500 4 SWPPP 1 $6,500 5 Excavation, asphalt, and gravel base I $28,000 6 Concrete 1 $60,000 TOTAL AMOUNT $117,400 page 12 of 12 M ILESTON E DATES/SCHEDU LE PRICING SCHEDULE Contract Pricing Schedule #AIA DocumentA31 zr' -zolo PREMIUM IS FOR THE GONTRACTTERii AND IS SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT BASED ON FINAL CONTRACT PRICE Bond No.811488PPertormance Bond CONTRAGTOR: (Name, legal slalus andfuess) Bricon, lnc. 7244 Ustick Rd. Nampa, lD 83687 OWNER: (Nane, legal staus and adbess) City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, lD 83642 coilsTRucfloN cot{TRAgr Date: J2nu3ry _,2018 Amount: $117,400.00 Amount: $117,400.00 I{oCilicxirons to €ris Bond: E None Name andTirle: Pi€rJlErut Description: (Name and locatiofl Linder Rd. Sidewalk Widening Project No. 10773 EOND Datc: January 9, 2018 (Not earlier tlun Constnrction Contact Date) SURETY: Name, legal status and principal place ofbusiness) Developers Surety and lndemnig Company 17771Cowan, Suite 100 lrvine, CA 92614 O See Section t6 Seal) and I Company Signature: Name and Title: le Day, Attorney-l Thls rlocumenl ha! fnportent hgal ooBcqucncs!, ConEdtauon wllh an sttomey ls encourag€d wi0t rB3ped to ib cornpledlon or modlllcatm. Arry slryular r6rcnce to CoIlrador, Sue{y, Orer or other paily shafl be consldered plural whcIs applicablc. AIA DoqJment A312-m1O co]I$ines truo Geparate bo]rd!, a Perbrnance Bond and a Paymenfl Bond, lnto orp form, Thls ls not a single con$ined Perbrnanco and Psyment Bond. COI{IRA TORAS PRIIiICIPAL SURETYCompany: (Corporate Seal) Company: Bricon, lnc. Developers Signature:tv.g/,-z- C fr- (Atty odditiorol signalures appear on ile last page of this performance Bond.) (FOR INFORMAflON ONLY- Name, address and telephone) AGEIT or BRoKER: owNER,ShEPnEsemIrw: Allied Bonding, (Architect, Engineer or other party:) a subsidiary of Pinnacle Surety Services 5605 Overland Rd. Boise, lD 83705 Phone (208) 345-4177 lnlt Al,ADocuDf,rtAtl2E I 1 - 2010. Th. Arn dc.n tn.ttub d^rchlbct .ilIt0 MR3I lCArrrl():l Tt43Mr?Ur..a1A ( :lijlti r.i ':)Ail i,'!, : . ,, '.| )l|.. : ri.HUe J. (ii,aA .. A2 :::: .1 S I The Conrractor and Surety, joiltly ad severalty, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administratoN, succcssors and assigns to lhe Owner for the perfomsnce oflhe Construction Contract, which is incorporaled her€in by reference. S 2 Ifthe Contractor performs thc Construction Contlact, the Surcty and fie Contrsctor shall have no obligation undcr this Bond, €xc€pt when spplicable to participatc in a conf€rrnce as provided in Section 3. $ I Ifthere is no Owner Default under the Constuction Contract, thc Suety's obligation undcr this Bond shall arise after .'l the Owner fiffi provides notice to the Contractor and the Surcty that the Ownel is considering declaring a Cootractor Default, Such notice shall indicate whether the Owner is requesting a confercnce among the Owoer, Contractor and Surcty to discuss the Co[tractor's performance, lf thc Owner does oot request a conference, the Surety may, within five (5) business days after receipt ofthe Owner's notice, request such a conference. Iflhe Surety timely requests a confcrence, the Owner shall attend. Unless the O$,ner agrees otherwise, any conference requested under this Section 3,1 shall be held within ten (10) business days oflhe Surety's receipt ofthe Owner's notice. Ifthe Owner, the Contractor ard the Surcty agree, the Contractor shall bc allowed a reasonable time to perform the ConsEuction Contiact, but such an agreement shall not waive the Owler's right, ifany, subsequently to declarc a Contractor Dcfault; 2 the Owner declares a Contractor Default, tcrminates the Construction Contract and notifies the Surety; and .3 the Owner has agreed to pay thc Balance ofthe Contract Price in accordance with the terms ofthe Construclion Contract to the Surety or to a contractor selected to perform th€ Construction Contract. 5 ,[ Failur€ on the part of thc Owncr to comply with the notice requirement in Sectioo 3.1 shall not constitute a failure lo comply witl a condition pr€ccdcnt to the Surcty's obligations, or relcasc the Surety from its obligatioos, except to lhe €xtent the Su€ty demonshates actual prejudice. $ 5 When thc Owner has satisfied the conditions ofsection 3, the Surety shall promptly and at the Surety's expense takc one ofthe following actions: $ 5.1 Arrange for the Contractor, with the colsEnt ofthe Owner, to perform and complde ihe Construction Contract; $ 5.2 Undertakc to perform a,rd complete the Construction Contact itself, through its agents or ind@endent contractorsi S 5.3 Ohain bids or negotiated proposals from qualified contractors acceptable to the Owncr for a contract for performance and completion ofthe Construclion Contract, arrange for a contract to be prcparcd for exccution by the Owner and a contractor selected with the Owner's concurrcnce, to be securcd with performanc€ and payment bolds executcd by a qualified surcty equivalent to the bonds issued on the Constructiol Contract, and pay to the Owner lhe amount ofdamagcs as described in Section 7 in excess ofthe Balancc ofthe Contract Price incurred by the Owner as a result ofthe Contractor Default; or S 5.4 Waive its right to perform and compl€te, arrange for completion, or obtain a new co[tractor and with reasonable promptness under the circumstances:.l After inYestigation, determine the amount for which it may be liable to the Owler and, as soon as practicable afler the amount is detcrmined, make paymo[t to the Owner; or,2 Deny liability in whole or in part and notiry the Owner, citing the rossons for denial. S 6lfthe Surety do€s nol proceed as provided in Section 5 with reasonable promptness, the Surcty shall be deemed to be in defauh on $is Bond seven days after reccipt ofan additional written noticifrom the Owne;to the Surety demanding that the Surety perform iB obligations under this Bond, and the Owner shall be entitled to enforce'any remedy available to the owner. Ifthe Surety procccds as provided in Seclion 5.4, and the Owner refuses the payment or the_ Surety has denied liability, in whole or in pat, without further notice rhe Owner shall be enritled to "nioi" "nyrcmedy available to the Ovmer. 2 lnll AtA Oocltnl.m Atl2u - 2010. Th. Arncricin h.titr. ot Arcnn6d.. I S 7 lfthe Sur€ty elecls to act under Section 5.1, 5.2 or 5.3, then rhe responsibilities ofthe Surety to the Owner shall not be greater than those ofthe Contraator under the Construction Contract, and the rcsponsibilities ofthe Ownq to the Surety shall not be greater than thos€ ofthc Ownff undcr the Consmrdion Contract. Subject to the commitment by the Owner to pay the Bslancc ofthe Contract Price, the Surety is obligated, without duplication, for .l the responsibilities ofthe Contacror for correction ofdefective \f,ork and completion ofrhe Construction ConFact; .2 addilional legal, dosign professional and delay costs resulting fiom thc Contractor's Default, and resulting from the actions or failure to acl ofthe Surety under Section 5; and .3 liquidated damages, or ifno liquidated damages are specified in the Construction Cont"act" actusl damages caused by delaycd performance or non-performance ofthe Contmctor. ! E Ifthe Sur€ty elects to act undcr Scclion 5.1, 5.3 or 5.4, thc Surety's liability is limited to thc amount ofthis Bond. ! 9 The Surety shall not be liable to the Owner or othen for obligations ofthe Contractor that are unrelated to the ConsEuction Con8act, and the Balance offte Contract Price shall not be reduced or set offon account of any such unr€lated obligations. No dght ofaction shall accnre on this Bond to any person o. entity other than the Owner or its heirs, executots, administrators, succcssors and assigns. ! l0 The Surety hereby waivcs noticc ofany change, including changes offime, to the Construction Contract or to rclatcd subcontracts, purchase orders and other obligations. $ il Any proceeding, tegal or equitable, under this Bond may be instituted in any court of competentjurisdiction in the location h which the work or pan ofthc wort is located and shall be instituted within two yea[s after a declaration of Contractor Default or within two years after the Contsactor ceased working or within two years after the Surety refrlses or fails to perform irs obligations under this Bo[d, .l ,hichever occurs fi.st. Ifthe provisions of this Paragraph ars void orprohibilcd by law, the minimum period of limitation available to sureties as a defeose in lhejurisdiction of thc suit shall be applicable. S 12 Notic€ to the Sur€ty, the Owner or the Contractor shall b€ mailed or delivered to the address shown on the pagc on which their signanue appcars. $ 13 When this Bond has been fumished to comply with a satutory or other legal requirement in the Iocation where thc construction was to be performed, any provision in this Bond canflicting wirh said statutory or legal requirement shall bc deemed delered herefrom and provisions conforming to such statutory or other legal requirement shall be deemed incorporated hersirt. When so fumished, the inte is that this Bond shall be constsued as a statutory bond and not as a common law bond. S 14 Doflnltlonr $ l4.l Baltnc€ of the Conlnct Pdce. The total amount payable by the Owner to the Contractor under the Constuction Contact 8fter all pmper adjustments have been made, including allowance to the Contractor ofany amounts received or to b€ received by the Owller in settlement of insurance or other claims for damages to which thc Contractor is cntitlcd, reduced by all valid and proper payments made to or on behalfofthe Coniractor under 0te Construction Contract. $ l{2_comtrut-tlon conhsct rhe agreement between the owner and contractor idcntified on the cover page, including all contract Documents and changes made to the agreement aod the contract Documents. S 14,3 ContEc-tor Odault Failure ofthe co[tractor, which has not been remedied or waived, to perfom or otherwise tocomply with a material term ofthe Construction Contracl. S l4'4 OwnGr Default' Failurc ofthe owner, which has not be€n r€medied or waived, to pay the coatractor as requiredu[der thc construction conkacl or to perform and complete or comply with thc other material terms of theConstuction Contract. S 14.5 Cont"c-t Documcnti All the documents that compris€ lhe agreement b€tween the Owner and Contractor. S.ls.If this Bond is issued for an agreement b€tween a conEactor and subcontractor, the term conractor in this Bondshall be deemed to be Subcontrsctor and lhe tem Owner shall be deemed to be Contractor. 3 lnll ll^ Oocurn nt A3t2i - m10. Th. turEra.n tntdtub ofAE liEcis, $ 16 Modifications to this bond are as follows: None (!ry:e-is ptouided belawfor additional signatwes ofqdded parties, other ,han those appeqring on the covet page.) CO]iIIRACTOR AS PRII{CIPAL 'SURETY Company: (Corporate Seal) Company; (Corporate Seal) Signaturc; Name aod Title: Addrcss Signature; Name and Title: Address CAUIION: Yor lhoutd llgn !n change! rlll llot bo obscuBd. ortglnrl AtA Coma.ct Oocu,rlort, on w ch thlE tet !pp{r! ln RED. An orlgln.l asr!]E. that tnll AIA Ooq,mri A3t 2n - 2OlO. Th. Arn.ri:.n tndlhrb ot Archfilcb. 4 #AIA Document A312rM - 2010 PaymentBond PREMIUM IS FOR THE CONTRACTTERM AND IS SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT BASED ON FINAL CONTRACT PRICE Bond No. 811488P COI{IMCTOR: (Name, legal status and ad&ess) Bricon, lnc. 7244 Ustick Rd. Nampa, lD 83687 OIY ER: (Nane, legal statut and o&rcss) City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, lD 83642 COIISTRUCNO CoiTIRACI Date: January _, 2018 ameuor $117,400.00 BOTID Datr: January 9,2018 (No, e$lier tlsn Construclion Contract Date) Amount: $1 17.400.00 A{odificaoiom to this Bond DascriDtion: Nami and locatio Linder Rd. Sidewalk Widening Project No. 10773 SURETY: (Nome, legql slalus and pincipal place of busiaess) Developers Surety and lndemnity Company Five Centerpointe, Suite 530 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 E Nonc tr Scc Scction t8 ThE doqJmeri ha! important l€gal coEcquanca!. ConEdlstion wlth an attomy ls eflcouraoed wllh ragpect to lE comCe0on or modlfcallon. Ary Jngula, rslbrence to Contracior, Surty. otwEr or otE. p.rty shall be conluolEd plrr.l vltEra appllcablo. AtA Ooqrn6, A312-m10 comblrE3 tro lsparai! bords, a Pcrbnnanc! Bord and I PaynEn[ Bord. into orE form. Th& l! not ! rl.lglc combin€d mnrlanca ard PayrEnl Bond. COFIRA TOf, AS PRII{CIPALCompany: (Corporate Seal) Bricon, lnc SIJRETY Company: Developers mpany (Coryorate Seal) rety and ln demn itv Signaturc:fu.-"- c A--SigBture: Name and Title: Namc helle Day, Attorney-ln-Factur67p1s. fR€ttkut. (Any oditionol signatures appear on tle last page ofthis Pd'tnent Bond") (FOR INFORMATION ONLI - Name, address and telephorp) AGEI{I or BROIGR: owilERs iIEPRisEilTATNE: Allied Bonding, (Atchitecl' Engineer or other parly) a subsidrary of Pinnacle Surety SeMces 5605 Overland Rd. Boise, lD 83705 Phone l2OB) 3454177 lnt- AIA Oocun .a A!l2t - 2010. Th. Aryl.'ic.n tn.tiiub d ArctiGct . 5 :!7--. $ I The Contracror and Surety, jointly and severally, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, suocessors and assigns to lhe Owner to pay for labor, materials 8rd equipm€nt fumished for use in thc performance ofthe Construction Contsact, which is incorporated herein by reference, subject to the following terms. $ 2 Ifthc Contactor prcmptly makes payment ofall sums due to Claimants, and defends, indemnifies aod holds harmless the Owner from claims, demands, licns or suis by any pe6on or entity seeking payment for labor, materials or equipment fumished for use in the performance ofthe Constsuction Conhact, then the Surety and the Contractor shall have no obligation under this Bond. $ 3 lfthere is no Owner Default under the Constuction Contract, the SurEty's obligation to the OPncr under lhis Bond shall adse after the Owner has promptly notificd thc Contmctor and thc Surety (at the addrcss described in Section 13) ofclaims, demands, liens or suits agaiost the Owner or the Owner's property by any peBon or entity secki[g paymcnt for labor, materials or cquipment fumished for use in thc performance ofthe Construction Cont-.ct and tendered defense ofsuch claims, demands, liens or suits to the Contactor and the Surety. $,1When the Owner has satisfied thc conditions in Section 3, the Surcty shall promptly and at the Surety's expensc dcfend, indermiry and hold harmless the Owner against a duly tendercd claim, demand, lien or suit. 0 5 The Surety's obligations to a Claimant under this Bond shall arise afler the following: S 5.,l Claimants, who do not have a direct contract with the Corrtractor, .1 have fumished a written rlotice ofnon-payment to the Contractor, stating with substantial accumcy the amount claimed and the name of0re party to whom the materials vrere, or equipment was, firmished or supplied or for whom thc labor \,yas done or performed, within ninety (90) days after having last performed labor or last fimished materials or equipment included in the Claim; and,2 have sent a Claim to the Surety (et the address described in Section l3). S 52 Clsimants, who are employed by or have a direcl conEact with the Contractor, have sent 8 Claim to the Surety (at the address described in Section l3). $ 6 If a noticc of non-payment required by Section 5.1. I is given by the Owner to the Conbactor, that is sullicient to satisry a Chimant's obligation to fumisb a written notice ofnon-payment undcr Section 5.1.1. $ 7 When a Claimant has satisfied the condirions ofScctions 5.1 or 5.2, whichever is applicable, the Surety shall promptly and at the Su€ty's expense take the following aclions: $ 7.1 Scnd an answcr b rhe claimant, with a copy to the o'wner, within sixty (60) days after receipt ofthe claim, stati[g thc amounts lhal are undisputed and the basis for challenging any amouts that are disputed; and ! 7.2 Pay or anange for payment of any undisput€d amounts. 0 7.3 Thc Surcty's failure to discharye its obligations under Scction 7.1 or Section 7.2 shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver ofdefenses the surety or Contractor may have or acquire as to a Claim, cxcept as to undisputed amou[ts for which the Surety and Claimant have r€ached agreement. If, however, the Suety fai[ to discharg; its obligations under Section 7.1 or Section 72, the sur€ty shall indcmnif the Claimant for thi rcasonable ano;ey's fees the clsimant incurs thereafter to recover any sums found to be due and owing to the claimant. S I The Surety's total obligstion shall not exceed the_amount ofthis Bon4 plus the amount ofrpasonable attomey's fees provided under Section 7.3, and the amount ofthis Bond shall be credited for any payments made in good fiith by the SurEty. S I Amounls owed by the Owner to the Contractor under the Construction Contract shall be used for the performance ofthe cor*truction contract and ro satisry daims, ifany, under any construction performance bond. By ihe conFactor firmishing and the Owner accepting this Bond, rhey agree that all fund; earned by Oe Cont;ctor in the Performanc€ ofthe constmction contracl are_ dedicated to satisfi obligations ofthe ContracLr and Surcty undei thisBond, subjecr ro the Owner's priority to use the funds for rhc completilon ofthe work. InlL AIA Oocl|m.rn lt2E - zOtO. Th. ,l,n dc.n tnditrrb dArE @tr. 6 $ 10 The Surety shall nor be liable to the Owner, Claimants or others for obligations ofthe Contractor that are unlElated to the CoNtruction Contract. The Owncr shall not be liable for the paymenl ofany costs or expcnses ofany Claimant under this Bond, and shall hayc under this Bond no obligation to make payments to, or give notic€ on behalf of, Claimants or othcrwise have any obligations to Claimants under this Bond. $ ll The Surety hereby waives notice ofany change, including changes of time, to the Construction Contract or to related subcontracts, purchase orders and other obligations. S t2 No suit or action shall be commenced by a Claimant under this Bond other rhan in a court ofcompetent jurisdiction in the state in which the project that is the subject ofthe Construction Contract is located or after the €xpiration ofone year from thc date ( I ) on which thc Claimant scnt I Claim to the Surety pursuant to S€ction 5.1.2 or 5.2, or (2) on which the last labor or service was performed by anyone or the lart materials or equipment were furnished by anyone under tha Construction Contract, whichever of (t) or (2) fint occurs. Ifthe provisions oflhis Paragraph arc void or prohibited by law, the minimum p€riod of limitation available to sureties as a defense in th€ jurisdictioo ofthc suit shall be applicable. $ 13 Noticc and Claims to the Sur€ty, the OwIlcI or thc Contractor shall be mailed or delivered to the address shown on the page on which their signature appcars. Actual receipt ofootice or Claims, however accomplished, shall be sufiicient compliance as ofth€ date received. g l4 Wten this Bond has been fumished to comply with a statutory or other legal rcquir€ment in the location where thc consruction was to be performed, any provision in this Bond conflicting with said statutory or legal requirement shall be deemed deleted herefrom and provisions conforming to such statulory or other legal requirement shall be d€emed incorporated herein. When so fumished, the intent is that this Bolld shall be construed as a statutory bond and not as a common law bond. S 15 Upon request by any pcnton or entity appearing to b€ a potentiat bencficiary ofthis Bood, the Contractor and Owner shall promptly furnish a copy ofthis Bond or shall permit a copy to be made. S 16 Dorinition! 0 16,1 Chlm. A written statcmenr by the Claimant including at a minimum:.l the name ofthe Claimant; .2 the name ofthe percon for whom the labor was done, or materials or equipment fumished;.3 a copy ofthe ageement or purchase order pusuant to which tabor, maierials or equipment was firmished for use in the performance ofthe Conshuction Contract;.4 I briefdescription ofthe labor, materials or equipment furnished;.5 the date on which the Claimant tast performed labor or last fumish€d materials or equipment for use in the pcrformaocc ofthe Comt uction Contracl;.6 the total amount eamed by the Claimant for labor, mate als or equipment fumished as ofthe date of the Claim;.7 the total amount ofprevious payments received by the Claimant; and.8 the total amount due and unpaid to the Claimant for labor, materials or equipmant fumished as ofthe date of the Claim. $'16.2 Cltlmlnt An individual or entity having a direct contract with the Contractor or with a subcontractor oftheContractor to frrrnish labor, materials or equipment for use in the performance ofthe Construction Contract. Thi termclaimant also includes any individual or entity that has rightfully assen€d a claim under an applicable m""f,.ni"', tia,or similar-slatute.against the real property upon which the Project is located. The intent ofthis'gond shall be toinclude without limitation in thc terms "labor, materials or equipment" that part ofwater, g*, po*"i lighi h""t, oil,gasoline, telephone scrvice or rcltal equipment used in the Cbniruction Contract, archite&ura'l ana eng'ineering'services requirpd for performance ofthe wort oflhe contractor and the contractor's subcontracto6, ;d all oti'eritems for-which a mechanic's lien may be asserted in the jurisdiction where the rabor, mrt"ri;h ";;d;;;;;;*tumished. $ l0'3.comt,-ction cont"ct rhe agreement bctween ihe owner and contractor identified on the cover page,including atl contract Documents and all changes made to the agreement ;d the contract Documents. 7 lnlt AI Irocum.r|l A3l2r - 2010. Thc Am.nc.n hstihrb of ArchitcB. 5 lG.4 Oulrr Dd {. Failurc ofthe Owner, whish hss not bccn rcmedied or waivd to pay thc Contractor as rcquircd undrr thc Constustion Cootract or to pcrfo]m and complstr or comply witt the otter material tlros ofthe Cotrstuction Contract ! lt 5 Cootla{ Doclrtt|.ltta, AII thc doomcnts thot comprisc the agrcement bctsecn thc Owner and Contagtor. C t7 Ifltis Bord is issrcd for 8n agrrcmcot beh ecn I Contsactor and subcontrc'tor, lhc tcrm Cortrsctor in this Bo[d shafl be d€sncd to bc Subcontrrctor 8nd the tcf,m Owncr slull bc dcemed to bc Coltactor. ! ll ModificatioB to this bond arp as follows: None qPyll! Ey!*! lylw lor a&ttoml ttgry,/t aet g o&ed pties, ortgr ,hor tti,ose qpeqing on ,tE cover rce)OOITRACTOR A8 PRilCPA SURETYCompany: (Coryqate Seat) Compaoy: (Corpoare Seal) Signarrc: Nsmc rnd Tidc: Addrpss SiSnatu€: Namc and Title; Addrcss caurloL: You thodd dgn .n otleln.l Ala co rrct oocumng on r ch tllb t xt .pp..[ tn RED, An orletn t .]|r[ th.tclrargra ulll tlot ba obacurud. ,nat AlA Do..!i..i All2 - 2OlO. Tl. Arsic., tndt b o, Ardll..t 8 (NOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS lhal oc€pl as exple$ly limitsd, DEVELOPERS SURETYANo INoEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CAIIFORNIA, do each hersby make, conslitule and appoint "'Jenniler Grenrood, Karyl Richter, Machelle Day, jointly or severally"' p,esents, ars hereby Elif€d and collfirmed. Dani€l Young, Senior Vic€-Presidenl POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR OEVELOPERS SURETY AND INOEMNITY COMPANY INDEMNITY COIi.IPANY OF CALIFORNIA PO Bor 19725 lRVlNE,CAS2623 (919)263-3300 .';:f$lltii; :6i le36 i3: 1:;:;q,55*tr AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, efectivo as ol Janoary 1st,2008 RESOLVED,lhet a combination ol sny lwo of lhe Charrman ol the Board, th€ P@sident, Exoculivo Vic€-Pr€sidenl, Senior Vice-Prcsdont or any Vice Presdent ot lhe lo all6sl lhe exeqJtlon of afly such Pot €rolAllorn6yi RESOLVEo, FURTHER, that th€ signelurss ol such ollice.s may bo af,ixsd lo any such Pow6r o, Altomey or to any cerlrficato rolating lherelo by tacsimil€, and any soch or conlracl o, surelyshjp to which it is altachod. lN WITNESS WHEREOF. DEVET0PERS SURETYAND INDEMNITY COT PANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY oF CAL|FORNlAhav6 s€veratty caused lhes€ pros€nts lo be signed by lherr r€spoclive officoE and attosled by their resp€clive Sscrelary orAssislant Socretary lhis 6th day of February,2017 By MarI Lansdon. Vice-President SIate ol Cali,omia County ol OrEng€ ry publi other otficet pleling th 5 c6rl llcate rifi nl v the idenlity the i nd ivid ual s I the d t to which rhi certi nd th6 trulhfu val th at Fsbru 6.2011 Lucille Raymond Nolary Pubhc H.E rnsl Nm .nd I'(. oi UE Ofi6 DanielYou ng and MarI Lansdon 0n p6rsonally appoared , who proled lo me on lhe basis ot satisfactory €vdsnce to be th6 p€rson(s) whoso nama(s) ts/are subscribed lo lhe wilhin hstrument and acknowredg.d to me lhar h€/she/they ersculsd rh6 same in hivhorrhsir aulhonzsd capacily(ies), and that by hbftor/th€ r signaturo(s)on tho rnslrumsnt the p€lson(s), or lhe snlity upon b€half of which lh6 person(s)acl€d, execlted lhe inslrumentLUCTLL€ fiAYL0taO Commiltion , 2mt9a5 iol.ry Puulc - Cdlrornh 0rrn0! Coudy Comm.oct I Plac€ Nolary Seal Abovo Cessie J I cerlify und€r PENALTY OF PERJURY under he laws of lllg Stale of Califomis lhal th€ ,orsgoing paragraph is true and cofiect WITNESS Signalurc my hand and offcialssal CERTIFICATE Lucill6 Notary Public Th6 UNdETSIgNEd' AS SSCIBIAT OTASSiSIANI SECJgIAry Of OEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COI.,IPANY Or INOEMNITY COMPA'iY OF CALIFORNIA, dOES hErObY said coDoralions sel forli in th€ Por,6r of Attomey ars in lorca as of ihe date ol his C€rtilicale. 8y c ocr 5 ,9€)a ATS-1002 (0217) ry {-il- ",,$"nwrg 20lD .::,_iiit$$;.., :6i 'tqto ;-3! ??:i;,.S$ By: ocr.5 19e? ThE Cerlrfrcale is ex€cul€d in lh€ City of trvme, Califomla, this SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER F : INSURER E : INSURER D : INSURER C : INSURER B : INSURER A : NAIC # NAME: CONTACT (A/C, No): FAX E-MAIL ADDRESS: PRODUCER (A/C, No, Ext): PHONE INSURED REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. OTHER: (Per accident) (Ea accident) $ $ N / A SUBR WVD ADDL INSD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $ $ $ $PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY (Per accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT AUTOS AUTOSAUTOS NON-OWNED HIRED AUTOS SCHEDULEDALL OWNED ANY AUTO AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y / N WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below If yes, describe under ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE $ $ $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT ER OTH- STATUTE PER LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EFF POLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTR INSR DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) EXCESS LIAB UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE $AGGREGATE $ OCCUR CLAIMS-MADE DED RETENTION $ $PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $GENERAL AGGREGATE $PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $MED EXP (Any one person) $EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY PRO- JECT LOC CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CANCELLATION AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2014/01) © 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. CERTIFICATE HOLDER The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Meridian ID 83642 33 E Broadway Ave, #106 City of Meridian Ref:#10773 Linder Rd Sidewalk Widening The City of Meridian is listed as Additional Insured Limit $ 30,000 Deductible $ 50008/01/201808/01/201757525403 Installation Floater A 1,000,000 08/01/201808/01/201748525403-00A 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 5,000 50,000 1,000,000 08/01/201808/01/201757525403YA 18988Auto Owners Insurance 83687IDNampa 7244 Ustick Road BriCon Inc j0@fuhrimanins.com (208) 327-3462(208) 327-3400 Jo Colombo 83714IDBoise 9603 W Chinden Blvd Fuhriman Insurance 1/9/2018 IDSOS Viewing Business Entity Page I of2 IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE Viewing Business Entity Lawerence Denney, Secretary of State I New Search ] [ Back to Summary ] I Get a certificate of existence for BRICON. INC. ] I Monitor BRICON. INC. business filinos ] BRTCON, rNC. 7244 USTICK RD. NAMPA, ID 83687 Type of Business: CORPORATION, GENERAL BUSINESS Status: GOODSTANDING 17 Nov 2011 State of Origin: IDAHO Date of 20 Aug 2007 Orig i nation/Authorization : Initial Registered Agent: MARK BRICE 7244 USTICK RD. NAMPA, ID 83687 Organizational ID / Filing C774679 Number: Number of Authorized Stock 100000 Shares: Date of Last Annual Report= 28 Jun 2OL7 Annual Report Due: Aug 2018 Original Filing: I Help Me Print/View TIFF ] Filed 2O Aug 2OO7 INCORPORATION View Image (PDF format) View Imaoe (TIFF format) Amendments: I Help Me Print/View TIFF ] Amendment Filed 17 Nov REINSTATEMENT View Imaqe (pDF format)2011 View Imaoe (TIFF format) Annual Reports: Report for year 2Ot7 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2OL6 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2O1S ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2Ot4 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 20t3 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2OL2 ANNUAL REPORT Report for year 2011 REINSTATEMENT I Help Me Print/View TIFF ] View Document Online View Document Online View Document Online View Document Online View Document Online View Document Online View Imaqe (PDF format) View Imaoe (TIFF format) Report for year 2OlO https ://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/ Cl7 4619 .html t/312018 IDSOS Viewing Business Entity Page2 of2 ANNUAL View Imaoe (PDF format) View REPORT Imaoe (TIFF format) Report for year 2OO9 ANNUAL REPORT View Document Online Report for year 2OOB ANNUAL View imaqe (PDF format) View REPORT Imaoe (TIFF format) Idaho Secretarv of State's Main Paqe State of Idaho Home Paqe Comments, questions or suggestions can be emailed to: sosinfo@sos.idaho.qov https ://www. accessidaho. orglpublic/sos/corp/ c 17 46 I 9 .html U3t2018 Engineer's Standard Notes: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT ALL TIMES COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH THAT OF OTHERS ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A RESPONSIBLE PARTY WHO SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT AND ACT FOR THE CONTRACTOR ON THE JOB SITE DURING ALL WORKING HOURS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE THE SITE, COMPARE IT WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, CAREFULLY EXAMINE ALL OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND SATISFY HIMSELF AS TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED BEFORE ENTERING INTO CONTRACT. NO ALLOWANCE SHALL SUBSEQUENTLY BE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE CONTRACTOR ON ACCOUNT OF AN ERROR ON HIS PART AND/OR HIS NEGLIGENCE AND/OR FAILURE TO ACQUAINT HIMSELF WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. 3. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN IN THESE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND MUST BE VERIFIED. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. EXACT LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY PHYSICAL EXCAVATION OF THE UTILITY LINE AND SURVEYING THE LOCATION OF THE PIPE OR CONDUIT. CALL "DIG LINE", 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF COMMENCING WORK, AT 1-800-342-1585. 4. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH IDAHO CODE, CHAPTER 22, TITLE 55 REGARDING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES DAMAGE PREVENTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED AS A RESULT OF FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES OR BIG -LINE (342-1585) FOR EXACT LOCATIONS A MINIMUM OF 48 -HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING. 5. ALL CONTRACTORS WORKING WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE SAFETY LAWS OF ANY JURISDICTIONAL BODY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BARRICADES, SAFETY DEVICES AND CONTROL OF TRAFFIC WITHIN AND AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUTCD. 6. ALL MATERIAL FURNISHED ON OR FOR THE PROJECT MUST MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVING AGENCIES OR AS SET FORTH HEREIN, WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. CONTRACTORS MUST FURNISH PROOF THAT ALL MATERIALS INSTALLED ON THIS PROJECT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPROVING AGENCY AND/OR THE DESIGN ENGINEER PRIOR TO FUND DISBURSEMENT COVERING SAID WORK. 7. WORK SUBJECT TO AGENCY OR PROJECT ENGINEER'S APPROVAL MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO (A) BACKFILLING TRENCHES FOR PIPE; (B) PLACING OF AGGREGATE BASE; (C) PLACING OF CONCRETE; (0) PLACING OF ASPHALT PAVING. WORK DONE WITHOUT SUCH APPROVAL SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PERFORMING THE WORK AS SPECIFIED. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING STREETS, SIDEWALKS, OR STRUCTURES TO REMAIN DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, AND SHALL REPAIR SUCH DAMAGE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY, AT NO EXTRA COST TO THE OWNER. 9. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURES, NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED FOR REMOVAL, SHALL BE RETAINED AND PROTECTED. 10. ALL CONTRACTORS WORKING WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE REQUIRED TO SECURE A RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FROM ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT AT LEAST 24 -HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 11. ALL CONSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF THE IDAHO STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (ISPWC), LATEST EDITION, AND THE ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS. NO EXCEPTIONS TO THESE STANDARDS WILL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY. 12. ALL WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED BY LICENSED CONTRACTORS AND EXPERIENCED WORKERS. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE DIRECT COST OF PERMITS WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE OWNER. 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO ALL LOCAL CODES. 15. THE LAND GROUP, INC. DOES NOT AND CANNOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF WORK DONE BY OTHERS AND INCLUDES THIS INFORMATION FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO CONTACT THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO REQUEST CLARIFICATION OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND INFORMATION SHOWN ELSEWHERE. IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR PROCEEDS WITH CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT SUCH CLARIFICATION FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, HE SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE COST OF CORRECTIVE WORK AND SHALL REPAIR OR RECONSTRUCT THE FAULTY WORK TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 16. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING, ERECTING AND MAINTAINING THE REQUIRED MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND MANPOWER NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL, INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS AND ON THE APPROACHES TO THE PROJECT. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A STAMPED AND APPROVED SET OF PLANS, A COMPLETE COPY OF THE IDAHO STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (ISPWC), LATEST EDITION, ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS AND CITY OF MERIDIAN STANDARDS AT THE WORK SITE AT ALL TIMES. 18. 19. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP AN APPROVED SET OF PLANS ON-SrTE AT ALL TIMES AND RECORD AS -BUILT INFORMATION DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE MARKED UP AS -BUILT PLANS TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF RECORD DRAWINGS. 20. A RECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ALL WORK INCLUDING WORK ON CITY UTILITIES AND ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) INFRASTRUCTURE. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE RECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. THE DESIGN ENGINEER, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PATHWAYS DEPARTMENT, ACHD, ALL CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS AND/OR UTILITY CONTRACTORS SHALL BE PRESENT. Linder Pathway Extension Construction Drawings City of Meridian in Standard Notes: GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE IDAHO STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 0SPWC), THE CITY OF MERIDIAN SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS TO THE ISPWC (AND ANY ADDENDUMS), THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACRD) AND/OR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD). THE MORE STRINGENT OF ANY OF THESE STANDARDS SHALL BE THE CONTROLLING STANDARDS OR SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A COPY OF THE LATEST CITY OF MERIDIAN STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS ON SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION (AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE). FAILURE TO HAVE A CURRENT COPY OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ON SITE COULD BE GROUNDS FOR A STOP WORK ORDER UNTIL THE SITUATION IS RESOLVED. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE PLANS STAMPED "APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION" BY CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. 4. ALL CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS AND UTILITY CONTRACTORS SHALL ATTEND A PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE PRIOR TO START Of WORK, 5. CONTRACTORS SHALL NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY WHEN MATERIALS ARE ON SITE OR INSPECTION OF THE WORK IS REQUIRED. NO WORK MAY BEGIN ON ANY PROJECT WITHOUT TWENTY FOUR (24) HOUR PRIOR NOTICE. 6. ALL MATERIAL FURNISHED ON, OR FOR THE PROJECT MUST MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVING AGENCIES. AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPROVING AGENCY OR THE DESIGN ENGINEER, CONTRACTORS SHALL FURNISH PROOF THAT ALL MATERIALS INSTALLED ON THIS PROJECT MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTE NO. 1. 7. WORK SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO (A) BACKFILLING TRENCHES FOR PIPE; (8) PLACING OF AGGREGATE BASE; (C) PLACING OF CONCRETE; (D) PLACING OF ASPHALT PAVING. 8. INSPECTION, APPROVAL AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL WATER AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND THEIR DECISION SHALL BE FINAL. SUCH INSPECTIONS SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PERFORMING THE WORK IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEO/QLPE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS. 9. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS MUST HAVE THE APPLICABLE AGENCY APPROVAL IN WRITING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ROADWAY: 1. ALL CONTRACTORS WORKING WITHIN THE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE REQUIRED TO SECURE A RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FROM ACHD OR TO AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 2. ACHD OR ITD WILL INSPECT ALL WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY TRENCHES ABOVE THE PIPE ZONE, 3. MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS WILL INSPECT STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SERVING PRIVATE ROADS, PARKING LOTS AND OTHER PAVING IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. WATER: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS IN THE IDAHO RULES FOR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS (IDAPA 58.01.08) AS WELL AS THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS REFERRED TO IN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTE NO. 1. 2. THE HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF POTABLE WATER MAINS AND NON -POTABLE WATER MAINS (SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAIN, AND IRRIGATION) SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) FEET. WHERE IT IS NECESSARY FOR A POTABLE WATER MAIN AND NON -POTABLE WATER MAIN TO CROSS WITH LESS THAN EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION, THE CROSSING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 542.07 OF THE IDAHO RULES FOR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS (IDAPA 58.01.08) AND SECTION 430.02 OF THE WASTEWATER RULES (IDAPA 58.01.16). 3. THE HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF NON -POTABLE SERVICES AND POTABLE WATER SERVICES OR POTABLE WATER MAINS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF SIX (6) FEET. WHERE IT IS NECESSARY FOR A POTABLE WATER MAIN AND NON -POTABLE WATER MAIN TO CROSS WITH LESS THAN EIGHTEEN (18)INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION, THE CROSSING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 542.07 OF THE IDAHO RULES FOR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS (IDAPA 58.01.08) AND SECTION 430.02 OF THE WASTEWATER RULES (IDAPA 58.01.16). 4. PLACE WATER SERVICE LINES IN A TWO (2) INCH DIAMETER PIPE WHEREVER THE SERVICE LINE CROSSES A STORM WATER TREATMENT FACILITY (I.E. SEEPAGE BEDS, DRAINAGE SWALES). THE PIPE MATERIAL USED FOR SLEEVING MUST BE IMPERVIOUS TO CONTAMINATION FROM PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING CONTINUOUS WATER SERVICE TO ALL EXISTING WATER USERS AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION. 6. ALL WATER WORKS COMPONENTS SHALL BE ANSI/NSF 61 CERTIFIED, AND MUST MEET ALL AWWA AND STANDARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDAHO RULES FOR PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS (IDAPA 58.01.08). ACHD Standard Notes: 1. ANY EXISTING IRRIGATION FACILITIES SHALL BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 2. PRIVATE SEWER OR WATER SYSTEMS ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING LOCATED WITHIN ANY ACHD ROADWAY OR RIGHT-OF-WAY. 3. REPLACE ANY EXISTING DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK AND ANY THAT MAY BE DAMAGED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. CONTACT INSPECTION SERVICES AT (208) 387-6280. 4. COMPLY WITH DISTRICTS TREE PLANTER POLICY. 5. CONSTRUCT ALL UTILITY CUTS AND STREET REPAIRS PER SD -301, SD -303, AND SD -806. A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN WILL ALSO BE NECESSARY FOR ANY UTILITY CUT. SUBMIT ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS TO THE DISTRICTS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DIVISION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE NUMBER OF UTILITY CUTS WITHIN A STREET BE REDUCED TO THE FEWEST POSSIBLE, 6. UTILITY STREET CUTS IN PAVEMENT LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OLD ARE NOT ALLOWED UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE DISTRICT. CONTACT THE DISTRICTS UTILITY COORDINATOR AT (208) 387-6258 (WITH FILE NUMBERS) FOR DETAILS. 7. CONSTRUCTION, USE AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACHD PRIOR TO DISTRICT APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY. 8. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT ACHD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (208) 387-6190 IN THE EVENT ANY ACHD CONDUITS (SPARE OR FILLED) ARE COMPROMISED DURING ANY PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION. ACHD ROADWAY NOTES: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE ISPWC AND ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS. NO EXCEPTIONS TO DISTRICT POLICY, STANDARDS AND THE ISPWC WILL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE DISTRICT. 2. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS DURING TRENCHING MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT REPAIR BEYOND THE LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE LISTED IN SECTION 6000 OF ACHD POLICY MANUAL: 2.1. ALL ASPHALT MATCH LINES FOR PAVEMENT REPAIR SHALL BE PARALLEL TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE STREET AND INCLUDE ANY AREA DAMAGED BY EQUIPMENT DURING TRENCHING OPERATIONS. 2.1.1. IF THE CUMULATIVE DAMAGED PAVEMENT AREA EXCEEDS 50% OF THE TOTAL ROAD SURFACE, CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE THE ENTIRE ROADWAY SURFACE. 2.1.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE THE PAVEMENT SURFACE TO ENSURE MATCH LINE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE WHEEL PATH OF A LANE. MATCH LINE SHALL ONLY FALL IN THE CENTER OR EDGE OF A TRAVEL LANE. 2.1.3. PLOWABLE FILL OR IMPORTED MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED IF THE NATIVE TRENCH MATERIAL IS DEEMED UNSUITABLE BY ACHD INSPECTOR, DOES NOT MEET COMPACTION STANDARDS OR TIME IS A CRITICAL FACTOR. 2.1.4. ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THESE RULES SHALL BE PRE -APPROVED IN WRITING BY DISTRICT STAFF BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 2.1.5. CONSTRUCT ALL PAVEMENT MATCHES (INCLUDING DRIVEWAY APPROACHES AND UTILITY CUT STREET REPAIRS) WITHIN ACHD RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO MATCH THE EXISTING STREET PAVEMENT SECTION OR THE SECTION NOTED ON THE ASPHALT PAVING SECTION DETAILS, SHEET C2.50. USE WHICHEVER SECTION IS GREATER. 3. PIPE TRENCH SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF THE ISPWC DIVISION 300 AND SD -301. BEDDING AND BACKFILL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER SECTIONS 305 AND 306 OF THE ISPWC. 4. ANY WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRES INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY ACHD CONSTRUCTION DIVISION. CONTACT CONSTRUCTION DIVISION AT (208)387-6280 TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTACT INSPECTION SERVICES AT (208)387-6280. INSPECTION REQUESTS REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 24-HOUR PRIOR NOTICE. 5. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY PAVEMENT MARKINGS, COORDINATE WITH ACHD INSPECTION STAFF. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH ACHD POLICY AND ISPWC SECTION 1100. MARKINGS SHALL TRANSITION SMOOTHLY WITH EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS. Certification of Compliance with Design Standards: 1. THE ENGINEER OF RECORD CERTIFIES THAT THE PLANS ARE PREPARED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE ACHD POLICY AND STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION. THE ENGINEER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ACHD ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ERRORS OR DEFICIENCIES IN THE DESIGN. ALL VARIANCES FROM ACHD POLICY SHALL BE APPROVED IN WRITING. THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES, LISTED BY DATE AND SHORT DESCRIPTION, WERE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT: NONE . Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C1.00 Cover Sheet C1.10 Erosion Control Plan C1.15 Erosion Control Details C1.50 Existlng Conditions and Demolition C1.51 Existing Conditions and Demolition C1.52 Existing Conditions and Demolition C2.00 Site Layout C2.01 Site Layout C2.02 Site Layout C2.50 Site Details 1_7.50 Landscape Details Vicinity Map Client / Owner / Developer: CITY OF MERIDIAN, PARKS & RECREATION DEPT. MIKE BARTON, PARKS SUPERINTENDANT 33 E. BROADWAY AVE. MERIDIAN, ID 83642 PH: 208.489.0553 Project Engineer: THE LAND GROUP, INC. JAMES W. GUTE, P.E. 462 E. SHORE DR., SUITE 100 EAGLE, ID 83616 PH: 208.939.4041 Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances ar waivers must be specifically and previously approved by the District in writing. Acceptance M maps menl plans by he District does net relieve the Registered Eeginem IlNlas. By: DATE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DIST T O t w Q .y CIO CD 4.0X W cc 3 cc CL L a) in siddtJ C U) ai ESC General Notes: _WW WWW yVWV2WWW W WWWW--go-W—WWWWW WW WWWWWW -7W- 1. ALL STORM WATER FROM DISTURBED AREA WILL BE CONTAINED ON SITE. ONCRETE WASH 2. ALL BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED AT A MINIMUM ONCE EVERY 14 DAYS AND -- OUT, SEE DETAIL ------ __ - _ - _ - - - - -- - = _ - _ - - WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A STORM EVENT PRODUCING 0.25 INCHES OR SHEET C1.55 ' - _ ?SGREATER - OR - ONCE EVERY SEVEN DAYS. \ l ORTABLE RESTROOMS - - j ^P ri - INSPECTION FREQUENCY MAY BE REDUCED TO ONCE EVERY MONTH IF: \ ANCHOR TO GROUND TO NSTALL FIBER WATTLE PRIOR TO ,F' .: / ti - A THE ENTIRE SITE IS TEMPORARILY STABILIZED OR F PREVENT VANDALISM FO -F0 f0 EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AT FO FO FO f0 FO OJ EP Oi OJ OJ—)M.Od _ - = 01 -- - B. RUNOFF IS UNLIKELY DUE TO WINTER CONDITIONS, OR $e, EXISTING EDGE Of TURF. REMOVE AT ��_ EP EP EP - - (A EP FINAL STABILIZATION. _ —.FP- - - -�"\ I_ - - _ L T T T T T T - T -" - - 1 C. CONSTRUCTION IS OCCURRING DURING SEASONAL ARID PERIODS 1 -RAN ..-. pE - - '7 - - - 7° (MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER) IN ARID AREAS AND SEMI -ARID EP EP a�P _ _ - - _-'WW T _-T--iYWf- �'�V: RM 1 R/W - - - R/W -�-- R/W fVW - RiW - N AREAS. / '` -�T T T T T a°� PW FINpW-_FW �. _ gg _tR SS= - --4 �I FW _ _Fga FW -?�- FW . _ - - �� SS SS omS- SS - _ wo 3. DEWATERING IS NOT EXPECTED FOR THIS SITE, ONSITE ESC CONTRACTOR - _ - SS - --_� SS, ° i , IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. O 4. STREET SWEEPING WILL BE IMPLEMENTED ON AN AS -NEEDED BASIS AS h,1p - - - a l m jp - 7.1% ; DETERMINED BY THE ONSITE RESPONSIBLE PERSON AND DAILY DURING ON • ° A, 5 L - C 2575 - AND OFF -HAUL Of SOILS. 5. ALL DROP INLETS, CATCH BASINS, AND CURB INLETS NOTED ON PLAN SHALL HAVE INLET PROTECTION PROVIDED. SEE THE ESC PLAN DETAILS ON SHEET C1.55 AND MANUFACTURES GUIDELINES FOR INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. 3 - 6. LOCATE ALL PORTABLE RESTROOMS AS FAR FROM PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS AS POSSIBLE. ANCHOR TO PREVENT VANDALISM. 7. SLURRY AND CUTTINGS FROM SAWCUTTING OF CONCRETE OR ASPHALT SHALL BE VACUUMED DURING CUTTING AND SURFACING OPERATIONS. SLURRY AND CUTTINGS SHALL NOT REMAIN ON PERMANENT CONCRETE OR Site Layout Plan ALL NOT 0 20' 40 DRAIN TO PAVEMENTOVERNIGHT.R CON TRUCRDDRAINY AND TTECONVINGS MANCE. DRAIN TO ANY NATURAL OR CONSTRUCTED DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE. COLLECTED SLURRY AND CUTTINGS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE GROUNDWATER OR SURFACE WATER QUALITY HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1° = 20' STANDARDS. G _- D D 0 0 0 0 0 - J -- - ;' - - 8. ALL EXCESS MATERIALS SHALL BE HAULED OFF SITE AND DISPOSED OF AT G'AN APPROVED LOCATION. NO MATERIAL IS TO BE STOCKPILED ON SITE. W W W W W W W W W W W W W W-Bl10--7- M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M -- TA --- M- 9, ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF *�3 3 THE ISPWC. - _ - - - -S°0'0129"E 253.85' - - _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _-- - 10 ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THIS PLAN REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNER / NSTALL FIBER WATTLE PRIOR TO OR THE ONSITE RESPONSIBLE PERSON. 3 / EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AT a P EP EP EP _ - -EP- EP d3 d3 EXISTING EDGE OF TURF. REMOVE AT - EP EP F0 _ _��� --- _ G'r. -_ f,. �_ 11. TOTAL DISTURBED AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 0.49 ACRES. Oi i Oi Oi Oi Oi �ua Oi Oi Oi _ _ Sim -Oi 03 Qi FINAL STABILIZATION. _ 12. UPON CONTRACT APPROVAL BY THE CONTRACTOR, R IS RECOGNIZED THAT F _ _ _ 1-1-1— THE CONTRACTOR HAS REVIEWED THE PLAN DRAWINGS AND THE e T T T T T T T_ T_ -T T-� -T Z-- -T- T T T T T T T 1— 6 -_- R, -� /��]W'2573 R - = moi_ �51T- - - - - --- - -Nt4 _�y=� _ 1 _ —1 - _ CONTRACTOR AGREESTO ABIDE BY THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS t _ 3 N SS - w SS SS ST - SSS- 'S5 J,. ,n S S3` g _ _ SS - i T / •13' ------ - - -2573- - - < CONTAINED HEREIN. i ✓ %r' ...--�._-�.. �a '_ -___ _.--_-.---_ _-----2574-__---____-__--_ \� ..r-=.."-' ° . _: .•-•°--,-: = 3 ,n )l .• / ` /y �.-.-_ _ - 2575' y -• - - __ - - - _ - • •S'j/, 4 r ° Contact Information. ° / TUM LE CF�EEK� e ° ° CO MON 0 0 LOT &4 ° v _ _�tAB 2r, I DEVELOPER: CITY OF MERIDIAN -- - L )` x� x-_ _ ��- X - v = �L- x- i y- X- - - X- - = X_- X-�' - -X- - ° - - -X X_x ,i 1\t_' X 7 ,! y PRIMARY CONTACT: MIKE BARTON, PARKS & PATHWAYS . _ PROJECT MANAGER U 3 I \ c I \ 1 \\ l PLAN PREPARER: ROGER COLLINS COMPANY: THE LAND GROUP, INC. o U PROJECT ENGINEER: JAMES W. GUTE, PE s `. COMPANY: THE LAND GROUP, INC. Site Layout Plan 0 2" 40P HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1'1=201 1 S/ -MMMMM M MM M M MMMMMM MMM MMM MM —S M _ ---- �V_LIL�DER=ROAD _- - - - - _ - - — - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - NSTALL FIBER WATTLE PRIOR TO - -2572+ - - - --- EARTH DISTURBING ACTNITIES :IP -_U3_ APPROX. TOFF EDGE OF EXIST. / / d3 __ °i d3 pi pi f0 F° SIDEWALK. REMOVE AT FINAL FO FO S FO FO F° d3 d3 d3 d3 STABILIZATION. dy---.--d3_ _ d9d1 � - FW FW FW FW FW FW RV —I —l_ - _ -L -, _,...><. 2572- -- • Y _ ° - - -.. - 2G.. - - - .i i,1`._- o o --- COMMON - " _ _ IUSTL€ GRE€IT N0.1 i ° - -� COMMONLOT� ,\\ ----- �------ - 2573-- / W .x�X--XI X -� moi_ _ —X -i X --X X X—x -X _x -X X— — J O Sf \ w \ TURTLE CREEK N0.1 TP (� Site Layout Plan 20' 40 �7 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=20' ESC/SWPPP Legend Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the Improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers must be specifically and previously approved by the District in writing. Acceptance of the improvement plans by the Dishict does not relieve the Registered Engineer of these responsibilities. BY: DATE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT O C ii9 THE LAND ROUP DaCbRPURATPD 101E-1 -hm 0 S.4, 100 E.,& Itl h 9361r Ph 20R9394011 F '.209.9394(45 u u., Whi f'."nerorn Date of Issuance. 06.30.17' Designed by: RC Sheet No.: Noll APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE 12898 _� PROPOSED GROUND CONTOUR (ONE -FOOT INTERVAL) - - - 2698 - EXISTING GROUND CONTOUR (ONE -FOOT INTERVAL) FW FIBER ROLL PER STATE OF IDAHO CATALOG OF These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BMP #35. SEE DETAILS ON SHEET C1.55. WASHOUT PER THE STATE OF IDAHO This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor ❑CONCRETE NI CATALOG OF STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BMP #13 AND DETAIL ON SHEET 01.55. FalPORTABLE R RESTROOM PER THE STATE OF IDAHO CATALOG OF STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BMP #13. Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the Improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers must be specifically and previously approved by the District in writing. Acceptance of the improvement plans by the Dishict does not relieve the Registered Engineer of these responsibilities. BY: DATE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT O C ii9 THE LAND ROUP DaCbRPURATPD 101E-1 -hm 0 S.4, 100 E.,& Itl h 9361r Ph 20R9394011 F '.209.9394(45 u u., Whi f'."nerorn Date of Issuance. 06.30.17' Designed by: RC Sheet No.: Noll CiWERnN APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for compliance with Meridian City Standards and Specifications. This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor of the responsibility to design and/or construct those facilities in compliance with all current applicable fie state antl local lawn, rules, regulations, ordinances, development agreements, oenf orders approvals, all of which the City retains his right t o the right to enforce. inconsistencies not noted by City staff shell not be construed as approved unless specifically addressed In writing by the City. Any proposed revision to these plans must be submitted for review and compliance with the Meridian City Standards and Specifications before said revision is constructed. Name Oat. Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the Improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers must be specifically and previously approved by the District in writing. Acceptance of the improvement plans by the Dishict does not relieve the Registered Engineer of these responsibilities. BY: DATE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT O C ii9 THE LAND ROUP DaCbRPURATPD 101E-1 -hm 0 S.4, 100 E.,& Itl h 9361r Ph 20R9394011 F '.209.9394(45 u u., Whi f'."nerorn Date of Issuance. 06.30.17' Designed by: RC Sheet No.: Noll SEE WOOD STAKE Fiber Roll (BMP 3 Scale'. NIS 71 3 VIAA a 48 Fiber Roll Stake Section (BMP 35) Scale: N'IS :SURFACE POST SIGN NEAR BASIN CONCRETE WASHOUT 9, '"51:sa, NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS VARY. RESPONSIBLE PERSON SHALL SIZE BASIN APPROPRIATELY. Concrete Washout (BMP 13) SCale NTS 1 Fiber Roll Stake Section 2 (BMP 3 Scale- NTS 10 MIL (MIN.) PLASTIC LINER )PE SURFACE Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the Improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans Cmulamn to all District paftive and standards. Varlanees or waivers must be specifically and previously approved by the District In writing. Acceptance of the improvement plans by the District does not relieve the Registered Engineer of these responsibilities. BY: BATE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT CiWEgIpU1N APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION ay These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for C compliance with Meridian City Standards and Specifications. This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor of the responsibility to design and/or construct those facilities in compliance with all current applicable federal, state and local W laws, miss, regulations, ordinances, development agreements, a specifications, orders or approvals, all of which the City retains cc the right to enforce. Inconsistencies not noted by City shelf shall 3 not be constmed as approved unless specifically addressed in writing by the City. Any proposed revision to these plans must bmmR be submitted for review and compliance with the Meridian City cc Standards and Specifications before said revision Is constructed. a Name Date Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the Improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans Cmulamn to all District paftive and standards. Varlanees or waivers must be specifically and previously approved by the District In writing. Acceptance of the improvement plans by the District does not relieve the Registered Engineer of these responsibilities. BY: BATE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT �L m a I, • THE LAND GROUP uvcvsecenYtm 162 £a.•( Shore Dnv, 5'tirvk 100 £ngls. Mateo 636/6 PR 20H 9,39 1047 flu' 208.939 4445 ssnmulMlondpronyina.own Project No.: 1152h6 Sate of Issuance: U6.30 17 Designed by: RS Checked by: �C Sheet No.. C1.15 ay C x3 W H a cc E� 3 bmmR cc a a� W :r R t_ RRRR� � 0 �L m a I, • THE LAND GROUP uvcvsecenYtm 162 £a.•( Shore Dnv, 5'tirvk 100 £ngls. Mateo 636/6 PR 20H 9,39 1047 flu' 208.939 4445 ssnmulMlondpronyina.own Project No.: 1152h6 Sate of Issuance: U6.30 17 Designed by: RS Checked by: �C Sheet No.. C1.15 ay C W a cc 3 bmmR cc a a� W :r R t_ RRRR� � �L m a I, • THE LAND GROUP uvcvsecenYtm 162 £a.•( Shore Dnv, 5'tirvk 100 £ngls. Mateo 636/6 PR 20H 9,39 1047 flu' 208.939 4445 ssnmulMlondpronyina.own Project No.: 1152h6 Sate of Issuance: U6.30 17 Designed by: RS Checked by: �C Sheet No.. C1.15 1 i N "�N 36 o+oo 1 - CP&F 98117242 9 9' -9 9 -9 -9 9-9 9 9 9 9 9 9 -9 W- W W - w -W W --Ww W -sem Ww w W- 7+00 8+00 BEGIN PROJECT J o ��- FO O m s 104 F0 1 102 K, W 5 103 EP _.