2013-04-16~~E ~ID~~I~~A~~~~~~N,,,~,---
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 7:00 PM
1. Roll-Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X_ Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved (Pg 2-3)
A. Water and Sewer Main Easement for Commercial Southwest
Subdivision No. 2
B. Release of Development Agreement with Red Tail
Communities, LLC.
C. Professional Services Agreement with Kings of Swing for
Musical Talent for Concerts on Broadway on July 20, 2013 for
an amount not to exceed $1,800.00
D. Final Order for Approval: TEC 13-002 Bainbridge Subdivision
by Brighton Investments, LLC Located Southwest Corner of W.
Chinden Boulevard and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Two (2)
Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat for Bainbridge
Subdivision in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature
on a Final Plat
E. Final Order for Approval: FP 13-011 Isola Creek Subdivision
by Coleman Homes, LLC Located East Side of N. Ten Mile
Road and North of W. Ustick Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of 48 Single-Family Residential Building
Lots and 10 Common Lots on Approximately 20.45 Acres of
Land in an R-4 Zoning District
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, April 16, 2013 Page 1 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Public
Hearing: MDA 13-006 Waverly Place by Scott Noriyuki,
Northside Management Located North Side of E. Magic View
Drive, West of S. Wells Street Request: Amendment to the
Development Agreement for Waverly Place Subdivision to
Allow the Construction of Single-Family Attached and
Detached Homes Instead of Just Attached Homes
6.
7.
Items Moved From Consent Agenda None
Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from November 7, 2012: AZ 11-003
King Property by Dexter King Located at 1195 W. Overland
Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 8 Acres of Land
within an R-8 Zoning District
Withdrawn (Pg 3-4)
B. Public Hearing Continued from April 2, 2013: VAR 13-001
Knightsky Estates by Iron Mountain Real Estate, Inc. Located
on the Northwest Corner of Chinden Boulevard and N. Linder
Road Request: Right-In/Right-Out Access Point to State
Highway 20/26 (Chinden Bouelvard) Continued to April 23,
2013 (Pg 4-21)
C. Public Hearing: MDA 13-005 Sadie Creek by Sadie Creek
Commons, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Eagle Road
and E. Ustick Road Request: Amend the Sadie Creek
Development Agreement (Instrument #108008770) for the
Purpose of Attaching a Concept Plan and Modifying Certain
Provisions Approved (Pg 21-36)
D. Public Hearing: Public Works Department, Environmental
Division Fee Schedule (Pg 36-37)
E. Resolution No. 13-919: Adopting Public Works Department,
Environmental Division Fee Schedule Approved (Pg 37)
F. Public Comment: Large-Scale Special Events Update to
Temporary Use Code (Pg 37-38)
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-1549 Large-Scale Special
Events Update to Temporary Use Code (Pg 38)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, April 16, 2013 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
8.
Department Reports
A. Police Department: Budget Amendment for Spending
Authority on Two EUDL (Enforcement of Underage Drinking
Laws) Grants Awarded to Meridian Police Department for a
Not-to-Exceed Amount of $10,410.00 Approved (Pg 39-40)
B. Public Works: Recycled Water Plan Update (Pg 40-54)
C. SWAC Department Report: Recommendation to Adopt an
Amendment to the City's Solid Waste Ordinance Regarding
Commercial Recycling Services by Non-Franchised
Commercial Recyclers within City Limits (Commercial
Recycling Ordinance) (Pg 54-55)
D. SWAC Department Report: First Reading Of Ordinance No. 13-
1551: An Ordinance Amending Title 4, Public Health & Safety,
Chapter 1, Sanitary Service System, Of The Meridian City
Code, For The Purpose Of Including Definitions For
Commercial Recycler, Commingled Recyclable Material(s),
And Source-Separated Recyclable Material(s) In 4-1-3; And To
Add "Or Commercial Recycler" To 4-1-10 H. And To Add A
New 4-1-11 Commercial Recycling Exemption; And Re-Assign
The Existing Section 4-1-11 Nuisance Declared To Section 4-1-
12; And Re-Assign The Existing Section 4-1-12 Penalty To
Section 4-1-13; And Providing An Effective Date (Pg 55-57)
E. Fire Department: EMS Joint Powers Agreement Discussion
Put back on the Agenda for May 7, 2013 (Pg 57-63)
F. Legal Department: Development Agreement for Approval:
MDA 13-002 Red Wing Subdivision by WH Moore Company
Located Southeast Corner of S., Meridian Road (SH 69) and E.
Victory Road Request: Modification to the Cavanaugh
Development Agreement to Exclude the Subject Property from
the Agreement Approved (Pg 63-64)
9. Ordinance
A. Ordinance No. 13-1552: An Ordinance (RZ 13-002 Red Wing
Subdivision) For The Re-Zone Of A Tract Of Land Situated In A
Portion Of The Northwest One Quarter Of Section 30,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, April 16, 2013 Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City Of
Meridian, Situated In Ada County, Idaho And Adjacent And
Continuous To The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Meridian
As Requested By The City Of Meridian; Establishing And
Determining The Land Use Classification Of R-4 (Low Density
Residential; 16.55 Acres) And R-15 (Medium Density
Residential; 16.32 Acres) Zoning Districts In The Meridian City
Code. Approved (Pg 64-65)
10. Future Meeting Topics
Adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, April 16, 2013 Page 4 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council April 16, 2013
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:20 p.m., Tuesday, April
16, 2013, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba, Keith
Bird, and Brad Hoaglun.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Warren Stewart,
Tom Barry, Clint Dolsby John Overton, Mark Niemeyer, Clint Worthington, Mollie
Mangerich Steve Siddoway and Dean Willis.
Item 1: oll®cll Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you so much for your patience. We will go ahead and start tonight's
meeting. It is, for the record, Tuesday, April 16th. It's almost 20 after 7:00. Madam
Clerk, will you, please, start off with roll call attendance.
Item : Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all join us in the pledge to
our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: ommuniy Invocation by
De Weerd: Item No. 3. We don't have anyone to lead us in the community invocation.
Item : doption of the Agenda
De Weerd: So, we will switch -- or go to Item 4, adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: A couple items on tonight's agenda. Item 7-A under Action Items, the
applicant is requesting to withdraw that application. 7-E is Resolution No. 13-919.
Under Item 8, 8-D is Ordinance No. 13-1551. Under 9-A, that is Ordinance No. 13-
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 2 of 66
1552. And with those notes, Madam Mayor, I move adoption of the agenda as
presented.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as presented. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item Consent Benda
ater and ewer in asemen for Commercial Southwest
ubdiviion o.
elease of evelopment Agreement with ed Tail
Communities, LL.
C. Professional Services Agreement with Kings of wing for
usical Talent for Concerts on roadway on July 0, 2013 for
an amount not to exceed $1,800.00
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 3 of 66
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: We have no changes on our Consent Agenda, so I move approval of the
Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Madam
Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items oved Fro Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Action Items
ulic Hearing Continued from oveer 7, 2012: A 11-003
King roperty by Dexter King Located at 1195 .Overland
Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of Acres of Land
within an - onin istrict
De Weerd: So, we will move into Action Items under seven. 7-A was requested to
withdraw the application. Council, I will need a motion to accept that request.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move to withdraw AZ 11-003 as per applicant's request.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the applicant's request to
withdraw the application on Item 7-A. Madam Clerk, I will call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 4 of 66
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Public Hearing Continued from April , 2013: VAR 13-001
nihtsky states by Iron ountai Real state, Inc. Located
on the orthwest Corner of Chinden oulevrd and N. Linder
Road Request: Right-In/Right-Out Access Point to State
Highway 20/2 (Chinden ouelvard)
De Weerd: Item 7-B is a public hearing continued from April 2nd on VAR 13-001. I will
ask for staff comments at this time.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item on the
agenda tonight is the Knightsky Estates variance application. The applicant is here this
evening to discuss aright-in, right-out only access to Chinden Boulevard, State
Highway 20-26. That proposed access point will be approximately 500 feet west of the
current intersection location. This property is located on the northwest corner of Linder
Road and Chinden Boulevard. It's currently zoned C-C and it's approximately 9.34
acres in size. History on this site. In 2006 this property was annexed in as the
Knightsky Estates Subdivision. Included in that subdivision was approximately 40 or so
acres here and, then, this remnant piece here. We had C-C at the corner, transitioned
to TN-C -- or TN-R along Chinden and, then, north of that was R-4 zoned property as
well. So, it was more of a mixed use development at that time. In 2011 the property
owner and a new developer came forward with the Spurwing Subdivision application,
which, essentially, rezoned and took out a portion of this property and rezoned R-8 and
is currently developing as a nine hole executive golf course and an estate lot
subdivision as well. With the approval of that subdivision a stub street was proposed
and is required to stub to the C-C zoned property as well. The aerial exhibit before you
this evening depicts kind of the -- shows what types of access are currently approved
along Chinden Boulevard in this mile segment. One thing I want to -- here is Paramount
Subdivision, which is an access point at the half mile. We have, again, the intersection
at the mile and another intersection at the half mile, which is consistent with the UDC.
In 2009 this property here, which is known as Knight Hill Subdivision, it came through
for a variance and asked for aright-in, right-out only access point to Chinden as well
and Council did deny that request back in 2009. The applicant has submitted a
conceptual plan depicting the proposed access points. Here is what I have highlighted
for you right now. Currently in 2006 ACHD did act on this application. At that time they
did grant an access point to Linder Road. The one thing that's the difference that has
changed since -- from previous until now is that we have that Fred Meyer development
to the east of this and with that development they are required to put in a center median,
so rather than having full access to this development as previously approved, this is
now restricted to a right-in, right-out only access point and I'd mention to you as well
Spurwing Challenge is required to stub a local street to this development as well. And,
then, once this applicant -- if they decide to develop this property they will be required to
build this connectivity commercial driveway to create that backage or frontage road
consistent with the UDC as well. I would mention to Council that we did receive
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 5 of 66
comments from ITD on this application. They have tentatively approved this
intersection -- or this access point to Highway 20-26. In speaking with the applicant
before the hearing they have contacted ITD. ITD will be requesting that this have a
decel lane into the development. If the access is approved that's what ITD will require
and, then, also some form of restriction by a pork chop or a center median in the future
making sure that cars entering and exiting follow the right-in, right-out only practice as
well. I would mention to you that staff did receive comments from the Meridian Police
Department. They are recommending denial of the variance as well. In speaking with
the Fire Department today they want to go on record to say that they support the
proposed access point. One other item that I wanted to mention to you -- is based on
the UDC we do have a requirement that we meet certain findings to grant access of this
access point to Chinden, both in our staff report and our analysis in that staff report we
looked through the Comprehensive Plan, we looked at the UDC, and we have also
looked at the draft access management plan that ITD was supportive of a few years ago
as well and based on those findings staff is recommending denial before you this
evening. Staff has not received any additional written testimony on this application. To
staff's -- other than the staff denial on the application there are no other outstanding
issues before you this evening and at this time I would stand for any questions you may
have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff at this point?
Bird: I have none at this time.
Rountree: None right now.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment. Good evening. If you
will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Brown: For the record my name is Kent Brown. My address is 3161 Springwood,
Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: How do I pull this up? I don't know what you can see. The map that I have got
shown shows our site highlighted in yellow. Fred Meyers to the east of us, they have a
right-in. They also have a full access. Obviously, they are located in Eagle. Just
recently the Foxtail development was approved for a redevelopment with houses and
commercial. They were also granted an access to Chinden also. We have kind of
shown the alignment that we have with our road with the Spurwing Challenge that's next
to us. We kind of view this area as kind of a unique scenario in your comp plan. I
pulled up the Meridian comp plan and our use is the only commercial use that you're
showing north of Chinden, except closer to Highway 16 where it comes out there is a
commercial node that's shown on your comp plan there. These other residential uses
that Bill made mention in his report, we have to the west of us light access at Long Lake
that -- that Spurwing Challenge people are in the process of closing the main entrance
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 6 of 66
to Spurwing and putting this new one in at the half mile that is signalized. Ten Mile
doesn't go through because of the golf course and so there is no access there.
understand that the Olive Tree development that's kind of -- the Olive Tree
Development that's located here, it has an emergency access that comes out at the Ten
Mile location. Just to the west of that is a private lane for some estate homes called
Double Eagle. But if you're familiar with Spurwing Greens property, they have three
accesses to redevelop the remainder of that property and eliminate any access to
Chinden. They have a lighted access at that point at the half mile. Black Cat is
proposed to connect and is existing there. And, then, the only other existing one is
really close to where 16 comes out as Pollard. What makes this kind of unique
compared to like the application that Bill mentioned that's directly to the south of us is
this rim and for lack of a way to describe it, it's basically the Meridian rim to the Boise
River, because that's the area that is in Meridian's impact and we have no inability to
bring roads in from the backside to have frontages in that area, so we have just Chinden
as our access and when those accesses are the golf course and residential that's fine,
but when you have a commercial use that's at the corner it makes it a little more difficult
to move forward with your project if you have to go to get to there. I highlighted here in
red the -- where the fire station is. In speaking with Perry earlier today he's the one that
brought this up when we had apre-application meeting that as the fire truck leaves
there and heads towards the Chinden-Linder intersection with the Opticon on, it freezes
all the traffic and if our entrance is a right-in, right-out on Linder or is down at the light,
they have to either go into the other lane and, then, somehow try to maneuver, but if the
traffic is backed up there it creates a difficulty for them to access and provide safe
entrance into that property there on the corner, where if we got our right-in, right-out on
Chinden they would cross over, the traffic would be stopped, there wouldn't be any
traffic going west on Chinden and they would be able to enter into the site. I also spoke
to Perry about the limited access into the Spurwing property we provide probably the
best secondary access into the Spurwing development. He mentioned to me that it
would probably be the quickest access that they would have from a secondary
standpoint. I'm sure you're familiar with the Spurwing Greens property. They have an
access, but you would have to drive through their entire development and, then, come
back into Spurwing to provide a secondary access into there. The original approval with
the Knightsky development, we had a full access on Linder that was planned at that
location. In speaking to the planner that handled that application, it was thought that we
would have a light, we would be 550 feet from Chinden and have a light access at that
point with full access to be able to enter into the development off of Linder. Then you
had a straight shot where you would come out where the light is -- is at on Long Lake
and you had a -- the ability to access that way versus the way that we currently have to
go -- we would currently have to come in at the Spurwing light and, then, drive through
the development to come back to get there from Chinden, other than that right-in, right-
out. So, basically, you would have people that are southbound on Linder would be able
to access our site or they would have to drive through this estate residential
development to get there. Am I doing this --
Parsons: Kent, let me drive for a second .and I will get you that slide.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 7 of 66
Brown : Okay.
Parsons: Thanks. Sorry to interrupt you.
Brown: I need all the help I can get. In our application to ITD what we proposed to
them is this concept plan. We worked with their staff and talked to them about where
we could have it. We originally proposed going some 600 feet from the intersection, but
they said that we would be better and safer that -- if we came in at 500 feet from that
intersection with a decel lane. This right-in, right-out creates a safe environment, but
the only way that anybody can access this is by coming south on Linder, so any
residents coming from Eagle, because that's, basically, where they would have to be
coming from to access this property or they would have to come from the light and drive
back through to get here, which makes it very difficult for the zoning that we have for our
neighborhood commercial uses to be able to make that -- that a viable project for
commercial. With the changes that ITD has made into their policy, those are things also
that has taken place that has changed in this site location. I think we have -- in the
findings that you're supposed to make whether there are unique characteristics and I
believe that where we are located in what I was calling the -- the Meridian rim to the
Boise River, that we have a unique characteristic. We have the inability for public
streets to be stubbed to the rear of us. Our northerly boundary with the Brandt property
is the edge of the impact area. We have existing estate homes that are located there.
You have the proposed and soon to be completed Spurwing Challenge with its estate
residential uses that's on the other side of us. You have the Spurwing development and
no access, basically, coming from the rim until you get over to Spurwing Greens where
we have a road going over the rim there. So, that's the only back access that you have
from the north coming south. So, you have the limited access points. This unique
characteristic and specifically with our site I think the hardship can be fixed by us having
our access. Also, the discussion with the fire department that our site is safer if they
were able to access the site with a Chinden access. I think that that helps remove that
hardship. That's another finding. The first finding is is does this grant a special right or
privilege. For us to be on an equal playing field with commercial businesses in Meridian
compared to the properties that are to the east of us that are commercial, we need an
access to Chinden also. It's not one that you granted, but it's one that has been granted
to them and this property would be competing for those commercial uses. We envision
that most of our uses are going to be either office or a bank. They are not high intense
uses. They are neighborhood commercial in nature and seek your approval for this.
stand for any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kent. Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 8 of 66
Hoaglun: Kent, it looks like from the drawing, but I want to be sure, since my eyes
aren't like they used to be. You have a decel lane for that right turn access off of
Chinden?
Brown: Yes, we do. And that would be a requirement of ITD for that to allow the -- the
through traffic going west to be able to travel safely.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I can't tell from the plat if there is sufficient setback in the concept to
accommodate the decel lane at a future intersection configuration that would be
somewhere between five and seven lanes in addition to the decel lane. So, just thinking
of future expansion of Chinden. With the three or four lanes that might be there now
and a decel lane, as it expands to four through lanes, I don't know how many turn lanes
there would be. Would that decel lane go away and the safety conditions that we are
trying to avoid with all of these approaches be exacerbated? Can you address that,
Kent?
Brown: Obviously, we wouldn't -- we wouldn't want that to go away either, because to
get access you want that to be safe for the people that are coming in there and I guess
we could be -- we know what their plan is and could address that with ITD and the
improvements that we would do.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. With respect to addressing it with ITD, I read their letter and
it doesn't have much substance. It just says that whatever approach separation
standards they have now, I don't know if they have shared that with the City of Meridian
at this point or not. Apparently it's something new and they don't address the possible
expansion of the right of way width in that area and the need for continuing the decel
lane in that instance. And, in fact, they have not processed this application, because
they see that it would violate our policy and not only violate our policy, but it's against
our ordinance, but we allow for variances with adequate information and in that regard I
would want to see some adequate information as it relates to safety, because that's the
issue we are concerned with.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 9 of 66
De Weerd: I did have several people who have signed up. When I call your name if
you would like to provide testimony at that time I would invite you forward and if I
mispronounce your name I apologize in advance. Mike Reich is neutral. Mike Reich. I
had a 33.3 percent change that I would say it right. Thank you for being here with us. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Reich: Michael Reich. 5569 North Schubert Avenue in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Reich: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. I will try to be brief. I represent the owner
of the development beside the Spurwing Challenge Estates. We feel that it is in the
best interest of that parcel if it had aright-in, right-out. However, we are concerned
about safety issues that being a residential ..development beside it, because of the
connector roads. And, in fact, at one point we had investigated also trying to get aright-
in, right-out and purchasing that corner. We were told that that wouldn't be possible and
to provide the best access for the corner we agreed to do a connector road. What we
are asking is that the city does agree to the variance and provide aright-in, right-out,
that we would restrict that access to emergency vehicles only and still allow pedestrian
access, so we have that pedestrian sidewalk continuity, but we are concerned about the
additional traffic, possibly a light being red at Linder and people trying to take a shortcut
to get back to some of the other developments or the country club and cutting through a
residential development. Again, we believe that it's -- that it's a good fit for that -- that
ten acre corner, but it's not necessarily a good fit for the residential development that's
currently under construction. I would point out that per Kent's letter that was submitted
to the city and the traffic studies that were submitted by Bailey Engineering, there is
traffic counts that show cars coming in and the same amount of cars going back out to
either Linder or Chinden. So, it appears that the traffic study doesn't believe that many
cars would be needing to use that access road anyway, so closing it and making it an
access point for emergency vehicles only seemed logical. It would be a tertiary access
point for emergency vehicles, since there is another access point, as Kent stated,
through the Spurwing Greens Subdivision. I guess in closing I would say that if the
variance was granted and the road was not closed for public access between the two
parcels that perhaps we could put a restriction for future uses -- I think this is a C-C
zoned property with a conditional use permit could be multi-family residential, which
would also be a high traffic count of cars and would also be a longer period of time in
theory. We would ask that it be restricted to not multi-family if that access remained
public. That's it. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I have a question. The road you speak is that a public road?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 10 of 66
Reich: The connector road that we -- yes, it would connect right at this point right here.
Where that -- somebody is controlling it.
Rountree: I see it.
Reich: It is a public street.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Reich: We would have -- when we -- we had some alternate designs, we would have
probably redesigned it differently if we knew there was going to be a right-in, right-out
where the traffic would not have gone through the residential block, but perhaps a
frontage street on the other side of the golf holes that are designed -- I believe you are
familiar with the design of the course.
De Weerd: But I guess with the design of that corner and if they didn't have this right-in,
right-out, they would have to go through your property anyway.
Reich: Right. But it would be less traffic. I mean if there was no right-in, right-out we
wouldn't be getting people taking a shortcut off of Chinden to get back to the Spurwing
development or the Spurwing country club, because right now they can come in off of --
in the bottom where it says proposed access point and bypass the Linder and Chinden
light to get back to the country club or the Spurwing development -- the original
Spurwing development. So, again, I think it would be unlikely that it would just be traffic
to the 23 lots that are being developed, it would become a shortcut in heavy traffic.
De Weerd: Do you think there is a way that through design, since that's entry into your
subdivision, you can design it as such, that makes it look more private and less inviting
for those to shortcut. I mean I'm certainly not a design or a traffic engineer, but there
are ways that perhaps even at being a public road you can have aroad -- or entry
treatments that kind of narrows it and makes it look less inviting. I don't know. Just
trying to help you limit the amount of cars that go through there.
Reich: You can certainly do that and I think for your one time person that's sitting in the
corner I think that would eliminate somebody cutting through. The people that are going
to live there or visit the country club, they are going to be doing it multiple times a week
are essentially going to realize design or not, that there is a shortcut.
De Weerd: Well, the biggest offenders will be the people that live on that road.
Reich: Yeah. Well, not that road. I think the biggest offenders will be the people that
live further back and to the country club.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor and Mike, I want to follow up. You made a statement and I got
a little confused. You said they would use it as a shortcut to defeat that Linder Road,
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 11 of 66
Chinden -- since it's aright-in, right-out, they are going to have to come through that
light -- so, I must be missing something, what you meant by they --
Reich: Okay. Somebody going westbound on Chinden that wants to turn in towards
Spurwing --
Hoaglun: Right.
Reich: -- and there is traffic at the light at Linder -- not at Linder. I'm sorry. That's my
mistake. At the new access point to Spurwing.
Hoaglun: Long Lake.
Reich: Long Lake. Thank you.
Hoaglun: But this is traffic that's going westbound, so they see traffic at Long Lake.
Reich: See traffic at Long Lake and cut through here to --
Hoaglun: Okay. But that's, in fact, a time light where it's not quite as much. In my mind
if I'm going someplace I think, well, I don't want to take a side street, because my -- the
speed limit isn't as fast. I guess if it's really backed up it might, but, yeah, it's one of
those -- yeah, do I really get there any faster by taking a back side street.
Reich: I cut through on my way to work every day.
Hoaglun: Uh-huh. Okay.
De Weerd: It's the people like you that --
Reich: It is.
De Weerd: But I guess my question to you is do you think that would cause more traffic
than not having this, making the people go to the light and drive through the subdivision
to access this because they are coming off of Chinden. I almost think that there would
be more traffic having to go to the light and, then, backtracking to the east, because
they are certainly not going to go turn around at Fred Meyer and, then, come down
Linder to go into it at that point.
Reich: I think it's a fair point -- or a fair question to raise. Again, the traffic study doesn't
address how many cars may be using that and I would be curious to that as well. It's -- I
think it's a fair point.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 12 of 66
De Weerd: Okay.
Reich: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Tom Dater signed up for. Good evening. If you will, please,
state your name and address for the record.
Dater: Yes. I'm Tom Dater. I live at 698 East Laguna Shore Lane in Eagle.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Dater: And being over 30 I'm not going to try to mess with this computer thing, I'm just
going to talk.
De Weerd: Okay.
Dater: When Fred Meyer came in that whole intersection changed its design and the
full access that had been granted off Linder into this property was, then, removed and
they put a median down the center and as a result it started to restrict the accessibility,
so in looking at this putting aright-in, right-out where it's proposed is not really anything
new, it's sort of saying this is the way things are going. I'm not using it as an example or
saying what Eagle does Meridian should do, but Fred Meyer has two full accesses and
a right-in, right-out, which sort of puts this property at a -- I will say a competitive
disadvantage, because the only way you could get in there off of Linder would be to
come toward the south and make a right in. If you're going north on Linder the only way
you can get in is to make a u-turn and that u-turn is on a fairly heavily traveled arterial.
There is a church scheduled to go in just north of there a little bit. That's going to create
more traffic. It's a very convoluted issue. So, then, I think if you have to go up to the
light on Chinden -- I can't remember the name of that street. Long Lake. Okay. And
come back around, now you're putting a huge amount of traffic through a residential
area and the golf course that may have pedestrian traffic or even a golf cart. I don't
know. But I'm thinking the construction traffic, as well as the usage traffic, is really
going to be sort of negative or a danger and I know one of the issues here is safety and
I can't imagine if I lived in that subdivision that I would want to see -- I don't know what
the car count is going to be -- 10,000 cars a day if it is or concrete trucks and guys in
their pickups racing through there to build something. To me it is a danger not to put in
the right-in, right-out and it's really sort of necessary and so I'm supporting a hundred
percent the right-in, right-out philosophy.
De Weerd: Thank you. Jeremy Amar. Okay. Signed up in favor. Don Knickrehm.
Don, I'm very curious as to how you say your last name, so if you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Knickrehm: My name is Don Knickrehm and my address is 601 W. Bannock in Boise.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 13 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you.
Knickrehm: I'm representing the current owners who are selling to Mr. Amar and his
development company and so I wanted to address the issue of the variance and the
right-in, right-out. Our understanding is that the Council can only grant a variance if it
will not grant a special right or privilege that's not otherwise allowed. If it relieves an
undue hardship because of the characteristics of the property. And, thirdly, it will not
be detrimental to health or public safety. We think that this circumstance meets all of
those requirements clearly. The key is the site history and the development that's
occurred over the last seven years. This Council or your predecessors approved the
Knightsky Subdivision in 2006 with a development agreement and you have seen -- I
don't know how to work this thing, but you have seen the picture of the Knightsky
approval. There was a boulevard that ran from the northeast corner of the property on
Linder across -- and it was a divided boulevard -- straight shot across, so there was no
face-on residential housing at all on that boulevard and, then, it turned into the light at
Long Lake. It was a totally different circumstance. And at that time ACRD had
approved a full access with cleft-hand turn bay on Linder for this site and so that was a
very different circumstance than what exists today. Since 2006 when Knightsky was
approved the intersection has become a major commercial intersection with the
development of Fred Meyer and the Eagle Island marketplace. Fred Meyer has a full
turn access onto Chinden that doesn't quite even make the quarter mile and just last
week the Eagle city council granted another full turn access to the developers of the
Foxtail golf course property, which is a mixed use development, commercial and
residential. So, those changes have occurred. More importantly, the -- the turning
movement that now exists on Linder is very restricted, so the only way if one was going
north on Linder one could access the property is with a full u-turn, because of
construction of a raised median. The City of Meridian has recently approved Spurwing
Challenge Subdivision and so to now get to the light from this ten acre commercial
parcel -- and, by the way, in the process of approving Spurwing Challenge you also
completed the rezone of this parcel. So, it's TN-C and some of it's C-C. You rezoned
the rest of it C-C. So, that was just a couple weeks ago. Or a couple months ago.
Does that mean I'm supposed to stop?
Knickrehm: Well, may I have a minute to wrap up?
De Weerd: Yes.
Knickrehm: Thank you. The point is a great deal has changed, including the fact that in
2009 the city amended the development agreement with Knightsky to provide
specifically that the owner developer may request a variance of this requirement,
meaning no direct access on Chinden if prior approval is obtained from ITD. We think
we have met that requirement. The reason that went in was because the 2009 approval
with Fred Meyer, we came back to Council and said, look, we -- we need a little latitude
here. So, I believe that public safety is addressed because there is better fire access, it
avoids traffic through a residential neighborhood. It avoids u-turns on Linder and it
lessens traffic on the arterials, because it provides neighborhood services, so people
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 14 of 66
don't have to travel as far. I'd like -- if I could just have a second to address a question
that was raised by Council that wasn't fully answered earlier. The question was what
about ITD right of way? Actually, when the fellow that developed Eagle Island
Marketplace, we did that whole subdivision. The additional right of way on Chinden was
deeded by the owners of -- my clients, the owners of all of this parcel before they sold it
to -- before they sold the golf course portion off. So, the right of way has already been
deeded and the ITD decel lane would take that into account. I'd stand for questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions from Council?
Rountree: I have none.
Knickrehm: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Kevin Amar signed up in favor.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, my name is Kevin Amar. Address is 3681 North
Locust Grove in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Amar: Obviously, I'm in favor of the project. A couple other things that came up with --
and Don Knickrehm addressed this also, but in 2009 when Fred Meyer was approved
there was an amendment to the development agreement to specifically come back in
and request a variance if we could get ITD to accept that variance -- or accept an
approach on Chinden. We spent quite a bit of time with ITD and ACRD both working on
this site and on this -- I understand it's just a conceptual plan, but we wanted to bring a
conceptual plan with the location of the right-in, right-out that is practical. When we first
approached ITD with this right-in, right-out it was further to the west. It was a request by
ITD to move it back to the east, so the traffic at the point that is here hasn't accelerated
to the point where it becomes dangerous. They were concerned about safety.
Obviously, we are concerned about safety and it's something this Council is concerned
about as well. With this location and with the decel lane we have addressed that safety
issue. We have had another traffic analysis done. ITD reviewed that traffic analysis
and determined that there is no increased safety impact with this access than without
this access or no significant increase. The right of way on both Chinden, as well as
Linder, with buffers for landscaping and pathways has all been adequately addressed.
We worked with your staff to figure out buffers for landscaping and there needs to be a
pathway along Chinden, as well as an adequate landscape buffer on -- on Linder and,
then, providing also sufficient right of way or for future right of way if there should be any
additional needed on Chinden, as well as Linder. So, we would ask for your approval
this evening. We think we have addressed the -- certainly the safety and the other
issues required for a variance and I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 15 of 66
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Kevin.
Amar: Thank you.
De Weerd: Shawn Nickel signed up in favor.
Nickel: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council. For the record Shawn Nickel, 1589
North Estancia Place in Eagle. Just to elaborate a little more on the history of this
project, back in 2006 I brought this project, the Knightsky Estates and also the Knight
Hill across the street before this -- this body and received approval. Back at that time
we met and worked with ITD and ITD was not, in 2006, allowing access points on
Highway 20-26. We worked with ACRD to make sure that we had designs that access
on Linder to be a full access point to provide access to this development, both at this
corner and, then, down at Long Lake. After we -- and at that point we did not fight or
acknowledge -- or acknowledge no access onto Chinden, because at that time we
understood that all four corners were basically being treated the same. No access
points, except for at the half mile. So, we designed Knightsky to accommodate that.
Shortly after that, 2007, 2008, I don't know if you recall, Madam Mayor, but I came to
you -- actually Chris and I came to you a couple of times and -- with concerns that the
Fred Meyer property was now being designed, they were going to be asking for access
off of Chinden and we were concerned that now we are not on a level playing field and it
was your suggestion that we come back to the Council and address it through the
development agreement, which the 2006 prohibited access onto Chinden. So, in 2009
came back, I proposed the revision to that condition, removing the prohibition of that
access point. Mr. Knickrehm read into the record what that new condition stated,
basically, that upon approval of ITD you guys would look at a variance and so that's kind
of where we are at right now. So, I thought it was necessary for you to have that
additional history as to why there was no access in 2006, but we did modify it in 2009
and now with the -- when the Fred Meyer property did develop we lost that full access
onto Linder, so this is -- this right-in, right-out is -- as you have heard is needed for this
development to continue. I'd stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Shawn. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Those are the names that have signed up on our sign-
up sheet. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? If not, Kent, do
you want to wrap it up?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 16 of 66
Brown: Just briefly. When we started down this road your staff was very helpful. They
explained that they would have to recommend denial because of your policy. We
started meeting with them before we heard that ITD was looking at the new policy and
meeting with them and discussing what this new policy would be addressing, we waited
for them to be able to approve this policy, so that we could approach them and get a
favorable response. We don't have a permit in hand and the reason for that is stated in
Mr. Szplett's conversation and letters that he sent. I spoke with him earlier today and
said realistically Council wants to know what we need to do to go forward with the
permit and he said come back with a favorable response from the Council that they are
granting a waiver or the variance. I should say variance, not waiver. And that you can
expect that we would have to build a decel lane and that we would have to provide
some protection. He says, then, what they are protected by is that the westbound traffic
is safe -- is protected, because we were in a decel lane. As those people are trying to
enter our site they can continue west and accelerate and that no one tries to cross the
lanes of traffic before the light and enter into that intersection. That would be a right-in.
He says so that protects them and that information that our engineer in the report that
he did provides them with that background. For this property to go forward as a
commercial or a community neighborhood commercial site, it's a vital aspect of that. It's
interesting in looking at ITD's policy they wouldn't allow this if it was us connecting to a
public street. They do -- their matrix allows it, because it's a driveway and it's private.
It's a private drive and restricted with the right-in, right-out. I leave that with you and
seek your approval.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none of Kent.
De Weerd: You know, I don't have any of Kent either, but, Kent, maybe you might want
to stand there. Because I have history of this, too, and this corridor was to have a
limited access. Whoever suggested we follow Eagle's lead I will not chastise you. But
they -- they gave up the baby with the bathwater on that and they broke the code. I'm
sorry, but state highways are to move traffic. It's not to stop every half mile and
inconvenience the motoring public and that's why that corridor was studied and it was
brought back by the group that limited access would -- would be adhered to by all of the
governing cities along that corridor to preserve the ability to move traffic and so we
wouldn't have an economic disadvantage to any one property owner. We have three
corners of that intersection in our city jurisdiction that the property owners worked very
well with our staff to adhere to the vision of that corridor. Yes. And when one city caves
it does cause an economic disadvantage to the other three corners that did participate
as envisioned in that entire corridor. I do think that Eagle did a disservice to that
transportation corridor and not only that, I know that when Shawn and Chris came to us
they were very willing to participate with the property owners at the four corners to come
up with a comprehensive transportation plan so we wouldn't be in this situation that we
are in, but the one entity that didn't come to the table was the one entity that ITD gave
them everything they wanted. They put in a center median to cutoff the access to -- off
of Linder and remove that. They economically disadvantaged this -- this piece of
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 17 of 66
property. Paired with that was the split of the property and now I have serious concern
about putting that traffic through a residential subdivision to get to a light, so they can
turn left. I guess at this point it is the decision makers of City Council and -- but I think
this is a real predicament that a lot of different decisions that were made has put this
property into, as well as the viability of a high end residential area that connects to it in
trying to -- to have a safe way to get cars to the destination of where they are going.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I do have a question for Kent. He said something that made me think. Kent,
if -- if -- and I don't know what the Council will do, if they were to grant you right-in, right-
out and the access point that goes west through the development accesses Spurwing
Challenge Subdivision, what are your thoughts on having that as an emergency access
only to that development where fire and police could access, but you can't have through
traffic. Is that --
Brown: It's definitely not a game changer for us. As we looked at it I probably -- I, as a
general rule, have had a hard time with bollards and those kind of things to provide that.
I think if -- you know, you have an island or something there that makes it so that it
doesn't look as apparent, because what you do want is you want people that -- that
know and access commercial, that they know that it's there, but the people that -- the
cut-through traffic are not trying to use. I differ from our neighbors to the west. I don't --
I don't catch his vision of those people driving through that development to get there.
It's -- the route is -- is out of the way you would really have to be flying to make up
traffic, you know, at that light, in my opinion, but, you know, how -- that light is operated
because of the level of traffic that's coming north-south would be activated, so I would
probably recommend that we -- we disguise it or somehow work with them to make it so
that it's not as apparent, but have a connection, but that's just my personal opinion. I
don't know what the developer wants. I mean if -