-EP- 105 106 r • 101 � \ •'� .,�... / / / / 132 \\ s69\ \/ 5 133 6 6 6 134 , Survey Notes: - FO FO FO FO FO ` FO FO FO Rfiltf 5 7 T--T_.RMfi 7-r' - -109 110 r. ------ SS 107 108 ---_S 131 - '..a r: - J 128 127 6 130 129 6 . 6 7 I I I I TUMBt E CREEK NO.5 Ili I I I N - W N. CINDER ROA [ W W W W 9+00 -4 - - - �. FO 03 CA OA03 03 _ 09- EP EP EP �- EP EP L T T ,T -._ i T- 7 M RIW7 R'W - 4 116 '- - 117 _ _ '2573 SS 113 - - - - Sy SS SS __" T_ 111 112 118 _ a •�� :.T- 115 'I .• \� aaje� `124 I Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan 29 4 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 • = 20' 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON ABOVE GROUND EVIDENCE, AND UTILITY COMPANY FACILITY MAPS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF THE ACCURACY OF LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. Survey Legend: D NORTHING ELECTRIC RISER DESCRIPTION 101 717071.278 TELEPHONE RISER PPC -- 717071.340 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER W -_. A, 717004.706 W SAWCUT QS 716999.502 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DEMOLITION LIMIT 0 6+00 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE DEMOLITION LIMIT 106 716954.362 POWER POLE STA: 5+49.05 v 716890.291 SIGN DEMOLITION LIMIT ® 716864.754 IRRIGATION VALVE DEMOLITION LIMIT ® 716833.554 WATER VALVE DEMOLITION LIMIT 110 716797.872 DECIDUOUS TREE OFF: 32.24'R 111 716780.819 2448910.985 DEMOLITION LIMIT 112 716758.410 CONIFEROUS TREE ----- -- ) '- -- BOUNDARY LINE , 114 - - CONCRETE AREA 9 9' -9 9 -9 -9 9-9 9 9 9 9 9 9 -9 W- W W - w -W W --Ww W -sem Ww w W- 7+00 8+00 BEGIN PROJECT J o ��- FO O m s 104 F0 1 102 K, W 5 103 EP _.-EP- 105 106 r • 101 � \ •'� .,�... / / / / 132 \\ s69\ \/ 5 133 6 6 6 134 , Survey Notes: - FO FO FO FO FO ` FO FO FO Rfiltf 5 7 T--T_.RMfi 7-r' - -109 110 r. ------ SS 107 108 ---_S 131 - '..a r: - J 128 127 6 130 129 6 . 6 7 I I I I TUMBt E CREEK NO.5 Ili I I I N - W N. CINDER ROA [ W W W W 9+00 -4 - - - �. FO 03 CA OA03 03 _ 09- EP EP EP �- EP EP L T T ,T -._ i T- 7 M RIW7 R'W - 4 116 '- - 117 _ _ '2573 SS 113 - - - - Sy SS SS __" T_ 111 112 118 _ a •�� :.T- 115 'I .• \� aaje� `124 I Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan 29 4 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 • = 20' 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON ABOVE GROUND EVIDENCE, AND UTILITY COMPANY FACILITY MAPS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF THE ACCURACY OF LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. Survey Legend: Demolition Notes: A. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS PRIOR TO COMMENCING DEMOLITION. C. ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. D. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL 811 OR (800) 342-1585, OR OTHER UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION AND HAVE ALL UTILITIES LOCATED AND MARKED. ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. E. DEMOLITION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES, RULES, REGULATIONS, ETC. REMOVE DEBRIS AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM DEMOLITION FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSE OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. DO NOT ALLOW THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS TO DELAY PROGRESS OF THE WORK. F. ERECT AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, AND GUARDS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE. G. WATER AREA AFFECTED BY THIS WORK TO PREVENT DUST AND DIRT FROM BECOMING AIRBORNE. H. CLEAN ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS OF DUST, DIRT, AND DEBRIS CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATORS AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. RESTORE DEMOLISHED OR DAMAGED WORK TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. PRESERVE AND PROTECT ADJACENT AREAS FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. I. ANY DAMAGE WHICH OCCURS OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/OR REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR. J. ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHOWN TO BE REMOVED AS SUCH VALVE BOXES, VALVES, AND HEADS SHALL BE RETURNED TO OWNER. SEE IRRIGATION PLAN L1.50 FOR REINSTALLATION OF SALVAGED ITEMS. Demolition Legend: ,M REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL, 2 -FT MIN. INSIDE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN. REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL. REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL. LLJREMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE. ElREMOVE& REPAIR EXISTING LANDSCAPE AT BACKACKOFOF WALK AS NEEDED TO INSTALL IMPROVEMENTS. - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE -------- SAWCUT LINE xEXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED i 4? nF1u 122 �CALLOUT NUMBERS COORDINATED Keynotes: ✓ZJ TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW, 1. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER. 2. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK. 3, NOT USED THIS SHEET. 4. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING STREET SIGN. 5. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN APPROXIMATE). 6. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREE, SEE TREE PROTECTION NOTES, THIS SHEET. 7. REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES IN THIS AREA. Tree Protection Notes: A. PROTECT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF THE TREES TO BE RETAINED ON SITE: (NOTE: CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IS THE AREA DIRECTLY BELOW THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE.) A.A. CONSTRUCT PROTECTIVE FENCING OF CHAIN-LINK AROUND THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION. A.B. DO NOT ALLOW COMPACTION BY EQUIPMENT TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION OR DURING DEMOLITION. A.C. DO NOT ALLOW CEMENT TRUCKS TO RINSE WITHIN THE PROTECTION AREA, ANYWHERE THAT TREE ROOTS EXIST OR IN PLANNED PLANTING BEDS. A.D. DO NOT STOCKPILE MATERIALS, DEBRIS OR DIRT WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION AREA. A.E. MAINTAIN WATERING WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE FROM MID -APRIL TO MID -OCTOBER AT THE RATE OF NOT LESS THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF 1-17Y OF WATER OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PER WEEK. A.F. DO NOT TRENCH, EXCAVATE, FILL OR OTHERWISE DISTURB THE SOIL WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. A.G. ADJUST PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS AS REQUIRED TO AVOID DAMAGING TREE ROOTS. B. PROTECT THE CROWN AND TRUNK OF TREES TO BE RETAINED ON SITE: B.A. OPERATE EQUIPMENT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO AVOID CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNKS OR BRANCHES. B.B. PRUNING OF PUBLIC PROPERTY TREES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED ARBORIST. C. ALL TREES DAMAGED OR DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED USING THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: EXISTING TREE REPLACEMENT 1" TO 6" CALIPER .........................2X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED 6" TO 12" CALIPER ......................1.5X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED > 12" OR LARGER CALIPER ......... 1X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED EXAMPLE: IF AN V CALIPER TREE IS REMOVED, AN ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT WOULD BE (3) 4- CALIPER TREES OR (4) 3° CALIPER TREES. Point Table D NORTHING ELECTRIC RISER DESCRIPTION 101 717071.278 TELEPHONE RISER PPC -- 717071.340 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER SAWCUT © 717004.706 FIBER OPTIC RISER SAWCUT QS 716999.502 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DEMOLITION LIMIT 0 716999.491 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE DEMOLITION LIMIT 106 716954.362 POWER POLE DEMOLITION LIMIT v 716890.291 SIGN DEMOLITION LIMIT ® 716864.754 IRRIGATION VALVE DEMOLITION LIMIT ® 716833.554 WATER VALVE DEMOLITION LIMIT 110 716797.872 DECIDUOUS TREE DEMOLITION LIMIT 111 716780.819 2448910.985 DEMOLITION LIMIT 112 716758.410 CONIFEROUS TREE ----- -- ) '- -- BOUNDARY LINE -------'- 114 - - CONCRETE AREA -- - ---- --- CURB AND GUTTER - - - -- -- - - - EASEMENT LINE - -- HP 117 - EP -- ---- EDGE OF PAVEMENT X -. F --- x --- A FENCE LINE SAWCUT 119 F0. _. FIBER OPTIC LINE SAWCUT 120 g _- _ GAS LINE - - 1:H7 ------ - - OVERHEAD POWER LINE DEMOLITION LIMIT 122 ---- PRESSURE IRRIGATION LINE DEMOLITION LIMIT 123 ' - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ---ti-- 124 --jy-_-- SANITARY SEWER LINE ---- SD - - -- dU ---- STORM DRAIN LINE -- -- , ---- T - - TELEPHONE LINE DEMOLITION LIMIT IIGF'------- 716804.973 UNDERGROUND POWER LINE DEMOLITION LIMIT V - - ---- UNDERGROUND CABLE TV Al ----- 129 VV - WATER LINE - --.-,-.----- -- VERTICAL CURB Demolition Notes: A. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS PRIOR TO COMMENCING DEMOLITION. C. ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. D. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL 811 OR (800) 342-1585, OR OTHER UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION AND HAVE ALL UTILITIES LOCATED AND MARKED. ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. E. DEMOLITION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES, RULES, REGULATIONS, ETC. REMOVE DEBRIS AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM DEMOLITION FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSE OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. DO NOT ALLOW THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS TO DELAY PROGRESS OF THE WORK. F. ERECT AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, AND GUARDS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE. G. WATER AREA AFFECTED BY THIS WORK TO PREVENT DUST AND DIRT FROM BECOMING AIRBORNE. H. CLEAN ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS OF DUST, DIRT, AND DEBRIS CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATORS AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. RESTORE DEMOLISHED OR DAMAGED WORK TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. PRESERVE AND PROTECT ADJACENT AREAS FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. I. ANY DAMAGE WHICH OCCURS OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/OR REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR. J. ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHOWN TO BE REMOVED AS SUCH VALVE BOXES, VALVES, AND HEADS SHALL BE RETURNED TO OWNER. SEE IRRIGATION PLAN L1.50 FOR REINSTALLATION OF SALVAGED ITEMS. Demolition Legend: ,M REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL, 2 -FT MIN. INSIDE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN. REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL. REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL. LLJREMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE. ElREMOVE& REPAIR EXISTING LANDSCAPE AT BACKACKOFOF WALK AS NEEDED TO INSTALL IMPROVEMENTS. - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE -------- SAWCUT LINE xEXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED i 4? nF1u 122 �CALLOUT NUMBERS COORDINATED Keynotes: ✓ZJ TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW, 1. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER. 2. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK. 3, NOT USED THIS SHEET. 4. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING STREET SIGN. 5. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN APPROXIMATE). 6. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREE, SEE TREE PROTECTION NOTES, THIS SHEET. 7. REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES IN THIS AREA. Tree Protection Notes: A. PROTECT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF THE TREES TO BE RETAINED ON SITE: (NOTE: CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IS THE AREA DIRECTLY BELOW THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE.) A.A. CONSTRUCT PROTECTIVE FENCING OF CHAIN-LINK AROUND THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION. A.B. DO NOT ALLOW COMPACTION BY EQUIPMENT TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION OR DURING DEMOLITION. A.C. DO NOT ALLOW CEMENT TRUCKS TO RINSE WITHIN THE PROTECTION AREA, ANYWHERE THAT TREE ROOTS EXIST OR IN PLANNED PLANTING BEDS. A.D. DO NOT STOCKPILE MATERIALS, DEBRIS OR DIRT WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION AREA. A.E. MAINTAIN WATERING WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE FROM MID -APRIL TO MID -OCTOBER AT THE RATE OF NOT LESS THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF 1-17Y OF WATER OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PER WEEK. A.F. DO NOT TRENCH, EXCAVATE, FILL OR OTHERWISE DISTURB THE SOIL WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. A.G. ADJUST PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS AS REQUIRED TO AVOID DAMAGING TREE ROOTS. B. PROTECT THE CROWN AND TRUNK OF TREES TO BE RETAINED ON SITE: B.A. OPERATE EQUIPMENT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO AVOID CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNKS OR BRANCHES. B.B. PRUNING OF PUBLIC PROPERTY TREES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED ARBORIST. C. ALL TREES DAMAGED OR DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED USING THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: EXISTING TREE REPLACEMENT 1" TO 6" CALIPER .........................2X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED 6" TO 12" CALIPER ......................1.5X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED > 12" OR LARGER CALIPER ......... 1X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED EXAMPLE: IF AN V CALIPER TREE IS REMOVED, AN ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT WOULD BE (3) 4- CALIPER TREES OR (4) 3° CALIPER TREES. Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING DESCRIPTION 101 717071.278 2448913.148 PPC 102 717071.340 2448923.925 SAWCUT 103 717004.706 2448924.420 SAWCUT 1D4 716999.502 2448924.458 DEMOLITION LIMIT 105 716999.491 2448922.442 DEMOLITION LIMIT 106 716954.362 2448922.684 DEMOLITION LIMIT 107 716890.291 2448908.339 DEMOLITION LIMIT 108 716864.754 2448908.191 DEMOLITION LIMIT 109 716833.554 2448914.797 DEMOLITION LIMIT 110 716797.872 2448914.697 DEMOLITION LIMIT 111 716780.819 2448910.985 DEMOLITION LIMIT 112 716758.410 2448911.285 DEMOLITION LIMIT 113 716735.711 2448917.982 DEMOLITION LIMIT 114 716718.578 2448920.480 DEMOLITION LIMIT 115 716695.950 2448920.472 SAWCUT 116 716695.950 2448924.482 SAWCUT 117 716681.330 2448924.482 SAWCUT 118 716663.250 244891 SAWCUT 119 716663.250 2448892.070 SAWCUT 120 716672.110 2448892.070 SAWCUT 121 716674.312 2448895.833 DEMOLITION LIMIT 122 716700.460 2448908.480 DEMOLITION LIMIT 123 716718.578 2448908.480 DEMOLITION LIMIT 124 716729.450 2448907.232 DEMOLITION LIMIT 125 716765.342 2448896.511 DEMOLITION LIMIT 126 716771.530 2448896.569 DEMOLITION LIMIT 127 716804.973 2448903.811 DEMOLITION LIMIT 128 716828.471 2448903.558 DEMOLITION LIMIT 129 716862.268 2448896.451 DEMOLITION LIMIT 130 716892.912 2448896.629 DEMOLITION LIMIT 131 716940.521 2448907.288 DEMOLITION LIMIT 132 716970.077 2448906.178 DEMOLITION LIMIT 133 717018.620 2448891.700 DEMOLITION LIMIT 134 717035.110 2448888.480 DEMOLITION LIMIT Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction R stem in and signing the improvement lana the Registered Engineer ensures the Y P 9 9 9 P P 9 g District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers most be spe'"i1311' bit previously a oved by the District in writing. Acceptance of the homes art pians by 1 bithlet does not relieve the Registered Engineer itlea. DFE: 7 / ADA COUM NIDNIDAY MSTE T aII iia, FYI APPROVED FOR i. mW nuN CONSTRUCTION These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for a. _CD compliance with Meddlan City Standards and Specifications. a Idaho 89616 This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor F=2089394445 -v, 14e1nna.CuvNnn rum of the responsibility to design and/or construct those facilities in cc compliance with all current applicable federal. stale and local V laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, development agreements, Plmd specifications, orders or approvals, all of which the City retains the right to enforce. inconsistencies not noted by City staff shall L not be construed as approved unless specifically addressed in •_ writing by the City. Any proposed revision to these plans must Coll be submitted for review and compliance with the Meridian City .x Standards and Specifications before said revision is constructed. W Name Date d Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction R stem in and signing the improvement lana the Registered Engineer ensures the Y P 9 9 9 P P 9 g District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers most be spe'"i1311' bit previously a oved by the District in writing. Acceptance of the homes art pians by 1 bithlet does not relieve the Registered Engineer itlea. DFE: 7 / ADA COUM NIDNIDAY MSTE T aII y iia, CD i. mW ecketl THE LAND a. _CD 462 £vat shv,e Pme. suite 100 a Idaho 89616 W F=2089394445 -v, 14e1nna.CuvNnn rum P� cc V Plmd L W •_ Q Coll .x W d � y iia, i. :i ecketl THE LAND a. wroRtaRnrrm 462 £vat shv,e Pme. suite 100 a Idaho 89616 0 F=2089394445 -v, 14e1nna.CuvNnn rum P� V •_ Q Coll .x W 0- iia, i. :i ecketl THE LAND GROUP wroRtaRnrrm 462 £vat shv,e Pme. suite 100 £n9k. Idaho 89616 Ph 201.9.19 4011 F=2089394445 -v, 14e1nna.CuvNnn rum [568 07/12 Project No.: Date al Issuance: Designed by: AW3' ecketl Shell Ni C1.50 +i ----`3--0- 0 -0 0- Vy..W.W--W---WW 10+00 STI N Zl 203 202 201 �i _,. 206 5 s E G all I EC1 J1 2' MIN Survey Notes: PTIk: 03 03 - T - 210 __ __ -R%2573 SS - SS 8 208 239 i1 207 -D-D- O DDOO OO D -W WW W-W-W-IrT WWM M MM MM M M MM M M -M M-� - M--M-m s 11+00 3 3 12+00 13+00 14+00 - N0001'29^W 1365.83' - - i'01'29"W - +- - - - --- - S00°00'38"E 1332. 8 3 EP EP -- EP EP --EP -- - EP ---- d3 d3 ----- d3 EP - EP - EP -AR. -`�fiY 223 - OJ X43 - 03 03 - Oi - _ 0 03 03 03 FO FO F(1 FO FO -----------�++ c 211 - L .._. L _-7 L T -T T TT iTT 1-1-1 _. ._1--1---1_1 -__-I- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 _ 224 -_- pryy- RNY-t- - -�- - A _ 1 1 r2 i en 55215SS _ SS _SS 1217 b ra•.5+.. .} +►257 -. ry - 11 ...r, l / J ♦ T�. it y'. .... . ♦ ' .' .` ` '{ ♦��TTa T. +" ~ �_� RR T11M LE C K z25' 236 . 231 7� !- 227 226 235 z 232 i'o MO L 4 230 % �' 228 . ti \ _234- X 233 Y -X- - -i- - x -Y -Y -X - - -X,.. v_X- •X=X \ 6 _- 6 X 6- 7 6 J 6 6 6 7 6 6....--.... JJ 10. I � z 2o- fi 229 O N I I Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan HORIZONTAL SCALE: I"= 20' 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON ABOVE GROUND EVIDENCE, AND UTILITY COMPANY FACILITY MAPS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF THE ACCURACY OF LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. Survey Legend: 0 ELECTRICRISER O TELEPHONE RISER -- ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 0 FIBER OPTIC RISER QS SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE OO STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ------f0----ill---- POWER POLE v SIGN ® IRRIGATION VALVE ® WATER VALVE 1�11. RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 716626.480 DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE - - - BOUNDARY LINE - CONCRETE AREA -- - ---- CURB AND GUTTER - - - -- - -- - - - - EASEMENT LINE Fi' rl' --- EDGE OF PAVEMENT .T - - X -- FENCE LINE ------f0----ill---- FIBER OPTIC UNE - ,-- G- -- GAS UNE -- --- -0!1-'-- -- - - OVERHEAD POWER LINE - - PIRIi------- PRESSURE IRRIGATION UNE R^fc - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 716626.480 SANITARY SEWER UNE 5" - till STORM DRAIN LINE - I - - - - TELEPHONE LINE - - JGP - - UNDERGROUND POWER LINE 716604.520 UNDERGROUND CABLE TV SAWCUT WATERLINE - - - - VERTICAL CURB Demolition Notes: TUMBLE CREEK NO.6 A. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS PRIOR TO COMMENCING DEMOLITION. C. ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. D. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL 811 OR (800) 342-1585, OR OTHER UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION AND HAVE ALL UTILITIES LOCATED AND MARKED. ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR, E. DEMOLITION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES, RULES, REGULATIONS, ETC. REMOVE DEBRIS AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM DEMOLITION FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSE OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. DO NOT ALLOW THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS TO DELAY PROGRESS OF THE WORK, F. ERECT AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, AND GUARDS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE. G. WATER AREA AFFECTED BY THIS WORK TO PREVENT DUST AND DIRT FROM BECOMING AIRBORNE. H. CLEAN ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS OF DUST, DIRT, AND DEBRIS CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATORS AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. RESTORE DEMOLISHED OR DAMAGED WORK TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. PRESERVE AND PROTECT ADJACENT AREAS FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. I. ANY DAMAGE WHICH OCCURS OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/OR REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR. J. ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHOWN TO BE REMOVED AS SUCH VALVE BOXES, VALVES, AND HEADS SHALL BE RETURNED TO OWNER. SEE IRRIGATION PLAN L1.50 FOR REINSTALLATION OF SALVAGED ITEMS. Demolition Legend: REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL, 2 -FT MIN. INSIDE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN. REMOVE & DISPOSE EXISTING CONCRETE PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGESES OF OF REMOVAL. REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL. STRIP VEGETATION, GRAVELS TO REMAIN, COMPACT IN CONFORMANCE WITH ISPWC AND ACHD REQUIREMENTS. REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE. REMOVE & REPAIR EXISTING LANDSCAPE AT NEEDED BACK OF WALK AS NEEDED TO INSTALL IMPROVEMENTS. LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE -------- SAWCUT LINE 0 20' 40' Keynotes: ��O# TO LOUTNUMB NUMBERS COORDINATED TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW. 1. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER. 2. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK. 3. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING VERTICAL CURB. 4. NOT USED THIS SHEET. 5. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN APPRO)OMATE). 6. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREE. SEE TREE PROTECTION NOTES, THIS SHEET. 7. REMOVE AND DISPOSE EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES IN THIS AREA. B. REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING STOP SIGN, TO RESET BY ACHD. 9. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN. 10. SAWCUT SIDEWALK. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT. 11. REMOVE AND DISPOSE EXISTING ABANDONED LIGHT POLE BASE, TERMINATE CONDUCTORS IN CONFORMANCE WITH CURRENT ELECTRICAL CODE REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM FUNCTIONALITY AND DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS WITH GOVERNING HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. Tree Protection Notes: A. PROTECT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF THE TREES TO BE RETAINED ON SITE: (NOTE: CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IS THE AREA DIRECTLY BELOW THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE.) A.A. CONSTRUCT PROTECTIVE FENCING OF CHAIN-LINK AROUND THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION. A.B. DO NOT ALLOW COMPACTION BY EQUIPMENT TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION OR DURING DEMOLITION. A.C. DO NOT ALLOW CEMENT TRUCKS TO RINSE WITHIN THE PROTECTION AREA, ANYWHERE THAT TREE ROOTS EXIST OR IN PLANNED PLANTING BEDS. A.D. DO NOT STOCKPILE MATERIALS, DEBRIS OR DIRT WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION AREA. A.E. MAINTAIN WATERING WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE FROM MID -APRIL TO MID -OCTOBER AT THE RATE OF NOT LESS THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF 1-1/2" OF WATER OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PER WEEK. A.F. DO NOT TRENCH, EXCAVATE, FILL OR OTHERWISE DISTURB THE SOIL WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. A.G. ADJUST PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS AS REQUIRED TO AVOID DAMAGING TREE ROOTS. B. PROTECT THE CROWN AND TRUNK OF TREES TO BE RETAINED ON SITE: B.A. OPERATE EQUIPMENT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO AVOID CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNKS OR BRANCHES. B.B. PRUNING OF PUBLIC PROPERTY TREES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY LICENSED ARBORIST. C. ALL TREES DAMAGED OR DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED USING THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: EXISTING TREE REPLACEMENT 1"TO 6" CALIPER .........................2X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED 6" TO 12" CALIPER ......................1,5X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED > 12" OR LARGER CALIPER ......... 1X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED EXAMPLE: IF AN 8" CALIPER TREE IS REMOVED, AN ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT WOULD BE (3) 4" CALIPER TREES OR (4) 3" CALIPER TREES. f Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING DESCRIPTION 201 716650.115 2448895.624 SAWCUT 202 716649.995 2448909.556 SAWCUT 203 716642.842 2448916.248 SAWCUT 204 716633.620 2448916.248 SAWCUT 205 716626.480 2448909.568 SAWCUT 206 716626.468 2448895.623 SAWCUT 207 716604.520 2448893.040 SAWCUT 208 716613.260 2448893.032 SAWCUT 209 716613.074 2448906.259 SAWCUT 210 716595.204 2448924.774 SAWCUT 211 716577.078 2448924.774 SAWCUT 212 716578.570 2448920.780 SAWCUT 213 716560.745 2448920.780 DEMOLITION LIMIT 214 716545.296 2448918.757 DEMOLITION LIMIT 215 716519.379 2448912.040 DEMOLITION LIMIT 218 716488.184 2448912.040 DEMOLITION LIMIT 217 - 716454.059 2448917.908 1 DEMOLITION LIMIT 218 716389.467 2448918.729 DEMOLITION LIMIT 219 716341.664 2448911.786 DEMOLITION LIMIT 220 716308.429 2448912.542 DEMOLITION LIMIT 221 716281.535 2448918.611 DEMOLITION LIMIT 222 716247.231 2448922.483 DEMOLITION LIMIT 223 716212.840 2448912.761 1 SAWCUT 224 716216.270 2448912.735 SAWCUT 225 716215.753 2448910.701 DEMOLITION LIMIT 226 716247.215 2448910.483 DEMOLITION LIMIT 227 716267.551 2448909.036 DEMOLITION LIMIT 228 716305.065 2448900.974 DEMOLITION LIMIT 229 1 716332.190 2448898.236 DEMOLITION LIMIT 230 716391.257 2448906.863 DEMOLITION LIMIT 231 716411.321 2448908.727 DEMOLITION LIMIT 232 716437.688 2448908.007 DEMOLITION LIMIT 233 716493.419 2448898.935 DEMOLITION LIMIT 234 716514.085 2448898.618 DEMOLITION LIMIT 235 716542.157 2448905.233 DEMOLITION LIMIT 236 716560.745 2448908.780 DEMOLITION LIMIT 237 716576.006 2448908.780 DEMOLITION LIMIT 238 716602.185 2448895.905 DEMOLITION LIMIT 239 716602.513 1 2448892.040 1 DEMOLITION LIMIT Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans Capt.,. to all District oilelee and standards. Variances Or waivers must be specifically and prey uysly approved by the District in wailing. Accepntanse f thw.ffman omen) pl s the District does not ralloys We Registered EngiIh es4e bllRles 7 By: / DATE: 7 7 / / ABA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT O e APPROVED FOR :e aA�RN CONSTRUCTION CJ = These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for C compliance with Meridian City Standards and Speclications. This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor of the responsibility to design and/or construct those facilities In Bases_ R� compliance with all current applicable federal, state and local H laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, development agreements, mX specifications, orders or approvals, all of which the City retains W the right to enforce. inconsistencies not noted by City staff shall not be construed as approved unless specifically addressed In writing by the City. Any proposed revision to these plans must be submitted for review and compliance with the Mendlen City Standards and Specifications before said revision Is constructed. Nairne Date - Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans Capt.,. to all District oilelee and standards. Variances Or waivers must be specifically and prey uysly approved by the District in wailing. Accepntanse f thw.ffman omen) pl s the District does not ralloys We Registered EngiIh es4e bllRles 7 By: / DATE: 7 7 / / ABA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT O e l Fi� THE LAND GROUP QaNRPDAAIFD IC? E." Shona Ln, -00 rvb i•Inl..p , . /C x568 07/17,x; Data of Issuance: 06.30.17 ' Designed by: BRS Sheet No. C1,51 a. B :e CJ = l Fi� THE LAND GROUP QaNRPDAAIFD IC? E." Shona Ln, -00 rvb i•Inl..p , . /C x568 07/17,x; Data of Issuance: 06.30.17 ' Designed by: BRS Sheet No. C1,51 a. B CJ = C Bases_ R� 1= H mX W l Fi� THE LAND GROUP QaNRPDAAIFD IC? E." Shona Ln, -00 rvb i•Inl..p , . /C x568 07/17,x; Data of Issuance: 06.30.17 ' Designed by: BRS Sheet No. C1,51 r ill I I ,.X Xm-.I Survey Notes: LIJ / OHP - -_ d -- -d3=_- ------ '_-2571- SS SS ?` MM---- -M ----M M M -M-- M M -M --M-M MMM-_ --M M M 15+00 16+D0 — -- _ __F7tDER ROAD 41 I — — — — I— — - — — — -- S00°00'38"E 1332.88' — -- i 2572-)-.__ I—_—/—Ji-----25 —_ FPO 4 - OJ d3. _ _=,13,d-�-Ot d3-----.01 d3 — D! Od _- O3 _ -- _ - FO _.. _ __ _ _ _ FO -- - FO --- FO FO FO ^7— FO � FO FO �1 \ 1 d3 _--- d3 ----- d3 _ -- - d3 _ _ �4 �_ - 309 -- d3 J3 d3 d3 -� � \ d ---1-' 't=--1= - J J1 + _ g - T -_-d3-- 5 3 15 -12 S.._- SS-_.-Sg 11 S SS SS- J <a-1 T—T--T-'---T-- 1-��U-- - A- -'f- - _ - \ -2573 _ - _ _ _TURTLE—GREEK NO.1 - 2572- _ 305 1-1 COMMON LOTS 306 �._—_2573 --- i X --7F X X—X—X--X—K X K X 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 0 13 for J I I � 10 g 14 I g v I I N I TURTLE CREEK NO.1 Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan l 20 40' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=201 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON ABOVE GROUND EVIDENCE, AND UTILITY COMPANY FACILITY MAPS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF THE ACCURACY OF LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. Survey Legend: C] ELECTRIC RISER pp TELEPHONE RISER - - ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER © FIBER OPTIC RISER 0S SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE QD STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SAWCUT POWER POLE 715826.377 SIGN EASEMENT LINE - - i -P - - -- IRRIGATION VALVE I& -- - i B WATER VALVE FENCE LINE -- -- l t' -- FU FIBER OPTIC UNE - S 5 DECIDUOUS TREE GAS LINE 306 716207.441 2448922.659 _ - CONIFEROUS TREE - - POINT NO. NORTHING BOUNDARY LINE - - - ; --- - CONCRETE AREA SAWCUT 302 715826.219 CURB AND GUTTER SAWCUT - - 715826.377 2448919.037 EASEMENT LINE - - i -P - - -- EP - - EDGE OF PAVEMENT -- - i r -- x - - FENCE LINE -- -- l t' -- FU FIBER OPTIC UNE - S - G - GAS LINE 306 716207.441 2448922.659 OVERHEAD POWER LINE --- --- PIKE ----------- 2448924.260 PRESSURE IRRIGATION LINE -- --- -- - I4 J11 -- RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE --- SF. - - - - - SS SANITARY SEWER LINE SU - ---- STORM DRAIN UNE 1' - - ---- T -- TELEPHONE UNE ---- i;l' - - -- UNDERGROUND POWER LINE ---- I1111 --- - UNDERGROUND CABLE TV - N� --- ---W- -- WATERLINE -- - - VERTICAL CURB Demolition Notes: A. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS PRIOR TO COMMENCING DEMOLITION. C. ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. D. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL 811 OR (800) 342.1585, OR OTHER UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION AND HAVE ALL UTILITIES LOCATED AND MARKED. ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. E. DEMOLITION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES, RULES, REGULATIONS, ETC. REMOVE DEBRIS AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM DEMOLITION FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSE OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. DO NOT ALLOW THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS TO DELAY PROGRESS OF THE WORK. F. ERECT AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, AND GUARDS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE. G. WATER AREA AFFECTED BY THIS WORK TO PREVENT DUST AND DIRT FROM BECOMING AIRBORNE. H. CLEAN ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS OF DUST, DIRT, AND DEBRIS CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATORS AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. RESTORE DEMOLISHED OR DAMAGED WORK TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. PRESERVE AND PROTECT ADJACENT AREAS FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. I. ANY DAMAGE WHICH OCCURS OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/OR REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR. J. ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHOWN TO BE REMOVED AS SUCH VALVE BOXES, VALVES, AND HEADS SHALL BE RETURNED TO OWNER. SEE IRRIGATION PLAN 1-7.50 FOR REINSTALLATION OF SALVAGED ITEMS. Demolition Legend: F/7/1REMOVE 8 DISPOSE OF EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL, 12 -FT MIN. INSIDE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN. ID7REMOVE 8 DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK. PROVIDE A CLEAN VERTICAL SAWCUT AT EDGES OF REMOVAL. STRIP VEGETATION, GRAVELS TO REMAIN, COMPACT IN CONFORMANCE WITH ISPWC AND ACHD REQUIREMENTS. REMOVE 8 DISPOSE OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE. REMOVE 8 REPAIR EXISTING LANDSCAPE AT BACK OF WALK AS NEEDED TO INSTALL IMPROVEMENTS. LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE -------- SAWCUT LINE y Hp-- - OHP HP ----- =C� VM -__- M:-- -. M -__.'... M _.__.-_ M -_.- - M 26+98.71 --y CPBF STA: 17+94.18 21/4 96096870 -OFF: 28.29111 END PROJECT 'FO FO FO FO TO ?S 302- a - 303 d3T - lost , W WIN COORDINATED Kevnotese TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW. 1. NOT USED THIS SHEET. 2. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK. 3. NOT USED THIS SHEET. 4. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING STREET SIGN. 5. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN APPROXIMATE). 6. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING TREE. SEE TREE PROTECTION NOTES, THIS SHEET. 7. NOT USED THIS SHEET. 8. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES IN THIS AREA. 9. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING SEWER AND SANITATION MANHOLE. 10. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE. 11. REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING FIBER OPTICS RISER VAULT. COORDINATE WITH UTILITY PROVIDER. 12. REMOVE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AHEAD SIGN. SALVAGE TO RESET BY ACHD. 13. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY RISERS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES IN THIS AREA. 14. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING RETAINING WALL. 15. PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING HAWK SIGNAL AND CONTROLS. Tree Protection Notes: A. PROTECT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF THE TREES TO BE RETAINED ON SITE: (NOTE: CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IS THE AREA DIRECTLY BELOW THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE.) A.A. CONSTRUCT PROTECTIVE FENCING OF CHAIN-LINK AROUND THE CRITICAL HOOT ZONE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION. A.B. DO NOT ALLOW COMPACTION BY EQUIPMENT TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION OR DURING DEMOLITION. A.C. DO NOT ALLOW CEMENT TRUCKS TO RINSE WITHIN THE PROTECTION AREA, ANYWHERE THAT TREE ROOTS EXIST OR IN PLANNED PLANTING BEDS. A.D. DO NOT STOCKPILE MATERIALS, DEBRIS OR DIRT WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION AREA. A.E. MAINTAIN WATERING WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE FROM MID -APRIL TO MID -OCTOBER AT THE RATE OF NOT LESS THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF 1-1/2' OF WATER OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PER WEEK. A.F. DO NOT TRENCH, EXCAVATE, RLL OR OTHERWISE DISTURB THE SOIL WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. A.G. ADJUST PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT LOCATIONS AS REQUIRED TO AVOID DAMAGING TREE ROOTS. B. PROTECT THE CROWN AND TRUNK OF TREES TO BE RETAINED ON SITE: B.A. OPERATE EQUIPMENT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO AVOID CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNKS OR BRANCHES. B.B. PRUNING OF PUBLIC PROPERTY TREES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED ARBORIST. C. ALL TREES DAMAGED OR DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED USING THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: EXISTING TREE REPLACEMENT 1"TO 6' CALIPER .........................2X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED 6" TO 12' CALIPER ......................1.5X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED > 12' OR LARGER CALIPER ......... 1X CALIPER OF TREE REMOVED EXAMPLE: IF AN 8" CALIPER TREE IS REMOVED, AN ACCEPTABLE REPLACEMENT WOULD BE (3) 4" CALIPER TREES OR (4) 3" CALIPER TREES. Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING I DESCRIPTION 301 715832.669 2448928.432 SAWCUT 302 715826.219 2448928.305 SAWCUT 303 715826.377 2448919.037 SAWCUT 304 715826.355 2448914.242 SAWCUT 305 715862.531 2448914.045 DEMOLITION LIMIT 306 715862.531 2448912.103 DEMOLITION LIMIT 307 716207.411 2448910.759 DEMOLITION LIMIT 306 716207.441 2448922.659 DEMOLITION LIMIT 309 715834.466 2448924.260 DEMOLITION LIMIT Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. variances or .elvers ..at he sp ecllleally and prwhm. ',Proved by the District in writing. Acceptance of the I. emenl plans b h District does not relieve the Registered Engineer ase re d Ib t s. BY: BATE. ADA couxrr xlexwdy DISTRICT SII O ay W 3 B� ww�B Nrr�a. be. G� lei CIWERQUN APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION O These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for compliance with Meridian City Standards and Specifications. � This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor of the responsibility to design andlor construct those facilities in compliance with all current applicable federal, state and local v laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, development agreements, c specifications, orders or approvals, all of which the City retains the right to enforce. inconsistencies not noted by City staff shall not be construed as approved unless specifically addressed In a�B.1 writing by the City. Any proposed revision to Nese plans must y be submitted for review and compliance with the Meridian City x Standards and Specifications before said revision is constructed. W Name Date Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. variances or .elvers ..at he sp ecllleally and prwhm. ',Proved by the District in writing. Acceptance of the I. emenl plans b h District does not relieve the Registered Engineer ase re d Ib t s. BY: BATE. ADA couxrr xlexwdy DISTRICT SII O ay W 3 B� ww�B Nrr�a. be. G� y lei O � y O � O �N v c a�B.1 y x W A3 On i': THE LAND GROUP nxduvgar® +rz ern sn°.. o.n.c .neo- roo £a91r Idaho tl9 Pp zoo .949. Ia AJ F 208 0A.B39 "IS ..iur 14=l UJ P3nc eom 1568 o7/1z Pmlect No.: 1152% Date of Issuance: 66.36.17 Designed by. ORS Cheched by: JG Shat No: C1 .52 -W -W--- % W- 36 o+oo 1 5+00 35 41 CP&F 98117242 - SS " h c N N g 4 � 04 402 _eJg 900990. w W W W- W W W W 6+00 0-9-9- W W W S00'01'29"E 1365.83' I' \ 431 SS 12 430 '�✓_9 �'"�. y� / 2589' •e' . 'X� X- L -- 58' 63.85' U COORDINATED Keynotes: TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW. 1. LIMIT OF IMPROVEMENTS 2. INSTALL 5" THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CURRENT ACHD SUPPLEMENT STANDARD DRAWING SD -709 AND DETAILS 1 & 2/C2.50. 3. INSTALL 6' CURB AND GUTTER) PER ISPWC STANDARD DRAWING SD -701 AND DETAIL 6/C2.50, MATCH EXISTING CURB, TAPER TO BACK OF SIDEWALK, 4. INSTALL 5 -FT WIDE ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP PER ISPWC ACHD SUPPLEMENT SD -712C WITH DETECTABLE WARNING FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PER ISPWC SD -712. 5. NEW 2" EMERALD QUEEN NORWAY MAPLE. SEE DETAIL 7/1-1.50. 6. INSTALL ASPHALT REPAIR PATCH PER DETAIL 3/C2.50 (ACRD R.O.W.). 7. INSTALL AND FIELD FIT IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES TO MATCH EXISTING. SEE SHEET 1.1.50. 8. INSTALL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WITH RAMPED SIDEWALK PER ISPWC (ACRD SUPPLEMENT) SD -710B. 9. FEATHER GRAVEL REPAIR TO MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY GRADE. 10. INSTALL ASPHALT REPAIR PATCH PER DETAIL 4/C2.50 (OUTSIDE R.O.W.). 11. INSTALL CURB TERMINUS PER ISPWC SD -707. 12. ADJUST EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER TO FINISHED SIDEWALK GRADE PER ISPWC SD -508. Grading Notes: A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE AT A 1 -FT INTERVAL. B. SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ON ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5%. CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2%, NO TOLERANCES ALLOWED. SLOPES WITHIN PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12:1 SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. C. ASPHALT REPAIR WITHIN EXISTING ASPHALT AREAS SHALL MATCH EXISTING GRADES, SLOPES AND MAINTAIN EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS. Site Layout Plan HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' Material Le4end -W W W W W W -W W g -W WCINDER ROAD W W N.7+00 8+00 9+00 0-9-9 WWI FO FO FO FO FO FO - _ FO FO FO Od Oi EP OA 'L 04 '03 _ -- EP EP EP EP T�� ao EP EP _ _ �_ _6P- oe.« L -T 2 T - T - tBW Nx - R7W T TRLdLT-..+ 7 Plot RAV _ ] 413 415 RM i ' 405 2 406 T 5 T 407 408 ` 409 - _ SS 5 73 - - 411 SS _11 96 SS S$. 412 i, * , N_ / I 429 428 MMrAON LU=-- / ) _ • - _ - 4^25) (�424�}��/5 ��%-X- �_-X-�- - �2575'6g� -XT�/ -�/ x..423 427 1 1- 426 rn I I I II TUMB<lE CREEK NO.5 � I I � STANDARD CONCRETE ASPHALT REPAIR PATCH - FLATWORK-SEE DETAIL171 SEE DETAIL 3/C2.50 1/C2.50. [A CONCRETE CURB AND LANDSCAPE &SOD TO BE GUTTER - SEE DETAIL REPAIRED. El 6/C2.50. 171 INSTALL 4" COMPACTED DEPTH OF 3/4' MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL, PLACEMENTAND COMPACTION PER ISPWC AND ACHD REQUIREMENTS. Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION 401 717071.278 2448913.148 2570.74 TC, MATCH 402 717071.326 2448922.056 2570.34 LIP, MATCH 403 717007.491 2448922.399 2570.47 LIP, MATCH 404 716954.036 2448920.686 2572.64 TOP CONCRETE 405 716937.900 2448919.000 2573.27 TOP CONCRETE 406 716890.291 2448908.341 2574.40 TOP CONCRETE 407 2 N 2448908.193 �FO' TOP CONCRETE 408 716833.554 2448914.797 2574.62 ce 4D9 716797.872 2448914.698 2574.65 1g 410 403 2448911.004 a 404 TOP CONCRETE 411 716755.988 EP 1 2574.44 TOP CONCRETE 412 716735.711 F 2573.77 TOP CONCRETE 413 716718.578 2448920.569 2573.30 TOP CONCRETE 414 716695.950 2448920.480 2573.10 TOP CONCRETE 415 716695.946 2448922.480 2572.68 I' \ 431 SS 12 430 '�✓_9 �'"�. y� / 2589' •e' . 'X� X- L -- 58' 63.85' U COORDINATED Keynotes: TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW. 1. LIMIT OF IMPROVEMENTS 2. INSTALL 5" THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CURRENT ACHD SUPPLEMENT STANDARD DRAWING SD -709 AND DETAILS 1 & 2/C2.50. 3. INSTALL 6' CURB AND GUTTER) PER ISPWC STANDARD DRAWING SD -701 AND DETAIL 6/C2.50, MATCH EXISTING CURB, TAPER TO BACK OF SIDEWALK, 4. INSTALL 5 -FT WIDE ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP PER ISPWC ACHD SUPPLEMENT SD -712C WITH DETECTABLE WARNING FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PER ISPWC SD -712. 5. NEW 2" EMERALD QUEEN NORWAY MAPLE. SEE DETAIL 7/1-1.50. 6. INSTALL ASPHALT REPAIR PATCH PER DETAIL 3/C2.50 (ACRD R.O.W.). 7. INSTALL AND FIELD FIT IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES TO MATCH EXISTING. SEE SHEET 1.1.50. 8. INSTALL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WITH RAMPED SIDEWALK PER ISPWC (ACRD SUPPLEMENT) SD -710B. 9. FEATHER GRAVEL REPAIR TO MATCH EXISTING ROADWAY GRADE. 10. INSTALL ASPHALT REPAIR PATCH PER DETAIL 4/C2.50 (OUTSIDE R.O.W.). 11. INSTALL CURB TERMINUS PER ISPWC SD -707. 12. ADJUST EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER TO FINISHED SIDEWALK GRADE PER ISPWC SD -508. Grading Notes: A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE AT A 1 -FT INTERVAL. B. SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ON ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5%. CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2%, NO TOLERANCES ALLOWED. SLOPES WITHIN PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12:1 SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. C. ASPHALT REPAIR WITHIN EXISTING ASPHALT AREAS SHALL MATCH EXISTING GRADES, SLOPES AND MAINTAIN EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS. Site Layout Plan HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' Material Le4end -W W W W W W -W W g -W WCINDER ROAD W W N.7+00 8+00 9+00 0-9-9 WWI FO FO FO FO FO FO - _ FO FO FO Od Oi EP OA 'L 04 '03 _ -- EP EP EP EP T�� ao EP EP _ _ �_ _6P- oe.« L -T 2 T - T - tBW Nx - R7W T TRLdLT-..+ 7 Plot RAV _ ] 413 415 RM i ' 405 2 406 T 5 T 407 408 ` 409 - _ SS 5 73 - - 411 SS _11 96 SS S$. 412 i, * , N_ / I 429 428 MMrAON LU=-- / ) _ • - _ - 4^25) (�424�}��/5 ��%-X- �_-X-�- - �2575'6g� -XT�/ -�/ x..423 427 1 1- 426 rn I I I II TUMB<lE CREEK NO.5 � I I � STANDARD CONCRETE ASPHALT REPAIR PATCH - FLATWORK-SEE DETAIL171 SEE DETAIL 3/C2.50 1/C2.50. [A CONCRETE CURB AND LANDSCAPE &SOD TO BE GUTTER - SEE DETAIL REPAIRED. El 6/C2.50. 171 INSTALL 4" COMPACTED DEPTH OF 3/4' MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL, PLACEMENTAND COMPACTION PER ISPWC AND ACHD REQUIREMENTS. Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION 401 717071.278 2448913.148 2570.74 TC, MATCH 402 717071.326 2448922.056 2570.34 LIP, MATCH 403 717007.491 2448922.399 2570.47 LIP, MATCH 404 716954.036 2448920.686 2572.64 TOP CONCRETE 405 716937.900 2448919.000 2573.27 TOP CONCRETE 406 716890.291 2448908.341 2574.40 TOP CONCRETE 407 716864.754 2448908.193 2574.56 TOP CONCRETE 408 716833.554 2448914.797 2574.62 TOP CONCRETE 4D9 716797.872 2448914.698 2574.65 TOP CONCRETE 410 1 716780.897 2448911.004 2574.64 TOP CONCRETE 411 716755.988 2448911.942 2574.44 TOP CONCRETE 412 716735.711 2448917.982 2573.77 TOP CONCRETE 413 716718.578 2448920.569 2573.30 TOP CONCRETE 414 716695.950 2448920.480 2573.10 TOP CONCRETE 415 716695.946 2448922.480 2572.68 LIP, MATCH 416 716665.141 2448892.044 2571.42 LIP, MATCH _ - \ 421-420 422 p - ca ��- 419 X �60- o I I I I I 0 20' 40' T Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION 417 716672.110 2448892.071 2571.87 TOP CONCRETE 418 716672.147 2448896.628 2572.01 TOP CONCRETE 419 716700.786 2448910.480 2572.97 TOP CONCRETE 420 716718.578 2448910.482 2573.46 TOP CONCRETE 421 716732.855 2448908.398 1 2573.95 TOP CONCRETE 422 716753.125 2448902.357 2574.62 TOP CONCRETE 423 716783.024 2448901.231 2574.82 TOP CONCRETE 424 716799.999 2448904.925 2574.83 TOP CONCRETE 425 716831.483 2448905.014 2574.80 TOP CONCRETE 426 716862.682 2448898.410 2574.73 TOP CONCRETE 427 716892.475 2448898.583 2574.58 TOP CONCRETE 428 716940.084 2448909.240 2573.45 TOP CONCRETE 429 716953.948 2448910.686 2572.82 1 TOP CONCRETE 430 717065.278 2448913.180 2570.31 TOP CONCRETE, ANGLE POINT 431 717055.262 2448910.142 2570.49 TOP CONCRETE, ANGLE POINT Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensure$ ft District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances m valvers must be speclfically7snd poolousI pproved by the Districlin writing. A<eeplane Itb m rove of plans by f Dirtrist does not relieve the Registered Engineer the r 1 IIIIes. 1 DATE: 13 / ADA COUNTS HIGHWAY DISTRICT Dale of Issuance: C V EP,1D1AN� APPROVED FOR Designed by: In p.aa CONSTRUCTION JG These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for compliance with Meridian City Standards and Specifications. This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor of the responsibility to design and/or construct those facilities in compliance with all current applicable federal, state and local laws, rules. regulations, ordinances, development agreements, specifications, orders or approvals, all of which the City retains the right to enforce. inconsistencies not noted by City staff shall not be construed as approved unless specifically addressed in writing by the City. Any proposed revision to these plans must be submitted for review and compliance with the Meridian City Standards and Specifications before said revision is constructed. Name Date Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensure$ ft District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances m valvers must be speclfically7snd poolousI pproved by the Districlin writing. A<eeplane Itb m rove of plans by f Dirtrist does not relieve the Registered Engineer the r 1 IIIIes. 1 DATE: 13 / ADA COUNTS HIGHWAY DISTRICT Q n= W ■r k LUi •Ir CL A� W MO land CD ow C4 THE LAND GROUP avcogroRn� 162 Eost Share knI,r Suit• 100 £ogle. Idaho 83GF6 Ph, 208939, 041 Far209.9994145 wmw thefm,dgrrupiau rem VA Project No.: 115206 Dale of Issuance: 06.30.17 Designed by: In >s JG B � gps 6 �EEFaF � 8 8� le Q n= W ■r k LUi •Ir CL A� W MO land CD ow C4 THE LAND GROUP avcogroRn� 162 Eost Share knI,r Suit• 100 £ogle. Idaho 83GF6 Ph, 208939, 041 Far209.9994145 wmw thefm,dgrrupiau rem VA Project No.: 115206 Dale of Issuance: 06.30.17 Designed by: In Chocked W: JG Sheat No. 2 . 0 0 0- .�W-W-WW1NyVVy-yy-WWWWWWM111M 10+00 11+00 S00°01'2,,E 1365.83' 12+00 G�-000 DD00 O� 0 0 O O 0 -MM M MMMMMMMMM MM- PI STA: 13+65.83 - - - - - 13+00 - - - _ - '-SOOe00'38"E 1332.88' 14+00 505 EP EP EP 3 -EP EP d3 -d3 -d3 EP EP EP Oi i Oi Oi Oi rrV OA Oi Oi _ _ -Oi OA Oi T \ FO FO PO FO EO - T-TETT 1 TT 506 ?.L-- --L_-_T- Z_ -T- T T TT y T-TT � - - �A - 2 _ -_ _ _-___-pM SS.. R3 N Sg �l 8 10 SS 507 2 S SS SS _ SS SS SS r S$ SS -' $6 5 -R� - - 5S - @ �% 7 -- -__ - 512 __ 3 - 1 -- 7 \\ 51 ---- 8 9 509 - 51 511 _ 1 -2574 a 515 _ 3 4 3 •/ / `§ __I z ". 514_4.... 502 .. i �` T o - _ - •: ' . - - .' �. _ - I y + 525 i 523' TUMBLE CRECK ON LOT P & 4 - t • �y '' ' �' 519 1.0 Z � 7 COM I 524 _ _ 5 S 1 528 _ 522 u75�-- J - _ .-/-- \ - i 529 7 I 527 526 � 1 - 521 - / 520 � �\ y -X ,C --X-$,=Y-Y-1L-X-Y-X-�C-Y- -X-X-Y = 7L- �iC_=�(- -Y-- -X X�L�--X� =X - Ln 1 ) 503 531 i i S, ty Luii ac ed� 501 i�� o W y TUMBLE CREEK NO.6 � a I Site Layout Plan HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' Keynotes: �CALLOUT TONUMBEREDN TESBELOIN. Grading Notes: TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW. 1. LIMIT OF IMPROVEMENTS A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE AT A 1 -FT INTERVAL. 2. INSTALL 5" THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CURRENT ACHD SUPPLEMENT B. SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ON ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5%. STANDARD DRAWING SD -709 AND DETAILS 1 8 Z/C2.50. CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2%, NO TOLERANCES ALLOWED. SLOPES WITHIN PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12:1 SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. 3. INSTALL 6" CURB AND GUTTER) PER ISPWC STANDARD DRAWING SD -701, MATCH EXISTING CURB, TAPER TO BACK OF SIDEWALK. C. ASPHALT REPAIR WITHIN EXISTING ASPHALT AREAS SHALL MATCH EXISTING GRADES, SLOPES AND MAINTAIN EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS. 4. INSTALL 5 -FT ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP PER ISPWC ACHD SUPPLEMENT SD -712C WITH DETECTABLE WARNING FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PER ISPWC SD -712. 5. INSTALL SALVAGED STOP SIGN PER DETAIL 7/C2.50. Material Legend STANDARD CONCRETE ASPHALT REPAIR PATCH - 6. INSTALL ASPHALT REPAIR PATCH PER DETAIL 4/C2.50. FLATWORK - SEE DETAIL SEE DETAIL 3/C2.50 1/C2.50. 7. INSTALL AND FIELD FIT IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND RELATED 171 APPURTENANCES TO MATCH EXISTING. SEE SHEET 11.50. CONCRETE CURB AND LANDSCAPE TO BE 8. INSTALL SOD LANDSCAPING REPAIR THIS AREA TO LIMITS SHOWN; FIELD RT AND00 GUTTER -SEE DETAIL REPAIRED. 0. REPAIR ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION SEE SHEET 11.50. 6/C2. ER 9. INSTALL CROSSWALK STRIPING IN CONFORMANCE WITH ACHD REQUIREMENTS, GRAVEL REPAIR 'MATCH LAWN/SOD TO BE POSITION MARKINGS TO AVOID WHEEL PATHS. TO EXISTING REPAIRED. 10. INSTALL CURB TERMINUS PER ISPWC SD -707. F] Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION 501 716648.218 2448895.589 2572.10 LIP, MATCH 502 716638.264 2448895.602 2572.49 CENTER POINT 503 716628.309 2448895.616 2572.07 LIP, MATCH 504 716611.260 2448893.046 2571.62 LIP, MATCH 505 716578.729 2448922.780 2572.65 LIP, MATCH 506 716578.732 2448920.780 2573.07 TOP CONCRETE 507 716560.745 2448920.780 2573.79 TOP CONCRETE 508 716541.441 2448917.592 2574.52 TOP CONCRETE 509 716527.311 2448913.756 2575.07 TOP CONCRETE 510 716519.379 2448912.041 2575.28 TOP CONCRETE 511 716495.554 2448910.774 2575.38 TOP CONCRETE 512 716454.059 2448917.908 2574.96 TOP CONCRETE 513 716389.467 2448918.730 2574.71 TOP CONCRETE 514 716341.664 2448911.786 2574.40 TOP CONCRETE 515 716307.423 2448912.741 2573.75 TOP CONCRETE 516 716282.776 2448918.329 2572.68 TOP CONCRETE Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION 517 716248.320 2448922.475 2572.06 TOP CONCRETE 518 716247.188 2448912.483 2572.22 TOP CONCRETE 519 716269.739 2448910.680 2572.65 TOP CONCRETE 520 716305.437 2448902.940 2573.93 TOP CONCRETE 521 716343.101 2448901.890 2574.58 TOP CONCRETE 522 716390.911 2448908.834 2574.89 TOP CONCRETE 523 716452.364 2448908.054 2575.14 TOP CONCRETE 524 716494.163 2448900.865 2575.56 TOP CONCRETE 525 716521.492 2448902.266 2575.46 TOP CONCRETE 526 527 716529.424 716544.992 2448903.980 2575.25 2574.68 TOP CONCRETE TOP CONCRETE 2448908.234 528 716560.340 2448910.811 2573.99 TOP CONCRETE 529 716575.709 2448910.780 2573.25 TOP CONCRETE 530 716604.533 2448896.604 2572.22 TOP CONCRETE 531 716604.520 2448893.040 2572.10 TOP CONCRETE, MATCH 0 20' 40' 04 = 10 STA: 9+24.44, OFF: 35.80 TBC: 2573.10 ------ - 260% ° - STA: 9+42.90, OFF: 41.62'fl STA: 10+21.01, OFF: TBC: 2572.58 TBC: a O° a a le v 8.3% FL/GB: 2571.94 FLIGB: 2572.21 ° TC: 2572.54 \ STA: 9+82.11, OFF: 52.79'R ae .... \ ,i• .TBC: 2572.98 TC: 2572.45 s 1 FL/GB: 2571.63 FL/GB: 2572.10 \ STA: 9+52.37, OFF: 56.1515'R \ / TBC:2572.11 _X= X-X-X-X-X-X� �- STA: 9+90.04, OFF: 60.771R STA: 9+53.22, OFF: 64.26R STA: 9+74.16, OFF: 60.75'R TBC/MX 2572.46 TBC/MX:2571.84 a TBC/MX: 2572.51 / e 9_ Intersection rading Detail HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10' lipA 10 R/ STA: 10+47.65, OFF: 35.591R TBC: 2573.07 11.599 572.77 e ^y } TC: 2572.81 - - /f n STA: 10+11.75, OFF: 56.21'R TBC: 2572.34 ° J / 10+10.92, OFF: 63.32W1- X- X- XX - M M-- 04 = 10 STA: 9+24.44, OFF: 35.80 TBC: 2573.10 ------ - 260% ° - STA: 9+42.90, OFF: 41.62'fl STA: 10+21.01, OFF: TBC: 2572.58 TBC: a O° a a le v 8.3% FL/GB: 2571.94 FLIGB: 2572.21 ° TC: 2572.54 \ STA: 9+82.11, OFF: 52.79'R ae .... \ ,i• .TBC: 2572.98 TC: 2572.45 s 1 FL/GB: 2571.63 FL/GB: 2572.10 \ STA: 9+52.37, OFF: 56.1515'R \ / TBC:2572.11 _X= X-X-X-X-X-X� �- STA: 9+90.04, OFF: 60.771R STA: 9+53.22, OFF: 64.26R STA: 9+74.16, OFF: 60.75'R TBC/MX 2572.46 TBC/MX:2571.84 a TBC/MX: 2572.51 / e 9_ Intersection rading Detail HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10' lipA 10 R/ STA: 10+47.65, OFF: 35.591R TBC: 2573.07 11.599 572.77 e ^y } TC: 2572.81 - - /f n STA: 10+11.75, OFF: 56.21'R TBC: 2572.34 ° J / 10+10.92, OFF: 63.32W1- X- X- XX - Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction BY stamping and signing the Improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers must be specillcallY antl previously approved by the District In wrlling. Accepinnce f 1 Improvement p a by the District does net relieve the Registered Englnaer 1 a sib111B BV• DATE: on toss xlexwA msrela 0 -II x W 3 cc CL) 'a �_ =a THE LAND GROUP 01NBaaD m 162 sea[ .SM1me YMve. suite Ina eagle. IdnLo 82616 Ph tal9.99'011 Pax T939 J IJ:i weu. Ilmlmnl9rovArn. rom [568 ) 07/12 0I 7 Project No.: 115206 Date of Issuance: 06.30.17 Designed by: JG Checied by: JG Sheet No, 2 ■ O1 ■ C W APPROVED FOR alAoi CONSTRUCTION These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for compliance with Meridian City Standards and Specifications. This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor of the responsibility to design and/or construct those facilities in compliance with all current applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, development agreements, specifications, orders or approvals, all of which the City retains the right to enforce. inconsistencies not noted by City staff shall not be construed as approved unless specifically addressed in writing by the City. Any proposed revision to these plans must be submitted for review and compliance with the Meridian City Standards and Specifications before said revision is constructed. Name Date Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction BY stamping and signing the Improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans conform to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers must be specillcallY antl previously approved by the District In wrlling. Accepinnce f 1 Improvement p a by the District does net relieve the Registered Englnaer 1 a sib111B BV• DATE: on toss xlexwA msrela 0 -II x W 3 cc CL) 'a �_ =a THE LAND GROUP 01NBaaD m 162 sea[ .SM1me YMve. suite Ina eagle. IdnLo 82616 Ph tal9.99'011 Pax T939 J IJ:i weu. Ilmlmnl9rovArn. rom [568 ) 07/12 0I 7 Project No.: 115206 Date of Issuance: 06.30.17 Designed by: JG Checied by: JG Sheet No, 2 ■ O1 ■ •OH p / 9 'J _. -9-ODD D DODOODDO D D D0 DDD9'-D-- D D D�D CP . iv1 -- MM M MMMMMM M M M MMMMMMMM M M- - — — — — i5+0o_ �16+00 - - - - — — � ;7 per ROAD�SS - — — — - —500"00'38"E 1332.88' � — — - - - --2572+- -- -------------- i-- -_2571 R--per=x-EP �� EPOi Cj d3--03 8 n+ ru nu Oi v� FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO f0 I y / HP'. OHP, .•P _ / 7 i -M M--�M / M M M OIL STA: 17+94.18— 1/4 CP&F OFF: 28.29'R 2 96096870 d3 d3 d3 8-8-6 �s N y�� — • .. - FO \' FO FO FO FO _J 4 p d3 d3 d3—. —d3—d / - - - _ S 1 604 SS SS SS — 1 _ i`�- _ T -T- _ T r 5 T ��. `-6 1 2 25703 8023 T _ 55._—_—SS _--SS:—_—;gS.. ,�r- •_ .--.,,-.«_- 1 dT i - - -2572- 5j iw - -- — — — _ — --- --- — — — —_— — — _— — — - < I - _ - 2573- z 2573 — _ _ go tab - - - - _TURTLE -GRE -EK NO.1EO - --2572--- - - - - - , ` - - sot - - - \\ ao ao \ ____-- - COMMONLOT\----- 257a - W \257 I I ���'� --- ---- ..I -----------2573.----- I % X ---XI �Y --.X� --_i6- "-�- .. n X—X —K— X X—X X X—X- X--X—X�I X- X X— X 3'�LX X X75 W ` Vert_— Vim! 2 W rA . ss IM \\ 1- Cj TURTLE CREEK NOA \ \ ss \ I I I I Site Layout Plan D 2a '" HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=20' ATED Kevnotese ��O# TO NUMBEREDLOUT NOTES BELOW. TO NUMBERED NOTES BELOW. 1. LIMIT OF IMPROVEMENTS 2. INSTALL 5" THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CURRENT ACHD SUPPLEMENT STANDARD DRAWING SD -709 AND DETAILS 1 & 2/C2.50. 3. INSTALL SALVAGED STREET SIGN PER DETAIL 7/C2.50. 4. PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC RISER LOCATION. WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY AND FULLY COORDINATED WITH RELEVANT UTILITY AUTHORITY. 5. ADJUST EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER TO FINISHED SIDEWALK GRADE PER ISPWC SO -508, 6. ADJUST STORM MANHOLE TO NEW SIDEWALK ELEVATION PER ISPWC SD -616. 7. INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PER ISPWC SD -712. t Grading Notes: A. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE AT A 1 -FT INTERVAL. B. SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ON ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5%. CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2%, NO TOLERANCES ALLOWED. SLOPES WITHIN PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12:1 SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. C. ASPHALT REPAIR WITHIN EXISTING ASPHALT AREAS SHALL MATCH EXISTING GRADES, SLOPES AND MAINTAIN EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS. Material Legend 171 STANDARD CONCRETE LAWWSOD TO BE FLATWORK -SEE DETAIL REPAIRED. /C2.50. El 17 INSTALL 4* AGGREGATECOMPACTED DEPTH OF "MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL, PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION PER ISPWC AND ACHD REQUIREMENTS. Point Table POINT NO. NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION 601 715826.355 2448914.295 2571.86 TOP CONCRETE, MATCH 602 715826.409 2448924.304 2571.46 TOP CONCRETE, MATCH 603 715833.240 2448924.266 2571.69 TOP CONCRETE 604 716206.021 2448922.685 2572DO TOP CONCRETE 605 716207.420 1 2448912.761 2572.19 TOP CONCRETE Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction BY stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans comlorm to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers must be specifically and previously approved by the District in writing. Acceptant f1 Impro moot plan rthe Dlstrld does nal mllave the fleglsteretl Engines t se es ibilNlec B DATE: 7� ADA COUNTY AIGHWAYlliSTRICT =I 0 •sawas N i C) f1C LU 3 t r•+ ev CL CD to 0 Cz C4 pis 1111110111111i W THE LAND GROUP DJCOegR/,TTfl) J6: 6'mf SAorr Dmm. ?urtc r06 e-wm rl:,n" e=rfe 07 r Date of Issuance: 06.30.17 r r Designed bv: G Sheet%.: MR I/VI APPROVED FOR aUN CONSTRUCTION These plans and/or specifications have been reviewed for compliance with Meridian City Standards and Specifications. This review does not relieve the owner, engineer, or contractor of the responsibility to design and/or construct those facilities in compliance with all current applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, development agreements, specifications, orders or approvals, all of which the City retains the right to enforce. inconsistencies not noted by City staff shall not be construed as approved unless specifically addressed in writing by the City. Any proposed revision to these plans must be submitted for review and compliance with the Meridian City Standards and Specifications before said revision is constructed. Name Date Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction BY stamping and signing the improvement plans, the Registered Engineer ensures the District that the plans comlorm to all District policies and standards. Variances or waivers must be specifically and previously approved by the District in writing. Acceptant f1 Impro moot plan rthe Dlstrld does nal mllave the fleglsteretl Engines t se es ibilNlec B DATE: 7� ADA COUNTY AIGHWAYlliSTRICT =I 0 •sawas N i C) f1C LU 3 t r•+ ev CL CD to 0 Cz C4 pis 1111110111111i W THE LAND GROUP DJCOegR/,TTfl) J6: 6'mf SAorr Dmm. ?urtc r06 e-wm rl:,n" e=rfe 07 r Date of Issuance: 06.30.17 r r Designed bv: G Sheet%.: MR BUILDING LINE, COLUMNS, CURBS, CONC. FOOTING, ETC. SEALANT -POLYURETHANE SEALANT FS -TT -S-00227, TYPE II, NON -SAG AND TYPE I -SELF LEVELING, CLASS A EXPANSION JOINT NOTE: 1. JOINTS SHALL BE SPACED EVENLY THROUGHOUT LENGTH OF WALK, AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS, 2. CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 40008 IN CONFORMANCE WITH ISPWC STANDARDS. Standard Concrete Flatwork Scale'. NTS NOTE B M I I�� B DOME SECTION A LIGHT BROOM FINISH TOOLED SCORE JOINT 1/2' RADIUS 5' DEPTH CONCRETE 4° DEPTH, TYPE'B' BASE PER SPECIFICATIOIN COMPACTED SUB -GRADE DOME SPACING W 1/4° — SCORE JOINT F EXPANSION JOINT 1/2" RADIUS (TYP.) SEALANT POLYURETHANE SEALANT FS -TT -S-00227, TYPE II, NON -SAG AND TYPE I -SELF LEVELING, CLASS A CONCRETE FLATWORK AS SPECIFIED, WIDTH PER PLANS JJ BASE COURSE AS SPECIFIED COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOTE: 1. CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 40008 IN CONFORMANCE WITH ISPWC STANDARDS. Concrete Joints Sc,le NTS 18' R7/? 6' 1' BATTER ASPHALT PAVING ,��1✓�\ j °R3-1/2' m 1/2' 1' iS ✓�\\ RI 81/2" _ i NOTES: AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTED SUBGRADE 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SHALL BE 24" IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND EXTEND THE FULL WIDTH OF THE CURB RAMP, LANDING OR BLEND TRANSITION. 2. DETECTABLE WARNING SHALL HAVE A DIAMETER OF 50% TO 65% OF THE BASE DIAMETER OF DOME. 3. DETECTABLE WARNING DOMES SHALL BE PRE -MANUFACTURED UNITS INTEGRALLY CAST INTO CONCRETE RAMP TO ACHIEVE THE TRUNCATED DOME DIMENSIONS AND SPACING SHOWN. SURFACES SHALL CONTRAST VISUALLY WITH ADJACENT WALKING SURFACES EITHER LIGHT -ON -DARK, OR DARK -ON -LIGHT, METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION AND COLORATION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. Detectable Warning Pattern Scale: NTS 11 8 f a } 9 F 6 -IN Curb/12-IN Catch Plate Gutter scab NTS ASPHALT PAVING TOP COURSE 3/4" MINUS GRAVEL TYPE B BASE COURSE STRUCTURAL TYPE A FILL COURSE. COMPACT TO 95% DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D698. COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR. Heavy Duty Asphalt Section - ACHD R.O.W. Scale'. NTS PLAN VIEW SIGN (TYP.) 2" x 2" x 10' (MIN.) SQUARE z GALVANIZED PERFORATED SIGN POST l (12 GAUGE MIN. WALL THICKNESS) 3/8' x 3-1/2" CADMIUM PLATED HEX HEAD BOLT WITH FLAT LOCK WASHER AND NUT SECTION VIEW I_ NOTE: 1. TOP OF POST TO BE CUT 1/2' BELOW TOP OF SIGN. FINISH GRADE SLOPE TOP OF CONCRETE TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM SIGN POST 2-1/2"x 2-1/2"x 18" LONG ANCHOR POST, NON PERFORATED (12 GAUGE MIN. WALL THICKNESS) WRAP ANCHOR SLEEVE AND ANCHOR POST WITH (1) LAYER OF DUCT TAPE 2-1/4"x 2-1/4"x 36" LONG ANCHOR POST, NON PERFORATED (12 GAUGE MIN. WALL THICKNESS) CONCRETE FOOTING NOTE: 1. SIGN POSTS IN LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE SET BACK 2' MIN. FROM BACK OF CURB AND/OR BACK OF SIDEWALK. Sign Post And Scale NTS Asphalt Section $Calc tjTS ASPHALT PAVING TOP COURSE 3/4" MINUS GRAVEL TYPE B BASE COURSE STRUCTURAL TYPE A RLL COURSE. COMPACT TO 95% DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D698. COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR. Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By slenping ani S:gn'ng the imprbwby,m pans. the Regislinq rlgnefr ensures !'rP D,Sltln (hal the Peens a�nlonn ro ell piS!rty Opec06 an0 sta^aertls. Vznancas cr wowcrs muss be iPPtihcitly �tl n'evpusq aprrOved by P. 'w"g. ActpplenOB of mepl ns h; the D'slnc s rpt relieve We Rd m En, ae Y a sQYIS:D i f. RY A C UN ATE IiIOHVlAY TRICT C 0 .y C W cc 3 i g� s H 6s �Y ggg8 9E Q �5g5g55gggg� 6� O t A W 9 d 2 gii THE LAND GROUP a.IcperorwT® 162 E-1 STmr Dn .'.am 100 Engle Idnhu 99016 Ph 209 9,91O11 Fr 'M 9:19 1115 un,o/Gn/nnrlV°unY,nu rorn A w Purled NO.: MIN. MA%. A I-5re' 2 V8• 8 7/8• 1-7/18' W 1/4° — SCORE JOINT F EXPANSION JOINT 1/2" RADIUS (TYP.) SEALANT POLYURETHANE SEALANT FS -TT -S-00227, TYPE II, NON -SAG AND TYPE I -SELF LEVELING, CLASS A CONCRETE FLATWORK AS SPECIFIED, WIDTH PER PLANS JJ BASE COURSE AS SPECIFIED COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOTE: 1. CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 40008 IN CONFORMANCE WITH ISPWC STANDARDS. Concrete Joints Sc,le NTS 18' R7/? 6' 1' BATTER ASPHALT PAVING ,��1✓�\ j °R3-1/2' m 1/2' 1' iS ✓�\\ RI 81/2" _ i NOTES: AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTED SUBGRADE 1. DETECTABLE WARNING SHALL BE 24" IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND EXTEND THE FULL WIDTH OF THE CURB RAMP, LANDING OR BLEND TRANSITION. 2. DETECTABLE WARNING SHALL HAVE A DIAMETER OF 50% TO 65% OF THE BASE DIAMETER OF DOME. 3. DETECTABLE WARNING DOMES SHALL BE PRE -MANUFACTURED UNITS INTEGRALLY CAST INTO CONCRETE RAMP TO ACHIEVE THE TRUNCATED DOME DIMENSIONS AND SPACING SHOWN. SURFACES SHALL CONTRAST VISUALLY WITH ADJACENT WALKING SURFACES EITHER LIGHT -ON -DARK, OR DARK -ON -LIGHT, METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION AND COLORATION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. Detectable Warning Pattern Scale: NTS 11 8 f a } 9 F 6 -IN Curb/12-IN Catch Plate Gutter scab NTS ASPHALT PAVING TOP COURSE 3/4" MINUS GRAVEL TYPE B BASE COURSE STRUCTURAL TYPE A FILL COURSE. COMPACT TO 95% DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D698. COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR. Heavy Duty Asphalt Section - ACHD R.O.W. Scale'. NTS PLAN VIEW SIGN (TYP.) 2" x 2" x 10' (MIN.) SQUARE z GALVANIZED PERFORATED SIGN POST l (12 GAUGE MIN. WALL THICKNESS) 3/8' x 3-1/2" CADMIUM PLATED HEX HEAD BOLT WITH FLAT LOCK WASHER AND NUT SECTION VIEW I_ NOTE: 1. TOP OF POST TO BE CUT 1/2' BELOW TOP OF SIGN. FINISH GRADE SLOPE TOP OF CONCRETE TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM SIGN POST 2-1/2"x 2-1/2"x 18" LONG ANCHOR POST, NON PERFORATED (12 GAUGE MIN. WALL THICKNESS) WRAP ANCHOR SLEEVE AND ANCHOR POST WITH (1) LAYER OF DUCT TAPE 2-1/4"x 2-1/4"x 36" LONG ANCHOR POST, NON PERFORATED (12 GAUGE MIN. WALL THICKNESS) CONCRETE FOOTING NOTE: 1. SIGN POSTS IN LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE SET BACK 2' MIN. FROM BACK OF CURB AND/OR BACK OF SIDEWALK. Sign Post And Scale NTS Asphalt Section $Calc tjTS ASPHALT PAVING TOP COURSE 3/4" MINUS GRAVEL TYPE B BASE COURSE STRUCTURAL TYPE A RLL COURSE. COMPACT TO 95% DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D698. COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR. Plans Are Accepted For Public Street Construction By slenping ani S:gn'ng the imprbwby,m pans. the Regislinq rlgnefr ensures !'rP D,Sltln (hal the Peens a�nlonn ro ell piS!rty Opec06 an0 sta^aertls. Vznancas cr wowcrs muss be iPPtihcitly �tl n'evpusq aprrOved by P. 'w"g. ActpplenOB of mepl ns h; the D'slnc s rpt relieve We Rd m En, ae Y a sQYIS:D i f. RY A C UN ATE IiIOHVlAY TRICT C 0 .y C W cc 3 i g� s H 6s �Y ggg8 9E Q �5g5g55gggg� 6� O t A W 9 d 2 gii THE LAND GROUP a.IcperorwT® 162 E-1 STmr Dn .'.am 100 Engle Idnhu 99016 Ph 209 9,91O11 Fr 'M 9:19 1115 un,o/Gn/nnrlV°unY,nu rorn A w Purled NO.: 115288 Osie d Iswmc 88.78.17 De9igne8 by: BRSIJG SMeI N. C2m50 PublicWorks Search d print Page 1 of 1 License Work License License o.^.,,- Applicant Owner Company Compan-v Company Company ph^.o EIpiI$ig! NumberCatesorvType Class @Name Name Address CjE State ZioCodesDate Parent License 00003, 02855, o2740, 03300, 03200, 02220, , PWC-C-lnc ttazs 724 Ustick NAMPA 83687 (208) 888-7 t31t2014ID 3746 3,4 AA ACTIVE Bricon, lnc. https://web.dbs.idaho.gov/etrakit3/Custom/Idaho-PublicWorksPrint'aspx 11312018 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January, 2018 Agenda Item Number: / „ E — -- - ----—- _............ ..... -....... .... __.w—...__... --.....__.._— _ _.... - -- ..... --- ........ - ..... - - ---------------- Project/File Number: Item Title: Agreement between MDC and City — Farmer's Market Agreement between MDC and the City in which MDC will contribute $5,000 toward the production of the 2018 Meridian Farmer's Market. Meeting Notes MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO 2018 MERIDIAN FARMERS' MARKET This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this(_ day of 2018 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation Aganized 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 are mutually interested in enhancing the Meridian community's quality of life; enriching the character of downtown Meridian; promoting healthy eating and locally grown produce; and providing opportunities for members of the Meridian and greater youth communities to produce and sell fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural or hand- crafted products; WHEREAS, in the summer of 2018, City will present a weekly farmers' market ("Market") to be held in downtown Meridian; and WHEREAS, MDC is willing to contribute to City five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) toward expenses related to the presentation of Market; 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. Market production. Between June 23, 2018 and September 1, 2018, City agrees to present, or contract with a third party to present, a weekly farmers' market in downtown Meridian. City anticipates that such market will include produce vendors, educational displays, musical performers, and/or food and beverage vendors. The selection of staff and/or vendors for Market shall be made by City or City's contractor. B. Publicity. City shall publicize the Market, which publicity may include distribution of information via written and broadcast media, social and online media, e-mail, and posters. Decisions regarding the time, place, and manner of such publicity shall be made by City. C. Acknowledgment of sponsorship. Where appropriate, MDC shall be recognized as a sponsor of Market and the MDC logo shall be printed on event marketing materials where sponsors' logos are printed. D. Invoice MDC. City shall provide one (1) invoice to MDC by February 1, 2018, in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), and City shall use such amount for the payment of expenses related to the production of Market. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR MDC's MYFM CONTRIBUTION PAGE I OF 3 IL 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 five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). B. Logo. MDC shall provide City with a copy of its logo, in digital format, for use on marketing materials as described herein. C. 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 Recreation Manager Ashley Squyres, Administrator 33 E. Broadway Avenue 104 E. Fairview Avenue #239 Meridian ID 83642 Meridian ID 83642 Either parry 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 this Agreement 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 for services properly performed by City to the date of termination. If City is the terminating party, MDC shall be entitled to reimbursement for a pro -rata share of MDC's contribution for remaining weekly markets that have not been presented at the time of termination. City's decision to cancel or reschedule a weekly market due to inclement weather or other unforeseen event on the day of such scheduled concert shall not constitute MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR MDC's MYFM CONTRIBUTION PAGE 2 OF 3 termination or breach, and MDC shall not be entitled to pro -rata or other reimbursement in such circumstance. E. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law and by Article VIII, section 4 of the Idaho Constitution, City agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless MDC and its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, losses, actions, or judgments, costs and fees, including any costs and attorney's fees incurred therein, for damages, losses, or injury to entities, persons or property for any act, error, or omission arising out of or in any way connected with the activities and programs described herein and/or the activities of City and its officers, employees, contractors, or agents related to or connected with this Agreement. F. 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. G. Applicable Law. The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Idaho and 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. MERID N DEVELOPMENT CO ORATION: SIGNaRE A V e, U,) i ✓10( 0 r BY (PRINT NAME, TITLE Cy M_IV&$] a1 1 ORR 17 F11\l~ O� g 3 AUGUST Q � V o� Tammy eerd, Mayor�p� of �E IDIZ IAN , IDAHO SEAL P� Attest: 1,4� SIGNATURE a V4 Val BY PRINT NAME, TITLE Attest: Way Cols City erk MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR MDC's MYFM CONTRIBUTION PAGE 3 OF 3 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January�1�018 Agenda Item Number: (P F Project/File Number: Item Title: Jump Time Water Main Easement Meetina Notes 0 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2018-005243 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=7 LISA BATT 01/18/2018 02:20 PM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE WATER MAIN EASEMENT Babcock, LLC, an THIS INDENTURE, made this 6thday of Dec '2017 between Idaho Limited Liability company 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 ofa 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. 08115/16.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- em ate A 7Babcdck r Member Address STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County o Ma 1-(4 . On this J "N day of DCC e4tt.IJA-1- , 20 1-7 , before me, t e undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appearedd4,fdE©c-k a known or identified to me to be Members, of the limited liability company that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such limited liability company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set an;��, taiV' ove written. (TAR?Z. NOTARY 1 ..... d Residing at: p U B 1.tG Commission Water MaifUA t ,. and affixed my official seal the day n -i •'7G . REV. 08/15/16.doc State of Idaho County of Ada On this 22nd of December, 2017, before me, Alejandro Sanchez a Notary Public for the State of Idaho, Personally appeared Chad Babcock, known to me to be the person named in the foregoing, and acknowledged to me that executed the same as free act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal the day and year in the certificate first above written. ALEJANDRO D. SANCHEZ Notary Public State of Idaho My Commission Expires January 8, 2022 Notary Signature My Commission expires: January 8, 2022 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN D9-PED AUGUST Owe �'v Tamm de We d, Mayor a 01V of W y y E IDIAN!V- IDAHO } z� SEAL est by ay Coles, City Clerk r�ROf the TREr*sJ�� Approved By City Council On: c STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss County of Ada ) On this day of d an aaru 201P) before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally a geared 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. YlQ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO _ Residing at: �m 0 R1 CLL C D. =2 Commission Expires: 3 - DL? - a0 a I Water Main Easement-:3urr.jP771�11C_ REV. 08/15/16.doe EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER LINE EASEMENT JUMP TIME -MERIDIAN EASEMENT"A" February 14, 2017 An easement located in the Northeast 114 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 17 from which the North 1/4 corner of said Section 17 bears North 89°54'57" West, 2571.05 feet; thence along the North boundary line of said Section 17 North 89°54'57' West, 1,216.69 feet; thence leaving said North boundary line 00°0603" West, 40.00 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of W. Franklin Road, said Point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 45°00'38" West, 49.44 feet; thence North 89°54'57" West, 17.27 feet; thence North 00°00'38" East, 20.00 feet; thence South 89°54'57" East, 9.00 feet; thence North 45°00'38" East, 21.19 feet to a point on South right-of-way line of W. Franklin Road; thence South 89054'57" East, 28.25 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. EASEMENT "B" An easement located in the Northeast 114 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 17 from which the North 1/4 corner of said Section 17 bears North 8905457" West, 2571.05 feet; thence along the North boundary line of said Section 17 North 89054'57" West, 997.03 feet; thence leaving said North boundary line South 00005'03" West, 40.00 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of W. Franklin Road, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Page 1 of 2 thence continuing South 00°05'03" West, 15.00 feet; thence North 89054'57" West, 25.70 feet; thence South 44052'09" West, 17.87 feet; thence South 00000'00" East, 131.40 feet; thence South 8905956" East, 129.75 feet; thence South 00000'04" West, 47.53 feet; thence North 89059'57" West, 27.00 feet; thence North 00°00'04" East, 27.53 feet; thence North 89059'56" West, 122.75 feet; thence North 00°00'00" East, 159.66 feet; thence North 44052'09" East, 27.41 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of W. Franklin Road; thence South 89054'57" East, 38.99 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B W. FRANKLIN RD S0'05'03"W BASIS OF BEARING SO'05'03"W 18 1/4 4_0.00' N89_'5_4'57"W 2571.05' 40.00' 1$ 9 1354.36' RPOB- 219.66' _ RPOB + 997.03' 17 16 17 0 L4 EASEMENT Lp2 N44' N0'00'38"E �S45'00'38"W 20.00' 1 L1 49.44' I I 1 I U IJPLAjf Eo "A" L6 EASEMENT "B" 12'09"E a SO'05'03"W�_ 27.41' L5 15.00'to t t1 S44'52'09"W t w 17.87' 00 O�%) P a tf/ a 1 o In - 0 O S89'59'56"E - z , 1 N89'59'56"W 47.53' 122.75' NO'02753' N89'59'57"W IJOPI`P 1 27.00' 1 I I1 I BLOCK 1 ORE£NH/LL ESTATES SU,901WS/ON NO. 9 LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING L1 17.27 589'54'57"E L2 9.00 N89'54'57"W L3 21.19 S45'00'38"W L4 28.25 N89'54'57"W L5 25.70 S89'54'57"E L6 38.99 N89'54'57"W Ns SGS\ i 7729 N�.2J10 moo G�,FF�+TF or �p \�Y G. rG dv M© IN 25 100 300 0 50 200 SCALE: 1 " = 100' IDAHO EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR 16- 1460E.WATERTOWERST. CITY OF MERIDIAN WATERLINE EASEMENT SHEET NO, SUITE 130 SURVEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 03642 JUMP TIME1 /� (206) 646-8570 DWG. DATE GROUP, P.C. A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 17, LOCATED WITHIN T.3N.. RAE, B.M.. MERIDIAN. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2/14/2017 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January,8; 2018 Agenda Item Number: / Project/File Number: Item Title: AP Invoices for Payment $1,744,814.93 Meeting Notes 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 HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING Repaired furnace wiring at Settlers Park 119.00 01 General Fund A-1 HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING Settlers Park Furnace Materials & Repairs 1,490.00 01 General Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Clock & Engraving for 2018 Mayor's Legacy Award - Qty 1 100.00 01 General Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Name plaque for Bill Young 10.00 01 General Fund A-1 STAMP & MABEL'S LABELS Office Wall Signs for Prosecutor & Patrol Conf Room - Qty 4 70.00 01 General Fund ABOUT THE KIDS, INC.instructor fee - Lacrosse 12/22/17 - qty 40 777.60 01 General Fund ADVANCE AUTO PARTS vehicle fuses - qty 4 14.48 01 General Fund AIR FILTER SALES 220/108 air filters for all fire stations 1,023.00 01 General Fund ALICE HENKE instructor fee - Zumba Gold 12/2/17-12/23/17 - qty 2 33.60 01 General Fund AMY MERRILL instructor fee - Ballet 12/5-12/21/17 - qty 66 1,324.00 01 General Fund ARROWHEAD FORENSIC PRODUCTS Monster Bags with Labels - Qty 25 Bundles 46.20 01 General Fund AUTOMATIC RAIN CO DBA HORIZON Boss snow plow parts for truck 15 & spares - qty 4 124.80 01 General Fund AUTOMATIC RAIN CO DBA HORIZON Exmark hydraulic oil - qty 8 73.44 01 General Fund AUTOMATIC RAIN CO DBA HORIZON fuel filters, oil filters, hydraulic fluid for equip -qty 16 197.87 01 General Fund AXON ENTERPRISE INC 18-0194 Evidence.com Storage, Ultimate Evidence.com Annual 77,562.00 01 General Fund BLR - BUSINESS & LEGAL RESOURCES Acct# 4861194, FLSA Handbook Renewal, 4/1/18-3/31/19 536.99 01 General Fund BLR - BUSINESS & LEGAL RESOURCES Acct# 4861194, FMLA Handbook Renewal 4/1/18-3/31/19 536.99 01 General Fund BONNEVILLE BLUE PRINT SUPPLY Lemp/Larkwood plans with changes for MPR & Settlers CRR 21.60 01 General Fund BOUNDTREE MEDICAL 220/ One veinlight, medical 292.99 01 General Fund BPA HEALTH, INC.EAP, January 2018, 446 Employees 1,303.15 01 General Fund BRANDEN FISCUS Per Diem, B. Fiscus, Shot Show Training Expo, Las Vegas NV, 288.00 01 General Fund BRIGHT IDEAS LIGHTING COMPANY Replaced (2) Ballasts in Homecourt Light Fixtures 248.00 01 General Fund BRIGHT IDEAS LIGHTING COMPANY Replaced Ballast in Homecourt Light Fixture 159.00 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC 220/Oil change, air filter, tire rotation, MF024 94.57 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC 220/Wipers for MF023 35.92 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC Battery for Unit # 141 116.95 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC Oil Change for Unit #164 55.00 01 General Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC Oil Change, Headlight Lamp & HVAC Repair for Unit # 18 303.93 01 General Fund CASCADE FENCE COMPANY, INC.fence slats to hide Speedway items at Storey Park x 24 boxes 1,331.76 01 General Fund CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS CARD SERVICES #7898226373, Pay City Fuel - December 2017 12,318.34 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM 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 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS CARD SERVICES #7898226399, Fuel for PD - December 2017 15,225.19 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE - CITY PRINT & MAIL SERVICES Vehicle Log Books for Patrol Cars - Qty 100 Books 305.80 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE ATTORNEYS OFFICE 18-0084, City Prosecutor/Criminal Legal Services - Jan 2018 29,975.49 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE FIRE DEPARTMENT 220/BLS Cerfification Cards - Qty 12 26.40 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE IT COMMUNICATIONS ETS Monitoring for Dec 2017 146.02 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE IT COMMUNICATIONS Labor to Set Up New Mobile Radios for PD Unit# 61, 103, 104 48.75 01 General Fund CITY OF BOISE IT COMMUNICATIONS Radio Programming for Impact for N. Kulack 32.50 01 General Fund CRAWFORD DOOR SALES OF IDAHO, INC Lanark shop door repair 124.00 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY Dog Food - Qty 2 Bags and Collar for K9 Wyatt 86.97 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY Dog Food Container for K9 Dory 39.99 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY Dog Food for K9 Arco - Qty 2 Bags 93.08 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY Dog Food for K9 Randy - Qty 1 Bag 44.99 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY Shampoo & Food Container for K9 Wyatt - Qty 2 41.98 01 General Fund D & B SUPPLY Wound Spray and Dog Bed for K9 Gus - Qty 2 85.48 01 General Fund DEBEST PLUMBING, INC 220/Unclog urinal at St. 4 293.00 01 General Fund DEBEST PLUMBING, INC Installed Faucet & Hooked-Up Drain In Evidence Processing 250.50 01 General Fund DEBEST PLUMBING, INC Repair toilet on second floor at City Hall 171.00 01 General Fund DEBEST PLUMBING, INC Sallyport Eyewash Station Replacement 792.70 01 General Fund DEBEST PLUMBING, INC unclog women's ADA shower drain at Homecourt 173.00 01 General Fund DENNIS DILLON POWER SPORTS Settlers mule #5 oil change & servicing 372.87 01 General Fund ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE SUPPLY CO 220/6 packs light bulbs for St. 5 107.34 01 General Fund ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE SUPPLY CO bulbs & batteries-Parks Shop emergency lighting repairs x 19 167.93 01 General Fund EMERGENCY RESPONDERS HEALTH CENTER 18-0128 220/Prev Health Exam for M. Niemeyer & L. Smillie 1,037.16 01 General Fund ENERGY ENTERPRISE GROUP, LLC heater repair at Heroes Park 171.48 01 General Fund ENHANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS Homecourt security camera adjustments 194.00 01 General Fund ENHANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS security camera repairs at Kleiner 365.00 01 General Fund ERS, EMERGENCY RESPONDER SERVICES, INC. Labor for Lightbar Diagnosis and Repair for Unit #159 222.00 01 General Fund ERS, EMERGENCY RESPONDER SERVICES, INC. Troubleshoot Inermittant Siren Control Problems 185.00 01 General Fund FASTENAL COMPANY bolts & nuts for Bear Creek pump station - qty 20 17.27 01 General Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.hot water elements for Champion restroom - qty 1 pkg 25.00 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM 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 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.trap for Lanark Parks Shop sink repair - qty 1 17.39 01 General Fund FIREFIGHTERS BOOKSTORE 220/16 HazMat awareness books 1,536.89 01 General Fund GENERAL COUNCIL CHURCHES OF GOD 12/18/17 MYAC Christmas party facility rental 115.00 01 General Fund GIESLER AUTO REPAIR diagnose electrical problem on truck 15 snow plow 95.00 01 General Fund GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVICE CENTER 220/switch out tires, MF040 79.80 01 General Fund GYM OUTFITTERS Labor to Repair Treadmill, 12/18/17 112.50 01 General Fund GYM OUTFITTERS Replaced IFT Drive on Treadmill, 12/29/17 788.00 01 General Fund HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS transfer punch set & bearing & race driver set - qty 2 40.98 01 General Fund HOBSON FABRICATION CORP HVAC Repair to PD Admin Areas 127.50 01 General Fund IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES 18-0161, Desks - Qty 2 for MUBS & 2 Desks for Finance 3,966.00 01 General Fund IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES 18-0161, Panels & Install for Finance Quad Area - Qty 35 5,782.00 01 General Fund IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES Business cards for Bill Young 46.25 01 General Fund IDAHO DEPARTMENT of LABOR #0007001746 - 4th Quarter 2017 Unemployment 6,524.36 01 General Fund IDAHO FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION 220/IFCA Membership Dues, 6 members for FY18 840.00 01 General Fund IDAHO POWER 2200136188, Parks Power December 2017 12,226.70 01 General Fund IDAHO POWER 2203586629, Street Lights Power - December 2017 27,695.14 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE 2017-2018 Winter/Spring Activity Guide publication x 29,000 4,716.38 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice - Invitation to Bid Fire Station Exercise Equip 63.48 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice - Soul Source for Rogue Fitness, 12/22 & 12/29/ 62.10 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice for Ord 17-1732C for Maverik on Meridian Rd, 246.22 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice on Ord 17-1758 for Public Fireworks Display 42.18 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice on PH 1/16/18 for Impact Fee Sch for Police, Fi 66.60 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Ord 17-1755A & Map for Amended Aegean Sub Annex, 12/29/17 206.89 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Ord 17-1759 for Nuisance Procedures Updates Repeal & Replace 48.84 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Ord 17-1760 & Map for Village Apts Annexation & Rezone 248.85 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE PH 1/18/18 on Kobe/Cope Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment & R 56.24 01 General Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE PH 1/4/18 on Escape Room, Turf Farm, Winco wells, Caven Ridg 74.74 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM 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 IDAHO PUBLIC PURCHASING ASSOC IPPA Membership Dues, K. Watts, 12/15/17-12/14/18 30.00 01 General Fund IDAHO PUBLIC PURCHASING ASSOC IPPA Membership Dues, S. Ramirez, 12/15/17-12/14/18 30.00 01 General Fund IDAHO STATE POLICE FBI Fingerprint Processing, Qty 1 - December 2017 37.00 01 General Fund IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 220/MF-025 Specialty plates, A10902 23.00 01 General Fund INTERMOUNTAIN DESIGN, INC Pathway Project Manager cubicle relocation 450.00 01 General Fund INTERMOUNTAIN TRAFFIC Cables to install/repair Opticomsin Unit#101,102,103,104,525 505.00 01 General Fund INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER Batteries for Rifle Scopes - Qty 2 Pks 21.30 01 General Fund INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER battery for Heroes Park mule #3 60.55 01 General Fund JOHN S OVERTON Per Diem, J. Overton, NFA Fire Inspection Principles I Cours 442.50 01 General Fund K-9 DISTRIBUTING Dog Food for K9 Gus - Qty 2 Bags 68.00 01 General Fund KENDALL SUPERSTORE Battery and Crankshaft Replaced in Unit # 33 599.66 01 General Fund L.N. CURTIS AND SONS 220/3 coats, 20 liners 2,980.00 01 General Fund L.N. CURTIS AND SONS Chemical & Less Lethal Munitions for CD & DC - Qty 410 6,077.51 01 General Fund LAZYBOY FURNITURE GALLERIES 220/4 recliners, St. 3 2,617.99 01 General Fund LEA ELECTRIC, LLC.220/Repair cord in bay 84.42 01 General Fund LOWE'S 4x6 Trailers, Vin# 005077 & #006072 for Kleiner & Heroes Mul 1,125.83 01 General Fund LOWE'S Credit for Tax Charged on Orig Inv# 01133 (22.46) 01 General Fund LOWE'S Kreg screws & loctite - qty 2 27.67 01 General Fund LOWE'S Kreg screws & loctite sealant - qty 2 26.10 01 General Fund LOWE'S sales tax reversal reference invoice 01048 (27.67) 01 General Fund LOWE'S sales tax reversal reference invoice 03313 (63.73) 01 General Fund LOWE'S scrub brushes for Heroes & Tully Park restrooms - qty 2 26.56 01 General Fund LOWE'S Tool Box for Storage of Gear in CID Pick up 396.71 01 General Fund MERIDIAN PLUMBING CO, INC.unclog restroom floor drain at Tully Park 179.00 01 General Fund MERIDIAN VETERINARY CLINIC Vet Care for K9 Arco 426.52 01 General Fund MONTE PRICE Per Diem, M. Price, Shot Show Training Expo, Las Vegas NV, 1 288.00 01 General Fund MOUNTAIN WEST, LLC playground chips/bark - qty 120 yards 3,315.00 01 General Fund MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SVCS 220/turnout alteration, freight charges only 11.56 01 General Fund MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SVCS 220/turnout alterations freight charge 15.36 01 General Fund NAPA AUTO PARTS Wipers for Unit # 100 & Unit # 16 39.96 01 General Fund NAPA AUTO PARTS Wipers for Unit #46 9.98 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.220/10 desk calendars 51.90 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.220/envelopes, 4 boxes 32.08 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM 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 OFFICE DEPOT, INC.220/Labels, 2 packs 17.64 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.220/Linen document covers, 4 packs 25.84 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.binders & tab dividers - qty 10 35.75 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.copy paper - qty 2 cases & Staples - Qty 1 Box 56.55 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.copy paper for Lanark Parks Shop - qty 2 cases 50.78 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.cork board for Lanark Parks Shop - qty 1 94.99 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Credit for Foam Board - Qty 2, See Orig Inv# 991495343002 (20.40) 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.credit on envelopes for Santa letters - qty 2 boxes (34.02) 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Foam Board - Qty 2 20.40 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.lead for mechanical pencils - qty 2 pkgs 4.58 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.sharpies for Santa letters - qty 2 pkgs 5.90 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.Staples & Wood Cleaner - Qty 6 22.91 01 General Fund OFFICE DEPOT, INC.thumb drives - qty 2 (1 pkg)27.33 01 General Fund OFFICE VALUE - MERIDIAN Sit Stand Desk for Police Employee 634.73 01 General Fund PAUL'S MERIDIAN STINKER super unleaded fuel for fleet truck 5 61.25 01 General Fund PAUL'S MERIDIAN STINKER unleaded fuel for fleet truck 22 52.01 01 General Fund PAUL'S MERIDIAN STINKER unleaded fuel for truck 14; super unleaded for equipment 74.81 01 General Fund PRIMEPAY, LLC.18-0095, Cobra Monthly Fee - December 2017 291.75 01 General Fund PRIMEPAY, LLC.18-0095, FSA Debit Card Fee - December 2017 855.75 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86084920, Copier Lease 1/18 & Copies 12/17 368.34 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86111894, Copier Lease 1/18 & Additional Copies 12/17 536.87 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86121202, Copier Lease 1/18 & Copies 12/17- Training Center 317.98 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86172112, Copier Lease 1/18 & Copies 12/17 for Records 236.08 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86172150, Copier Lease 1/18 & Copies 12/17 for Patrol 504.13 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86172157, Copier Lease 1/18 & Additional Copies 12/17 - CID 523.80 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86172509, Copier Lease 1/18 & Additional Images 12/17- Code 123.59 01 General Fund RICOH USA, INC C86197400, Additional Copies for MADC - 12/1/17-12/31/17 11.01 01 General Fund ROCKY MOUNTAIN COLLISION Emissions testing for facility van C15921, maintenance truck 8.88 01 General Fund SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP Elevator service agreement quarterly billing 1/1-3/31/18 1,590.00 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM 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 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP Reset Door operators on elevator #1 @ City Hall 1,300.53 01 General Fund SECTOR SEVENTEEN 18-0198, Mill Project Initial Design, Service Thru 12/7/17 2,000.00 01 General Fund SHRED-IT USA, LLC.Document Shredding for Clerks, MUBS, & Finance - Dec 2017 124.68 01 General Fund SHRED-IT USA, LLC.Document Shredding for PD - December 2017 179.09 01 General Fund SIGNS, ETC Sign for City Hall, Council Member sign Treg Bernt 27.00 01 General Fund SIGNS, ETC Sign for City Hall, Mayors office Analyst 57.00 01 General Fund SIGNS, ETC Vinyl Lettering of Mission Statement & Installation-PD Lobby 188.88 01 General Fund SIMPLEX GRINNELL 220/repair control valve leak fire sprink sys, St. 3 117.00 01 General Fund SIMPLEX GRINNELL Access release relay switch installation Historical Society 1,130.41 01 General Fund SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY ADA handicap sign rivets - qty 100 140.00 01 General Fund SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY ADA sign posts & signs - qty 25 970.00 01 General Fund SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY candles for Winter Lights Parade 12/1/17 - qty 200 300.00 01 General Fund SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY liquid ice melt - qty 1,404 gallons 1,572.48 01 General Fund STRICTLY TECHNOLOGY Cisco SFP+ Copper Twinax Cable Direct attach cable - SFP+ to 212.11 01 General Fund SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC.movie license - How the Grinch Stole Christmas 285.00 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON Desk mat and sit stand desk for HR employee 189.93 01 General Fund SYNCB/AMAZON Desk Mat for PD Employee 39.94 01 General Fund Tami J Leach instructor fee - Pickleball 11/30-12/21/17 - qty 7 308.00 01 General Fund THE COBLE COMPANY Uniform Hashmarks - Qty 250 362.50 01 General Fund THE UPS STORE Postage to Return SWAT gear 42.21 01 General Fund THE UPS STORE Postage to Send Evidence to Lab 185.80 01 General Fund TREASURE VALLEY COFFEE Coffee, Hot Chocolate, Cream, Sugar, Stir Sticks, Cups-Qty21 293.72 01 General Fund UNIFORMS 2 GEAR Hero's Pride POLICE Patch - Qty 4 12.00 01 General Fund UNIFORMS 2 GEAR Nameplate & Pocket Key for Uniform for C. LaFave - Qty 2 19.50 01 General Fund UNIFORMS 2 GEAR Nameplate & Pocket Key for Uniform for RJ Young - Qty 2 20.00 01 General Fund UNIFORMS 2 GEAR Nameplate for Uniform for N. Kortanjian - Qty 1 12.50 01 General Fund UNIFORMS 2 GEAR Pants for K. Mercado-Code Enforcement - Qty 1 74.99 01 General Fund USSSOA volleyball officiating for games 1/2-1/5/18 - qty 21 458.27 01 General Fund USSSOA volleyball officiating for games 12/18-12/22/17 - qty 16 349.16 01 General Fund VERIZON FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC. BELLEVUE 742047228-00001 Parks HPN Modems FY18, 12/2/17-1/1/18 162.66 01 General Fund WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 18-0191, Kleenex, soap, seat covers, deordorant - Qty 91 3,623.79 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM 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 WIENHOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC 17-0115, Drug & Alcohol Testing, Qty 20 - Aug 2017 580.00 01 General Fund WIENHOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC 17-0115, Drug & Alcohol Testing, Qty 28 - Aug 2017 840.00 01 General Fund WIENHOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC 18-0196, Annual DOT & Non-DOT Consortium Membership fees 100.00 01 General Fund WIENHOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC 18-0196, Drug & Alcohol Testing, Qty 8 - October 2017 240.00 01 General Fund WIENHOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC 18-0196, Drug & Alcohol Testing, Qty12 - November 2017 390.00 01 General Fund WIENHOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC Pre-Employment Testing - Qty 4 120.00 01 General Fund WW GRAINGER, INC 220/AAA, AA Batteries for ST. 5 - Qty 7 Pks 40.81 01 General Fund WW GRAINGER, INC 220/DEF Exhaust Fluit, 55 gallon drum, ST. 2 297.61 01 General Fund WW GRAINGER, INC 220/Duct Tape, File, Bit Set, & Kitchen Tongs, St. 4 - Qty 5 66.91 01 General Fund WW GRAINGER, INC 220/Tape measure 26.96 Total 01 General Fund 261,103.07 07 Impact Fund ESI, INC 17-0262, Reta Huskey Park CM Services-11/1/17-12/15/17-Final 80,869.42 07 Impact Fund THE RUSSELL CORPORATION 17-0235, CM Services for Keith Bird Legacy Park, 11/1-11/30/ 49,646.35 Total 07 Impact Fund 130,515.77 20 Grant Fund governmental ANDERSON & WOOD CONSTRUCTION CO, INC 18-0110, Tood Way & Sandalwood Street Ltg-Service to 12/31/1 45,718.75 20 Grant Fund governmental CHRISTOPHER POPE Per Diem, C. Pope, NCDA Winter Legislative & Policy Meeting, 327.75 20 Grant Fund governmental CHRISTOPHER POPE Reimb, C. Pope, Mileage for CDBG Meeting in Boise, 11/15/17 12.84 20 Grant Fund governmental MONTE STILES, LLC 18-0049, MADC Policy Consultant Services - August 2017 1,250.00 20 Grant Fund governmental MONTE STILES, LLC 18-0049, MADC Policy Consultant Services - Sept 2017 1,250.00 Total 20 Grant Fund governmental 48,559.34 55 Capital Projects ROBO-JET Install Station#1 Electrical Box for MUBS Lobby Remodel 300.84 Total 55 Capital Projects 300.84 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM 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 BHS SPECIALTY CHEMICALS 18-0038 Ferric Chloride 7,092.00 60 Enterprise Fund BILLING DOCUMENT SPECIALISTS 18-0031, IVR Processing - December 2017 852.25 60 Enterprise Fund BILLING DOCUMENT SPECIALISTS 18-0032, Lockbox Processing - December 2017 1,602.91 60 Enterprise Fund BILLING DOCUMENT SPECIALISTS 18-0090, MUBS Bills 12/20/17, Delinq Notices 12/26/17, Inser 11,811.18 60 Enterprise Fund BOE - Boise Office Equipment XKP547491, Additional Copies - 10/3/17-11/2/17 163.65 60 Enterprise Fund BPA HEALTH, INC.EAP, January 2018, 446 Employees 431.79 60 Enterprise Fund BRANOM INSTRUMENTS 5mile Creek temperature indicating transmitter 981.60 60 Enterprise Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC C19160, Oil & filter change Inspection vehicle 55.00 60 Enterprise Fund BRUNEEL TIRE OF MERIDIAN LLC C4707 oil & filter change, air filter and wipers changed 67.39 60 Enterprise Fund COLUMBIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY Side mounting auxillery contact block to repair pump 2,44.72 60 Enterprise Fund D & B SUPPLY Credit for Invoice Paid In Error - See Orig Inv# 5785 (134.99) 60 Enterprise Fund DRAKE PLUMBING & HEATING CO Labor to repair HVAC in UV disinfection bldg 240.00 60 Enterprise Fund EL-ADA, INC.El-Ada November 2017, Meridian Cares Program, Qty 7 49.00 60 Enterprise Fund ERS, EMERGENCY RESPONDER SERVICES, INC. Labtop mount for vactor hydrocleaner C19957 285.00 60 Enterprise Fund EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.Lab DI water maintenance agreement - Service 12/21/17 511.00 60 Enterprise Fund FASTENAL COMPANY All thread & anchor sys to inst pump @ secondary clarifier 5 46.89 60 Enterprise Fund FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC.PVC Comp Coupler - Qty 2 10.09 60 Enterprise Fund FISHER SCIENTIFIC Lab tubing 95.53 60 Enterprise Fund FISHER SCIENTIFIC Sampling pole for surface water monitoring 227.39 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES 18-0161, Desk for M. Edwards - Qty 1 1,241.00 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES Business Cards for M. Hernandez Qty 500 46.25 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES Business cards for Travis Kissire 46.25 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO PRESS-TRIBUNE Legal Notice on Invitation to Bid Rose Circle Water Main Rep 71.76 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOC 2018 Membership renewal Business donor dues for PW Office 175.00 60 Enterprise Fund IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOC Registration, D. Miles, IWUA 81st Annual Convention, Boise I 210.00 60 Enterprise Fund KENDALL SUPERSTORE Labor & mat to repair cylinder 7 & injector connector on 344.41 60 Enterprise Fund KRISTIAN KEITH Reimb, K. Keith, Safety Boots - Qty 1 Pair 134.99 60 Enterprise Fund LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER Tire for mower 20.28 60 Enterprise Fund LOWE'S 4inch Brass Knockdown Door Stop for Shop Door Repair 5.02 60 Enterprise Fund M. LADAWN COMFORT Refund: Dwight Comfort, 3630 W Quaker Ridge, #14202004-01, 111.63 60 Enterprise Fund MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION 17-0135,WRRF Capacity Exp FY15,services 11/27-12/10/17 4,340.65 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM 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 MURRAYSMITH INC 17-0141,Water Master Plan,services thru 11/30/17 9,118.00 60 Enterprise Fund PACIFIC BACKFLOW 18-0051 Backflow Device Testing Fire 1 thru 5 Qty 25 575.00 60 Enterprise Fund PARAMOUNT SUPPLY CO.SS flange for stock 46.28 60 Enterprise Fund RAPID AERIAL LLC Stitched aerial photo of WRRF 125.00 60 Enterprise Fund RED WING SHOES Safety Boots for B. Young - Qty 1 Pair 150.00 60 Enterprise Fund REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.Republic Trash Services Contract - December 2017 1,051,496.35 60 Enterprise Fund RICOH USA, INC C86101407-Copier lease January 2018, copies Dec 2017 419.37 60 Enterprise Fund RICOH USA, INC C86101421-Copier lease Jan 2018, Copies Dec 2017 339.47 60 Enterprise Fund RICOH USA, INC C86108123, E205M560104 copier lease 1/18 & Copies 12/17 106.36 60 Enterprise Fund ROCKY MOUNTAIN COLLISION Emissions testing for facility van C15921, maintenance truck 17.76 60 Enterprise Fund SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION CO INC 17-0332,Water Main Ext,E Lake Hazel/Locust, Serv to 12/21/17 59,461.16 60 Enterprise Fund SHRED-IT USA, LLC.Document Shredding for Clerks, MUBS, & Finance - Dec 2017 70.29 60 Enterprise Fund STAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC 17-0323,Well 29, as of 12/21/17 148,861.80 60 Enterprise Fund SWIOS 2018 SWIOS Membership Dues x Qty 38 570.00 60 Enterprise Fund TC SALES & SERVICE Belt to repair broken rotary lobe TWAS pump #1 at Daft 2 774.17 60 Enterprise Fund THE UPS STORE Shipping to send motor back to AMPCO 12.60 60 Enterprise Fund WATERTECH Inihibitor for heat loop (279#)1,012.66 Total 60 Enterprise Fund 1,304,335.91 Report Total 1,744,814.93 Date: 1/11/18 11:17:21 AM Page: 9 City Council Meeting Meeting January ,9,2018 �`Y Agenda Item Number: Project/File Number: Resolution 17-2052 Item Title: Resolution for Meridian's Community Block Grant Downtown Redevelopment Report and Area Designation A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REDEVELOPMENT REPORT AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST THE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Meeting Notes 0 N DIAN,:--- �J January 17, 2018 Murrianna Thomson Representative, Community Planning and Development Oregon State HUD Office Edith Green -Wendell Wyatt Federal Building 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204-2825 Dear Ms. Thomson: Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Joe Borton Genesis Milam Ty Palmer Luke Cavener Treg Bernt Anne Little Roberts Enclosed please find the City of Meridian's Official Redevelopment Area Report and Area Designation. This report and area designation was approved through resolution for submission by the Meridian City Council at the January 16, 2018 City Council meeting and is intended to describe an area in Meridian where CDBG-funded projects can meet the "eradication of slum and blight on an area basis" national objective. Please contact the City if you have any questions or if further clarification is needed. All questions can be directed to Christopher Pope at cpope@meridiancity.org, or by phone at 208- 489-0575. Thank you and your staff for all of the assistance and support over the past year. I look forward to continue working with Portland staff in the upcoming program year. Sincerely Planning Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 Fax 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org i CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 17 — �L D J BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, LITTLE ROBERTS, PALMER A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REDEVELOPMENT REPORT AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST THE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, any federal Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") entitlement program can utilize the federal program's national objective focused on eradicated slum and blight in the entitlement community; and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") requires any entitlement community to assess, define, and designate a particular geographic area in the given community as experiencing conditions indicating or precluding slum and blight in order to fund projects based on that slum and blight national objective; and WHEREAS, HUD requires that the use of CDBG funds and other funding sources in such areas requires that such areas be assessed and formally designated as "redevelopment areas" in order to prevent or eliminate the physical decline of an area and create a safe, healthy, and pleasing environment for resident, the business community, adjacent neighborhoods, and its residents and Meridian residents at -large, as well as persons visiting the area; and WHEREAS, HUD requires any such assessment and designation be performed and approved in accordance with local and state code defining the characteristics of a redevelopment area; and WHEREAS, HUD requires any such plan and redevelopment area designation be formally approved by local government officials and submitted to HUD for final approval and acceptance of the redevelopment area designation and allowance to fund projects under the slum and blight national objective; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian has not ever officially planned, designated, or submitted a redevelopment report or area plan within City's geography; and WHEREAS, the City has completed the Meridian, Idaho Redevelopment Report: A Housing and Urban Development Slum & Blight Assessment ("Redevelopment Area Report"), defining and designating a redevelopment area in Meridian for approval, designation, and submission to HUD; and WHEREAS, the real property and improvements situated within the specified mapped areas (as defined in the Redevelopment Area Report) of the City of Meridian, Idaho are in need of economic development, rehabilitation of deteriorated property, and the improvement of and/or new construction of infrastructure. RESOLUTION ADOPTING CDBG DOCUMENTS —Page I OF 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Redevelopment Area Report, as attached hereto, be, and the same hereby are, adopted as to both form and content. Section 2. That the real property and improvements situated in the specified mapped areas of the City of Meridian (as defined in the Redevelopment Area Report) are hereby designated a "redevelopment area" in accordance with 24 CFR 570.208(b). Section 3. That the Mayor and the City Cleric be, and they hereby are, authorized to respectively execute and attend the certifying documents for the Redevelopment Area Report. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. _ ADOPTED by the City Council of City of Meridian, Idaho this AR day of ON()C ff Y , 2018. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Cv✓UG�'p , 2018. APPROVED: ATTEST: ST 1903 J y: , or y de Weerd o ,ti�s '7 C.day COWS, Cleric W co r° rNECENTERo RESOLUTION ADOPTING CDBG DOCUMENTS —Page 2 OF 2 December 29, 2017 «primary_owner» «mailing_address» «mailing_city_state_zip» Dear Meridian Property Owner, The City of Meridian Community Development Department would like to inform you of the recent and ongoing efforts in the City’s Planning Division is working on to designate an area in the downtown core of Meridian as a priority Redevelopment Area. According to our records, you own a property within the proposed redevelopment area. This letter is intended to inform you of what this potential designation would mean for you, your property, and the properties in the surrounding area. Background The City of Meridian utilizes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to fund public service and public infrastructure improvement projects throughout the community. There are certain requirements on how and where those funds can be used within Meridian, and, currently, there are portions of the downtown Meridian area that are not currently eligible for CDBG funding. In order to open up more areas in downtown Meridian to potential public facility, infrastructure, and property improvements through the use of the CDBG funds, the City conducted an assessment of a portion of downtown that is not currently eligible for the use of CDBG-funded projects. This area was defined in conjunction with city officials, employees, and other community partners who have a strong interest and drive to build up this and other parts of downtown Meridian (attached to this letter is a map of this defined area). Redevelopment Area The redevelopment area assessment looked at all facilities, infrastructure, and properties within the defined area in order to determine the needs of the neighborhood from an infrastructure, safety, code enforcement, and economic point of view. This assessment led to the completion of Meridian’s Redevelopment Plan, which can be viewed online at www.meridiancity.org/cdbg. This plan defines the area and opportunities for improvement, as well as proposes formal designation of the area as a “Redevelopment Area.” This designation, if approved by City Council, would allow CDBG funding to be used to meet community needs in this neighborhood. This plan and area designation do not propose or suggest any particular project in the neighborhood nor does this process commit any funding to the area. However, it will open this area up to a new stream of funding for projects that you, as a property owner, may want to pursue. The City wanted to find new opportunities to invest more in our City’s downtown area and this was an easy way to open up options for improvements to your neighborhood. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 12 of 104 Implications This process designates this area as eligible for CDBG-funded project focused on meeting any needs deemed eligible and relevant by local residents and officials. This designation does not, in any way, affect current projects in the neighborhood; propose or commit to new or future projects in the neighborhood; or change anything about the ownership, appearance, or value of any properties in this area. Though, it does give you and other property owners the opportunity to consider new ways to fund projects that you or the neighborhood feel are important. This designation would allow for more funding to be used to complete potential neighborhood-wide projects like the construction of sidewalks and streetlights or more property-focused projects like façade improvements and home rehabilitation. The potential improvements that could come from this process could lead to increased property value, safety, and aesthetic appeal in the neighborhood. It is important to note that this designation comes at no cost to you or any other property owner in the area, and there will be nothing coming from this designation that could increase costs for you or your neighbors in any way. Any and all future projects using CDBG funds in this area will require formal legal noticing, public review, and public hearings. These processes are designed to enable and allow Meridian residents the opportunity to share their input on each specific project under consideration in the Redevelopment Area. Request for Public Comment With this process underway, the City would like to provide you with an opportunity to learn about, question, and comment on any portion of the proposed Redevelopment Area. On Tuesday, January 16 th , 2018 at 6:00PM at Meridian City Hall (33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, ID, 83642), the Meridian City Council will be holding their weekly City Council meeting. This meeting will include a short presentation about this proposed Redevelopment Area plan and designation. This presentation will simply reiterate all of the information contained in this letter, but will also provide any property owners the opportunity to ask questions or provide a response to any of this information through formal public comment. If you cannot or choose to not attend this meeting, you can contact Christopher Pope at cpope@meridiancity.org or (208) 884-5533 with any questions, concerns or comments. Due to the nature of city council meetings, it is preferable that comments be provided through email or written letter prior to the meeting. Sincerely, Christopher Pope | CDBG Administrator City of Meridian | Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 489-0575 Built for Business, Designed for Living www.opportunitymeridian.org 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 Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 13 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT A Housing And Urban Development Slum & Blight Assessment 2 0 1 7 JUNE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 17 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 i | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 13 LIST OF FIGURES 1 – Study Area ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 – Slum and Blight Rating Scale ................................................................................................................... 6 3 – Condition Assessment Results ............................................................................................................... 7 4 – Contributing Factor (Sidewalks) ............................................................................................................. 9 5 – Contributing Factor (Facades) .............................................................................................................. 10 6 – Contributing Factor (Landscaping) ....................................................................................................... 11 TABLES 1 – Improvement Projects .......................................................................................................................... 14 2 – Slum and Blight Projects and Inventory Tracking ................................................................................. 15 APPENDICES A – Local Slum and Blight (Substandard) Criteria B – Blank Inventory Form C – Inventory Information Spreadsheet D – Map Book & Inventory Forms E – Resolutions Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 18 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 ii | P a g e ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ashley Squyres, Meridian Development Corp. Administrator Brenda Sherwood, Economic Development Coordinator Brian McClure, Associate City Planner Caleb Hood, AICP, Planning Division Manager Chris Pope, Meridian CDBG Administrator Hillary Bodnar, Commissions and Committees Specialist Karen Wooddell, Accountant Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager CONSULTANT Lisa Bachman, AICP, PCED, Project Manager/Planner Travis Jeffers, Planner Addison Coffelt, Planning Technician Ryan Cosby, GISP, Mapping Specialist Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 19 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 1 | P a g e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the spring of 2017, the City of Meridian initiated a slum and blight inventory assessment of several properties within the downtown area. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate whether the study area, or redevelopment area, shown in Figure 1, displays “Slum and Blight” conditions as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Idaho State Code Title 50, Chapter 20, Section 50-2009; Idaho State Code Title 50, Chapter 29, Section 8; and further defined at the local level through this study process. If 25% or more properties within the redevelopment area meet the criteria for slum and blight, the City of Meridian would attain the opportunity to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement funds to prevent or eliminate slum and blight conditions within the redevelopment area. After collecting all pertinent data, photos and performing onsite field inspections, the overall assessment of the area concluded that 78 of the 212 (36.79%) properties evaluated fell within the fair to poor rating category. FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 20 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 2 | P a g e Slum and Blight Criteria and Qualifications In order to meet the criteria for slum and blight under HUD’s definition, the “designated area” which the activity occurs must meet the definition of slum, blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating area under state or local law. The area must meet either one of two principle conditions: 1. Public Improvements throughout the area are in a general state of deterioration; or 2. At least 25% of the properties throughout the area must exhibit one or more of the following:  Physical deterioration of buildings/improvements  Abandonment of properties  Chronic high occupancy turnover rates or chronic high vacancy rates in commercial or industrial buildings  Significant declines in property values or abnormally low property values relative to other areas in the community; or  Known or suspected environmental contamination Based on field inspections, photos, and documentation collected, the redevelopment area shown in Figure 1 meets the HUD definition for slum and blight. The assessment concludes that more than 25% (36.79%) of the properties inventoried exhibit at least one of the above principle conditions, are in either fair or poor condition, display a general state of deterioration, and thus satisfy the state and local criteria for slum and blight. INTRODUCTION Established in 1893, the City of Meridian was once known for its farming and dairy presence throughout the state. As the fastest-growing city in Idaho, Meridian’s population has increased by 81.5% since 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau). The City’s agricultural history is remembered and celebrated during the Meridian Dairy Days annual event. The interurban railway was developed in 1908 as a means to ship dairy and fruit, and to provide convenient transportation for residents. Meridian, positioned around the railway, has since become the “Center of the Treasure Valley” and central hub for commercial and retail development in southwest Idaho. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 21 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 3 | P a g e The City of Meridian, now home to an estimated 98,300 people [Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS)], receives an annual CDBG distribution from HUD as an entitlement city. CDBG resources help fund various activities including the prevention or elimination of slum and blight. The section of downtown Meridian identified in Figure 1 was selected as the area to evaluate for slum and blight conditions. There is a mixture of commercial, industrial and residential properties throughout the study area. Some of the City’s oldest structures are located within the slum and blight study area . The historic and community-recognized properties throughout the study area demonstrate a place of historical importance, as well as an area going through transition. A combination of age, lack of newer development, competing outer growth and declining infrastructure contribute to the visible deterioration displayed throughout the study area. The slum and blight designation in this area would provide the opportunity to utilize CDBG entitlement funds to prevent or eliminate slum and blight conditions within the redevelopment area. METHODOLOGY The methodology to conduct this assessment was developed through a collaborative effort among City of Meridian staff and consultants that made up the overall project committee. State and Local Slum and Blight (Substandard) Criteria A definition of “substandard area” was developed by the committee based upon criteria defined by HUD, Idaho State Code 50-2903 (8) (b), and Meridian City Code, as well as a review of studies performed by neighboring cities. The qualifying factors per state and local definition include:  The existence of buildings and structures, or any part thereof, used or intended to be used for residential, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of those uses, which is conducive to ill health or endangers life by any cause.  The existence of inadequate infrastructure, public facilities, open spaces lacking accessibility or usefulness; streetscape and faulty lot layouts which contribute to the economic underdevelopment and deterioration of the area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 22 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 4 | P a g e  The economic underutilization of property resulting from inadequate planning, zoning or building code enforcement, such as obsolete platting, deterioration of structures or improvements, and diversity of ownership impairing sound growth of the surrounding community.  Continued depreciation and disinvestment to such an extent that the continued deterioration of the area negatively impacts the social and economic infrastructure of surrounding neighborhoods.  A loss of investment, population and utilization of an area, resulting in continued deterioration and added costs to the taxpayer for the creation of new public facilities, infrastructure and services elsewhere.  A state in which, by any reason, property is disadvantaged in the ability to attract private investment causing hindrance on the continued growth of the community. A document containing the Local Slum and Blight (Substandard) Criteria is included in Appendix A. Study Area In order to define the study area, core areas of concern were first identified by the committee. The study area focused primarily on downtown properties located outside of existing low-to-moderate (LMI) areas. Furthermore, natural features and barriers including principal arterial roadways (Meridian Road, Pine Avenue and Franklin Road) and the rail corridor further distinguished the study area. A thorough assessment of existing conditions (i.e. sidewalk gaps, capital improvement projects, etc.) and a review of qualified LMI boundaries, the committee established the study area shown in Figure 1. In total, the study area encompasses 141.92 acres and approximately 280 individual parcels including a mix of residential, commercial, industrial and vacant properties. The boundaries of a study (Slum and Blighted) area were determined by the domination of properties exhibiting neglect, abuse, or misuse. An area is presumed to be “dominated” by properties exhibiting these contributing factors if [no less than 50% of the properties within the area exhibit two or more of the eight conditions listed below OR no less than 25% of properties within the area exhibit three or more of the eight conditions listed below]. Conditions indicating neglect, abuse and/or misuse of property include, but are not strictly limited to, the above criteria as well as those factors noted in Appendix A. Meridian’s downtown district satisfies the state criterion through a combination of deteriorated or deteriorating structures, predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, accessibility and usefulness Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 23 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 5 | P a g e and the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes resulting in the economic underdevelopment of the area substantially impairing the sound growth of the City of Meridian and retarding the provision of housing accommodations, and which constitutes an economic liability. Additionally, the area meets both of the conditions below (see Findings on Page 7 for detailed information): Public improvements throughout the area are in a general state of deterioration; and by having at least 25% of the properties throughout the area exhibit one of more of the following:  Physical deterioration of buildings/improvements;  Abandonment of properties;  Chronic high occupancy turnover rates or chronic high vacancy rates in commercial or industrial buildings;  Significant declines in property values or abnormally low property values relative to other areas in the community; or  Known or suspected environmental contamination. Or  The public improvements throughout the area are in general state of deterioration. Field Inventory Once the definition of a substandard area was established and the study area identified, a slum and blight inventory form was developed. The inventory form captures the established local slum and blight criteria by separating each contributing factor individually. Data collected using the inventory form included: parcel number, property address, land use description, building age/year built, and property characteristics contributing to slum and blight conditions. An unmarked inventory form is included in Appendix B for reference. An Inventory Information Spreadsheet (Appendix C) was then developed to input field data from the inventory forms to provide both a historical point of reference for the City, and to produce a visual map of the data utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS). Field work commenced once the study area, local slum and blight criteria, inventory form, and inventory information spreadsheet were collaboratively established and finalized by the committee. Within the study area, 21 properties are owned/used for public purposes, including the City of Meridian, Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Idaho Power and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, etc. These properties were excluded from the in-field study, but were factored into the overall slum and blight study area percentage (see Figure 3). Property photos were taken to capture each contributing factor documented at each property within the redevelopment boundary. The pictures were then linked to the inventory forms digitally for reference and all information collected from each property was added to the inventory information spreadsheet and uniquely identified by parcel number and physical address. Based upon the data collected, each property was then determined to be in excellent, good, fair, or poor Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 24 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 6 | P a g e condition. A numeric rating system was established to delineate the overall rating for each property. The scale shown in Figure 2 was used. FIGURE 2 – SLUM AND BLIGHT RATING SCALE Properties falling within the fair or poor rating scale qualify for slum and blight, per local definition. Figure 3 shows the condition assessment results. Appendix D includes a map book reflecting parcel numbers and conditions, along with completed inventory forms. A web-based GIS map file with clickable links containing inventory data can be accessed here: http://arcg.is/0e0Lfy The City’s Planning Division Manager, Caleb Hood, who has code interpretation authority oversaw, conducted, and certified all inventory assessments for each property reviewed in this study. Overall Rating Excellent Good Fair Poor No. of Contributing Factors (Per Local Substandard Criteria Established) 0-1 2-3 4-5 6 or more Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 25 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 7 | P a g e FIGURE 3 – CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 26 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 8 | P a g e FINDINGS The results of the assessment demonstrate that 36.79% of the properties evaluated meet the City’s slum and blight, or “substandard” criteria. HUD defines a redevelopment area by economic underdevelopment, deterioration of property, inadequate, unimproved and underperforming infrastructure, amenities and facilities, or any combination of these contributing factors that could be detrimental to the public’s safety, health or welfare. The local highway jurisdiction, ACHD, maintains roughly 4.6 miles of paved roadway including local, collector, and arterial roadways within the study area. In addition to the roadway, an estimated 23,945 linear feet of existing sidewalks and an additional 10,246 linear feet of sidewalk gaps exist within the redevelopment area. A total of 212 slum and blight inventory forms and several supporting pictures were documented on-site through a collaborative effort between consultants and City of Meridian staff. Approximately 48 parcels were not assigned individual inventory forms but were instead combined with other adjacent properties due to their related ownership status and/or existing land use. Using the rating system outlined herein, properties exhibiting four or more slum and blight characteristics rated either fair or poor and were considered eligible for slum and blight designation. The overall assessment of the area demonstrates that 78 of the 212 (36.79%) properties evaluated fall within the fair to poor rating category. Contributing Factor Results The top three leading factors that contribute to the slum and blight conditions within the study area include: 1. Contributing Factor 5B (Sidewalks) – Damaged or Missing Sidewalk, 94 Properties. See Figure 4. 2. Contributing Factor 3A (Facades) – Facades Characterized by Cracks, Holes, Peeling and/or Discoloration, 88 Properties. See Figure 5. 3. Contributing Factor 5F (Landscaping) – Neglected Landscaping, 60 Properties. See Figure 6. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 27 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 9 | P a g e FIGURE 4 – CONTRIBUTING FACTOR (SIDEWALKS) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 28 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 | P a g e FIGURE 5 – CONTRIBUTING FACTOR (FACADES) 10 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 29 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 | P a g e FIGURE 6 – CONTRIBUTING FACTOR (LANDSCAPING) 11 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 30 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 12 | P a g e Conclusion As shown in Figure 3, several properties along the north and south sides of the railroad corridor fall in the fair or poor category. The railroad corridor is predominately utilized for industrial and commercial purposes and makes up a significant share of land within the study area. Because of this, the rail corridor has a strong aesthetic impact on downtown Meridian and its surrounding uses. Throughout the area, inconsistent infrastructure exists including sidewalks, curb, lighting, parking, landscaping, and roadway improvements. As shown in Figure 4, 1.94 miles of sidewalk gaps exist in the study area, along with damaged, aged, cracked, up-rooted and non-compliant ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) public facilities present throughout. Residential land uses occur throughout the study area, primarily concentrated south of the railroad tracks and east of Meridian Road. While this area is clearly defined by its age and location, it also provides great potential. Of the properties inspected, 57.5 percent had structures 50 years or older, five of which are designated historic through the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Several of the structures contribute to the slum and blight of the area because of their age, but also due to sustained deferred maintenance and inadequate surrounding infrastructure. Figure 5 shows that many of the older properties have façade-related contributing factors. Figure 6 shows properties with neglected landscaping/property. The examples below depict actual field photos of properties within the study area that provide an illustration of the existing conditions within the residential neighborhoods. The findings of this assessment establish a strong basis for defining the study area as a mix of older properties and intermittent newer development that presents characteristics often associated with slum and blight. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 31 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 | P a g e RECOMMENDATIONS Improvement Projects Improvement projects to address slum and blight conditions may include but are not limited to sidewalks, ADA ramps, façade improvements, drainage facilities, curb, gutter, and other public infrastructure. Improvements would typically be coordinated/addressed/funded by the Meridian Development Corporation (MDC), Meridian Arts Commission (in some instances), COMPASS, ACHD, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) or other agencies. Private property owners may also be willing to help address substandard conditions. Public-private partnerships could also be explored to address slum and blight conditions. FAÇADE PROGRAM Façade improvement programs are a good way to encourage and promote private investment. The MDC has an existing façade improvement program1 that could provide up to 50% in funding towards eligible projects that provide a public purpose or benefit. The City of Meridian could apply CDBG funds towards eligible projects if a viable opportunity arises, if funding levels permit, and as long as the project falls within the slum and blight redevelopment boundary. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS The City of Meridian, MDC and/or ACHD could allocate a certain amount of funding on an annual basis to go towards sidewalk improvements. A funding request can be made to ACHD each year through the annual project prioritization process. Funding requests can also be made to COMPASS through the Communities in Motion (CIM) program, or ITD through the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). 1 MDC Façade Improvement Application link: http://www.meridiandevelopmentcorp.com/fy17-facade- improvement-application 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 32 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 | P a g e PROJECT COORDINATION & COLLABORATION Table 1 includes a list of known planned and future improvements within the study area and identifies the possibility of leveraging CDBG funds to address slum and blight conditions. Table 1 – Improvement Projects Planned/ Possible Project Location Description Lead Agency In Study Area Expands Beyond Study Area In URA Area Possibility of leveraging CDBG funds E 3rd St, Franklin Rd/Carlton St Community Program: Construct streetscape improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and improved UPRR crossing, from Franklin Rd to Carlton Ave. ACHD X X X Yes, there are documented sidewalk gaps, façade issues, and neglected landscaping within the project limits. See Figures 4, 5 & 6. Main St, Central Dr/Fairview Ave Micro-seal, pavement management project scheduled for 2017 construction. ACHD X X X Not likely, 2017 construction; does not include any sidewalk improvements. Railroad Corridor through downtown and beyond A proposed pathway is identified for future development along the north side of the railroad corridor. City of Meridian X X X Possibly, there are documented sidewalk gaps, façade issues, and neglected landscaping within the project limits. See Figures 4, 5 & 6. Main St, Pine Ave/Carlton St Historic lighting on both sides of Main Street. Design of this phase of a larger master lighting plan effort has recently been completed. Funds have yet to be officially allocated/budgeted for construction. Additionally, there are façade improvement applications in the works for El Tenapa and Slyce properties within this project area. MDC X X X Possibly, façade issues are documented along Main Street within the project location. Lighting and the potential façade projects noted in the description would help with aesthetics and slum and blight conditions in the area. See Figure 5. Pine Ave, Meridian Rd/Locust Grove Rd Roadway improvements, sewer, water and irrigation improvements; historic lighting; and landscaping. ACHD, City of Meridian & MDC X X X Possibly, there are documented sidewalk gaps, façade issues, and neglected landscaping within the project limits. See Figures 4, 5 & 6. 703 & 713 N Main St Façade improvements: These projects are slated for a new, four-story, mixed-use development. These projects are slated for a new, four-story, mixed-use development. There is a Development Agreement in place for the project. 703 N Main will begin construction this summer (2017). 713 N Main is Phase II and will likely occur in 2019. MDC X X Yes, there are documented façade and neglected landscaping issues identified for these properties. See Figures 5 & 6. 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 33 of 104 REDEVELOPMENT REPORT | JUNE 2017 | P a g e On-going Evaluation Table 2 includes a summary of recommended action items, descriptions and timing associated with slum and blight projects and inventory tracking. Table 2 – Slum and Blight Projects and Inventory Tracking Item Description Timing Committee Meetings Conduct regular committee meetings to discuss project programming, funding coordination, progress, etc. Bi-Annually or Annually Project Tracking As projects are completed within the study area, update the Inventory Information Spreadsheet and Inventory Forms for tracking and reporting purposes. Bi-Annually Redevelopment Boundary As projects and requests/interest for improvements occur, re-evaluate the redevelopment boundary for potential expansion. Once expanded, conduct inventory field work of the properties within the expanded redevelopment area and update Inventory Information Spreadsheet and GIS file to reflect the new redevelopment boundary and inventory results. Annually Local Definition When and if the redevelopment boundary is expanded, re-evaluate the Local Definition for Slum and Blight conditions, Blank Inventory Form and Inventory Information Spreadsheet before conducting field work. Annually (minimum); 5 years (maximum) Inventory Form Inventory Information Spreadsheet GIS File Update the GIS shape file to reflect new conditions as projects are completed. Annually Redevelopment Report Update this Redevelopment Report when and if conditions change significantly within the study area and/or when and if the redevelopment area is expanded. This can be done in-house or with assistance from a consultant. 5 years 15 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 34 of 104 APPENDICES A – Local Slum and Blight (Substandard) Criteria B – Blank Inventory Form C – Inventory Information Spreadsheet D – Map Book & Inventory Forms E – Resolutions Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 35 of 104 APPENDIX A Local Slum and Blight (Substandard) Criteria Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 36 of 104 APPENDIX B Blank Inventory Form Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 37 of 104 APPENDIX C Inventory Information Spreadsheet Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 38 of 104 APPENDIX D Map Book & Inventory Forms Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 39 of 104 APPENDIX E Resolutions Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 40 of 104 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 33. E. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 884-5533 Ext: 1572 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 41 of 104 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January -9\, 2 January -9,018 Agenda Item Number: _.... - . .................. _................ ---.._........ _..— Project/File Number: H-2017-0162 Item Title: Final Plat for Tree Farm Subdivision Applicant's Request a Continuance to January 23, 2018 Meeting Notes Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) I. APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, M3 Companies, LLC, has applied for final plat (FP) approval of sixty five (65) single- family residential building lots and six (6) common lots on approximately 26.06 acres of land in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. This is the third and final phase of the Tree Farm Subdivision. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 final plat application 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-2017-0162 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16, 2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial I move to deny File Number H-2017-0162, as presented during the hearing on January 16, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0162 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 4740 W. Chinden Blvd., in the SW ¼ of Section 22, Township 4N., Range 1W. B. Owners: Ball Real Estate, BFT KGLG Cherry Lane, LLC & Fairmont Tempe, LLC 4222 E. Camelback Road, Suite H100 Phoenix, AZ 85018 C. Applicant: M3 Companies, LLC, (Mark Tate) 1087 W. River Street, Suite 310 Boise, ID 83702 Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 2 D. Agent: JUB Engineers (Kristi Watkins) 250 S. Beechwood Ave. Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed final plat depicts sixty five (65) single-family residential building lots and six (6) common lots on 26.06 acres of land, zoned R-8. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 2.49 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre with a net density of 3.18 d.u. per acre. The minimum property size is 5,999 square feet with an average property size of 13,703 square feet (s.f.). All of the lots proposed for this phase of development are for single-family detached homes and comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4 and R-8 zoning district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found it in compliance with the aforementioned dimensional standards. Open space proposed for this phase consists of several passive open space lots, collector street buffers and parkways. The open space proposed with this phase is consistent with the overall project open space approved with the preliminary plat. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Because the number of buildable lotshas been reduced from the approved preliminary plat, staff deems the final plat to be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required by UDC11-6B-3C.2. VI. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-06-004 and AZ-06-050), rezone and preliminary plat (H-2016-0128 and development agreement H-2016-0128 (Inst. No. 2017- 035132). 2. The applicant has until February 22, 2019 to obtain City Engineer’s signature on the final plat or apply for a time extension 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 JUB Engineers, dated December 11, 2017 by Michael S. Byrns shall be revised as follows:  Include the instrument # for note #10 referencing the ACHD license agreement instrument number.  Include the missing information from note # 11.  Include the instrument # and date for note number 13.  Include the instrument # for easement note #5 referencing the ACHD storm drain easement instrument number.  Include the instrument # for easement note #4 referencing the ACHD right-of-way easement instrument number.  Include the instrument # for easement note #6 referencing the ACHD temporary turn around easement instrument number.  Note #1: Replace Lot 1, Block 10 as a called out common lot in note #1 and replace with Lot 8, Block 10. Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 3  Add the following note: Maintenance of any irrigation and/or drainage pipes or ditches crossing a lot is the responsibility of the lot owner unless such responsibility is assumed by an irrigation/drainage entity or lot owners association. 5. The landscape plan prepared by Greey, Pickett Landscape Architecture, dated 12/12/2017 shall be revised as follows: a) Prior to signature on the final plat, the applicant shall provide a detailed fencing plan. b) The final plat currently indicates an easement along the Phyllis Canal along Lots 35-45 of Block 2. This easement shall be placed in a common lot to ensure more consistent maintenance of the landscaping. c) The applicant shall install a 5 foot detached sidewalk along their entire frontage of N. Black Cat Road. d) Prior to signature on the final plat, the applicant shall indicate how they intend to landscape Lot 2 Block 8 west of Lots 45 and 46, Block 2 as well as the required common lot on the north side of Lots 35-45, Block 2. 6. Lots 29 and 30 of Block 2 shall take access from a common driveway (Lot 28, Block 2). For all common driveways, a perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to 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 as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.8. 7. All fencing shall be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. Per UDC 11-3A-7A7a, the applicant is responsible for fencing micropaths and pathway lots to distinguish the common areas from the private areas. 8. Future homes/structures constructed in this subdivision shall substantially comply with the sample elevations approved with the preliminary plat. Because homes on lots that back-up to public streets such as N. Black Cat Road (Lots 2-11, Block 9, and Lots 45-45, Block 2) will be highly visible; the side of any structure that faces the public street on these lots shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single story homes are exempt from this requirement. 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. 11. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of mailboxes. Contact the Meridian Postmaster, Sue Prescott, at 887-1620 for more information. 12. Street lights are required to be on a stand-alone drawing pursuant to section 6-7 of the City of Meridian 2016 Design Standards. Street lights are required on the portion of Black Cat that will be constructed with this development. These street lights shall be metered and can be either Type 1 or Type 2 street lights in accordance with drawing 6C of the Meridian Design Standards. 13. The adequacy of available fire flow will be verified prior to the issuance of a building p ermit in this development. Home builders will be subject to minimum fire flow requirements as determined by the Meridian Fire Department. Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 4 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 a s 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. Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 5 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 (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, Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 6 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. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Vicinity Map B. Approved Preliminary Plat C. Proposed Final Plat D. Proposed Landscape Plan Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 7 Exhibit A – Vicinity Map Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 8 Exhibit B – Approved Preliminary Plat Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 9 Exhibit C – Proposed Final Plat Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 (H-2017-0162) PAGE 10 Exhibit D –Proposed Landscape Plan Changes to Agenda: • Item #9A: Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 — FP (H-2017-0162) — Request for continuance to Jan. 23rd (Applicant needs additional time to resolve an easement issue). Item #913: Paramount Subdivision No. 29 - FP (H-2017-0168) Application(s): ➢ Final Plat Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.17of an acre of land, zoned R-8, located at 5260 N. Borgnine Avenue. History: In 2015, the property received final plat approval to development 62 SFR lots & 12 common lots on 18.42 acres of land. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to modify note #14 on the Paramount Subdivision # 29 plat to allow Lot 15, Block 76 to take access from the abutting street (N. Borgnine Ave.) rather than the adjacent common driveway on Lot 16 along the south boundary. The UDC requires any property that abuts a common driveway to take access from the driveway unless the abutting property has the required minimum street frontage and the property's driveway is located on the opposite side of the lot away from the common driveway. The applicant has provided an exhibit that demonstrates how the home is to be oriented on lot with the driveway on the opposite side of the lot from the common driveway consistent with UDC standards. Solid fencing is restricted from being located along the common driveway because a 5 -foot landscape buffer doesn't exist per UDC standards. Staff recommends that Lot 15, Block 76 be removed from plat note #14 per the staff report. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0168, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16, 2018: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0168, as presented during the hearing on January 16, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0168 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #9D: Linder Village - AZ, PP, VAR (b-2017.0088) Note: This project was heard by the City Council on November 21, 2017 with a recommendation of denial f om the Commission. The recommendation of denial was based on the Commission's belief that the proposed conceptual development plan wasn't consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Mixed Use — Community (MU -C) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation, and the applicant's unwillingness to revise the plan as recommended in the staff report Prior to the Council meeting in November the applicant did submit a revised concept plan that addressed some of the issues noted in the staff report and held a new neighborhood meeting to discuss the changes with neighbors. The Council continued the project to January 16th in order to allow the Applicant additional time to obtain updated traffic counts and submit an updated Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to ACHD based on the revisions to the plans and get a report from ACHD. On December 11th, Staff met with the Applicant and their traffic engineer, ACHD and ITD staff to discuss changes to the concept plan and timing of an updated TIS, which they stated would be 6 weeks after updated traffic counts were collected. The Applicant states that updated traffic counts have been completed; however, an updated TIS has not been submitted to ACHD for review, therefore, a staff report is still not available from ACHD. Staff has included the updated plans submitted by the Applicant in Exhibit A of the staff report and included conditions of approval in Exhibit B if the Council should decide to move forward with a decision prior to receiving a staff report from ACHD. Staff has not included a requirement for the expansion of Chinden Blvd.ISH2O-26 to be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancies within this development. If that is the intent of the Council, a 134 provision should be added accordingly. Applicatlon(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 2O-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 (64.41 acres) and the R-8 zoning districts (17.1 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 that depicts how the site is proposed to develop in the future. Based on Staffs 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 last Council hearing, the applicant has submitted a revised concept plan that addresses some of the issues noted in the staff report, comments from the City Council, and public testimony. The revised concept plan depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store (Winco) as an anchor for the development across the SWC of the site; (3) mid-size anchors; a fuel sales facility; smaller office, retail, restaurant, live/work uses; a plaza and future office/retail development. 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 & the mid - anchors have been shifted further to the north away from the adjacent residents. i. Traffic impact on adjacent streets (i.e. Linder Rd. and SH 2O-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; I. Objectivity to not having a complete conceptual development plan for the area proposed to be annexed; and, m. Infrastructure on SH 2O-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 (Le. 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 2O-261Chinden 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 previous Commission and Council hearings. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many letters of public testimony have been received since the Commission and previous City Council meeting (see the public record). 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 January 16, 2018: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) 9' Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0088, as presented during the hearing on January 16, 2018, 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 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) A circulation plan was submitted that shows access to the site via 2 accesses from N. Linder Road (the one nearest the intersection has been removed) and 2 accesses via Chinden/SH 2O-26; traffic signals are planned at the southernmost access via Linder and the eastern access via SH 2O-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 that are proposed to be extended with development. The plan depicts pedestrian walkways throughout the development; a backage road;, a connection to the commercial zoned property at the east boundary of the site for future connection to N. Fox Run Way and the signal, a bus stop and a future signal on Chinden in alignment w/Bergmann Way. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement & driveway should be provided to the property at the SWC of the site in an effort to decrease access points to Linder Rd. 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 2O-26. A semi -private wood screen wall is proposed along the south boundary of commercial property on the eastern portion of the 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 does abut residential uses. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor (Winco), the mid anchors, the retail shops and residential area. 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 2O-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; City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January,��018 Agenda Item Number: Project/File Number: H-2017-0168 Item Title: Final Plat Modification for Paramount 29 by Peter Harris Construction Inc. located west of N. Meridian Road, north of W. Ensenada Drive Request to modify plat note #14 of Paramount No. 29 to allow Lot 15, Block 76 take access to N. Borgnine Avenue instead of the abutting common driveway (Lot 16, Block 76) Meeting Notes STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor (208) 884-5533 SUBJECT: Paramount No. 29- H-2017-0168 I. APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, Peter Harris, has requested approval of a modification to the Paramount No. 29 final plat (note #14) to allow the future home constructed on Lot 15, Block 76 to take access from the abutting local street (N. Borgnine Ave.) in lieu of the common driveway (Lot 16, Block 76). II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subject application subject to the modifications listed in Exhibit A.4. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0168, as presented during the hearing on January 16, 2018. Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017- 0168, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16, 2018, 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- 0168 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 (Lot 15, Block 76) is located at 5260 N. Borgnine Avenue in the southeast ¼ of Section 25, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. B. Applicant/Owner: Peter Harris Construction Inc. 6945 Duncan Lane Boise, ID 83714 C. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. 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 subject property is vacant property developed as a single-family Paramount No. 29- H-2017-0168 - 1 - residential subdivision. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: This area is predominantly developed with single family detached homes. C. History of Previous Actions: On May 26 2015, the property received final plat approval (FP-15- 016) to development 62 single family lots and 12 common lots on 18.42 acres. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests approval to modify the Paramount No. 29 final plat to allow Lot 15, Block 76 to access from the abutting street rather than the adjacent common driveway. Specifically, note #14 on the recorded plat states said lot must to take access from the abutting common driveway along the south boundary (Lot 16, Block 76). The modification is requested because the applicant wishes to construct a new home on the parcel that takes access from the abutting local street (N. Borgnine Ave.). As stated in the UDC, any property that abuts a common driveway shall take access from the driveway. However, if the abutting property has the required minimum street frontage, the property is not required to take access from the common driveway. In this situation, the abutting property’s driveway shall be on the opposite side of the shared property line; away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to the common driveway is prohibited unless separated by a 5-foot landscape buffer. The applicant has provided an exhibit that demonstrates how the home is to be oriented on lot. In reviewing the attached document, Staff finds the lot meets the minimum street frontage requirements of the R-8 district and the proposed driveway for the future home is on the opposite side of the common driveway consistent with the common drive standards set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.5. In order to proceed with the modification as proposed by the applicant, the plat note #14 must be modified as follows: 1) Note #14 – Lot 18 of Block 54, Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are designated as common driveways to provide access to Lots 15, 16, 17 and 19 of Block 54, Lots 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Block 76, respectively, said Lot 18 of Block 54, Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are to be owned by the Paramount Owners Association Inc., or assigns, and the owners of the lots which will benefit from the use of the common driveway shall maintain, repair and/or replace at their own cost and expense of said driveway. Lot 18 of Block 54 and Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are also encumbered by a blanket public utility easement. Staff recommends the proposed MFP be approved with the modification in Exhibit A.4. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Approved Final Plat 3. Proposed Site Plan 4. Modifications to the Final Plat Notes Paramount No. 29- H-2017-0168 - 2 - A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Paramount No. 29- H-2017-0168 - 3 - 2. Approved Final Plat Paramount No. 29- H-2017-0168 - 4 - 3. Proposed Site Plan Paramount No. 29- H-2017-0168 - 5 - 4. Modifications to the Final Plat The Paramount No. 29 final plat shall be modified as follows: 1. Note #14 – Lot 18 of Block 54, Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are designated as common driveways to provide access to Lots 15, 16, 17 and 19 of Block 54, Lots 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Block 76, respectively, said Lot 18 of Block 54, Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are to be owned by the Paramount Owners Association Inc., or assigns, and the owners of the lots which will benefit from the use of the common driveway shall maintain, repair and/or replace at their own cost and expense of said driveway. Lot 18 of Block 54 and Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are also encumbered by a blanket public utility easement. Paramount No. 29- H-2017-0168 - 6 - City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January, 9��018 Agenda Item Number: Project/File Number: Item Title: Public Hearing for Proposed Impact Fees Ordinance No. 18-1760: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2), Meridian City Code, Known As The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; To Provide For An Amendment To The Police, Fire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee Schedules; And Providing An Effective Date Meeting Notes fil CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 18-1763 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 12(E)(2), MERIDIAN CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE; TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICE, FIRE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION IWACT FEE SCHEDULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the City of Meridian ("the City") may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, on the I Ith day of March, 2014 The City Council of the City of Meridian adopted the current Impact Fee Schedule as Ordinance 14-1596; and, WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted by Ordinance 14-1596 were less than the maximum allowable fee under the City's currently adopted methodology and Capital Improvements Plan, which necessitates the use of general fund revenue or other income sources to fund the difference between the maximum allowable fee and the adopted fee; and WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee met with the Meridian City Council on December 12, 2017 and recommended that the City Council consider adopting the maximum allowable fee under the City's currently adopted methodology and Capital Improvements Plan; and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing on January 16, 2018 to discuss, review and hear public comments on the proposed amendments to the Impact Fee Schedule as recommended by the Development Impact Fee Committee; and WHEREAS, based upon the previously adopted Capital Improvements Plan, the testimony at the public hearing, and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and nonresidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS, in adopting the police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Pagel of 3 herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees, as revised, to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted by this Ordinance are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council, along with the recitals in Ordinance 14-1596 pertaining to the adoption of the current Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan. Section 2. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2) of the Meridian City Code is amended in part as follows: 10-7-12: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: E. 2. Except for such impact fee as may be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to an independent impact fee calculation study, the amount of each impact fee shall be as follows effective the 1st day of March, 2018: Police impact fee schedule: r - Residential — Single Family Residential - Multifamily $135.727$223.00per $135.72 $223.00 dwelling unit Nonresidential -07.12 [per square foot Fire impact fee schedule: Residential — Single Family Residential - Multifamily X07 $681.00 Q `� $681.00 per dwelling unit Nonresidential .35 per square foot IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 2 of 3 Parks impact fee schedule: Residential — Single Family Residential - Multifamily Nonresidential $1,2 $1,113.00 $767.52 $1,113.00 n/a Flotal fees. Residential — Single Family $1,''�r$2,017.00 Residential - Multifamily $1,^.,.T454.31 $2,017.00 Nonresidential .36 .47 per dwelling unit per dwelling unit per square foot Section 3: That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7 remain unchanged. Section 4: This Fee Schedule shall be in effect on the V day of March, 2018, which shall be no sooner than thirty (3 0) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this of 56,06-ry,2018. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this % day of 56'VL9-. ' 2018. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 3 of 3 Impact Fee Public Hearing January, 16, 2017 •Impact Fees are utilized by the Fire, Parks, and Police Departments to collect revenue from future development to construct new facilities for areas of growth. • It is used for eligible growth related expenditures. For example: •Fire Department Fire Station Construction •Park Development and Construction •Police Substation Construction The Proposed Fee changes and subsequent proposed ordinance is to amend Fire, Parks and Police Impact Fee rates. Impact Fees are not collected for Schools, Water, and Sewer Infrastructures. City of Meridian What are Impact Fees Comparison between Adopted (Current) and Proposed Impact Fees City of Meridian Proposed Impact Fee Rates BBC Proposed Impact Fee (02/04/14) Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Fire Impact Fee 681.00$ 681.00$ 0.35$ Parks Impact Fee 1,113.00$ 1,113.00$ -$ Police Impact Fee 223.00$ 223.00$ 0.12$ Total Impact Fee 2,017.00$ 2,017.00$ 0.47$ *SFH – Single Family Housing *MFH – Multi Family Housing City of Meridian Questions M 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: January 16, 2018 Item # 9C Project Number: Project Name: Proposed Impact Fees Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) I 'r 4 X eve- X 7- Old i `q A) P V NZ)1-2 /9 vV V - � �- �-- r� u YC S AJO A)d P(f0 �f Vv ovuQ_ NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. X&- 1-763 An Ordinance amending the Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2), Known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; to Provide for an Amendment of the Police, Fire and Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedules; and Providing an Effective Date. Police impact fee schedule: Residential — Single Family $223.00 per dwelling unit Residential - Multifamily $223.00 Nonresidential 12 per square foot --- Fire Impact fee schedule: Residential — Single Family $6$1.00 per dwelling unit Residential - Multifamily $681.00 Nonresidential 35 per square foot Parrs impact fee schedule: Residential — Single Family $1 1 i3.00 per dwelling unit Residential - Multifamily $1L113.00 Nonresidential n/a Total fees: Residential —Single Family $2,017.00 per dwelling unit Residential - Multifamily $2 0,x,17.00 Nonresidential .47 per square foot That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7 remain unchanged. This Fee Schedule shall be in effect on the 1st day of March, 2018, which shall be no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. A full text of this ordinance is available for Avenue Meridian, Idaho, This ordinance C�y of Vridia�r' Mayor and City Council By: CJay Coles, City Clerk City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway five upon the passage and publication. rr 9� City of E IUTANt- I6Ali0 SEAL First Reading: l / ;" / �0l 0 Adopted after first readin by suspe sion of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902: YES_ NOA/ Second Reading: // / )01 Third Reading: IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 18- 1-763 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. 18- 1 --7- 6 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 -7 rlday of January, 2018, Liam. L. M. -Wary City Attorney IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT City Council Meeting MeetingDate: Janua 4, January '4, Item Number: `I Project/File Number: H-2017-0088 Item Title: Public Hearing for Linder Village by Lynx/DMG 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 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 2O-26 Meeting Notes Ke M al o�ed +o PG��Ni �Mr CD `O/V City Council Meeting January 16, 2018 Changes to Agenda:  Item #9A: Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 – FP (H-2017-0162) – Request for continuance to Jan. 23rd (Applicant is working with ACHD & ITD on a revised TIS). Item #9B: Paramount Subdivision No. 29 - FP (H-2017-0168) Application(s):  Final Plat Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.17of an acre of land, zoned R-8, located at 5260 N. Borgnine Avenue. History: On May 26 2015, the property received final plat approval (FP-15-016) to development 62 single family lots and 12 common lots on 18.42 acres. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to modify the Paramount No. 29, note #14, to allow Lot 15, Block 76 to access from the abutting street rather than the adjacent common driveway along the south boundary (Lot 16, Block 76). The UDC requires any property that abuts a common driveway shall take access from the driveway unless the abutting property has the required minimum street frontage and the abutting property’s driveway is located on the opposite side; away from the common driveway. The applicant has provided an exhibit that demonstrates how the home is to be oriented on lot. In reviewing the attached document, Staff finds the lot meets the minimum street frontage requirements of the R-8 district and the proposed driveway for the future home is on the opposite side of the common driveway consistent with the common drive standards set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.5. Solid fencing is restricted from being located along the common driveway because a 5-foot landscape buffer doesn’t exist per UDC standards. Staff recommends that Lot 15, Block 76 be removed from plat note #14 as shown in the staff report. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0168, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16, 2018: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0168, as presented during the hearing on January 16, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0168 to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #9D: 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 the 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 does 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.) Changes to Agenda:  Item #9A: Tree Farm Subdivision No. 3 – FP (H-2017-0162) – Request for continuance to Jan. 23rd (Applicant needs additional time to resolve an easement issue). Item #9B: Paramount Subdivision No. 29 - FP (H-2017-0168) Application(s):  Final Plat Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.17of an acre of land, zoned R-8, located at 5260 N. Borgnine Avenue. History: In 2015, the property received final plat approval to development 62 SFR lots & 12 common lots on 18.42 acres of land. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to modify note #14 on the Paramount Subdivision # 29 plat to allow Lot 15, Block 76 to take access from the abutting street (N. Borgnine Ave.) rather than the adjacent common driveway on Lot 16 along the south boundary. The UDC requires any property that abuts a common driveway to take access from the driveway unless the abutting property has the required minimum street frontage and the property’s driveway is located on the opposite side of the lot away from the common driveway. The applicant has provided an exhibit that demonstrates how the home is to be oriented on lot with the driveway on the opposite side of the lot from the common driveway consistent with UDC standards. Solid fencing is restricted from being located along the common driveway because a 5-foot landscape buffer doesn’t exist per UDC standards. Staff recommends that Lot 15, Block 76 be removed from plat note #14 per the staff report. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0168, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 16, 2018: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0168, as presented during the hearing on January 16, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0168 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #9D: Linder Village – AZ, PP, VAR (H-2017-0088) Note: This project was heard by the City Council on November 21, 2017 with a recommendation of denial from the Commission. The recommendation of denial was based on the Commission’s belief that the proposed conceptual development plan wasn’t consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation, and the applicant’s unwillingness to revise the plan as recommended in the staff report. Prior to the Council meeting in November the applicant did submit a revised concept plan that addressed some of the issues noted in the staff report and held a new neighborhood meeting to discuss the changes with neighbors. The Council continued the project to January 16th in order to allow the Applicant additional time to obtain updated traffic counts and submit an updated Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to ACHD based on the revisions to the plans and get a report from ACHD. On December 11th, Staff met with the Applicant and their traffic engineer, ACHD and ITD staff to discuss changes to the concept plan and timing of an updated TIS, which they stated would be 6 weeks after updated traffic counts were collected. The Applicant states that updated traffic counts have been completed; however, an updated TIS has not been submitted to ACHD for review, therefore, a staff report is still not available from ACHD. Staff has included the updated plans submitted by the Applicant in Exhibit A of the staff report and included conditions of approval in Exhibit B if the Council should decide to move forward with a decision prior to receiving a staff report from ACHD. Staff has not included a requirement for the expansion of Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancies within this development. If that is the intent of the Council, a DA provision should be added accordingly. 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 (64.41 acres) and the R-8 zoning districts (17.1 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 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 last Council hearing, the applicant has submitted a revised concept plan that addresses some of the issues noted in the staff report, comments from the City Council, and public testimony. The revised concept plan depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store (Winco) as an anchor for the development across the SWC of the site; (3) mid-size anchors; a fuel sales facility; smaller office, retail, restaurant, live/work uses; a plaza and future office/retail development. 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 & the mid- anchors have been shifted further to the north away from the adjacent residents. A circulation plan was submitted that shows access to the site via 2 accesses from N. Linder Road (the one nearest the intersection has been removed) and 2 accesses via Chinden/SH 20-26; traffic signals are 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 that are proposed to be extended with development. The plan depicts pedestrian walkways throughout the development; a backage road;, a connection to the commercial zoned property at the east boundary of the site for future connection to N. Fox Run Way and the signal, a bus stop and a future signal on Chinden in alignment w/Bergmann Way. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement & driveway should be provided to the property at the SWC of the site in an effort to decrease access points to Linder Rd. 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 the 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 does abut residential uses. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor (Winco), the mid anchors, the retail shops and residential area. 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 previous Commission and Council hearings. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many letters of public testimony have been received since the Commission and previous City Council meeting (see the public record). 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 January 16, 2018: (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 January 16, 2018, 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 _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #9B: Paramount Subdivision No. 29 Common Drive Exhibit The Paramount No. 29 final plat shall be modified as follows: 1. Note #14 – Lot 18 of Block 54, Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are designated as common driveways to provide access to Lots 15, 16, 17 and 19 of Block 54, Lots 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Block 76, respectively, said Lot 18 of Block 54, Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are to be owned by the Paramount Owners Association Inc., or assigns, and the owners of the lots which will benefit from the use of the common dr iveway shall maintain, repair and/or replace at their own cost and expense of said driveway. Lot 18 of Block 54 and Lots 9 and 16 of Block 76 are also encumbered by a blanket public utility easement. Item #9C: Linder Village Vicinity/Zoning Map FLUM Previous Conceptual Development Plan Revised Conceptual Development Plan Use Area Plan Circulation Plan Open Space Exhibit REVISED Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Pedestrian Path Winco Screen Wall Retail & Market Perspectives Winco Site Plan & Building Elevations Conceptual Building Elevations pr ' r r' - r awi 10, ow Uw Al Air AM AWWL �� ry VI /ILLAGE , — - j t l n - — `T� �'" a � -`.r `_ �` ,,a. bra � / � � / , • _ "' � _ � Jr _' �✓ I �' � � � _� rr "� r - o� 'A t ^" All NNI OW IF 1pww AW s' i - moi► -- u v / , 40 wrw At 400* All , i' c � , r r L y \\ • (fns//�/[' ..+• ~ \ / nay` \ - , �, � _� p .nom ir 'S•�i Ilu ---------------------------------- ------------ PAD 'AIS`.'` •� - a"o AN "} ucL FUTUR —� j PAD - --FF-- r FUTURE OFFICE/ RETAIL - �� � E DEVELOPMENT I - _ - - ,7��� 1 `' ry • \' - � ��� ' � �. tip_ � � rte; y� PAO ��V+I PAD — - ----- �►'.a1 MID F \ z PLAZA MID ANCHOR ANCHORtI _ ✓ \~ ANCHIOR 2 — do W la \7 - It RESIDENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT II 1�__ - .. r csk CLIENT: DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC I DATE: 01/04/18 LOCATION: BOISE,IDAHO BY: JOG DRAWING TITLE: Concept Plan PROJECT #: 07142 CONCEPT SITE PLAN 1CONCEPT PLAN SCALE T - 100 0 50 100 200 300 PAD LANDSCAPEE NEAREST""- I EXISTING ' RESIDENTIAL rESPLAi`lADE PAD ZI fT gmb Ib AD lo co I U) W z I � , cl 'ANN Fell em J Y, REVISED WINCO BUILDING POSITION PER CITY COUNCIL WINCO HEARING BUILDING SHOPS TRUCK DOCK PARK F -A POSITION PER - PLANNING AND ZONING 'SUBMITTAL SHOPS Oj Ira 0 < C) W CL SHOPS TRUCK DOCK PARK F -A POSITION PER - PLANNING AND ZONING 'SUBMITTAL SHOPS Oj Ira 0 It .A REVISED WINCO BUILDING POSITION PER CURRENT PROPOSAL N ks, WINCO BUILDING POSITION PER PLANNING AND ZONING SUBMITTAL . .... .... . . � A� TRUCK DOCK IL mww PAD C ol NEAREST EXISTING RESIDENTIA I �11) .. I 0 1 U) _ WinCo sy 10 °As 1 8'-0" CMU SOUND SCREEN WALL AT 1 —) TRUCK DOCK 1 l 4 a � 8'-0" CMU SOUND SCREEN WALL 8'-0" CMU SOUND SCREEN WALL Lu Z LANDSCAPE LAN r I BUFr�R In JF ��/ i` r II I MEANDERING A I .1 3 CLIENT: DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC I DATE: 01/12/18 LOCATION: BOISE, IDAHO BY: JAM DRAWING TITLE: WINCO SCREEN WALL PROJECT#: 07142 WINCO SCREEN WALL 6'-0" WOOD FENCE .KING ?ATH INr_ _.------- TING FAST CASUAL AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTY RETAIL/ FOOD AND / FUEL RESTAURANTS BEVERAGE 0 COMMUNITY COMMUNITY OFFICE GROCERY MIXED RETAIL IIS au .� �i��r—i�r ■■ II'J X11 t■ i � � � � ug i7rr.r■ u—.rTiiv MID ANCHORI MID ANCHOR 2 MID ANCHOR MIXED RETAIL / HEALTH AND MEDICAL Qw1I11II PAD - v O I PAD I a a L FUTURE J CROSS ACCESS �IIIIIIII lJ LII r0 H+H N O Ol�nl FUTURE OFFICE/ RETAIL DEVELOPMENT �IIIIIIn � _ LANDSCAPE PARK P K urvu -BUFFER T--� eUIWR HOUSE -T es epee i i �J__J� I 1II'I-TTFTiT+f+i Jii 1iiii117+ fi- iiiiff++ 8 I FUTURE RESIDENTIAL --� L1J_1LJ_LI_ LI__I�I__I�_ _fJJ IJJ1_IJ1_I_LL_ LLL _ DEVELOPMENT - - - f y LIVE/WORK 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPECIALTY RETAIL/ OFFICE/ RESIDENTIAL/ RESTAURANTS USE AREA CLIENT: DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC DATE: 01/04/18 PLAN LOCATION: BOISE, IDAHO BY: JAM DRAWING TITLE: USE AREA PLAN PROJECT #: 07142 III I I I I I I I I I I ENTERTAINMENT / SOFT GOODS RETAIL n USE AREA PLAN SCALE: 1' = 100' loo 200 300 400 };AL!_ IN FLLI FUTURE _ ROAD XT NTION /A CESS AANN- .000t t,• t � �J. -�"-; I Ake d.S�`J ' I L INDER� � _� p .nom ir 'S•�i Ilu ---------------------------------- ------------ PAD 'AIS`.'` •� - a"o AN "} ucL FUTUR —� j PAD - --FF-- r FUTURE OFFICE/ RETAIL - �� � E DEVELOPMENT I - _ - - ,7��� 1 `' ry • \' - � ��� ' � �. tip_ � � rte; y� PAO ��V+I PAD — - ----- �►'.a1 MID F \ z PLAZA MID ANCHOR ANCHORtI _ ✓ \~ ANCHIOR 2 — do W la \7 - It RESIDENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT II 1�__ - .. r csk CLIENT: DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC I DATE: 01/04/18 LOCATION: BOISE,IDAHO BY: JOG DRAWING TITLE: Concept Plan PROJECT #: 07142 CONCEPT SITE PLAN 1CONCEPT PLAN SCALE T - 100 0 50 100 200 300 IS I L�� VILLAGE *�r40j �C6- ,4 jaw i5l 416. 400, 0 nCl W w W 2i 00 U p I..L Q W Er 0 W za_ NEW BUS STOP • mill MEME! ---- — ------ 0 —ENE — _'_­ __ \ IF 00111 Buell �� �; L•[�, t � , i� ®1ii �� — ■ � ■ — 777- � _ �• OF Im onSEE . � ` - - - - II S � r W 7777- 777- 7777- 1777- 777- o � • • I �II IV' l .n // s� � � lm, o it � ' • • t I J D _= II 1 ■ ■I .I IIr 1 MS li �■I ■L. — — -: I ■ ■■ 777— 777- 1 IMMEM ME I _ �► `� � �� � i ! � � 1J _ � �ur� -.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■L: � II '9■■■■■■■■P-' 1■ ii I�Ai�ii-nr-*---1■■A�1 .,, ME II ■■■■■■■■■■ - - I ■■■ 1■m3m■ \■■■■1 No ........ fIfI �.. '•c`` , ;'--...■u..y 'A7r7..7 ■7■■A�'T■"7y'T7..... 777 iJ■ a of ........ ■ i■ • 111 17 1 II 11 11 CIRCULATION CLIENT: DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC DATE: 01/04/18 PLAN LOCATION: BOISE, IDAHO I BY: JAM DRAWING TITLE: Circulation Plan PROJECT#: 07142 all � y """777 ♦ _ ♦ �'�0.1Ok14 �;. # a 1 kw. •� 16IlkA Ilk,AL NAte . . r VILLAGE �.�- e - .•�. �, - `G- _ �w,�-� 'M. -.-_ �_ _ �1�� � ate., ILr AI � • -- t'�•v is �'`�i' ��,#`� ..:„ - lr•• >yi ... .� _ � 'rte -� VILLAGE Him r,79 Jr000= g t 1, r _- e TIP v! I ` Linder Village Development This is not a well designed development and you do not have enough info to proceed with it as it is now. Your unbalanced approach to this developer and large corporation puts many things at risk. •Follow the rules, if your plans don’t fit, apply for an amendment to the Comprehensive plan •Work with P& Z commission; get a good development together before taking it to City Council •Work with residents to be a good neighbor •Work with ITD and ACHD and follow their recommendations. Developers checklist: •Turn in your plans as late as possible so not even the staff has time to look at them. •Get as many variances as possible to put whatever building you want in a spot. •Push things thru regardless of what P & Z has said. •Villainize your opposition •Energize your customers to swamp the City council with email. •Don’t wait for ITD or ACHD information. Special checklist: Two concerns: Ours: Too close to residential Theirs: we can’t be that close to a busy corner Comments made by the Developer and Winco at our last meeting were misleading. For some reason, Winco doesn’t know it’s own strength. Large “anchor” stores away from busy intersections are no longer needed to draw people to smaller establishments. Facebook and social media pulls people to a spot to gather, eat, shop and have fun. That’s a model that is obsolete and what Winco is trying to escape from the store they’re closing. People will come to a Winco no matter where you build it. 1-Winco should have no problem operating a store right next to a busy corner. Corner of Fairview and Milwaukee If large trucks are allowed to come to Winco close to residential homes, the same rules should apply. They would be in essence like a 24 hour drive thru establishment, but much louder. 2-Winco should abide by the same rules as everyone else. http://meridiancity.org/uploadedFiles/Departments/City_Clerk/Planning_and_Zoning_Meetings/2015/Minutes/15Oct01.pdf In Fall of 2015, the Stinker Station near Walgreens on McMillan and Linder applied for a 24 hour drive thru. It was declined. “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). If Stinker in a C-G zone, had to go thru all of that, why does Winco get special rules? NOT in a CG. NO CUP. They want to be in a more restricted C-C zone. Then ask them to follow the rules you have provided for every business in a CC zone. Dr. Chris Kelson of Kelson Orthodontics could not be here, but he texted me his testimony. He’s concerned that the City of Meridian has forgotten homeowners and small businesses. You have the right to change codes and laws in this city. Are you prepared for all of the ramifications that will come along with it? If you move forward with this development as it stands, you will be changing the definition of a Community Commercial Development. You may have a few businesses lining up asking for the same special treatment you are giving this developer and this business now. Where will it end? Everyone wins: Wait until for enough info 1.You asked for the traffic study, wait for it. 2.Have the developer request to amend the Comprehensive plan to allow a CG for Winco and other large buildings. 3.Expect the developer to work with residents. 4.Use your commissioners. Send it back to P&Z 1.This ever changing development needs to be looked at again, in detail. Send it back to P&Z. 2.Let them analyze these issues first and you will hear their expert decision. 3.You still look at it after everything is more finalized. Let them read the next 7000 emails. I WE CITY OF MERIDIAN D CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: January 16, 2018 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0088 Linder Village Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) vJ U C' t 1/tf L0E:Lz±A oil AXv ilr V, 2f A16) f lij fi/W C P e s Stu N C I N v AIL 6 yo � �R, �. � � tit •%� � � X, re -h? v V L CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: January 16, 2018 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0088 Project Name: Linder Village V Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) �. -Trio , A ;\ A;\,? Av,kc,UAT11 I Cli 10 2v, �(e -,r A�►��f�� 1 1k rI& r /K� c ` E fh�jMS L L CITY OF MERIDIAN 03 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: January 16, 2018 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0088 Project Name: Linder Village Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) �/ Qs e, sLa,:� s, /-F y'lj--% G 2. a�/ _� I � L)E MAI?�1&11 __SE (L VJA-k sc t tn'O E2 X 14 i � r (Sa M& VJ i v �UU4, I t,4eT r,uhieste^i ,�Ka W Ll_� x N b, ei P k) 160 0, Z_ �k,ve- �yll CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: January 16, 2018 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0088 Project Name: Linder Village b/ Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) 00t;5, S)Ael� Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 (Continued from: November 21, 2017) TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Linder Village – AZ, PP, VAR (H-2017-0088) Note: This project was heard by the City Council on November 21, 2017 with a recommendation of denial from the Commission. The recommendation of denial was based on the Commission’s belief that the proposed conceptual development plan wasn’t consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation, and the applicant’s unwillingness to revise the plan as recommended in the staff report. Prior to the Council meeting in November the applicant did submit a revised concept plan that addressed some of the issues noted in the staff report and held a new neighborhood meeting to discuss the changes with neighbors. The Council continued the project to January 16th in order to allow the Applicant additional time to obtain updated traffic counts and submit an updated Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to ACHD based on the revisions to the plans and get a report from ACHD. To date (1/12/18), an updated TIS has not been submitted to ACHD. On December 11th, Staff met with the Applicant and their traffic engineer, ACHD and ITD staff to discuss changes to the concept plan and timing of an updated TIS, which they stated would be 6 weeks after updated traffic counts were collected. The Applicant states that updated traffic counts have been completed; however, an updated TIS has not been submitted to ACHD for review, therefore, a staff report is still not available from ACHD. Staff has included the updated plans submitted by the Applicant in Exhibit A. Sections VII and IX of the staff report have not been updated per the revised plans; however, the conditions of approval in Exhibit B have been updated should the Council decide to move forward with a decision prior to receiving a staff report from ACHD. I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC, has submitted an application for the following:  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 64.41 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (16.87 17.1 acres) in the City;  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, Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 2  Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. See Section IX of the staff report for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ, and PP applications; and denial of the proposed VAR application in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. Note: The Variance request does not require action from the Commission; the City Council is the decision making body on this application. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on August 3, September 7, and October 19, 2017. At the public hearing on October 19, 2017, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject AZ and PP requests. a. 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. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: Ted Baird b. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: i. Lack of detail on pedestrian and vehicular interconnectivity with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and walkability of the site; ii. Concern regarding the large size of the box buildings/stores and their arrangement on the site in proximity to adjacent residential properties; iii. 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; iv. 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); v. Opposition to “strip mall” configuration of buildings and massive parking lots; vi. Winco loading docks and trash dumpsters oriented toward residential neighborhood and associated noise and light impacts on neighbors from proposed 24 hour operation; vii. Inadequacy of proposed buffer (6’ wall & trees) between the rear of the Winco building and adjacent residents; viii. 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; ix. 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; x. Proposed building elevations do not blend with nearby structures; xi. Not enough common area and poorly placed; Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 3 xii. Objectivity to not having a complete conceptual development plan for the area proposed to be annexed; and, xiii. 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). c. Key Issues 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. d. 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. e. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The City Council should consider the Commission’s recommendation of denial and public testimony in making a decision on this application. ii. A revised conceptual development plan has been submitted since the Commission hearing. The City 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. III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017- 0088 as presented during the hearing on January 16, 2018, with the following modifications: (add any proposed modifications). Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 4 Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0088 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0088, as presented during the hearing on January 16, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at the southeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd. at 1225 W. Chinden Blvd., in the NW ¼ of Section 25, Township 4N., Range 1W. Parcel No.’s: S0425223010; S0425212480; S0425212420 B. Owner(s): Lynx Investments, LP 712 N. Troutner Way Boise, ID 83712 CCPD, Inc. P.O. Box 203 Pendleton, OR 97801 C. Applicant: Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC 2537 W. State St., Ste. 110 Boise, ID 83702 D. Representative: Craig Slocum, CSHQA 200 Broad Street Boise, Idaho 83702 E. Applicant’s Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and a variance. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on all of these applications except for the variance, which only requires Council approval, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: July 14, 2017; re-noticed on September 29, 2017 (Commission); November 3, 2017 (City Council) C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 7, 2017; re-noticed on September 25, 2017 (Commission); October 30, 2017 (City Council) D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: July 25, 2017; re-posted on October 10, 2017 (Commission); November 10, 2017 (City Council) E. Posted to Next Door: August 9 and September 25, 2017 (Commission); October 30, 2017 (City Council) Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 5 VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of undeveloped agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Commercial (retail/restaurant/vehicle washing facility, fuel facility) and single-family residential uses in Reynard Subdivision, zoned C-3 and MU-DA in Eagle 2. East: Single-family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-C 3. South: Single-family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and RUT in Ada County 4. West: N. Linder Road; commercial uses, zoned C-G and single-family residential uses in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4 C. History of Previous Actions: None D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue. b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue, as well as within N. Linder Road, and at the west terminus of W. Director Street. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The North Slough and the Simpson Lateral cross this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This site is not located in the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS LAND USE DESIGNATION(S): Approximately 54 acres of the annexation area is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) and the remaining 24+/- acres is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR). Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 6 MU-C: The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non- residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use – Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted below (Figure 3-3 in the Comprehensive Plan, pg. 27). Developments should have a mix of at least 3 land use types [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]; residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre; non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings; vertically MU-C MDR Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 7 integrated structures are encouraged; supportive and proportional public and/or quasi- public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. MDR: The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map (MSM) does not depict any collector streets planned across this site. Access is proposed as follows: two (2) accesses are proposed via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 - one right-in/right-out approximately 450 feet west of the Bergman Way intersection and one full-access in alignment with Bergman Way on the north side of Chinden where a traffic signal will be located when warranted; and three (3) accesses via N. Linder Rd. The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has jurisdiction of access via N. Linder Rd.; and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has jurisdiction of access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. Three (3) stub streets exist to the subject property (i.e. N. Arliss Ave.; N. Bergman Ave., and W. Director Street) – all at the boundaries of the site planned for future residential development. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) submitted comments on this application, included in the project file, in regard to access via Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. The comments state: 1) the access via Bergman Way will be permitted as a temporary full signalized access to remain in place until the construction of a continuous flow intersection (CFI) at Linder/Chinden; 2) the temporary signal will not be installed until the signal warrants are met based on traffic generation of the completed development; 3) the signal will convert to a right-in/right-out, left-in movement with the implementation of the CFI given that a connection has been provided to Fox Run Way and a signal has been allowed on Linder Rd. at site access E; and traffic calming measures to discourage cut through traffic on Bergman Way must be coordinated with the City of Eagle before the full access signal can be put into service – these measures may be considered for inclusion as part of the STAR agreement. Note: The UDC (11-3H-4B) prohibits access via SH 20-26; a variance is requested for Council approval of the proposed accesses via the state highway. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The applicant submitted a conceptual development plan that depicts commercial pads, a restaurant, a fuel station and live/work along Chinden and in the central portion of the site and 2 areas of strip type commercial buildings for the anchors of the development – one of which is a community grocer (Winco). The southern portion of the site is planned for future residential development which the applicant intends to develop with single-family detached homes along the south boundary adjacent to the same type of uses in Paramount Subdivision and attached or detached homes on the remainder of the residential area. The site plan depicts “future development” on the eastern portion of the site which is proposed to be zoned C-C. Strip type commercial buildings are not desired in MU-C designated areas as stated above in the purpose statement; and the general layout of the site is more consistent with the Commercial than the existing MU-C designation with the more intense commercial uses located at the back of the site away from the transportation corridor and adjacent to residential uses. Therefore, staff recommends the plan is revised prior to the City Council meeting to rearrange and/or detach the buildings so that they aren’t configured in a “strip” (i.e. one way might be to configure them in an “L” shape); and the rear of the buildings which will serve as delivery areas for the stores should not face the future residential development. Specifically, staff recommends the Winco building (and/or adjacent anchor/shops) is reconfigured so that the rear (or portions) of the building faces N. Linder. Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 8 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & ACTION ITEMS: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) A portion of the site, 17+/- acres, is proposed to be designated for medium density residential uses consisting of attached and detached single-family homes although a specific development plan is not proposed at this time. Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the units will be.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The medium density residential uses designated on this site will provide housing options near employment and shopping uses proposed within this development and across Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to the north (i.e. Fred Meyer and other commercial uses). However, because a concept plan is not proposed for that area, it’s unclear how connectivity between the proposed project and existing and future neighborhood may work. If efficient and convenient connectivity does not occur with the first phase, then local traffic will have to exit onto an arterial roadway (Linder) or a State Highway (Chinden) to access the project. A local or collector roadway connecting Linder Road and one or several of the stubs streets in the existing neighborhood, from the proposed project, would allow residents in Paramount to access the site without creating additional congestion on arterial roadways, and also reduce the likeliness and need for out of area cut-through traffic. No employment centers are proposed, but some office type uses could develop on the eastern side of this site in the future. Staff supports housing on this site, close to proposed shopping and future employment.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) There are existing single-family residential detached homes adjacent to the south boundary of this site in Paramount Subdivision and one rural residential property in Ada County at the southwest corner of the site. Single-family detached homes are planned to be developed in the future along the south boundary adjacent to the homes in Paramount Subdivision. The residential property at the southwest corner of this site is designated on the FLUM as MU-C; a development application (i.e. Linder Mixed Use) is currently in process that proposes multi-family and townhome residential and commercial uses on that property. Revisions to the concept site plan should be considered to clarify integration with neighborhood serving commercial uses, or separation from more intense commercial uses. No concept or bubble diagram is shown of how proposed residential will integrate either with the existing neighborhoods, or with the commercial portions of the site. Note: Many letters of testimony have been received by the City from adjacent property owners objecting to the proposed development.  “Locate small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan.” (3.05.01E) Future and existing residential areas are located on the backside of big box stores, with the small-scale neighborhood serving type pad sites generally located furthest from the neighborhoods. Revisions to the proposed site plan should be made to better comply with intent of Figure 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 9  “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) The proposed grocery store will be within walking distance of residences in the nearby vicinity; however, because other specific uses are not known at this time, staff is unable to determine if other such uses will be provided within walking distance of residential dwellings. Further, the concept plan does not take into account any interconnectivity with the existing residential development to the south.  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) City staff has been coordinating with both the applicant and the transportation authorities (i.e. ACHD and ITD) on this project. The proposed project will preserve right-of-way for future widening projects for SH 20-26. The applicant is proposing to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD to make some off-site improvements to SH 20-26 with Phase 1. These improvements would widen the highway to 4-lanes and improve the Meridian Road intersection in conjunction with ITD’s project to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The City received a letter from ITD earlier this year, supporting the applicant’s proposal. Since the initial support letter was composed, a key “anchor” tenant has apparently backed-out and ITD is re-analyzing the impacts of this project. The Commission and Council should consider ACHD’s and ITD’s comments when determining appropriate access and circulation for this site. The City has policies limiting access points to arterial roadways and State highways. The submitted site plan shows two direct access points to a State Highway, including a new signal at Bergman Way/Chinden and three access points to Linder Road, an arterial street. Every additional access is a point of conflict that can impact roadway functionality. In coordination and discussion with ACHD, commuters and local residents alike would likely be best served by a signalized access on Linder Road, with an east-west access road to the existing signal at Fox Run Way. City Staff, ACHD Staff and ITD Staff have been in communications with the property owner to the east (Brighton) about a collector-type roadway being constructed through their property to connect to Fox Run Way. While all of the details have not been worked out, Brighton has indicated support and Staff believes this option is best for the overall transportation network. The submitted concept plan shows a dead-end public street where an east-west access road could be extended toward Fox Run Way. While the developer has worked extensively with both ITD and ACHD, much of that work involved requests for additional accesses to both SH 20/26 and Linder Road that would benefit the development. From staff’s perspective, preserving the corridor and access management planning for a site this large should include backage type roads and connectivity to the existing local roadway network, to reduce congestion impacts on State Highway and arterial roadways. Development of this scale proposing full and partial access curb cuts, without additional planned public east-west connectivity through the entire Mixed Use land use areas, does not meet the intent of this policy. Figure 3-3 in the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan demonstrates how local and collector roadways may be considered to allow cross-access and to facilitate traffic patterns that reduce local and community vehicle trips from impacting regional traffic flow.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 10 The project area is currently designated as MU-C and MDR, and ACHD’s Master Street Map does not identify any future collector roadways in this area. There are three local roadways stubbed to the subject property from Paramount Subdivision, with two on the south and one on the east side of the project area. The MU-C FLUM designation describes local and collector roadways being used both to buffer lower density residential from more intense uses, and to provide efficient connectivity and access between uses. The proposed concept plan does not indicate how connectivity will be addressed with existing and established neighborhoods. The site layout shows the less intensive, more community friendly uses furthest from the existing neighborhood (nearer Chinden), and in combination with the proposed road network, makes the transportation network less effective. Staff recommends the concept plan is amended to better address these items consistent with the intent of Figure 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) Pedestrian sidewalks/pathways are depicted on the site circulation plan included in Exhibit A.3 throughout the development with connections from the perimeter sidewalks along Linder and Chinden and to the future residential development on the southern portion of the site.  “Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses.” (3.05.03A) The proposed concept plan does not depict any office or other low intensity uses as a transition from commercial to residential uses. Some additional R-8 zoned property is proposed adjacent to the existing R-8 zoned property in Paramount; however, no details of how that area will develop are provided other than the lots directly abutting existing residences will be single-family residential detached units. The concept plan attempts to buffer proposed residential from big box store impacts with a berm, landscape buffer and a screen wall (see Exhibit A.2). As depicted in the mixed-use exhibit above, more intense commercial should be near the major roadways with less intense commercial transitioning to the future and existing residential. As currently proposed, the opposite is shown with less intense commercial uses near the Linder/Chinden intersection and more intense commercial uses closer to the nearby and proposed residences. As such, the proposed concept plan is more of a commercial than a mixed-use development plan. Changes are needed to the site layout in order to be considered consistent with the MU-C designation.  “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation and development requests, and the impacts on services.” (3.04.01H) Comments from these service providers are included in Exhibit B of this report.  “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” (3.05.01J) The proposed development should offer a large variety of commercial and retail opportunities for residents in the northern portion of the City.  “Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B) The proposed site plan shows generous landscape buffers to separate heavy commercial areas from residential areas. However, the applicant is proposing a 24-hour use, with a truck loading dock area facing residentially-zoned areas. Staff has some concerns about Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 11 hours of operation for the grocery store, in particular for deliveries with the siting proposed. There may be noise, odor and negative visual impacts if the site plan is approved as submitted. More information is needed with respect to timing and phasing of the landscape material, berms, walls, or other strategies to determine whether the proposed site plan is in compliance with this policy statement. As noted above, staff recommends that the Winco store rotate so that the loading docks are oriented towards Linder Road to minimize impacts to the nearby residents.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) This property is contiguous to land that has already been annexed into the City. Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.  “Require neighborhood and community commercial areas to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses (e.g., landscaping, fences, etc.). The concept plan depicts street buffers along Linder and Chinden in accord with UDC standards and a landscaped buffer to future residential uses (see Exhibit A.2).  “Evaluate comprehensive impact of growth in all land use decisions (e.g., traffic impacts, school enrollment, parks, etc).” (3.01.01B) ACHD was provided with a Traffic Impact Study, but as of the writing of this staff report, the analysis is not complete. The narrative provided by the applicant does not supplement the site plan well as little information is provided for staff to make realistic assumptions about how the project will impact the community. Typically, big box developments are less dense, but higher intensity uses than most residential, office, and other retail developments. Staff does realize that a lot of urban services are nearby and some commercial on/near this high- volume intersection is appropriate.  “Consider the adopted COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land-use decisions.” (3.03.02G) The Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040 Plan identifies US 20/26 as a priority corridor with a typology of expressway. It is currently listed as an “unfunded” priority, though some early improvements are pending. The following is a summary from the CIM US 20/26 Priority Corridor Summary. “As a major mobility highway, US 20/26 is experiencing congestion along much of its length but especially between Linder Road and State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), a stretch with only two travel lanes. US 20/26 has been a regional priority for a number of years but it remains unfunded, causing traffic to divert to other routes such as McMillan Road. In addition to high traffic levels on this road, the intersection with State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is ranked #2 on ITD’s list of high-accident locations. By 2040, daily traffic between Middleton Road and State Highway 55 is expected to increase substantially. o From Middleton Road to Star Road, traffic is projected to more than double, from 12,000 in 2013 to 30,000 in 2040. o From Star Road to Linder Road, traffic is projected to double, from 14,000 in 2013 to 28,000 in 2040.  This would be similar to current traffic on US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) in Garden City. o From Linder Road to State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), traffic is projected to increase 80%, from 21,000 in 2013 to 38,000 in 2040. Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 12  This would be similar to current traffic on Eagle Road north of US 20/26. o Rush hour driving time between Middleton Road and Glenwood Street is expected to more than double, from 25 minutes in 2013 to 60 minutes in 2040.”  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) As noted in 3.03.02O, the MSM does not show any new arterial or collector roadways in this area. However, if more intensive land uses are proposed closer to existing residential than what the Comprehensive Plan contemplates (which should be located along the arterials), then it is not unreasonable to consider a modified street network. An internal collector type roadway, as shown in Figure 3-3 for the MU-C FLUM designation, would provide external and internal access to the site, reduce local traffic on US 20/26, and buffer the existing and proposed neighborhoods. ACHD has verbally indicated that they would support a future signal on Linder near the fire station to support a collector type roadway and a backage roadway that extends to Fox Run.  “Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities (water, sewer, streets, fire, police, etc.) by encouraging controlled growth through development application reviews and development agreements.” (3.04.01G) The proposed project is surrounded by urban development and would be well served by the City.  “Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit development.” (6.02.02H) The applicant should include an ADA bus stop on this property; coordinate the details with Valley Regional Transit. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas: (Staff’s analysis in italics) • Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre. A residential density of up to 8 units/acre is proposed in the future residential development area. • Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69. Single-family attached and detached units are proposed to be developed in the future on the R-8 zoned portion of the site. Staff recommends the single-family detached units planned along the south boundary adjacent to existing residential uses transition to higher density residential uses (as desired in Mixed-use areas), which will provide housing for employment uses in the area adjacent to SH 20-26. • A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application. A concept site plan was submitted for this site but only the western portion includes a development plan; “future development” is depicted on the eastern portion of the site (see Exhibit A.2). Because integration and connectivity of uses within the overall transportation network is so important within mixed use areas, staff recommends the development agreement is amended to include a concept plan for this area that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, prior to any development occurring within this area. • In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. The concept plan for the eastern commercial area includes a public plaza and esplanade in front of and on the east side of the buildings; a Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 13 community meeting place is also proposed at the rear of one of the shops. Staff recommends the buildings are rearranged, such as in an “L” shape or detached to create more of a central common area (rather than directly in front or at the end of the buildings) and to “break up” the “strip.” • The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development. The proposed concept plan depicts a landscape berm and landscape buffer and screen wall on the commercial property adjacent to “future residential development” to the south (see Exhibit A.2); however, no buffering is depicted to residential uses on the eastern portion of the site. Single-family detached homes are proposed adjacent to the existing medium density residential homes in Paramount Subdivision. • A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. The proposed concept plan depicts commercial, residential and entertainment uses in accord with this requirement; however, as proposed does not provide transitioning between uses as desired in the Mixed-use areas. • Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments. Rocky Mountain High School, Paramount Elementary School, a fire station, and a church exist to the south within a ¼ mile of this site. A City park exists approximately a mile away to the west on Ten Mile Road. A community meeting space is also proposed with this development at the rear of one of the shops on the east side of the site adjacent to the plaza. • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count. The concept plan depicts an esplanade and public plaza at the strip of commercial buildings on the east side of the site; a community meeting space is also proposed at the rear of one of the shops. • All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians. Three (3) stub streets exist to this site that are intended to be extended with development of this site for interconnectivity between the residential and commercial development; however, no connections to these streets are depicted on the concept plan. Without vehicular connections, residents from nearby residential neighborhoods will need to travel out of their subdivisions onto adjacent arterial streets, into the commercial development and back again, which will increase traffic on arterial streets. Staff recommends all of the existing stub streets are extended with development as originally intended for interconnectivity and that at least one of the stub streets is extended with the first phase of development. • Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code. The developer will be required to dedicate right-of-way along Linder Road and within the site as required by ACHD; right-of-way along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 should be dedicated and/or reserved for future dedication as required by ITD. • Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed- Use standards listed herein. The proposed development is not within Old Town. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-C areas: Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 14 • Development should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. See above. • All developments should have a mix of at least three land use types. The concept plan depicts commercial, residential and entertainment type uses. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre. Residential uses are proposed for approximately 20% of the development area; the future development plan should reflect a residential density of at least 6 units per acre. • Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. Staff is concerned with the massing of the buildings adjacent to future and existing residential areas. There are no proportional transitions or blending of scales of non- residential buildings shown on the submitted concept elevations (see Exhibit A.6). Instead, the concept site plan relies entirely on large landscape buffers to separate uses. While these may potentially be very effective in obscuring loading docks (with the right details), it misses the intent of the mixed use designation. Almost all of the smaller-scale non-residential buildings and those most likely to also be neighborhood serving uses, are located along Chinden. The area around the Esplanade tries to correct and accommodate some of this, but without stronger emphasis and co-location of other pedestrian oriented site plan features and uses, is likely to be underused. Both sides of the adjacent drive aisle near to the Esplanade should really work to frame and introduce a sense of space and pedestrian scale, but no information to the east is suggested or shown and could just be more parking, thus potentially discouraging active use and limiting transitional elements. The elevations submitted with future Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. • Vertically integrated structures are encouraged. Two (2) live/work pads are depicted on the concept plan. Staff recommends the live/work pads are located at the periphery of the commercial development near the future residential area rather than in the middle of a busy commercial area and parking area, perhaps near the esplanade/public plaza. • Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square-foot building footprint. For community grocery stores, the maximum building size should be limited to a 60,000-square foot building footprint. For the development of public school sites, the maximum building size does not apply. The community grocery store proposed on this site is 85,000 square feet (s.f.), which exceeds the 60,000 s.f. limitation by 25,000 s.f. Staff recommends additional public and quasi-public uses are provided in excess of the minimum 5% commensurate with the increase in building size proposed. • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement. The concept plan depicts a public plaza and esplanade in front of and on the east side of the strip of commercial buildings on the east side of the site. A community meeting space is also proposed at the rear of one of the shops. (Note: The internal landscape buffers and planter islands do not count toward the required public/quasi-public spaces/places.) • Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 5%, the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint. Because the building footprint for the community grocery store exceeds the 60,000 s.f. limitation in the Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 15 MU-C designated area, staff recommends the developer provide additional public and quasi-public uses above the minimum 5% required commensurate with the proposed increase in building size. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zoning District(s): 1. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and housing types that can be accommodated (UDC 11-2A-1). 2. The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways (UDC 11-2B-1). Allowed uses in the C-C district are larger scale and broader mix of retail, office, and service uses and are usually located with access to arterials or nonresidential collectors. B. Schedule of Use: 1. UDC Table 11-2A-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-8 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. 2. UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the C-C zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district; and 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. D. Landscaping: Landscaping is required within street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. E. Off-Street Parking: NA (not required or reviewed with the subject application) IX. ANALYSIS Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: A. Annexation & Zoning (AZ): The applicant requests approval to annex & zone 81.61 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C zoning district (64.75 64.41 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (16.87 17.1 acres) in the City. The proposed zoning is consistent with the FLUM designations of MU-C and MDR for this site. Note: The proposed residential area is approximately 7 acres less than depicted on the FLUM for the MDR designated area. Conceptual Development Plan: The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan, included in Exhibit A.2, which depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store (Winco) as an anchor for the development with a mid-size retail use and retail shops in the southwest portion of the development; mixed use (i.e. office, retail and live/work) in the northwest portion of the development; pad sites adjacent to Chinden Blvd.; and other mid-size retail and entertainment users, shops and restaurants in the middle of the development. A specific development plan for the eastern portion of the site is proposed to be submitted at a later date. Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 16 Staff recommends revisions to the plan as stated above in Section VII in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed and recommended by staff with this application and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends a DA is required with the annexation containing the provisions included in Exhibit B. B. Preliminary Plat (PP): The applicant proposes a 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. The residential lot (Lot 1, Block 4) is included in the plat as one large lot and will be developed in the future under a subsequent preliminary plat as will the commercial development on the eastern portion of the site depicted as Lot 1, Block 2. Existing Structures: There are no existing structures on this site. Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district and UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. There is no minimum front, rear or interior side setbacks required in the C-C district; however, required street landscape buffers act as a setback where applicable as building encroachment within buffers is not allowed. All of the proposed lots comply with the minimum standards. Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3 and 11- 3H-4. Access is proposed as discussed in Section VII above per the concept plan in Exhibit A.2. The UDC requires access to be taken from a local street when available. There are 3 local streets (i.e. N. Arliss Ave., N. Bergman Ave., and W. Director St.) stubbed to this site; however, the portion of the site that abuts these streets is not being developed now. Staff believes the traffic volume would be far too great for sole access from these streets through the residential neighborhood anyway. Because the intent of the UDC is to limit access points to arterial streets, a Council waiver is required for the proposed accesses via N. Linder Road. The UDC (11-3H-4B.2) prohibits access via SH 20-26 and requires access to a street other than the state highway; the applicant has requested City Council approval of a variance for the (2) accesses via SH 20-26 depicted on the concept plan. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway is required to be provided to the property to the south (Parcel #S0425233700) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A in an effort to decrease access points to the arterial street (i.e. Linder Rd.); the developer should work with that property owner to align the driveway/easement with the backage road proposed on that site. An east/west backage driveway is proposed through this site from Linder Road to the east boundary of the commercial area as shown on the circulation plan included in Exhibit A.t, in accord with UDC 11-3H-4B.3. Another such public street is proposed at the south boundary of the site and should extend to the east boundary of the site for extension to N. Fox Run Way. Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 17 Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A TIS was prepared for this development and submitted to ITD and ACHD for review with this application. Staff has not received updated comments from ACHD in regards to the revised concept plan. ITD stated that they didn’t feel the change in trip generations would significantly impact the recommendations of the TIS. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided on the site with development per UDC Tables 11-2A-6 and 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided along arterial and collector streets as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and along N. Linder Road, both entryway corridors. Any future collector streets will require a 20-foot wide street buffer. Staff recommends the entire street buffer and pathway/sidewalk along N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 is constructed with the first phase of development. A 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required to be provided on the C-C zoned portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The concept plan depicts landscape berms and landscape buffer with a screen wall on the commercial property adjacent to future residential uses. The buffers should facilitate pedestrian access from the residential to the commercial development in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3. Parking lot landscaping will be required internally within the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C with development. Open Space: A minimum of 10% (or 1.69 acres) of the area of the residential portion of the site (16.87 17.1 acres) is required to consist of qualified open space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B and is required to be provided upon development of the residential area. A future preliminary plat for that area should include qualified open space in accord with this requirement. Site Amenities: A minimum of one qualified site amenity that meets the requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3C is required to be provided within the residential portion of this site upon development. A future preliminary plat for the residential area should include details on the site amenity(s) proposed. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway (Eagle Island) along the frontage of this site on N. Linder Road. The pathway is required to be placed in a 14- foot wide public pedestrian easement. The applicant should coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208-888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway. The UDC (11-3H-4C.4) requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a public use easement along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. Sidewalks/walkways are proposed throughout the development with connections to the multi-use pathways along Linder and Chinden, to the adjacent properties to the south and east, and to the future development area as shown on the circulation plan included in Exhibit A.3 Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are required along Linder & Chinden, both arterial streets. Waterways: The North Slough and the Simpson Lateral cross this site. These waterways should be piped if not already piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 18 A semi-private wood screen wall is depicted on the concept plan on the eastern portion of the commercial property adjacent to the future residential development. A CMU wall is proposed behind the community grocer/pet/mixed retail area (see details in Exhibit A.5). Utilities: Street lights are required to be installed along public streets adjacent to the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Adequate fire protection shall be required in accord with the appropriate fire district standards. Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed and will be served by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation district. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances, per UDC 11-3A-18. Hours of Operation: 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 conditional use permit as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. The Winco store is proposed to operate 24 hours/day. The property as-is without being subdivided, currently abuts a residential use and zoning district at the south boundary of the site. When right-of-way is dedicated for a street between Linder and the east boundary of the site for extension to Fox Run, the commercial property should no longer abut residential property although deliveries at the loading docks will still likely affect adjacent residences. If the Winco store is turned so the rear of the building and loading docks are facing Linder Road as recommended by Staff, deliveries shouldn’t impact the residential neighbors. If it’s not turned, staff recommends the hours of operation are restricted unless otherwise approved by the City Council. Because this is an annexation, provisions above and beyond UDC standards may be implemented through the development agreement if deemed appropriate by the City Council. Building Elevations: Future building elevations are required to be consistent with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor (Winco), the mid anchor and the retail shops as shown in Exhibit A.6. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split face CMU, metal panel siding and stone and brick veneer accents. As noted above in Section VII, non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings; future building elevations submitted for design review should demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The applicant is required to submit a CZC application for approval of the proposed use, site layout and building elevations from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit a Design Review application concurrent with the CZC application for final approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. C. Variance (VAR): The applicant requests a variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway (i.e. SH 20/26). The applicant requests approval of (2) accesses via SH 20/26 as shown on the concept plan included in Exhibit A.2. ITD staff has Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 19 expressed to Planning staff that they’re amendable to the applicant’s request for access and that they’re working with the developer on the approval process. The applicant is proposing to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD to make some off-site improvements to SH 20-26 with Phase 1. These improvements would widen the highway to 4- lanes and improve the Meridian Road intersection in conjunction with ITD’s project to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The City received a letter from ITD earlier this year, supporting the applicant’s proposal. Since the initial support letter was composed, a key anchor tenant (i.e. Costco) has backed-out and ITD is re-analyzing the impacts of this project. When a change or increase in intensity of use is proposed, the UDC requires the owner to develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of any existing approaches is required to be abandoned and removed. Public street connections are only allowed at the section line roads; and the half mile mark between section line roads, and shall be collector roads. The UDC (11-5B-4) allows requests for a variance for the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. In order to grant a variance, the Council is required to make 3 findings: 1) the variance can’t grant a right or special privilege that isn’t otherwise allowed in the district; 2) the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and 3) the variance can’t be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare (see Exhibit D). Because staff can’t make all of the required findings listed in Exhibit D, staff is recommending denial of the proposed variance application. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ application with the requirement of a development agreement that includes the provisions listed in Exhibit B; approval of the PP application with the conditions contained in Exhibit B, and denial of the VAR application in accord with the Findings in Exhibit D. X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Conceptual Development & Use Area Plans (dated: 8/4/2017 1/4/18) - REVISED 3. Site Circulation Plan (dated: 8/4/2017 1/4/18) – REVISED 4. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 9/5/2017 1/4/18) – REVISED 5. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 9/5/2017 1/4/18) – REVISED 6. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 9/20/2016 & 1/4/18) – REVISED B. Agency & Department Comments C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary - REVISED D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Exhibit A Page 1 A. Drawings/Other Exhibit A.1: Zoning Map - 2 - Exhibit A.2: Proposed Conceptual Development & Use Area Plans (dated: 8/4/2017 1/4/18) - REVISED - 3 - CMU wall proposed behind the community grocer/pet/mixed retail area - 4 - Exhibit A.3: Site Circulation Plan (dated: 8/4/2017 1/4/18) – REVISED - 5 - Exhibit A.4: Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 9/5/2017 1/4/18) – NOT APPROVED - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - Exhibit A.5: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 9/5/2017 1/4/18) & Open Space Exhibit – REVISED - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - Exhibit A.6: Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 9/20/2016 & 1/4/18) - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - - 15 - B. EXHIBIT B - AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Prior to the City Council meeting, staff recommends the conceptual development plan in Exhibit A.2 is revised to address inconsistencies with development in the MU-C designated area as discussed in Section VII, as follows: a. The most intense commercial uses should be located along N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and transition to less intense commercial, live/work and residential uses at the south and east boundaries of the site as desired in MU-C designated areas per Figure 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, the “strip” commercial buildings depicted along the south boundary of the site should be reconfigured into an “L” shape and/or detached to break up the building mass and uses adjacent to the existing & future residential area and the future east/west street. The rear of the Winco building should face N. Linder Road so that the loading docks aren’t directly adjacent to the existing and future residential area. With an “L” shape, central common areas/public plazas could be provided rather than at the end of and in front of a strip of stores as currently depicted. b. Vertically integrated residential (i.e. live/work) pads should be located on the periphery of the commercial development near future residential uses and less intense commercial uses rather than in the middle of a busy commercial area and parking lot adjacent to the state highway. c. Based on the MU-C designated area (54 acres) and the increase in building size of 25,000 square feet (or 0.57 of an acre), a minimum of 3.27 acres of public and quasi-public uses shall be provided for the development. (Submit an exhibit that demonstrates compliance with this requirement; qualified area is limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, schools, etc. – landscape buffers and planter islands do not qualify. If some of this area will be provided on the on the future development area, include a bubble plan or note to that effect.) Configuring some of the buildings in an “L” shape as recommended could provide a more usable and attractive plaza/public use/gathering area rather than at the end of and in front of a strip of stores as currently depicted. d. Include a street/driveway/pedestrian network that depicts vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between the proposed commercial development and the existing and future residential neighborhood; a street connection between N. Linder Road and the east boundary of the site for future connection to N. Fox Run Way and access to the traffic signal (this will also serve as a “break” or transition between commercial and residential areas); and extension of the existing stub streets. Also include a bubble plan for possible future uses on the “future development” area. 1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan, use area plan, circulation plan, fencing plan (including materials), site section, preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions contained herein. - 16 - b. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. c. One building permit is allowed to be issued on the subject property prior to recordation of the subdivision. d. Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings in accord with the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use community designated areas. e. Provide an ADA bus stop on the site; work with Valley Ride Transportation (VRT) on the location and details. If VRT determines a bus stop is not needed at this location, the applicant should submit written documentation as such from VRT. f. A minimum of three (3) land use types are required to be provided within this development [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. g. Provide a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway (Eagle Island segment) within the street buffer along N. Linder Road in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the pathway is required to be submitted to the Planning Division, approved by City Council and recorded. The applicant shall coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208-888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway. h. Provide a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division, approved by City Council and recorded for the pathway. i. A minimum of 3.27 acres of public and quasi-public uses shall be provided for the mixed use designated portion of the development consisting of parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, schools, etc. – landscape buffers, planter islands, outdoor seating areas at restaurants, etc. do not qualify. j. Business hours of operation for the community grocer (i.e. Winco) shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 am and 11:00 pm due to the location of the loading docks adjacent to an existing and future residential area, unless otherwise approved by City Council. Exception: If the Winco building is turned so that the rear of the structure and loading docks face N. Linder Road as recommended, the hours shall not be restricted unless the use abuts a residential use or district as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. Comply with the hours of operation for the C-C zoning district listed in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. k. All of the existing stub streets (N. Arliss Ave., N. Bergman Ave. and W. Director Street) shall be extended with this development as originally intended for interconnectivity. At least one of the stub streets shall be extended with the first phase of development for interconnectivity between the commercial development and residential neighborhood. l. The street buffer landscaping and 10-foot wide multi-use pathways along the entire frontage of N. Linder Road and SH 20-26/Chinden Blvd. shall be constructed with the first phase of development. m. Prior to any development occurring on the eastern portion of the site depicted on the conceptual development plan as “future development” and “future residential development”, the development agreement shall be amended to include a concept plan for these areas that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the MU-C designated area, that depicts the following: - 17 - a. Residential densities shall be a minimum of six dwelling units per acre. b. Single-family detached units shall be provided along the south boundary of the site adjacent to existing homes in Paramount Subdivision and should transition to higher density housing to obtain a minimum density of 6 units per acre. c. A public street connection from N. Linder Road to the east boundary of the site for future connection with N. Fox Run Way for access to the traffic signal. d. Transitional uses/buffering between commercial and residential uses. m. It is anticipated that all improvements made by the Applicant to Chinden Boulevard/US 20- 26 as noted in the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) letter dated 2/24/2017 will be described in a STARS Agreement (subject to agreed upon design, improvement phasing and completion) between the Applicant and ITD consistent with all traffic studies and analysis. 1.2 Site Specific Conditions – Preliminary Plat 1.2.1 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.4, dated 9/5/2017 1/4/18, shall be revised as follows: a. Work with the property owner to the south (Parcel #S0425233700) on the location for the driveway stub in order to align with the backage road proposed on that site; depict a driveway stub through Lot 15 18 to the property to the south within a separate common lot covered by an ingress-egress/cross-access easement. b. There is only (1) Block in this subdivision as right-of-way does not divide the property necessitating individual blocks; re-number the lots accordingly and remove Blocks 2, 3 and 4. Depict right-of-way for all future public streets on the plat. c. Revise the plat to reflect any changes required by ACHD. 1.2.2 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.5, dated 9/5/2017 1/4/18, shall be revised as follows: a. The 5-foot wide sidewalk depicted within the street buffer along N. Linder Road shall be widened to 10-feet as it’s a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system. b. Depict sidewalks along all public streets in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. c. Depict a sidewalk along the east side of the driveway through Lot 18 to the parcel (#S0425233700) to the south for pedestrian interconnectivity. 1.2.3 The entire street buffer and pathway/sidewalk along N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 shall be constructed with the first phase of development. 1.2.4 Provide a cross-access/ingress-egress easement to the property to the south (Parcel #S0425233700) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A; the developer shall work with that property owner to align the driveway/easement with the backage road proposed on that site. 1.2.5 All fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. 1.3 General Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.3.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 1.3.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.3.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. - 18 - 1.3.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.3.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I, 11-3B-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 1.3.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C (streets). 1.3.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. 1.3.10 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.3.11 Provide bicycle parking spaces as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G consistent with the design standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C. 1.3.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 1.3.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.3.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the City of Meridian Standards Manual. 1.3.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3.16 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 1.3.17 All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B as applicable. 1.4 Ongoing Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.4.1 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. 1.5 Process Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.5.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.5.2 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit application. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue. Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of these mainlines through the project. 2.1.2 Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue, as well as within N. Linder Road, and at - 19 - the west terminus of W. Director Street. Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of these mainlines through the project. 2.1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and/or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.2.3 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 development plan approval. 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to 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 prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.2.6 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. 2.2.7 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 Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 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 Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and - 20 - inspections (208)375-5211. 2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.2.11 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. 2.2.12 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. 2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.2.19 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. 2.2.20 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. 2.2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse 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 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. 2.2.23 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, water and reuse infrastructure for - 21 - duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate 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 887-221. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department has no comments on this application. 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Any newly installed Fire Department connections for sprinkler or standpipes will require locking Knox box plugs. 4.2 Based on the size of new construction and the location of the sprinkler room in relation to the address side of the structure, the AHJ may require separate Knox box locations. One being at the main, address side entrance and the other at the entrance to the sprinkler riser room. 4.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 ½” outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the 4 ½” outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4.4 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.5 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. 4.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all-weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.7 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. 4.8 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.9 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. The cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. (National Fire Protection Std 1141 Section 5.2.11.1) 4.10 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official as set forth in International Fire - 22 - Code Section 507.5.1. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). d. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). e. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4.11 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections as set forth in local amendment to the International Fire Code 10-4-2L. 4.12 The Fire Department will require Knoxbox Fire Department Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC 102.9. 4.13 Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 4.14 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection Standard 1141, Section A5.2.18. 4.15 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144mm) or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. The access roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line as set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.1. 4.16 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m2) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads separated by one half of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses as set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.2. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 m2) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road and all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. (Remoteness Required) 4.17 ALLEY – In all cases, right of ways shall be a minimum of 20’ in width. The entrance to the alley from the public street shall provide a minimum twenty-eight foot (28’) inside and forty-eight foot (48’) outside turning radius. No parking shall be allowed on either side of the street. The minimum distance for alley accessed properties shall be 20’ from the face of a garage to the property line. (International Fire Code Section 503.4) 4.18 As set forth in International Fire Code Section D103.3, the Fire Department is opposed to any landscape island in the middle of a cul-de-sac that may prevent a fire truck from turning around on the end of the court. 4.19 As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and commercial projects shall be required to provide an additional sixty inches (60”) wide access point to the building from the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a length of 150' fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code compliant handicap parking - 23 - stalls may be included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the Meridian Fire Department for details. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Please coordinate trash enclosure design and locations with Bob Olson, Republic Services (208- 345-1265 office, or 208-371-1745 cell; or, email: ROlson@republicservices.com ) prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Also, provide provisions for recycling. 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5 for any existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site. Contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist (208-371-1755), prior to removal of any existing trees from the site. 6.2 The Pathways Master Plan requires a 10-foot wide segment of the City’s multi-use pathway (Eagle Island) along the frontage of this on N. Linder Road; the applicant should coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department (208-888-3579) regarding the requirements for the pathway. The UDC (11-3H-4C.4) also requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along SH 20/26. 6.3 Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26; coordinate the details of the easements with Kim Warren, Pathways Project Manager, 208-888-3579. If the pathways are located within right-of-way, an easement is not required to be submitted to the City. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT A staff report has not yet been received from ACHD on this project. - 24 - Exhibit C: Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary (REVISED) - 25 - - 26 - - 27 - - 28 - - 29 - - 30 - D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. ANNEXATION & ZONING FINDINGS: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed map amendment to the C-C and R-8 zoning districts is consistent with the MU-C and MDR FLUM designations for this site and should be compatible with existing and future uses in the area. However, the Commission finds the proposed conceptual development plan is not consistent with the MU-C designation in the Comprehensive Plan (see section VII above for more information). b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds that the proposed map amendment to the C-C and R-8 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statements of the commercial and residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; however, the Commission finds that if the site is developed in accord with the proposed conceptual development plan that it may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. City utilities are available to be extended at the expense of the applicant. The Commission recommends that the Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. Many letters of public testimony have been submitted for this project. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). The Commission finds the proposed annexation of this property is not in the best interest of the City with the proposed conceptual development plan. 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is not in conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to transportation and circulation goals. - 31 - b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services are available to be extended to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission recommends the Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Based on the Staff recommendation and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Commission finds the proposed development will be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare due to noise, light and traffic generated form the proposed development. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analyses. 3. VARIANCE: The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in Section 11-5B-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; Staff finds granting the proposed accesses via Chinden Boulevard would grant a right or special privilege as the UDC specifically prohibits access via the state highway unless otherwise approved through a variance. b. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and Staff finds there are no unique characteristics of the site that create an undue hardship that granting a variance would relieve; however, this site does have a lot of frontage on SH 20-26 as the site is 2,640 feet wide (frontage on SH 20-26) x 1,290 feet deep (frontage on Linder) which would make sole access to the site via Linder and the (3) existing residential stub streets difficult and inefficient. c. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff finds granting the variance for additional accesses via Chinden Boulevard, an existing two lane highway, would likely be detrimental to public safety with traffic slowing down to turn into the site and pulling out of the site at a slow rate of speed merging into traffic at a high rate of speed. However, if the highway is widened to 4 lanes as intended through the STAR’s program, Staff finds the proposed accesses shouldn’t be detrimental to the public - 32 - health, safety and welfare if the appropriate improvements are constructed as determined by ITD. HTHAWLEY RoxELi BRIAN L. BALLARD ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW IN IDAHO MAIL: BBALLARD@HAWLEYTROXELL.COM DIRECT DIAL: 208.388.4868 DIRECT FAX: 208.954.5203 www.hawleytroxefl.com January 8, 2018 VIA E-MAIL ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP 877 Main Street, Suite 1000 P.O. Box 1617 Boise, Idaho 83701-1617 208.344.6000 Mayor Tammy de Weerd mayortammynu meridiancity.org City Council Members citycouncil@meridiancity.rg City Clerk - C. Jay Coles cicoles(Emeridiancity.org Planning Staff— Sonya Allen and Caleb Hood sallen(a)Meridiancitv.ore; chood@meridiancitv.org City Attorneys - Bill Nary and Ted Baird bnary meridiancity.org; tbaird@Meridiancity.org 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83646 Re: Linder Village Annexation & Zoning; Preliminary Plat; Access Modification Approval/VAR (to Ordinance UDC 11-31-1-413.2 re Hwy 20/26) 1225 West Chinden Boulevard Meridian, Idaho 83642 File No. H-2017-0088 Dear Mayor de Weerd, Council Members, City Clerk, Planning Staff and City Attorneys: This is an additional supplementation of the Application made by Lynx Investments, LP, CCPD Inc., and DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC ("Applicant'), in response to questions asked of Applicant by the Council during the developer rebuttal stage of the public hearing held on November 21, 2017. During the question and answer period, comments were made by the Council regarding the need for more time to be given to Staff to allow Staff to complete its analysis of the proposed development based upon changes made by Applicant in response to overall feedback from the neighbors and from reviewing agencies, including as set forth in a letter submitted by ACHD the day before, on November 20, 2017. Staff's initial Staff Report, dated October 19, 2017, was completed with Staff recommendation of approval of the proposed AZ and PP applications, subject to conditions set forth in attached Exhibit B (Agency and Department Comments), with a note in Exhibit B that ACHD had not yet 42785.0012.10528148.1 Mayor and City City Council January 8, 2018 Page 2 submitted its staff report. ACHD had previously communicated to Staff that it would not comment until after ACHD had seen how the Application progressed with the City of Meridian. Perhaps an unusual position for ACHD to take, but nonetheless the position that it did take, and one that did not prevent Staff from issuing its initial Staff Report and its recommendations, issuing its Memorandum dated November 16, 2017, and issuing its update to the Staff Report submitted just prior to the hearing on November 21't To paraphrase what the minutes of the November 21" hearing say, a continuance was discussed based upon the fact that Staff had simply not had enough time to do a full analysis of the changes made in response to all the feedback and that setting the continuation out for a couple of weeks would not only allow Staff time to do its detailed work, but also would give ACHD time to maybe respond to some of the questions raised and maybe give a better indication of what ACHD might be requiring. Although a shorter time was initially discussed, upon Staff's recommendation that the hearing be set further out so that Staff had more time to respond, the Council ultimately continued the matter until January 16, 2018. Discussion was had that ACHD was already setting hearings for February, with the implication being that completed comments from ACHD would not then be available. However, a finalized report from ACHD was not required by the Council for the continued hearing. Accordingly, Applicant has made changes based upon the feedback and Applicant has specifically followed up with ITD and ACHD, including holding a combined meeting with ITD, ACHD, and City Staff. As will be more fully detailed by Applicant at the January 16th hearing, all of the items listed in ACHD's November 201h letter have been addressed, with a single difference of opinion held by ACHD regarding the Bergman signal. It is the position of Applicant that the purpose of the continuance was to allow for Applicant to fully respond to pending questions asked of Applicant by Council, to allow Applicant to reflect again upon feedback and make further revisions to the Linder Village development plans as determined appropriate, and to follow up with ACHD to get more information and questions answered. A final report from ACHD was not required. It is also the position of Applicant that the pending questions of Council have been answered, follow up with ITD and ACHD has occurred, and positive changes in response to feedback have been made, so that the Council may move forward with its consideration of the Application and approve the same. Following below is a chart setting forth specific areas of feedback and Applicant's specific solutions, responses and actions taken, specifically addressing the comments and concerns raised through the public testimony process and the questions asked by Council. For your convenience in review, included herewith are (i) an Aerial Image of the site as it exits now, (ii) Concept Plan 42795.0012.10528148.1 Mayor and City City Council January 8, 2018 Page 3 8 superimposed over the aerial of the site, (iii) a colorized Concept Site Plan, and (iv) a Preliminary Parcel Map. 42795.0012.10528148.1 SOLUTIONS, RESPONSES FEEDBACK AND ACTIONS TAKEN Lack of detail on (i) pedestrian Concept Site Plan has been revised to show increased and vehicular interconnectivity interconnectivity and walkability. The Circulation Plan, with the adjacent residential submitted separately from this letter, shows all neighborhoods and (ii) walkability interconnectivity points and provides greater detail as of the site. regards increased walkability throughout Linder Village. Large size of the box buildings Most notably, WinCo has been moved further north and and arrangement on the site in further west, with the loading area facing away from proximity to adjacent residential residential properties and oriented towards Linder Road. properties. Proximity with any adjacent residential properties is mitigated by increased distances, the insertion of residential units in between, and the interspersion of increased transition buffering, including smaller shops and Live/Work uses. The other buildings have differing front building lines, with in -front and surrounding plaza areas and many of the buildings are separated by plaza areas and pedestrian walk ways. Access via Chinden and future ITD, with exclusive jurisdiction of Chinden, a state signal at Chinden /Bergman. highway, including as regards signalized and other access thereto, has continued to recommend the signal at Chinden/Bergman as maintaining safety and mobility and as being properly proposed and located, subject to signal warrants and other ITD future conditions imposed. Further, the much needed widening of and other improvements to Chinden, assisted under a STARS agreement with ITD, will be pursued to completion as soon as practicable. Lack of transition and buffering The Concept Site Plan has been substantively modified from existing residences to to insert extensive transitioning and buffering, and lesser proposed commercial intense uses (e.g., Live/Work, smaller shops) are now development (i.e. lesser intense located adjacent to future residential uses which, in turn, uses should be adjacent to are adjacent to existing residential uses. Higher intense residential uses and transition uses (e.g., fuel station, restaurants, fast food, etc.) are outward to higher intense located farthest away from residential and closer to 42795.0012.10528148.1 Mayor and City City Council January 8, 2018 Page 4 commercial uses). Chinden. The interspersing of smaller shops, the "main street" design, the plaza areas and the park areas compliment and fill out the transitioning and buffering. Strip mall" configuration of Redesign has eliminated the "strip mall" configuration. buildings and massive parking Parking fields are interspersed with a centralized "main lots. street" design, and plaza, park and common areas. "L" shape design has been utilized. Smaller interspersed shop spaces are provided. All the changes combine to mitigate the feel of "massive" parking lots. Winco loading docks and trash Loading docks and dumpsters orient towards Linder, as dumpsters oriented towards requested by Staff, and face away from the residential residential neighborhood; neighborhood. The WinCo store has been moved farther associated noise and light impacts north and farther west. Live/Work pads, shops, Future on neighbors from proposed hours Residential, walking paths, park areas, landscape buffers of operation. buffer and transition in between. The negative impact of proposed hours of operation has been mitigated, with intervening lots and roadway separating the proposed use from existing residential. Inadequacy of proposed buffer (6' Buffering increased with higher walls and additional wall & trees) between the rear of landscaping, with walking path and street in between. the Winco building and adjacent Distance between the nearest point of the WinCo residents. building and adjacent residents has increased to approximately 350 feet, with existing residential extensively buffered by intervening residential, small office/shop pad, Live/Work units, distance, landscaping, a street, walking paths, and park areas. As further set forth below, the distance between the Winco rear loading dock area and the nearest existing residential use has been increased even greater to approximately 600 feet. Traffic impact on adjacent streets Road system specifically re -designed to limit "cut- i.e. Linder Rd. and SH 20- through" traffic, while at the same time providing 26/Chinden) and within adjacent strategically selected interconnectivity. The elimination neighborhoods generated from the of cut -through and direct, straight line access not only proposed uses and safety of mitigates safety concerns, but also recognizes ACHD's elementary school children and Staff's expressed desire for interconnectivity. walking to/from school. 42795.0012.10528148.1 Mayor and City City Council January 8, 2018 Page 5 Need more detailed conceptual A much more detailed conceptual development plan has development plan for the area been provided, proposed to be annexed. Site should be redesigned to be Revised conceptual development plan now closely more consistent with the matches up with conceptual MU -C plan (Figure 3-3 in Comprehensive Plan in regard to the Comprehensive Plan, pg. 27) and is consistent with land use (smaller neighborhood the Comprehensive Plan, friendly uses/services) and design/layout of the site. Rather that just a "flip", which would have some high intense uses (fuel station, fast food, restaurant/bar, car Design of the site plan should be wash, etc.) adjacent to residential and would block the flipped" with larger more intense view of smaller business from Chinden and Linder, the commercial uses located adjacent site has been redesigned to locate these high intense uses to the state highway and arterial in higher visibility areas next to Chinden Blvd, and/or N. street (i.e. Linder Rd.) with less Linder Road and away from the neighborhood to the intense neighborhood friendly south. Other uses have been spaced and reconfigured uses located near the single-family per the MU -C plan (Figure 3-3). The WinCo building residential uses — not consistent itself has been moved as far north and as far west as with MU -C designation, practicable, to turn the loading docks and the rear of the building towards Linder. Most significantly, the distance between The WinCo loading docks and the nearest Paramount residence has been increased to approximately 600 feet (2 football fields). Further, there is substantially more transition and buffering between Linder Village and the existing residential, and readily accessible small and more neighborhood friendly uses are now located adjacent or near to the residential uses. The Live/Work units at the Live/Work units have been relocated as requested with northwest comer of the site the added benefit of providing more transition buffering adjacent to Chinden should be between Linder Village and the residential properties at relocated to be adjacent to the south boundary. residential properties at the south boundary. No pedestrian or vehicular Site has been re -designed so that there now is more connectivity with adjacent pedestrian and vehicular connectivity with adjacent residential neighborhood and no residential area. Potential street connections between plan for a street connection 42785.0012.10528148.1 Mayor and City City Council January 8, 2018 Page 6 between Linder and east boundary for future connection to N. Fox Run Way. Linder and the east boundary are now shown. Public and Quasi Public Increased. Parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open uses/spaces, space, fire station easement, bus stop, etc., exceed all minimums required. Street connection between Linder A street connection between N. Linder Road and east Road and east boundary of site for boundary is shown for future connection. The ITD letter future connection to Fox Run Way dated July 28, 2017, recommending access to Chinden, and access to the traffic signal, clearly contemplates what will happen if access to N, Fox Run Way is ever granted by the owner of the property to the east, which may be pursued by ACHD but has not yet been obtained. East -west access road to the Applicant has shown a new collector street per ACHD existing signal at Fox Run Way. standards as requested by City Staff that allows vehicular connectivity from N. Linder Road through the Future Residential Development areas including stub street connections from existing residential areas which also provides a potential future connection to Fox Run Way if allowed by the adjacent property owner in the future. Applicant respectfully continues with its request that City Council (i) approve the proposed Annexation -Zoning (AZ) Application; (ii) approve the Preliminary Plat (PP) Application; and iii) grant the Variance (VAR). Sincerely, cc: Client (via email) ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP 42796.0012.10628148.1 SEC LINDER AND CHINDEN _ CD - MERIDIAN, IDAHO R .-, una, u PRELIMINARY e. / MyV F eECSHEA NOW an wosmm. easE. m erm a :.^..:' CONSTRUCTION Pmluusssr. xPmluiiaaa w. S" Mneerdipmn :. e mow. N. LINDER RD.- — Iuu R Md8 C 4 y9 5f56f645§_ 55§§ 5§ SSSS! D a 9 OP F{ SExef{§ Fi6ieFiiF" e 6F PI] CSH^ i Livder VTHWBEC CHINDAN BOULEVARD ANCINDER ROAD MEIDIAN, ID' O aA`; m: ruixaeMxn WO wiwu: w w. F ad_ gra croxxxesmumM ovx January 5, 2018 Caleb Hood and Sonya Allen Planning Department - City of Meridian 33 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 1062 Meridian, Idaho 83646 Re: Linder Village Annexation & Zoning, Preliminary Plat and Access Modification Approval/Variance to Ordinance UDC 11-3H-4B.2 regarding Hwy 20/26) 1225 West Chinden Boulevard Meridian, Idaho 83642 File No. H-2017-0088 / Project No. 07142.000 Dear Caleb and Sonja: On behalf of Lynx Investments, LP, CCPD Inc., and DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC, we are pleased to submit the attached revised Concept Site Plan, Circulation Plan (Pedestrian and Vehicular), Use Area Plan, Open Space Plan and Preliminary Plat. The revised Concept Plan modifies the boundaries previously submitted for zoning request to MU-C (64.41 acres in lieu of 64.75 acres) and R-8 (17.099 acres in lieu of 16.873 acres). However, the number of proposed parcels has been maintained at 18 (16 commercial, 1 residential and 1 common lot). The plans have been revised in response to the following: Items identified as outstanding issues in Staff Memo to City Council dated November 16, 2017. Public Testimony at the November 21, 2017 City Council Hearing. City Council comments at the November 21, 2017 City Council Hearing. Meeting with Staff on December 1, 2017. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) letter dated November 20, 2017. Meeting with ACHD, ITD and City Staff on December 11, 2017. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Below is our response to each of the Planning Department comments included in the Staff Memo, including how the revised plan addresses the comments: a. The most intense commercial uses are still located adjacent to existing and future single-family residential uses instead of transitioning outward from the residential uses with less intense to more intense uses as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. City of Meridian Page 2 January 5, 2018 Response: The Concept Site Plan has been revised to move the Winco building north by another approximately) 66 feet (approximately 40’ further from residential zoned property). Additionally, the proposed collector street has been moved north to align with the northern most curb cut into the existing City of Meridian Fire Station on the west side of Linder Road, per the request of ACHD. These revisions, coupled with (i) the relocation of the live/work pads to the southeast (adjacent to the park), plaza and future residential areas, (ii) additional residential lots adjacent to the closest existing residential lots, (iii) a small office building on the south side of new collector street, and (iv) additional landscape buffer behind the Winco building adjacent to the new collector street, provide a transition in the intensity of uses from the existing residential zoned property. b. Vertically integrated residential (i.e. live/work) pads are still shown within the commercial area adjacent to SH 20-26/Chinden instead of adjacent to the residential area as recommended. Response: The revised Concept Site Plan relocates the live/work area previously proposed close to SH 20-26/Chinden to the southeast (adjacent to the park), plaza and planned future residential areas. ACHD COMMENTS Below is our response to each of the comments included in the ACHD letter dated November 20, 2017, including how the revised plan addresses the comments: a. The layout and proposed land uses on the concept plan don’t match the submitted traffic impact study for this project. An updated traffic impact study should be provided to ACHD for review and approval, prior to ACHD action on the preliminary plat application. Response: Per meeting on December 11, 2017, ACHD requested Applicant update traffic counts completed) and update the TIS (in process) based upon the revised site plan. b. The concept plan shows the extension of stub streets into the site, however, they do not provide a direct connection between the existing residential subdivisions and the proposed commercial uses on the site. As currently proposed all of the residential traffic would have to travel on the arterial roadway system via Linder Road or Chinden Boulevard to access the WinCo Foods and commercial uses on the site. Response: The Concept Plan has been revised to include direct connection between the existing and future residential subdivisions into the proposed commercial uses. Direct connection has been provided from the proposed collector roadway via a drive aisle between the retail shops adjacent to WinCo and the Live/Work pads, and at the northeast corner of the Future Development area. WinCo service/delivery access is provided via a dedicated curb cut at the western end of the proposed collector roadway. c. A public street was not previously proposed on the site. The concept plan shows a public street intersecting Linder Road and extending east to terminate in a roundabout. The City of Meridian has indicated a desire for an east/west collector roadway to run between Linder Road and Fox Run Way; this is not reflected in the concept plan. If a public street is constructed it should be constructed as a collector roadway and extend between Linder Road to the site’s east property City of Meridian Page 3 January 5, 2018 line, allowing it to be extended to Fox Run Way in the future when the adjacent parcel develops. Front-on housing is prohibited on collector roadways. Response: The Concept Plan has been revised to remove the roundabout and continue an east/west collector roadway to a potential future connection to Fox Run Way. The conceptual residential design eliminates Front-on housing on the collector roadway. d. An intersection analysis for the proposed roundabout should be included as part of the updated traffic impact study. Response: The Concept Plan has been revised to remove the roundabout. e. The northern driveway on Linder Road doesn’t appear to be necessary to serve the site. This driveway should be re-evaluated as part of the updated traffic impact study. The concept plan shows a drive aisle just south of Chinden Boulevard extending from the middle of the site east to intersect Fox Run Way. The location of this drive aisle where it intersects Fox Run Way would be too close to allow for a full access driveway onto Fox Run Way, as the Chinden/Fox Run Way intersection is signalized. Response: The Concept Plan has been revised to remove the previously shown northern driveway on Linder Road. The east/west drive aisle south of Chinden is not intended to intersect with Fox Run Way but offers the adjacent eastern property owner cross access if desired. f. ACHD is not supportive of the proposed signalized intersection at Bergman Way and Chinden Boulevard. The original traffic impact study noted that a signal is not warranted at this intersection if access to Fox Run Way is available, and is not warranted with the first phase of the development. ITD is planning to pursue conversations with the adjacent property owner to obtain a public street connection between Fox Run Way and the Linder Village development site. The signal warrant analysis should be revised to reflect the new concept plan. If as a result of the updated analysis a signal is warranted and is allowed by ITD, ACHD won’t allow the installation of the signal until is warranted. Response: ITD has reviewed the traffic studies in detail and approved the traffic signal as proposed at Bergman Way and Chinden Boulevard when warranted. Applicant has received two separate letters from ITD dated February 24, 2017 & July 28, 2017 (attached) confirming this. The adjacent property owner previously informed ITD and Applicant that it would not allow a public street connection between Fox Run Way and the Linder Village Development. g. ACHD is supportive of the revised main drive aisle, which runs through the middle of the site instead of directly in-front of the WinCo Foods. However, the first intersection to provide access to the WinCo Foods should be redesigned to provide a standard “T” type intersection. The concept plan shows this driveway at an angle, which may cause driver confusion and sight distance issues. Staff also has sight distance concerns at the WinCo Foods parking lot, as the parking lot drive aisles are proposed to intersect the main drive aisle at a diagonal. Response: The Concept Plan has been revised to address concerns of sight distance and potential driver confusion. City of Meridian Page 4 January 5, 2018 h. The concept plan notes that improvements to Chinden Boulevard will be made per a STARS agreement; however, it is unclear what improvements are actually proposed and what happens if the improvements are never made. Please clarify and include this information in the updated traffic impact study. Response: It is anticipated that all improvements made by Applicant to Chinden Boulevard as noted in the ITD letter dated 2/24/2017 will be described in a STARS Agreement (subject to agreed upon design, improvement phasing and completion) between Applicant and ITD consistent with all traffic studies and analysis. We appreciate the staff’s assistance and cooperation in working with our Team to provide a project that will meet the expectations of the City and our neighbors. We truly believe our project embodies the City’s vision of providing a great place to “live, work and raise and family.” We look forward to a mutually beneficial project of which we can all be proud. Sincerely, CSHQA Craig A. Slocum, AIA Principal CS:pk Enclosures FOX LAND SURVEYS LEGAL DESCRIPTION EAST REZONE PARCEL 1515 S. SHOSHONE ST. BOISE, ID 83705 208.342.7957 www.foxiandsurveys.com A portion of the Midway Place Subdivision, recorded in Book 1 of Plats at Page 33 of the Ada County Records, within the North 1/2 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Corner of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, monumented by a found Aluminum Cap as shown on CP&F Record 2017-072470, thence South 89°22'30" East, 2669.54 feet to the North 1/4 Corner of Sections 24 and 25 monumented by a found Aluminum Cap as shown on CP&F Record 2017-072469; thence along the easterly line of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4, South 00°32'03" West, 39.93 feet to the southerly right-of-way line for Highway 20/26 also known as West Chinden Boulevard; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 00°32'03" West, 560.07 feet to the Almaden Lateral and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the Almaden Lateral, North 55°04'04" West, 122.84 feet; Thence South 00°37'30" West, 366.40 feet; Thence North 89°22'30" West, 829.05 feet; Thence South 00°37'30" West, 24.04 feet; Thence South 45°37'30" West, 120.41 feet; Thence North 89°22'30" West, 791.65 feet; Thence South 35°37'30" West, 39.64 feet; Thence South 00°37'30" West, 137.58 feet; Thence North 89°22'30" West, 119.34 feet; Thence South 00°57'57" West, 151.87 feet to the south line of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4; Thence along said line, South 89°25'01" East, 1951.44 feet to the SE Corner of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 monumented by a found 5/8" rebar with cap; 151081CSHQA/4th RVSD EAST REZONE. DOC 1 FOX 16''1 LAND SURVEYS 1515 S. SHOSHONE ST. BOISE, ID 83705 208.342.7957 www.foxiandsurveys.com Thence along the easterly line of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4, North 00°32'03" East, 726.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 17.099 Acres more or less. Refer to the attached "EAST REZONE EXHIBIT" Survey Map. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: 0. 857 0 F N4 D M p0 Ronald M. Hodge, PLS 4th REVISED 12-19-2017 15108/CSHQA/4t' RVSD EAST REZONE.DOC 21 N. CINDER ROAD N N S00°55'10"W 1328.81' rn w Z cl) O N z rD 00 D 0) C O TI ;u N NUriZ m Iz w r I?1 m IN c/)o zm z O o a C) D o cn m Z r GOOD° L9co w o LL7 < 6 rD co v 0) m A W N j r Z m Iz w r I?1 IN c/)o N o o a C) D p cn zm Z r GOOD° w o o o n m Z U7V NN WV WV WV WV OA WN wN 7 ITI JC OCC OCC OCC W G G G G CO COCG CA CWCG O r mr m 0 v P O A N O PZ A co A W A O I I I I x Ir~ tel` N. ARLISS AVE. I I m 1 I czo ; o NV Tnto VVNrQRl Q z c O co Icn I I° o I A m C, I ' 0 - II 41 0 P FFs y F N Oo 14 m N. I BERGMAN AVE. Ino D A Iz w r I?1 IN c/)o N o o a coN N 0o zm Z 0 P FFs y F N Oo 0 1 - z cF S00°37'30"W 366.40 I N w cn Ti T T 7 NO'I °32L'03"EI 721.83' L2 Z m cn W MIDWAY PLACE r X PARAMOUNT SUBDIVISION No. 3 I I I Iz w IN 0 coN N I0 Z 0 1 - z cF S00°37'30"W 366.40 I N w cn Ti T T 7 NO'I °32L'03"EI 721.83' L2 Z m cn W MIDWAY PLACE r X PARAMOUNT SUBDIVISION No. 3 FOX 1W LAND SURVEYS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WEST REZONE PARCEL 1515 S. SHOSHONE ST. BOISE, ID 83705 208.342.7957 www.foxiandsurveys.com A portion of the Midway Place Subdivision, recorded in Book 1 of Plats at Page 33 of the Ada County Records, within the North 1/2 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Corner of Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, monumented by a found Aluminum Cap as shown on CP&F Record 2017-072470, thence South 89°22'30" East, 2669.54 feet to the North 1/4 Corner of Sections 24 and 25 monumented by a found Aluminum Cap as shown on CP&F Record 2017-072469; Thence along the easterly line of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4, South 00°32'03" West, 39.93 feet to the southerly right-of-way line for Highway 20/26 also known as West Chinden Boulevard; Thence continuing along said easterly line, South 00°32'03" West, 560.07 feet to the Almaden Lateral; Thence along the Almaden Lateral, North 55°04'04" West, 122.84 feet; Thence South 00°37'30" West, 366.40 feet; Thence North 89°22'30" West, 829.05 feet; Thence South 00°37'30" West, 24.04 feet; Thence South 45°37'30" West, 120.41 feet; Thence North 89°22'30" West, 791.65 feet; Thence South 35°37'30" West, 39.64 feet; Thence South 00°37'30" West, 137.58 feet; Thence North 89°22'30" West, 119.34 feet; Thence South 00°5757" West, 151.87 feet to the south line of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4; 15108/CSHQA14"' RVSD WEST REZONE. DOC 1 FOX 1W LAND SURVEYS 1515 S. SHOSHONE ST. BOISE, ID 83705 208.342.7957 www.foxiandsurveys.com Thence along said line, North 89°25'01" West, 727.03 feet to the SW Corner of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 monumented by a found 5/8" rebar with cap, on the center line for N. Linder Road; Thence along said center line and the westerly line of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4, North 00°55'10" East, 1328.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 64.410 Acres more or less. Refer to the attached "WEST REZONE EXHIBIT" Survey Map. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: 0. 8575 Z.i9-1ZZ, 9TF 0 F N41 M. Ronald M. Hodge, PLS 41h Revision 12-19-2017 15108/CSHQA/4" RVSD WEST REZONE. DOC 2 N. UNDER ROAD N N N00°55'10"E 1328.81' rn w 77 z Cl) 0 N zl 00 ofC/) i n X ry C z m vo m A W c zz O r z m 6), N 0000 zm= V o m I o w o w o 4L9' o N. ARLISS AVE. r OD L7 r0 co v 0) cn A W N j r z m 0000 P COCI G o w o w o cn o o r o o o o m Z V N J J J J A N N m Lrl C) CDo000oA DO z aro mr n m O v O A N O Z W A W A A A O W 2 I I I I I IxI ^ 14` II N I N C N yNcoV1 n C N JI Z co C CS m N. BERGMAN AVE. cn D m o 1 co co rc 0000 COCI G Oo O l. N cOn I I Z o Cn y CJl m z m 0 6.77 30"W 366.40' N w m I L2 N m cn MIDWAY PLACE x PARAMOUNT SUBDIVISION No. 3 00 cF Community Development Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org November 16, 2017 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen CC: City Clerk, Bill Nary RE: Linder Village – AZ, PP (H-2017-0088) This application was heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission on October 19th. Based on the staff recommendation and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Commission determined that the proposed conceptual development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the project to City Council. See Commission Recommendation to City Council for more information. Since the Commission hearing, the applicant has submitted a revised conceptual development plan (dated: 11/13/17) that addresses the issues noted in Exhibit B of the staff report and testimony from the public hearing as follows: The Winco building has been reoriented so that it’s at a 45 degree angle with the southwest corner of the site instead of parallel with the south boundary of the site; the loading dock is now oriented toward N. Linder Rd. and the service side of Winco faces the Linder Rd./future collector street intersection away from existing and proposed residences; Additional public and quasi-public uses/spaces are proposed (5.88 acres vs. a minimum of 3.27 acres required). Staff is of the opinion some of the area counted does not meet the intent of the requirement (i.e. walkway areas in front of and around stores and small green space areas; however, the minimum requirement may be met); Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 46 of 104 Community Development Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org A conceptual development plan for the southern and eastern portions of the site, including land uses, street/driveway network and connection to existing stub streets; A circulation plan showing street, driveway and pedestrian connections within the site as well as with the adjacent residential neighborhoods, and between Linder Road and the east boundary of the site for future connection to N. Fox Run Way; Three (3) land use types are proposed (i.e. residential, office, commercial/restaurant/retail uses); and, A new bus stop on N. Linder Road is proposed. The following are still outstanding issues: The most intense commercial uses are still located adjacent to existing and future single-family residential uses instead of transitioning outward from the residential uses with less intense to more intense uses as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Vertically integrated residential (live/work) pads are still shown within the commercial area adjacent to SH 20-26/Chinden instead of adjacent to the residential area as recommended. If City Council determines the changes to the plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the goals of the MU-C designation and approves of the revised plans, Council should direct staff to update the staff report accordingly with revised/new conditions of approval; and, either continue the project to a subsequent Council meeting for review and action; or, remand the project back to the Commission for review and a new recommendation to City Council. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 47 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 1 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: November 21, 2017 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: Linder Village – AZ, PP, VAR (H-2017-0088) I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST The applicant, Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC, has submitted an application for the following:  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;  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,  Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. See Section IX of the staff report for more information. II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ, and PP applications; and denial of the proposed VAR application in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. Note: The Variance request does not require action from the Commission; the City Council is the decision making body on this application. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on August 3, September 7, and October 19, 2017. At the public hearing on October 19, 2017, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject AZ and PP requests. a. 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. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen vi. Other staff commenting on application: Ted Baird Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 48 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 2 b. Key issue(s) of Public Testimony: i. Lack of detail on pedestrian and vehicular interconnectivity with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and walkability of the site; ii. Concern regarding the large size of the box buildings/stores and their arrangement on the site in proximity to adjacent residential properties; iii. 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; iv. 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); v. Opposition to “strip mall” configuration of buildings and massive parking lots; vi. Winco loading docks and trash dumpsters oriented toward residential neighborhood and associated noise and light impacts on neighbors from proposed 24 hour operation; vii. Inadequacy of proposed buffer (6’ wall & trees) between the rear of the Winco building and adjacent residents; viii. 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; ix. 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; x. Proposed building elevations do not blend with nearby structures; xi. Not enough common area and poorly placed; xii. Objectivity to not having a complete conceptual development plan for the area proposed to be annexed; and, xiii. 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). c. Key Issues 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. d. 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 49 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 3 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. e. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The City Council should consider the Commission’s recommendation of denial and public testimony in making a decision on this application. ii. A revised conceptual development plan has been submitted since the Commission hearing. The City 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. III. PROPOSED MOTION Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0088 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Remand I move to remand File Number H-2017-0088 back to the Commission as presented during the hearing on November 21, 2017, for review of the revised conceptual development plan and a new recommendation. 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) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at the southeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd. at 1225 W. Chinden Blvd., in the NW ¼ of Section 25, Township 4N., Range 1W. Parcel No.’s: S0425223010; S0425212480; S0425212420 B. Owner(s): Lynx Investments, LP 712 N. Troutner Way Boise, ID 83712 CCPD, Inc. P.O. Box 203 Pendleton, OR 97801 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 50 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 4 C. Applicant: Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC 2537 W. State St., Ste. 110 Boise, ID 83702 D. Representative: Craig Slocum, CSHQA 200 Broad Street Boise, Idaho 83702 E. Applicant’s Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and a variance. A public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on all of these applications except for the variance, which only requires Council approval, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: July 14, 2017; re-noticed on September 29, 2017 (Commission); November 3, 2017 (City Council) C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 7, 2017; re-noticed on September 25, 2017 (Commission); October 30, 2017 (City Council) D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: July 25, 2017; re-posted on October 10, 2017 (Commission); November 10, 2017 (City Council) E. Posted to Next Door: August 9 and September 25, 2017 (Commission); October 30, 2017 (City Council) VI. LAND USE A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of undeveloped agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Commercial (retail/restaurant/vehicle washing facility, fuel facility) and single-family residential uses in Reynard Subdivision, zoned C-3 and MU-DA in Eagle 2. East: Single-family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-C 3. South: Single-family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and RUT in Ada County 4. West: N. Linder Road; commercial uses, zoned C-G and single-family residential uses in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4 C. History of Previous Actions: None D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 51 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 5 b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue, as well as within N. Linder Road, and at the west terminus of W. Director Street. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The North Slough and the Simpson Lateral cross this site. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This site is not located in the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS LAND USE DESIGNATION(S): Approximately 54 acres of the annexation area is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) and the remaining 24+/- acres is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR). MU-C: The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non- residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use – Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted below (Figure 3-3 in the Comprehensive Plan, pg. 27). MU-C MDR Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 52 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 6 Developments should have a mix of at least 3 land use types [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]; residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre; non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings; vertically integrated structures are encouraged; supportive and proportional public and/or quasi- public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. MDR: The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre). TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map (MSM) does not depict any collector streets planned across this site. Access is proposed as follows: two (2) accesses are proposed via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 - one right-in/right-out approximately 450 feet west of the Bergman Way intersection and one full-access in alignment with Bergman Way on the north side of Chinden where a traffic signal will be located when warranted; and three (3) accesses via N. Linder Rd. The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has jurisdiction of access via N. Linder Rd.; and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has jurisdiction of access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. Three (3) stub streets exist to the subject property (i.e. N. Arliss Ave.; N. Bergman Ave., and W. Director Street) – all at the boundaries of the site planned for future residential development. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) submitted comments on this application, included in the project file, in regard to access via Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. The comments state: 1) the access via Bergman Way will be permitted as a temporary full signalized access to remain in place until the construction of a continuous flow intersection (CFI) at Linder/Chinden; 2) the temporary signal will not be installed until the signal warrants are met based on traffic generation of the completed development; 3) the signal will convert to a right-in/right-out, left-in movement with the implementation of the CFI given that a connection has been provided to Fox Run Way and a signal Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 53 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 7 has been allowed on Linder Rd. at site access E; and traffic calming measures to discourage cut through traffic on Bergman Way must be coordinated with the City of Eagle before the full access signal can be put into service – these measures may be considered for inclusion as part of the STAR agreement. Note: The UDC (11-3H-4B) prohibits access via SH 20-26; a variance is requested for Council approval of the proposed accesses via the state highway. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The applicant submitted a conceptual development plan that depicts commercial pads, a restaurant, a fuel station and live/work along Chinden and in the central portion of the site and 2 areas of strip type commercial buildings for the anchors of the development – one of which is a community grocer (Winco). The southern portion of the site is planned for future residential development which the applicant intends to develop with single-family detached homes along the south boundary adjacent to the same type of uses in Paramount Subdivision and attached or detached homes on the remainder of the residential area. The site plan depicts “future development” on the eastern portion of the site which is proposed to be zoned C-C. Strip type commercial buildings are not desired in MU-C designated areas as stated above in the purpose statement; and the general layout of the site is more consistent with the Commercial than the existing MU-C designation with the more intense commercial uses located at the back of the site away from the transportation corridor and adjacent to residential uses. Therefore, staff recommends the plan is revised prior to the City Council meeting to rearrange and/or detach the buildings so that they aren’t configured in a “strip” (i.e. one way might be to configure them in an “L” shape); and the rear of the buildings which will serve as delivery areas for the stores should not face the future residential development. Specifically, staff recommends the Winco building (and/or adjacent anchor/shops) is reconfigured so that the rear (or portions) of the building faces N. Linder. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & ACTION ITEMS: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E) A portion of the site, 17+/- acres, is proposed to be designated for medium density residential uses consisting of attached and detached single-family homes although a specific development plan is not proposed at this time. Staff is unaware of how “affordable” the units will be.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The medium density residential uses designated on this site will provide housing options near employment and shopping uses proposed within this development and across Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to the north (i.e. Fred Meyer and other commercial uses). However, because a concept plan is not proposed for that area, it’s unclear how connectivity between the proposed project and existing and future neighborhood may work. If efficient and convenient connectivity does not occur with the first phase, then local traffic will have to exit onto an arterial roadway (Linder) or a State Highway (Chinden) to access the project. A local or collector roadway connecting Linder Road and one or several of the stubs streets in the existing neighborhood, from the proposed project, would allow residents in Paramount to access the site without creating additional congestion on arterial roadways, and also reduce the likeliness and need for out of area cut-through traffic. No employment centers are proposed, but some office type uses could develop on the eastern side of this site Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 54 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 8 in the future. Staff supports housing on this site, close to proposed shopping and future employment.  “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.” (3.06.01F) There are existing single-family residential detached homes adjacent to the south boundary of this site in Paramount Subdivision and one rural residential property in Ada County at the southwest corner of the site. Single-family detached homes are planned to be developed in the future along the south boundary adjacent to the homes in Paramount Subdivision. The residential property at the southwest corner of this site is designated on the FLUM as MU-C; a development application (i.e. Linder Mixed Use) is currently in process that proposes multi-family and townhome residential and commercial uses on that property. Revisions to the concept site plan should be considered to clarify integration with neighborhood serving commercial uses, or separation from more intense commercial uses. No concept or bubble diagram is shown of how proposed residential will integrate either with the existing neighborhoods, or with the commercial portions of the site. Note: Many letters of testimony have been received by the City from adjacent property owners objecting to the proposed development.  “Locate small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan.” (3.05.01E) Future and existing residential areas are located on the backside of big box stores, with the small-scale neighborhood serving type pad sites generally located furthest from the neighborhoods. Revisions to the proposed site plan should be made to better comply with intent of Figure 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan.  “Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C) The proposed grocery store will be within walking distance of residences in the nearby vicinity; however, because other specific uses are not known at this time, staff is unable to determine if other such uses will be provided within walking distance of residential dwellings. Further, the concept plan does not take into account any interconnectivity with the existing residential development to the south.  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) City staff has been coordinating with both the applicant and the transportation authorities (i.e. ACHD and ITD) on this project. The proposed project will preserve right-of-way for future widening projects for SH 20-26. The applicant is proposing to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD to make some off-site improvements to SH 20-26 with Phase 1. These improvements would widen the highway to 4-lanes and improve the Meridian Road intersection in conjunction with ITD’s project to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The City received a letter from ITD earlier this year, supporting the applicant’s proposal. Since the initial support letter was composed, a key “anchor” tenant has apparently backed-out and ITD is re-analyzing the impacts of this project. The Commission and Council should consider ACHD’s and ITD’s comments when determining appropriate access and circulation for this site. The City has policies limiting access points to arterial roadways and State highways. The submitted site plan shows two direct access points to a State Highway, including a new signal Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 55 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 9 at Bergman Way/Chinden and three access points to Linder Road, an arterial street. Every additional access is a point of conflict that can impact roadway functionality. In coordination and discussion with ACHD, commuters and local residents alike would likely be best served by a signalized access on Linder Road, with an east-west access road to the existing signal at Fox Run Way. City Staff, ACHD Staff and ITD Staff have been in communications with the property owner to the east (Brighton) about a collector-type roadway being constructed through their property to connect to Fox Run Way. While all of the details have not been worked out, Brighton has indicated support and Staff believes this option is best for the overall transportation network. The submitted concept plan shows a dead-end public street where an east-west access road could be extended toward Fox Run Way. While the developer has worked extensively with both ITD and ACHD, much of that work involved requests for additional accesses to both SH 20/26 and Linder Road that would benefit the development. From staff’s perspective, preserving the corridor and access management planning for a site this large should include backage type roads and connectivity to the existing local roadway network, to reduce congestion impacts on State Highway and arterial roadways. Development of this scale proposing full and partial access curb cuts, without additional planned public east-west connectivity through the entire Mixed Use land use areas, does not meet the intent of this policy. Figure 3-3 in the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan demonstrates how local and collector roadways may be considered to allow cross-access and to facilitate traffic patterns that reduce local and community vehicle trips from impacting regional traffic flow.  “Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect local roads and collectors to adjacent properties (stub streets).” (3.03.02O) The project area is currently designated as MU-C and MDR, and ACHD’s Master Street Map does not identify any future collector roadways in this area. There are three local roadways stubbed to the subject property from Paramount Subdivision, with two on the south and one on the east side of the project area. The MU-C FLUM designation describes local and collector roadways being used both to buffer lower density residential from more intense uses, and to provide efficient connectivity and access between uses. The proposed concept plan does not indicate how connectivity will be addressed with existing and established neighborhoods. The site layout shows the less intensive, more community friendly uses furthest from the existing neighborhood (nearer Chinden), and in combination with the proposed road network, makes the transportation network less effective. Staff recommends the concept plan is amended to better address these items consistent with the intent of Figure 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) Pedestrian sidewalks/pathways are depicted on the site circulation plan included in Exhibit A.3 throughout the development with connections from the perimeter sidewalks along Linder and Chinden and to the future residential development on the southern portion of the site.  “Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses.” (3.05.03A) The proposed concept plan does not depict any office or other low intensity uses as a transition from commercial to residential uses. Some additional R-8 zoned property is proposed adjacent to the existing R-8 zoned property in Paramount; however, no details of how that area will develop are provided other than the lots directly abutting existing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 56 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 10 residences will be single-family residential detached units. The concept plan attempts to buffer proposed residential from big box store impacts with a berm, landscape buffer and a screen wall (see Exhibit A.2). As depicted in the mixed-use exhibit above, more intense commercial should be near the major roadways with less intense commercial transitioning to the future and existing residential. As currently proposed, the opposite is shown with less intense commercial uses near the Linder/Chinden intersection and more intense commercial uses closer to the nearby and proposed residences. As such, the proposed concept plan is more of a commercial than a mixed-use development plan. Changes are needed to the site layout in order to be considered consistent with the MU-C designation.  “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation and development requests, and the impacts on services.” (3.04.01H) Comments from these service providers are included in Exhibit B of this report.  “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.” (3.05.01J) The proposed development should offer a large variety of commercial and retail opportunities for residents in the northern portion of the City.  “Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B) The proposed site plan shows generous landscape buffers to separate heavy commercial areas from residential areas. However, the applicant is proposing a 24-hour use, with a truck loading dock area facing residentially-zoned areas. Staff has some concerns about hours of operation for the grocery store, in particular for deliveries with the siting proposed. There may be noise, odor and negative visual impacts if the site plan is approved as submitted. More information is needed with respect to timing and phasing of the landscape material, berms, walls, or other strategies to determine whether the proposed site plan is in compliance with this policy statement. As noted above, staff recommends that the Winco store rotate so that the loading docks are oriented towards Linder Road to minimize impacts to the nearby residents.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) This property is contiguous to land that has already been annexed into the City. Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.  “Require neighborhood and community commercial areas to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses (e.g., landscaping, fences, etc.). The concept plan depicts street buffers along Linder and Chinden in accord with UDC standards and a landscaped buffer to future residential uses (see Exhibit A.2).  “Evaluate comprehensive impact of growth in all land use decisions (e.g., traffic impacts, school enrollment, parks, etc).” (3.01.01B) ACHD was provided with a Traffic Impact Study, but as of the writing of this staff report, the analysis is not complete. The narrative provided by the applicant does not supplement the site plan well as little information is provided for staff to make realistic assumptions about how the project will impact the community. Typically, big box developments are less dense, but higher intensity uses than most residential, office, and other retail developments. Staff does Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 57 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 11 realize that a lot of urban services are nearby and some commercial on/near this high- volume intersection is appropriate.  “Consider the adopted COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land-use decisions.” (3.03.02G) The Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040 Plan identifies US 20/26 as a priority corridor with a typology of expressway. It is currently listed as an “unfunded” priority, though some early improvements are pending. The following is a summary from the CIM US 20/26 Priority Corridor Summary. “As a major mobility highway, US 20/26 is experiencing congestion along much of its length but especially between Linder Road and State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), a stretch with only two travel lanes. US 20/26 has been a regional priority for a number of years but it remains unfunded, causing traffic to divert to other routes such as McMillan Road. In addition to high traffic levels on this road, the intersection with State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is ranked #2 on ITD’s list of high-accident locations. By 2040, daily traffic between Middleton Road and State Highway 55 is expected to increase substantially. o From Middleton Road to Star Road, traffic is projected to more than double, from 12,000 in 2013 to 30,000 in 2040. o From Star Road to Linder Road, traffic is projected to double, from 14,000 in 2013 to 28,000 in 2040.  This would be similar to current traffic on US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) in Garden City. o From Linder Road to State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), traffic is projected to increase 80%, from 21,000 in 2013 to 38,000 in 2040.  This would be similar to current traffic on Eagle Road north of US 20/26. o Rush hour driving time between Middleton Road and Glenwood Street is expected to more than double, from 25 minutes in 2013 to 60 minutes in 2040.”  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) As noted in 3.03.02O, the MSM does not show any new arterial or collector roadways in this area. However, if more intensive land uses are proposed closer to existing residential than what the Comprehensive Plan contemplates (which should be located along the arterials), then it is not unreasonable to consider a modified street network. An internal collector type roadway, as shown in Figure 3-3 for the MU-C FLUM designation, would provide external and internal access to the site, reduce local traffic on US 20/26, and buffer the existing and proposed neighborhoods. ACHD has verbally indicated that they would support a future signal on Linder near the fire station to support a collector type roadway and a backage roadway that extends to Fox Run.  “Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities (water, sewer, streets, fire, police, etc.) by encouraging controlled growth through development application reviews and development agreements.” (3.04.01G) The proposed project is surrounded by urban development and would be well served by the City.  “Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit development.” (6.02.02H) The applicant should include an ADA bus stop on this property; coordinate the details with Valley Regional Transit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 58 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 12 In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas: (Staff’s analysis in italics) • Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre. A residential density of up to 8 units/acre is proposed in the future residential development area. • Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destinat ion centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69. Single-family attached and detached units are proposed to be developed in the future on the R-8 zoned portion of the site. Staff recommends the single-family detached units planned along the south boundary adjacent to existing residential uses transition to higher density residential uses (as desired in Mixed-use areas), which will provide housing for employment uses in the area adjacent to SH 20-26. • A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application. A concept site plan was submitted for this site but only the western portion includes a development plan; “future development” is depicted on the eastern portion of the site (see Exhibit A.2). Because integration and connectivity of uses within the overall transportation network is so important within mixed use areas, staff recommends the development agreement is amended to include a concept plan for this area that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, prior to any development occurring within this area. • In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. The concept plan for the eastern commercial area includes a public plaza and esplanade in front of and on the east side of the buildings; a community meeting place is also proposed at the rear of one of the shops. Staff recommends the buildings are rearranged, such as in an “L” shape or detached to create more of a central common area (rather than directly in front or at the end of the buildings) and to “break up” the “strip.” • The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development. The proposed concept plan depicts a landscape berm and landscape buffer and screen wall on the commercial property adjacent to “future residential development” to the south (see Exhibit A.2); however, no buffering is depicted to residential uses on the eastern portion of the site. Single-family detached homes are proposed adjacent to the existing medium density residential homes in Paramount Subdivision. • A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. The proposed concept plan depicts commercial, residential and entertainment uses in accord with this requirement; however, as proposed does not provide transitioning between uses as desired in the Mixed-use areas. • Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments. Rocky Mountain High School, Paramount Elementary School, a fire station, and a church exist to the south within a ¼ mile of this site. A City park exists approximately a mile away to the west on Ten Mile Road. A community meeting space is also proposed with this development at the rear of one of the shops on the east side of the site adjacent to the plaza. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 59 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 13 • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count. The concept plan depicts an esplanade and public plaza at the strip of commercial buildings on the east side of the site; a community meeting space is also proposed at the rear of one of the shops. • All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians. Three (3) stub streets exist to this site that are intended to be extended with development of this site for interconnectivity between the residential and commercial development; however, no connections to these streets are depicted on the concept plan. Without vehicular connections, residents from nearby residential neighborhoods will need to travel out of their subdivisions onto adjacent arterial streets, into the commercial development and back again, which will increase traffic on arterial streets. Staff recommends all of the existing stub streets are extended with development as originally intended for interconnectivity and that at least one of the stub streets is extended with the first phase of development. • Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required within the Unified Development Code. The developer will be required to dedicate right-of-way along Linder Road and within the site as required by ACHD; right-of-way along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 should be dedicated and/or reserved for future dedication as required by ITD. • Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the Mixed- Use standards listed herein. The proposed development is not within Old Town. In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-C areas: • Development should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. See above. • All developments should have a mix of at least three land use types. The concept plan depicts commercial, residential and entertainment type uses. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre. Residential uses are proposed for approximately 20% of the development area; the future development plan should reflect a residential density of at least 6 units per acre. • Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. Staff is concerned with the massing of the buildings adjacent to future and existing residential areas. There are no proportional transitions or blending of scales of non- residential buildings shown on the submitted concept elevations (see Exhibit A.6). Instead, the concept site plan relies entirely on large landscape buffers to separate uses. While these may potentially be very effective in obscuring loading docks (with the right details), it misses the intent of the mixed use designation. Almost all of the smaller-scale non-residential buildings and those most likely to also be neighborhood serving uses, are located along Chinden. The area around the Esplanade tries to correct and accommodate some of this, but without stronger emphasis and co-location of other pedestrian oriented site plan features and uses, is likely to be underused. Both sides of the adjacent drive aisle near to the Esplanade should really work to frame and introduce a sense of space and pedestrian scale, but no information to the east is suggested or shown and could just be more parking, thus potentially discouraging active use and limiting transitional elements. The elevations submitted with future Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 60 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 14 • Vertically integrated structures are encouraged. Two (2) live/work pads are depicted on the concept plan. Staff recommends the live/work pads are located at the periphery of the commercial development near the future residential area rather than in the middle of a busy commercial area and parking area, perhaps near the esplanade/public plaza. • Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square-foot building footprint. For community grocery stores, the maximum building size should be limited to a 60,000-square foot building footprint. For the development of public school sites, the maximum building size does not apply. The community grocery store proposed on this site is 85,000 square feet (s.f.), which exceeds the 60,000 s.f. limitation by 25,000 s.f. Staff recommends additional public and quasi-public uses are provided in excess of the minimum 5% commensurate with the increase in building size proposed. • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement. The concept plan depicts a public plaza and esplanade in front of and on the east side of the strip of commercial buildings on the east side of the site. A community meeting space is also proposed at the rear of one of the shops. (Note: The internal landscape buffers and planter islands do not count toward the required public/quasi-public spaces/places.) • Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 5%, the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint. Because the building footprint for the community grocery store exceeds the 60,000 s.f. limitation in the MU-C designated area, staff recommends the developer provide additional public and quasi-public uses above the minimum 5% required commensurate with the proposed increase in building size. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) A. Purpose Statement of Zoning District(s): 1. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and housing types that can be accommodated (UDC 11-2A-1). 2. The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways (UDC 11-2B-1). Allowed uses in the C-C district are larger scale and broader mix of retail, office, and service uses and are usually located with access to arterials or nonresidential collectors. B. Schedule of Use: 1. UDC Table 11-2A-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-8 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. 2. UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the C-C zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 61 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 15 C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district; and 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. D. Landscaping: Landscaping is required within street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. E. Off-Street Parking: NA (not required or reviewed with the subject application) IX. ANALYSIS Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: A. Annexation & Zoning (AZ): The applicant requests approval to annex & zone 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. The proposed zoning is consistent with the FLUM designations of MU-C and MDR for this site. Note: The proposed residential area is approximately 7 acres less than depicted on the FLUM for the MDR designated area. Conceptual Development Plan: The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan, included in Exhibit A.2, which depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store (Winco) as an anchor for the development with a mid-size retail use and retail shops in the southwest portion of the development; mixed use (i.e. office, retail and live/work) in the northwest portion of the development; pad sites adjacent to Chinden Blvd.; and other mid-size retail and entertainment users, shops and restaurants in the middle of the development. A specific development plan for the eastern portion of the site is proposed to be submitted at a later date. Staff recommends revisions to the plan as stated above in Section VII in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries of the property proposed to be annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed and recommended by staff with this application and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends a DA is required with the annexation containing the provisions included in Exhibit B. B. Preliminary Plat (PP): The applicant proposes a 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. The residential lot (Lot 1, Block 4) is included in the plat as one large lot and will be developed in the future under a subsequent preliminary plat as will the commercial development on the eastern portion of the site depicted as Lot 1, Block 2. Existing Structures: There are no existing structures on this site. Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district and UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 62 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 16 There is no minimum front, rear or interior side setbacks required in the C-C district; however, required street landscape buffers act as a setback where applicable as building encroachment within buffers is not allowed. All of the proposed lots comply with the minimum standards. Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3 and 11- 3H-4. Access is proposed as discussed in Section VII above per the concept plan in Exhibit A.2. The UDC requires access to be taken from a local street when available. There are 3 local streets (i.e. N. Arliss Ave., N. Bergman Ave., and W. Director St.) stubbed to this site; however, the portion of the site that abuts these streets is not being developed now. Staff believes the traffic volume would be far too great for sole access from these streets through the residential neighborhood anyway. Because the intent of the UDC is to limit access points to arterial streets, a Council waiver is required for the proposed accesses via N. Linder Road. The UDC (11-3H-4B.2) prohibits access via SH 20-26 and requires access to a street other than the state highway; the applicant has requested City Council approval of a variance for the (2) accesses via SH 20-26 depicted on the concept plan. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveway is required to be provided to the property to the south (Parcel #S0425233700) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A in an effort to decrease access points to the arterial street (i.e. Linder Rd.); the developer should work with that property owner to align the driveway/easement with the backage road proposed on that site. An east/west backage driveway is proposed through this site from Linder Road to the east boundary of the commercial area as shown on the circulation plan included in Exhibit A.t, in accord with UDC 11-3H-4B.3. Another such public street is proposed at the south boundary of the site and should extend to the east boundary of the site for extension to N. Fox Run Way. Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A TIS was prepared for this development and submitted to ITD and ACHD for review with this application. Staff has not received updated comments from ACHD in regards to the revised concept plan. ITD stated that they didn’t feel the change in trip generations would significantly impact the recommendations of the TIS. Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided on the site with development per UDC Tables 11-2A-6 and 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B. Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided along arterial and collector streets as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and along N. Linder Road, both entryway corridors. Any future collector streets will require a 20-foot wide street buffer. Staff recommends the entire street buffer and pathway/sidewalk along N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 is constructed with the first phase of development. A 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required to be provided on the C-C zoned portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The concept plan depicts landscape berms and landscape buffer with a screen wall on the commercial property adjacent to future residential uses. The buffers should facilitate pedestrian access from the residential to the commercial development in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3. Parking lot landscaping will be required internally within the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C with development. Open Space: A minimum of 10% (or 1.69 acres) of the area of the residential portion of the site (16.87 acres) is required to consist of qualified open space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B and is required to be provided upon development of the residential area. A future preliminary plat for that area should include qualified open space in accord with this requirement. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 63 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 17 Site Amenities: A minimum of one qualified site amenity that meets the requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3C is required to be provided within the residential portion of this site upon development. A future preliminary plat for the residential area should include details on the site amenity(s) proposed. Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway (Eagle Island) along the frontage of this site on N. Linder Road. The pathway is required to be placed in a 14- foot wide public pedestrian easement. The applicant should coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208-888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway. The UDC (11-3H-4C.4) requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a public use easement along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. Sidewalks/walkways are proposed throughout the development with connections to the multi-use pathways along Linder and Chinden, to the adjacent properties to the south and east, and to the future development area as shown on the circulation plan included in Exhibit A.3 Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are required along Linder & Chinden, both arterial streets. Waterways: The North Slough and the Simpson Lateral cross this site. These waterways should be piped if not already piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A semi-private wood screen wall is depicted on the concept plan on the eastern portion of the commercial property adjacent to the future residential development. A CMU wall is proposed behind the community grocer/pet/mixed retail area (see details in Exhibit A.5). Utilities: Street lights are required to be installed along public streets adjacent to the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Adequate fire protection shall be required in accord with the appropriate fire district standards. Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed and will be served by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation district. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances, per UDC 11-3A-18. Hours of Operation: 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 conditional use permit as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. The Winco store is proposed to operate 24 hours/day. The property as-is without being subdivided, currently abuts a residential use and zoning district at the south boundary of the site. When right-of-way is dedicated for a street between Linder and the east boundary of the site for extension to Fox Run, the commercial property should no longer abut residential property although deliveries at the loading docks will still likely affect adjacent residences. If the Winco store is turned so the rear of the building and loading docks are facing Linder Road as recommended by Staff, deliveries shouldn’t impact the residential neighbors. If it’s not turned, staff recommends the hours of operation are restricted unless otherwise approved by the City Council. Because this is an annexation, provisions above and beyond UDC standards may be implemented through the development agreement if deemed appropriate by the City Council. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 64 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 18 Building Elevations: Future building elevations are required to be consistent with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor (Winco), the mid anchor and the retail shops as shown in Exhibit A.6. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split face CMU, metal panel siding and stone and brick veneer accents. As noted above in Section VII, non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings; future building elevations submitted for design review should demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The applicant is required to submit a CZC application for approval of the proposed use, site layout and building elevations from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. Design Review: The applicant is required to submit a Design Review application concurrent with the CZC application for final approval of the site layout and building elevations. The proposed site layout and structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. C. Variance (VAR): The applicant requests a variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway (i.e. SH 20/26). The applicant requests approval of (2) accesses via SH 20/26 as shown on the concept plan included in Exhibit A.2. ITD staff has expressed to Planning staff that they’re amendable to the applicant’s request for access and that they’re working with the developer on the approval process. The applicant is proposing to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD to make some off-site improvements to SH 20-26 with Phase 1. These improvements would widen the highway to 4- lanes and improve the Meridian Road intersection in conjunction with ITD’s project to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The City received a letter from ITD earlier this year, supporting the applicant’s proposal. Since the initial support letter was composed, a key anchor tenant (i.e. Costco) has backed-out and ITD is re-analyzing the impacts of this project. When a change or increase in intensity of use is proposed, the UDC requires the owner to develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of any existing approaches is required to be abandoned and removed. Public street connections are only allowed at the section line roads; and the half mile mark between section line roads, and shall be collector roads. The UDC (11-5B-4) allows requests for a variance for the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. In order to grant a variance, the Council is required to make 3 findings: 1) the variance can’t grant a right or special privilege that isn’t otherwise allowed in the district; 2) the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and 3) the variance can’t be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare (see Exhibit D). Because staff can’t make all of the required findings listed in Exhibit D, staff is recommending denial of the proposed variance application. In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed AZ application with the requirement of a development agreement that includes the provisions listed in Exhibit B; approval of the PP application with the conditions contained in Exhibit B, and denial of the VAR application in accord with the Findings in Exhibit D. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 65 of 104 Linder Village –AZ, PP, VAR H-2017-0088 PAGE 19 X. EXHIBITS A. Drawings/Other 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Proposed Conceptual Development & Use Area Plans (dated: 8/4/2017) – NOT APPROVED 3. Site Circulation Plan (dated: 8/4/2017) – NOT APPROVED 4. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 9/5/2017) – NOT APPROVED 5. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 9/5/2017) – NOT APPROVED 6. Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 9/20/2016) – NOT APPROVED B. Agency & Department Comments C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 66 of 104 Exhibit A Page 1 A. Drawings/Other Exhibit A.1: Zoning Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 67 of 104 - 2 - Exhibit A.2: Proposed Conceptual Development & Use Area Plans (dated: 8/4/2017) – NOT APPROVED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 68 of 104 - 3 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 69 of 104 - 4 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 70 of 104 - 5 - CMU wall proposed behind the community grocer/pet/mixed retail area Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 71 of 104 - 6 - Exhibit A.3: Site Circulation Plan (dated: 8/4/2017) – NOT APPROVED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 72 of 104 - 7 - Exhibit A.4: Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 9/5/2017) – NOT APPROVED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 73 of 104 - 8 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 74 of 104 - 9 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 75 of 104 - 10 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 76 of 104 - 11 - Exhibit A.5: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 9/5/2017) & Open Space Exhibit– NOT APPROVED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 77 of 104 - 12 - NOT APPROVED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 78 of 104 - 13 - Exhibit A.6: Proposed Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 9/20/2016) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 79 of 104 - 14 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 80 of 104 - 15 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 81 of 104 - 16 - B. EXHIBIT B - AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Prior to the City Council meeting, staff recommends the conceptual development plan in Exhibit A.2 is revised to address inconsistencies with development in the MU-C designated area as discussed in Section VII, as follows: a. The most intense commercial uses should be located along N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and transition to less intense commercial, live/work and residential uses at the south and east boundaries of the site as desired in MU-C designated areas per Figure 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, the “strip” commercial buildings depicted along the south boundary of the site should be reconfigured into an “L” shape and/or detached to break up the building mass and uses adjacent to the existing & future residential area and the future east/west street. The rear of the Winco building should face N. Linder Road so that the loading docks aren’t directly adjacent to the existing and future residential area. With an “L” shape, central common areas/public plazas could be provided rather than at the end of and in front of a strip of stores as currently depicted. b. Vertically integrated residential (i.e. live/work) pads should be located on the periphery of the commercial development near future residential uses and less intense commercial uses rather than in the middle of a busy commercial area and parking lot adjacent to the state highway. c. Based on the MU-C designated area (54 acres) and the increase in building size of 25,000 square feet (or 0.57 of an acre), a minimum of 3.27 acres of public and quasi-public uses shall be provided for the development. (Submit an exhibit that demonstrates compliance with this requirement; qualified area is limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, schools, etc. – landscape buffers and planter islands do not qualify. If some of this area will be provided on the on the future development area, include a bubble plan or note to that effect.) Configuring some of the buildings in an “L” shape as recommended could provide a more usable and attractive plaza/public use/gathering area rather than at the end of and in front of a strip of stores as currently depicted. d. Include a street/driveway/pedestrian network that depicts vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between the proposed commercial development and the existing and future residential neighborhood; a street connection between N. Linder Road and the east boundary of the site for future connection to N. Fox Run Way and access to the traffic signal (this will also serve as a “break” or transition between commercial and residential areas); and extension of the existing stub streets. Also include a bubble plan for possible future uses on the “future development” area. 1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan, use area plan, circulation plan, fencing plan (including materials), site section, preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions contained herein. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 82 of 104 - 17 - b. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. c. One building permit is allowed to be issued on the subject property prior to recordation of the subdivision. d. Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings in accord with the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use community designated areas. e. Provide an ADA bus stop on the site; work with Valley Ride Transportation (VRT) on the location and details. If VRT determines a bus stop is not needed at this location, the applicant should submit written documentation as such from VRT. f. A minimum of three (3) land use types are required to be provided within this development [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. g. Provide a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway (Eagle Island segment) within the street buffer along N. Linder Road in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the pathway is required to be submitted to the Planning Division, approved by City Council and recorded. The applicant shall coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208-888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway. h. Provide a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division, approved by City Council and recorded for the pathway. i. A minimum of 3.27 acres of public and quasi-public uses shall be provided for the mixed use designated portion of the development consisting of parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, schools, etc. – landscape buffers, planter islands, outdoor seating areas at restaurants, etc. do not qualify. j. Business hours of operation for the community grocer (i.e. Winco) shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 am and 11:00 pm due to the location of the loading docks adjacent to an existing and future residential area, unless otherwise approved by City Council. Exception: If the Winco building is turned so that the rear of the structure and loading docks face N. Linder Road as recommended, the hours shall not be restricted unless the use abuts a residential use or district as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. k. All of the existing stub streets (N. Arliss Ave., N. Bergman Ave. and W. Director Street) shall be extended with this development as originally intended for interconnectivity. At least one of the stub streets shall be extended with the first phase of development for interconnectivity between the commercial development and residential neighborhood. l. The street buffer landscaping and 10-foot wide multi-use pathways along the entire frontage of N. Linder Road and SH 20-26/Chinden Blvd. shall be constructed with the first phase of development. m. Prior to any development occurring on the eastern portion of the site depicted on the conceptual development plan as “future development” and “future residential development”, the development agreement shall be amended to include a concept plan for these areas that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the MU-C designated area, that depicts the following: a. Residential densities shall be a minimum of six dwelling units per acre. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 83 of 104 - 18 - b. Single-family detached units shall be provided along the south boundary of the site adjacent to existing homes in Paramount Subdivision and should transition to higher density housing to obtain a minimum density of 6 units per acre. c. A public street connection from N. Linder Road to the east boundary of the site for future connection with N. Fox Run Way for access to the traffic signal. d. Transitional uses/buffering between commercial and residential uses. 1.2 Site Specific Conditions – Preliminary Plat 1.2.1 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.4, dated 9/5/2017, shall be revised as follows: a. Work with the property owner to the south (Parcel #S0425233700) on the location for the driveway stub in order to align with the backage road proposed on that site; depict a driveway stub through Lot 15 to the property to the south within a separate common lot covered by an ingress-egress/cross-access easement. b. There is only (1) Block in this subdivision as right-of-way does not divide the property necessitating individual blocks; re-number the lots accordingly and remove Blocks 2, 3 and 4. 1.1.1 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.5, dated 9/5/2017, shall be revised as follows: a. The 5-foot wide sidewalk depicted within the street buffer along N. Linder Road shall be widened to 10-feet as it’s a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system. 1.1.5 The entire street buffer and pathway/sidewalk along N. Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 shall be constructed with the first phase of development. 1.1.6 Provide a cross-access/ingress-egress easement to the property to the south (Parcel #S0425233700) in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A; the developer shall work with that property owner to align the driveway/easement with the backage road proposed on that site. 1.1.7 All fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. 1.3 General Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.3.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 1.3.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 1.3.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.3.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J. 1.3.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I, 11-3B-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 1.3.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 7C (streets). 1.3.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 11C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 84 of 104 - 19 - 1.3.10 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.3.11 Provide bicycle parking spaces as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G consistent with the design standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C. 1.3.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 1.3.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C. 1.3.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the City of Meridian Standards Manual. 1.3.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle. 1.3.16 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site. 1.3.17 All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B as applicable. 1.4 Ongoing Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.4.1 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. 1.5 Process Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat 1.5.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and receive approval for such signs. 1.5.2 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit application. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue. Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of these mainlines through the project. 2.1.2 Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently exist at the current north terminus of N. Arliss Avenue and N. Bergman Avenue, as well as within N. Linder Road, and at the west terminus of W. Director Street. Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of these mainlines through the project. 2.1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and/or building permit application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 85 of 104 - 20 - service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.2.3 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 development plan approval. 2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to 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 prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.2.6 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. 2.2.7 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 Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 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 Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.2.11 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 86 of 104 - 21 - UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.2.12 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. 2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.2.19 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. 2.2.20 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. 2.2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse 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 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. 2.2.23 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, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate 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 887-221. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The Police Department has no comments on this application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 87 of 104 - 22 - 4. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4.1 Any newly installed Fire Department connections for sprinkler or standpipes will require locking Knox box plugs. 4.2 Based on the size of new construction and the location of the sprinkler room in relation to the address side of the structure, the AHJ may require separate Knox box locations. One being at the main, address side entrance and the other at the entrance to the sprinkler riser room. 4.3 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows: a. Fire hydrants shall have the 4 ½” outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle. b. Fire hydrants shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the 4 ½” outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4.4 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4.5 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. 4.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all-weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.7 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6. 4.8 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all weather surface are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J. 4.9 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. The cost of this installation is t o be borne by the developer. (National Fire Protection Std 1141 Section 5.2.11.1) 4.10 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official as set forth in International Fire Code Section 507.5.1. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 88 of 104 - 23 - 4.11 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections as set forth in local amendment to the International Fire Code 10-4-2L. 4.12 The Fire Department will require Knoxbox Fire Department Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC 102.9. 4.13 Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 4.14 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection Standard 1141, Section A5.2.18. 4.15 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144mm) or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. The access roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line as set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.1. 4.16 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m2) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads separated by one half of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses as set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.2. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 m2) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road and all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. (Remoteness Required) 4.17 ALLEY – In all cases, right of ways shall be a minimum of 20’ in width. The entrance to the alley from the public street shall provide a minimum twenty-eight foot (28’) inside and forty-eight foot (48’) outside turning radius. No parking shall be allowed on either side of the street. The minimum distance for alley accessed properties shall be 20’ from the face of a garage to the property line. (International Fire Code Section 503.4) 4.18 As set forth in International Fire Code Section D103.3, the Fire Department is opposed to any landscape island in the middle of a cul-de-sac that may prevent a fire truck from turning around on the end of the court. 4.19 As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and commercial projects shall be required to provide an additional sixty inches (60”) wide access point to the building from the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a length of 150' fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code compliant handicap parking stalls may be included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the Meridian Fire Department for details. 5. REPUBLIC SERVICES 5.1 Please coordinate trash enclosure design and locations with Bob Olson, Republic Services (208- 345-1265 office, or 208-371-1745 cell; or, email: ROlson@republicservices.com ) prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Also, provide provisions for recycling. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 89 of 104 - 24 - 6. PARKS DEPARTMENT 6.1 The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5 for any existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site. Contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist (208-371-1755), prior to removal of any existing trees from the site. 6.2 The Pathways Master Plan requires a 10-foot wide segment of the City’s multi-use pathway (Eagle Island) along the frontage of this on N. Linder Road; the applicant should coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department (208-888-3579) regarding the requirements for the pathway. The UDC (11-3H-4C.4) also requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along SH 20/26. 6.3 Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along Linder Road and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26; coordinate the details of the easements with Kim Warren, Pathways Project Manager, 208-888-3579. If the pathways are located within right-of-way, an easement is not required to be submitted to the City. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT A staff report has not yet been received from ACHD on this project. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 90 of 104 - 25 - Exhibit C: Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 91 of 104 - 26 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 92 of 104 - 27 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 93 of 104 - 28 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 94 of 104 - 29 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 95 of 104 - 30 - Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 96 of 104 - 31 - D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. ANNEXATION & ZONING FINDINGS: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed map amendment to the C-C and R-8 zoning districts is consistent with the MU-C and MDR FLUM designations for this site and should be compatible with existing and future uses in the area. However, the Commission finds the proposed conceptual development plan is not consistent with the MU-C designation in the Comprehensive Plan (see section VII above for more information). b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds that the proposed map amendment to the C-C and R-8 zoning districts is consistent with the purpose statements of the commercial and residential districts as detailed in Section VIII above. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; however, the Commission finds that if the site is developed in accord with the proposed conceptual development plan that it may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. City utilities are available to be extended at the expense of the applicant. The Commission recommends that the Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. Many letters of public testimony have been submitted for this project. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). The Commission finds the proposed annexation of this property is not in the best interest of the City with the proposed conceptual development plan. 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is not in conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to transportation and circulation goals. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 97 of 104 - 32 - b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services are available to be extended to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission recommends the Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Based on the Staff recommendation and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Commission finds the proposed development will be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare due to noise, light and traffic generated form the proposed development. ACHD and ITD consider road safety issues in their analyses. 3. VARIANCE: The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in Section 11-5B-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; Staff finds granting the proposed accesses via Chinden Boulevard would grant a right or special privilege as the UDC specifically prohibits access via the state highway unless otherwise approved through a variance. b. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and Staff finds there are no unique characteristics of the site that create an undue hardship that granting a variance would relieve; however, this site does have a lot of frontage on SH 20-26 as the site is 2,640 feet wide (frontage on SH 20-26) x 1,290 feet deep (frontage on Linder) which would make sole access to the site via Linder and the (3) existing residential stub streets difficult and inefficient. c. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff finds granting the variance for additional accesses via Chinden Boulevard, an existing two lane highway, would likely be detrimental to public safety with traffic slowing down to turn into the site and pulling out of the site at a slow rate of speed merging into traffic at a high rate of speed. However, if the highway is widened to 4 lanes as intended through the STAR’s program, Staff finds the proposed accesses shouldn’t be detrimental to the public Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 98 of 104 - 33 - health, safety and welfare if the appropriate improvements are constructed as determined by ITD. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda January 16, 2018 – Page 99 of 104 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January'a9��018 Agenda Item Number: E —) -- -...__................. _......... ----...... ---.......... -.._........ __.... _ ........ _- ................. _..- -- - ........... - .......... __ .__.._-------- -............ Project/File Number: Item Title: Public Hearing for Proposed New Fees for Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation Resolution No. 18-2057: Adoption of New Fees for Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation, Accessory Use Permit for Home Occupation that includes provision of lessons or instruction to a group of 7 or more students, and Review of Landscape Plan revisions CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: January 16, 2018 Item # Project Number: Project Name: Please print your name 9E New Fees for Accessory Use Permit For Against Neutral Do you wish to testifv (Y/N) CITY OF MERIDIAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES FOR: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION, ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION THAT INCLUDES PROVISION OF LESSONS OR INSTRUCTION TO A GROUP OF SEVEN OR MORE STUDENTS, AND REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLAN REVISIONS; AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION OF FEE FOR ACCESSORY USE FOR DAYCARE; AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on January 16, 2018, the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of a proposed new fee for Accessory Use Permit, Home Occupation; WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said proposed fees; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the following new fee is hereby adopted: Fee Current Fee Adopted Fee Accessory Use Permit for n/a — new fee $53.00 Home Occupation Accessory Use Permit for n/a — new fee $160.00 Horne Occupation that includes provision of lessons or instruction to a group of 7 or more students Review of Landscape Plan n/a — new fee $160.00 revisions Section 2. That, as of the effective date of this resolution, the description of the following fees shall be amended as follows: Fee Current Fee Adopted Fee Accessory use for daycare $160.00 $160.00 Section 3. That the Conununity Development Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. ADOPTION OF FEES FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS, LANDSCAPE PLAN REVISION REVIEW PAGE 1 OF 2 Section 4. That other than as specified in section 2 of this resolution, this resolution shall not change or supersede any fee adopted pursuant to Resolution no. 17-2037, adopting the FY18 Citywide Fee Schedule. Section 5. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and publication. 2018. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho this day of January, APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of January, 2018. APPROVED: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: C.Jay Coles, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEES FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS, LANDSCAPE PLAN REVISION REVIEW PAGE 2 OF 2 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: JanuaryA\ 2018 Agenda Item Number: I O .._........... . -- ------............ _...... -...... --_........................... _. Project/File Number: Item Title: Budget Amendment for Animal Control Services Police: Budget Amendment for Animal Control Services Not -to -Exceed $11,000 Meeting Notes 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 day of September, 2017 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized 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 heeded within Meridian, and requests payment commensurate with the level of services to be provided; WHERE AS, City finds that IHS has the necessary qualifications and capabilities to continue to provide a Rill 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, 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. TERM. The term of the September 24, 2013 Agreement shall be extended to cover the period beginning the IA day of October, 2017, through the 30th day of September, 2018. II. CoMrI:NSATION. 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 $381,132.00. Such amount shall be payable in twelve equal installments. City shall pay IHS monthly for services rendered in the previous month. City shall not withhold any federal or state income taxes or Social Security tax from any payment made by City to IHS under the terms and conditions of this Agreement; payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums shall be the sole responsibility of IHS. ADIIC.ND1.1iii E To SGYTEMBEIi 24, 2013 PROCESSIONAL SERVICES ArmEEMCNT Win I ITIS CUR ANIMAL CONTROL AND DOG LICENSING SERVICES PAGE 1 of 2 111. SEPTEMBER 24, x013 AGRCkgtVmm FiJUY IN EFFoCT. The intent and eifeet ofthis Addendum is to extend the term and increase the payment amount for services provided by IHS as set forth in the September 24, 2013 Agreement. Except as expressly set foi th herein, this Addendum does not otheivise modify or alter any -term or condition of the September 24; 2413 Agreement in any. way. The September 24, 2013 Agreement remains in full effect, and all terms and conditions thereof are. incorporated in this Addendum as though fully set forth herein. IN 'WITNESS 'WI EREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day of September, 2017. IDAHO HUMANE SOCIRTV$ INC.: .tefft osen al, DVM Chief Executive Officer CIT" Y OF MERIDIAN: 0 CRY of w .�]p �E IDIAN�-. �� IDAHO Tanlniy do W d, Mo .. SEAL �v - 0/thoTREF'�J�,? Attest: C. Coles, ty Clerk AunESIDUM R To STIP'rGMBLI104, 2013 PROFFSSIONAL SERVICES ACHUMM' WITH 1119 I-ORANIMALCONTIMANI) 00 LICENSING SPRVICES PAGE 2oft k w Y r O N LL LLd c L c L > G 6 LU c N O O E a ` F .— 7 N LL N O LL 1, OO - - --_ --- 1� 1--1 W Z E v a L � 4i �O LL C ❑� Q C, W W 0 N W C O O O U E O ^ ojC O = Q a N > v o v k w Y r O N LL LLd c L c L > G 6 LU c N O O E a ` F .— 7 N LL N O LL J H � d O N PC O :1� CU W O L � fd -6 6i L LL O OO - - --_ --- O O Z v c ❑� Q C, m 0 N E E O C 0 O U O ^ E E d > v o v o aci v _u _u i ❑ ❑ o, fr O � O O O E Q J ° Qi LL w d ?: E w O o 0 0 0 0 UGi 0 o�D c O v U O A OW m Ln 3 (j a, E O O N N N L GV C N 0 N 0 o ` to CL E N v N a N v N v N v N v N v O o 0 0 O o c yO 0 N N v ai ai LL o d N N q N N z z N E Z ID N N V) ) N E N TVACL) o M r- r N N N 0 E 3 N N E E t 0 0 0 0 J H � d O N PC O :1� CU W O L � fd -6 6i L LL O O O v nn c c 3 C, m E E O C 0 O U O ^ E E > v o v o cw v n i fa � Q V O E Q > 0 DI LL w d ?: E w O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o�D 01:T N NM Ln O N O N N N O m N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N v N v N a N v N v N v N v N v O o 0 0 O o 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J H � d O N PC O :1� CU W O L � fd -6 6i L LL O O O N O 0 u Ln aj ti m o V o O o O O O O O O O O O O 0 N Ln O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N HH o o o 0 0 o o o o o o o o r_ 60 o o a p; 1Z Z Z 3 ID d r r Q _ 7 O O N ~ C d ih E V d 3 0 c u u Q 0 0 ri 6 N 0 a T E 0 c a� E N E Q a� m O m CO0 i LL m "O N o, A O LL a) a) 0) m 00 VI - C) O N LL c cu �L aa)) L O 4.1 A V? <i! VA v no l c N I F m N C O E m ato Y O N ' v E t m } N -Fu0 N N 11 N N O a) N N O U N J fY1 aJ LL V) v? vt d v ai Y m m E } O N W Y O No +m+ LL F V? <i! VA v no l c N I F 0 O r O m IA a! O ° h �a O O a°. u (U U ° v a-+ v .a C w aj C a O1 •Q oo ' Q ° ° O t a� oj a o, a ° m v Qj C: c — 3 o ° N � C C ' E. Of L O O al al CA i O ° m ° v u ° O i ° v° O C v� O N E cm O j � u t a � M L t � C E v° � 1 al v istj c 4 O ++ E a�, m E o E N - Q ni LE W E 0 LL a E a C E a o a m a0 0 } LL m a 2 0 U m N C O E m ato Y m a u N ' v E t m N N J N N Y O m v v C E ! C, > 0 0 1m o : i Z Z CL a l a1 L Y � a L Y a L cu ! C O •O • w U C _ O ` 7 N v o m a Qj a O c O m Z fu I N I U O N °1 ai 0 a 1 n. u u n 0cr ) a -:E Y Yu a a o L O O N m L N + a T a C c m U W a o v a 6 axi a (D N N c U N a — n. Y c a— c E L cc Z a a' > 3 ° mCL " v o CL m 3 aJ > W O0 +_ rdo CL n, U CD Q U O CUY i N LL O w a ` Y O O m p � asC 7 n L C m I N 7 C v a E O N m — � m o N O. Lu .O a 0 cu v N 0 Ea)a o a E f ° cO =3aci io aai v a c c I C "' > 0 p o 0 E O y I O O n• c m E 0 3 c c v m to r •O E �0 0 aoi a E 3 0 m( v v v° CL = n.9 a) Q a E v a v E D c a L C 1 I U v Q cu N� tL Y a m m L E L E v L O a tu/1 N m N a a) O N a aJ L m u a� aJ O p O a l p c c 1 p N 0 p w Q m F c CJ ui > Lj6 Z r: ai rn 0 O r O m IA a! O ° h �a O O a°. u (U U ° v a-+ v .a C w aj C a O1 •Q oo ' Q ° ° O t a� oj a o, a ° m v Qj C: c — 3 o ° N � C C ' E. Of L O O al al CA i O ° m ° v u ° O i ° v° O C v� O N E cm O j � u t a � M L t � C E v° � 1 al v istj c 4 O ++ E a�, m E o E N - Q ni LE W E 0 LL a E a C E a o a m a0 0 } LL m a 2 0 U City Council Meeting Meeting Date: January ,018 Agenda Item Number: i ...__.... ---........ __........ _..... ... __..... _..... ---............ _... - Project/File Number: Item Title: Ordinance No. 18-1762 Amending City Code Ordinance No. 18-1762: An Ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Meridian City Code as Codified at Title 11, Section 3 Entitled the Unified Development Code, of the Meridian City Code; Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date. Ordinance amending UDC - Title 11 Meeting Notes JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 1 OF 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO.______________ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE AS CODIFIED AT TITLE 11, SECTION 3 ENTITLED THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS , the Unified Development Code is the official zoning ordinance for the City of Meridian and provides an opportunity to better support the Comprehensive Plan and provide a tool that is relevant and contemporary to the needs of the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of its citizens to incorporate changes to the Unified Development Code within the City of Meridian. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Meridian City Code Section11-1-11D, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * D. Revocation of Conditional Use Or Accessory Use Permit: 1. A conditional use or accessory use permit may be revoked or modified by the city council, upon notice and hearing, for breach or violation of any condition of approval or limitation of the permit. 2. If the city council decides to revoke a conditional use permit or accessory use permit , either on its own action or upon complaint to the city council, the council shall notify the permit holder of its intention to revoke the permit and provide the permit holder with the opportunity to contest the revocation at a public hearing before the City Council . 3. Fifteen (15) days' prior notice of the hearing shall be given to the permit holder and all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the land for which the permit was issued. 4. The city council shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision to revoke the conditional use or accessory use permit . If the council does not decide to revoke the permit, no findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be made. 5. An aggrieved permit holder or complainant may appeal the decision of the city council under the administrative procedures act of the state of Idaho, Idaho Code section 67-5270. Section 2. That Meridian City Code Section11-1-11E, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 2 OF 15 E. Revocation, modification, or denial of accessory use permit: 1. An accessory use permit may be revoked or modified by the director upon a finding of breach or violation of any condition of approval or limitation of the permit. An accessory use permit application may be denied by the director upon a finding that the proposed use cannot or will not be conducted in compliance with applicable specific use standards. The director shall provide the permit holder written notice of the revocation, modification, or denial, and shall provide the permit holder with information regarding the opportunity to appeal such action. 2. The permit holder or applicant may appeal the director’s revocation, modification, or denial of an accessory use permit. Such appeal shall be made in writing, shall state the reasons for such appeal, and shall be delivered to the city clerk via U.S. mail or in person within fourteen (14) days of such revocation, modification, or denial. Upon receipt of such written appeal, the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing on the appeal at a city council meeting within thirty (30) days. The clerk shall provide fifteen (15) days’ notice of the hearing to the permit holder or applicant and all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the land for which the permit was issued. 3. Following public hearing on the appeal, city council shall affirm, modify, or reverse the director’s action and shall issue written findings supporting such decision. The city council's decision on such appeal shall be a final decision. Section 3. That Meridian City Code Section11-1A-1, Unified Development Code, be amended by adding the following definitions: * * * ACCESSORY USE , NON-RESIDENTIAL: A use or activity that is incidental and secondary subordinate to the principal use and is conducted upon the same property. BREWERY: The use of a site that manufactures beer or malt liquor. The use may include the ancillary sale or dispensing of beer or malt liquor by the drink or glass. DIRECT SALES: The sale, distribution, presentation, demonstration, or supply of goods directly to consumers from the fabricator or producer of such goods through independent consultants, agents, or contractors. DISTILLERY: The use of a site that manufactures distilled beverages. The use may include the ancillary sale or dispensing of liquor by the drink or glass. DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT: The use of a site primarily for the sale or dispensing of alcohol by the drink or glass. Th ise use includes, but is not limited to, is commonly referred to as a bar, brewery, lounge, nightclub, and tavern. FOOD AND BEVERAGE PRODUCTS PROCESSING; MAJOR (NAICS Code 311): The use of a site for producing, manufacturing, processing or storage of food products. The use includes, but is not JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 3 OF 15 limited to, beverages, coffee, ice, snacks, fruits, vegetables, spices, confectionery, and dairy products. Excluded uses are animal products, seafood, milling and refining. FOOD AND BEVERAGE PRODUCTS PROCESSING; MINOR: The use of a site or portion thereof for small scale operation of producing; manufacturing; processing and storage of food and beverage products. The use must contain a tasting room, dining area, retail showroom or any combination of these areas. The term includes brewery; distillery and winery. A use that does not meet the specific use standards listed in Chapter 4 shall be defined as Food and Beverage Products Processing, Major. ACCESSORY USE, HOME OCCUPATION: A n occupation, profession, activity, or commercial use or activity that is clearly an incidental and secondary use of to a residential dwelling unit . and that does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of the neighborhood. This term shall not include “Daycare Facility” as herein defined. INDUSTRY, HEAVY: A. A use engaged in the basic processing and manufacturing of materials or products, predominately from extracted or raw materials; B. A use engaged in storage or manufacturing processes using flammable or explosive materials; C. Storage or manufacturing processes that potentially involve hazardous or commonly recognized offensive conditions. Included uses are animal products, seafood, milling and refining. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to personal needs. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to, beauty and healthcare services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; fitness training and instruction; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; computer designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies. The term does not include healthcare and social service. RESTAURANT: A. The use of a site for the primary purpose of food preparation, having a commercial kitchen and cooking facilities, and where meals are regularly served to the public for compensation. The use includes, but is not limited to, cafe, coffee shop, delicatessen, diner, eatery, grill, pizza parlor, restaurant, retail bakery, sushi bar, steakhouse. B. Establishments with a liquor and/or beer and wine license that includes a restaurant certificate and that meet the definition of restaurant as set forth in Idaho administrative code 11.05.01.010.0 74. C. Establishments with a beer and wine license that meet the definition of restaurant as set forth in Idaho administrative code 11.05.01.010.04, including, but not limited to, brewpubs and wine bars. RETAIL SALES: The sale, distribution, presentation, demonstration, or supply of goods to consumers through or at a retail store. JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 4 OF 15 RETAIL STORE, WINE AND BEER SALES AND SERVINGS: The use of a site that offers wine and/or beer to the public for monetary compensation for off-site consumption as well as and offers servings of such for purchase by the bottle or glass. The use includes, but is not limited to, wine shops and brewing supply stores. The use does not include, brewery, distillery, drinking establishment s, or restaurant s or winery as herein defined. The use does not include stores that sell wine and beer but do not offer servings. WINERY: The use of a site that manufactures alcoholic beverages from the fermented juice of grapes, fruits, or other liquid bearing plants. The use may include the ancillary sale or dispensing of wine by the drink or glass. Section 4. That Meridian City Code Section11-2A-2A, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * A. Permitted uses and accessory uses in residential districts shall be reviewed in accord with chapters 2, “District Regulations”, 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", 4, "Specific Use Standards", and 5, "Administration", of this title . , except that single- family detached homes and secondary dwellings shall be reviewed in accord with the standards established in title 10 of this code. Any person establishing, operating, or carrying on a home occupation or family daycare in a residential district shall obtain an accessory use permit prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. Any person establishing, operating, or carrying on any other permitted and/or accessory use in a residential district shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use, except that single-family detached homes and secondary dwellings shall not require certificate of zoning compliance and/or accessory use approval. Standards within this title related to such uses shall be reviewed in the course of the building permit process. It shall be unlawful and a violation of the unified development code for any person to conduct in a residential district any permitted or accessory use unless such person first obtains each and every applicable permit from the city. 1. Single-family detached homes, single family attached homes, townhomes and secondary dwellings shall be reviewed in accord with the standards established in title 10 of this code and shall not require certificate of zoning compliance and/or accessory use approval. 2. The operator of a home occupation accessory use or family daycare in a residential district shall obtain an accessory use permit prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. The director shall deny an application for a home occupation accessory use upon a finding that such use cannot or will not be conducted in compliance with applicable specific use standards. Such finding may be based on the inherent nature of the use, the proposed manner of the use, or the manner of the use as previously conducted by the applicant. JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 5 OF 15 3. Any other permitted and/or non-residential accessory use in a residential district shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. * * * Section 5. That Meridian City Code Section11-2A-2, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * TABLE 11-2A-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Daycare center 1 - C C P P Daycare, family 1 - A A A C Daycare, group 1 - - C P P Direct s ales 3 A A A A A Dwelling, secondary 1 A A A A A Home occupation , accessory use 1 A A A A A Notes: 1. Indicates uses that are subject to specific use standards in accord with chapter 4 of this title. 2. Multi-family dwellings may be allowed in the R-4 and R-8 land use districts when included in a planned unit development (PUD). 3. Subject to the home occupation, accessory use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-21. * * * Section 6. That Meridian City Code Section11-2B-2A, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * A. Permitted uses and accessory uses in commercial districts shall be reviewed in accord with chapters 2, “District Regulations”, 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", 4, "Specific Use Standards", and 5, "Administration", of this title. Any person establishing, operating, or carrying on a home occupation or family daycare in a commercial district shall obtain an accessory use permit prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. Any person establishing, operating, or carrying on any other permitted and/or accessory use in a commercial district shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. It shall be unlawful and a violation of the unified development code for any person to conduct in a commercial district any permitted or accessory use unless such person first obtains each and every applicable permit from the city. JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 6 OF 15 1. The operator of a home occupation accessory use or family daycare in a commercial district shall obtain an accessory use permit prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. The director shall deny an application for a home occupation accessory use upon a finding that such use cannot or will not be conducted in compliance with applicable specific use standards. Such finding may be based on the inherent nature of the use, the proposed manner of the use, or the manner of the use as previously conducted by the applicant. 2. Any other permitted and/or non-residential accessory use in a commercial district shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. * * * Section 7. That a portion of the table at Meridian City Code Section11-2B-2, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: Table 11-2B-2 Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts * * * Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Flex space 1 - P P - P - Food and beverage products processing; minor 1 P/C P/C P/C - P/C P/C Fuel sales facility 1 C P P - - C Fuel sales facility, truck stop 1 - - C - - - Healthcare or social services P P P P P P Home occupation , accessory use 1 A A A A - - Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Restaurant P P P C A A Retail sales P P P - A A Retail store P P P - A A * * * JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 7 OF 15 Section 8. That Meridian City Code Section11-2C-2A, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * A. Permitted uses and accessory uses in industrial districts shall be reviewed in accord with chapters 2, “District Regulations”, 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", 4, "Specific Use Standards", and 5, "Administration", of this title. Any person establishing, operating or carrying on any permitted and/or accessory use in an industrial district, including a single- family detached dwelling used as a caretaker dwelling, shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. It shall be unlawful and a violation of the unified development code for any person to conduct in an industrial district any permitted or accessory use unless such person first obtains each and every applicable permit from the city. 1. Any permitted and/or non-residential accessory use in an industrial district, including a single-family detached dwelling used as a caretaker dwelling, shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. * * * Section 9. That a portion of the table in Meridian City Code Section11-2C-2, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * TABLE 11-2C-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Use I-L I-H Food and beverage products processing; minor 1 P/C - Food and beverage products p rocessing ; major 1 P P * * * Section 10. That Meridian City Code Section11-2D-2A, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * A. Permitted uses and accessory uses in traditional neighborhood districts shall be reviewed in accord with chapters 2, “District Regulations”, 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", 4, "Specific Use Standards", and 5, "Administration", of this title . except that single-family detached homes and secondary dwellings shall be reviewed in accord with the standards established in title 10 of this code. Any person establishing, operating, or JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 8 OF 15 carrying on a home occupation or family daycare in a traditional neighborhood district shall obtain an accessory use permit prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. Any person establishing, operating, or carrying on any other permitted and/or accessory use in a traditional neighborhood district shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use, except that single-family detached homes and secondary dwellings shall not require certificate of zoning compliance and/or accessory use approval. Standards within this title related to such uses shall be reviewed in the course of the building permit process. It shall be unlawful and a violation of the unified development code for any person to conduct in a residential district any permitted or accessory use unless such person first obtains each and every applicable permit from the city. 1. Single-family detached homes, single-family attached homes, townhomes and secondary dwellings shall be reviewed in accord with the standards established in title 10 of this code and shall not require certificate of zoning compliance and/or accessory use approval. 2. The operator of a home occupation accessory use or family daycare in a traditional neighborhood district shall obtain an accessory use permit prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. The director shall deny an application for a home occupation accessory use upon a finding that such use cannot or will not be conducted in compliance with applicable specific use standards. Such finding may be based on the inherent nature of the use, the proposed manner of the use, or the manner of the use as previously conducted by the applicant. 3. Any other permitted and/or non-residential accessory use in a traditional neighborhood district shall obtain a certificate of zoning compliance prior to establishing, operating, or carrying on such use. * * * Section 11. That a portion of the table in Meridian City Code Section11-2D-2, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * TABLE 11-2D-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE TRADITONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS Use O-T TN -C TN -R Financial institution 1 P P C Food and beverage products processing; minor 1 P/C P/C - Healthcare or social services P P - Home occupation , accessory use 1 A A A JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 9 OF 15 * * * Section 12. That Meridian City Code Section11-4-3-9, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group: 1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. 2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients. 3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. 4. Upon tentative approval of the application by the director or commission for a daycare center facility, the applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to issuance of certificate of zoning compliance. The applicant or owner shall comply with all state of Idaho and department of health and welfare requirements for daycare facilities. 5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit. 6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-6C 11-5A-4B of this title. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record within one hundred feet (100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property. The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more restrictive. B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children: 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') nonscalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. C. Additional standards for family daycare facilities conducted as home occupation s accessory uses : JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 10 OF 15 1. In no way shall the family daycare cause the premises to differ from its residential character in the appearance, emit lighting, signs, or in the emission of noise, fumes, odors, smoke, dust, vibrations, or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed for advertising the family daycare facility in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D-8B. 2. Off street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off street parking for the dwelling. Section 13. That Meridian City Code Section11-4-3-19, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: 11-4-3-19: FOOD AND BEVERAGE PRODUCTS PROCESSING ; MAJOR : A. All structures, loading areas, outdoor activity areas, exclusive of parking shall be located a minimum of six hundred feet (600') from any abutting residential districts. B. Food processing shall be located a minimum of one thousand feet (1,000') from any hospital. C. The application materials shall include written documentation that the proposed facility meets any applicable federal, state, or local standards regarding such use including, but not limited to, those of the U.S. environmental protection agency, the U.S. department of agriculture, Idaho department of environmental quality (DEQ), Idaho department of agriculture, Idaho department of water resources, and Central district health department. Section 14. That Meridian City Code Section11-4-3-21, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: 11-4-3-21: HOME OCCUPATION ACCESSORY USE : TheIn addition to the noticing requirements set forth in subsections 11-2A-2A, the following standards apply to all home occupation accessory uses with the exception that strict adherence to the standards contained in subsections B, C, E, F, G and FH of this section in the TN-C and TN-R districts is not required: A. The home occupation accessory use shall only be allowed as an incidental, secondary use to an allowed residential use. The operator of the home occupation accessory use shall be responsible for obtaining an accessory use permit, as well as any and all other applicable licenses, permits, or inspections, prior to operating the home occupation accessory use. Where a home occupation accessory use includes the provision of lessons or instruction to a group of seven (7) or more students at one time, prior to submittal of an application for an accessory use permit, the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4B of this title. B. Allowed home occupation accessory uses include, but are not limited to: 1. Personal and professional services. 2. Direct sales. 3. Artisan craft production or instruction. JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 11 OF 15 4. Art, dance, music, or other lessons/instruction. 5. Any other similar use, as determined by the Director. C. Prohibited home occupation accessory uses include, but are not limited to: 1. Vehicle repair. 2. Vehicle rental. 3. Vehicle washing. 4. Equipment repair. 5. Equipment rental. 6. Retail sales, except: a. The sale of services or items produced or fabricated on the premises as a result of the home occupation accessory use; b. The sale of products secondarily related to the personal service aspect of the home occupation accessory use; or c. The sale of products sold online that are delivered to customers by mail. 7. Any other use prohibited by the UDC or in violation of the purpose statement of this code, as determined by the Director. A.D. In no way shall the home occupation accessory use emit lighting, signs, or in the emission of noise, fumes, smoke, dust, odors, vibrations, or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed at the dwelling for advertising the home occupation accessory use in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D-8B. B.E. The home occupation accessory use shall be conducted entirely in the dwelling, and not more than ten percent (10%) twenty five percent (25%) of the overall living area of said dwelling shall be used for a home occupation accessory use or for storing goods associated with the home occupation accessory use. An attached garage shall be included in the calculation of the area of the dwelling for this purpose. may be used for a home occupation provided it shall not reduce the required off street parking below the standard established for that district and the area being used for the home occupation is calculated to be no greater than twenty five percent (25%) of the overall living area of the dwelling. C.F. No activity connected to the home occupation accessory use or any storage of goods, materials, or products connected with a home occupation accessory use shall be allowed in any detached garage or detached accessory structure. D. E. G. The home occupation accessory use shall not have more than two (2) outgoing pick-ups per day from a common carrier. F. H. The home occupation accessory use shall be conducted by the inhabitants of the dwelling, and no more than one nonresident employee shall be permitted at any time . G. I. The home occupation accessory use shall not serve as a headquarters or main office where employees come to the site and are dispatched to other locations. H. No retail sales shall be permitted from the dwelling except the sale of: 1) services or items produced or fabricated on the premises as a result of the home occupation; or 2) products JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 12 OF 15 secondarily related to the personal service aspect of the home occupation; or 3) products sold online that are delivered to customers by mail. I. J. Off street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off street parking for the dwelling. J. K. All visits by clients, customers, and/or employees shall occur between the hours of eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. and eight o'clock (8:00) P.M. K. The home occupation shall only be allowed as an accessory use to an allowed residential use. Section 15. That Meridian City Code Section11-4-3-46, Unified Development Code, be added as follows: 11-4-3-46: FOOD AND BEVERAGE PRODUCTS PROCESSING; MINOR: A. The building or tenant space shall not exceed a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet. In the commercial, industrial and traditional neighborhood districts additional square footage may be approved with a conditional use permit. In no case shall the maximum square footage in any of these districts exceed 10,000 square feet. B. In the commercial districts, a conditional use permit shall be required when the use is located within three hundred feet (300’) of a residential district or existing residence. C. In the commercial and traditional neighborhood districts, the dining area, tasting area, retail showroom or any combination thereof, shall comprise a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the building and/or tenant space, as applicable. D. In the industrial districts, the dining area, tasting area and the retail showroom or any combination thereof, shall not exceed more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the building and/or tenant space, as applicable. E. Storage of materials used in the production process shall only be permitted within a completely enclosed structure. Other outdoor storage areas not associated with the production process shall comply with section 11-3A-14, "Outdoor Storage As An Accessory Use", of this title. Outdoor storage is prohibited in the traditional neighborhood districts. F. Mechanical equipment associated with the manufacturing of the beverage may be reviewed and approved as an integrated architectural element of the building through administrative design review as a design standards exception. G. Alcohol servings shall be limited to the following time periods: eleven o'clock (11:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Section 16. That a portion of the table in Meridian City Code Section11-5A-2, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: * * * JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 13 OF 15 TABLE 11-5A-2 DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND PROCESS BY APPLICATION Application Recommending Body Decision Making Body Process Accessory use for daycare, family Non e D N Accessory use, home occupation with customers, clients, and/or employees None D N A Accessory use, home occupation with no customers or clients including provision of lessons or instruction to a group of seven (7) or more stude nts None D A N * * * CC = City council A = Administrative D = Director N = Administrative with public notice PZ = Planning and zoning commission PH = Public hearing PM = Publi c meeting Section 18. That Meridian City Code Section11-5C-3, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: 11-5C-3: PROCESS: A. The city may withhold building, electrical or plumbing permits, certificates of zoning compliance, or certificates of occupancy on the lots or land being developed or subdivided, or the structures constructed thereon, if the improvements required under this title have not been constructed or installed, or if such improvements are not functioning properly. B. 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 that are needed to protect the public life, safety and health including, but not limited to, water, sewer, reclaimed water, stormwater facilities or improvements, and power facilities; parking lot paving and striping; and street paving) in order to obtain city engineer signature on the final plat. The amount of the performance surety shall be established by city council resolution. The estimated cost shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the city engineer. In addition to the performance surety, all such improvements shall also be subject to a warranty surety in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the cost of improvements for a period of two (2) years. The amount of the performance surety shall be established by city council resolution. JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE – H 2017-0044 PAGE 14 OF 15 C. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete the nonlife, nonsafety and nonhealth improvements, such as landscaping, pressurized irrigation, and fencing, prior to city engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved in accord with the procedures set forth in this chapter. The amount of surety called for shall be established by city council resolution. The estimated cost for landscape and fencing sureties shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the director. The amount of surety called for shall be established by city council resolution. D. Where a surety is accepted for nonlife, nonsafety and nonhealth improvements by the city and deposited as provided by this article, the city may release temporary occupancy of a structure or structures. The term of the temporary occupancy shall be determined by the city engineer and/or director. The term shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days in length. Sureties shall be in the form of a bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or a cash deposit. In all cases the surety shall be drawn solely in favor of, and payable to, the order of the city of Meridian, in accord with the regulations contained in the surety agreement by and between the guarantor and the city of Meridian. E. Sureties shall be in the form of a bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or a cash deposit. In all cases the surety shall be drawn solely in favor of, and payable to, the order of the city of Meridian, in accord with the regulations contained in the surety agreement by and between the guarantor and the city of Meridian. Where a surety is accepted for nonlife, nonsafety and nonhealth improvements by the city and deposited as provided by this article, the city may release temporary occupancy of a structure or structures. The term of the temporary occupancy shall be determined by the city engineer and/or director. The term shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days in length. F. Where a surety is accepted by the city and deposited as provided by this article, the surety shall be released subject to the following regulations: 1. The owner shall submit a written request to the city to lease the surety. The request shall include the following documents: a. A statement from the owner that the required improvements are complete. b. Two (2) sets of prints of the as built plans and specifications for all improvements. 2. The city engineer and/or director shall verify and certify that the required improvements, as detailed in the surety agreement, have been installed and/or accepted by the city at the end of the warranty period. The as built plans shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer or director. 3. Upon certification of the city engineer and/or the director, the city shall release the sureties heretofore deposited in the manner and to the extent as provided for in the surety agreement in accord with the regulations of this article. G. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE AS CODIFIED AT TITLE 11, SECTION 3 ENTITLED THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code is the official zoning ordinance for the City of Meridian and provides an opportunity to better support the Comprehensive Plan and provide a tool that is relevant and contemporary to the needs of the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of its citizens to incorporate changes to the Unified Development Code within the City of Meridian. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Meridian City Code Sectionll-1-11D, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: D. Revocation of Conditional Use ^F e ^"V"`a Permit: 1. A conditional use OF aeeesseFy use permit may be revoked or modified by the city council, upon notice and hearing, for breach or violation of any condition of approval or limitation of the permit. 2. If the city council decides to revoke a conditional use permit either on its own action or upon complaint to the city council, the council shall notify the permit holder of its intention to revoke the permit and provide the permit holder with the opportunity to contest the revocation at a public hearing before the City Council. 3. Fifteen (15) days' prior notice of the hearing shall be given to the permit holder and all property owners within three hundred feet (300') of the boundaries of the land for which the permit was issued. 4. The city council shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision to revoke the conditional use ^F aeeesseFy use eFmit. If the council does not decide to revoke the permit, no findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be made. Section 2. That Meridian City Code Sectionll-1-11E, Unified Development Code, be amended as follows: JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE — H 2017-0044 PAGE 1 OF 15 Section 19. That all other provisions of Title 11 as they relate to the Unified Development Code remain unchanged. Section 20. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 2018. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of January, APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of January, 2018. APPROVED: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: C.Jay Coles, City Clerk JANUARY 2018 UPDATE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE - H 2017-0044 PAGE 15 OF 15 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 18 - An Ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Meridian City Code as Codified at Title 11, Section 3 Entitled the Unified Development Code, of the Meridian City Code; Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective upon the passage and publication. 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. 18 - 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. 18- of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the salve to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50- 901A (3). DATED this day of January, 2018. William. L.M. Nary City Attorney JANUARY, 2018 UPDATE - SUMMARY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TExT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE - H 2017-0044 Cityqouncil Meeting Meeting Date: January,9', 018 Agenda Item Number: 112— Project/File Number: Item Title: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes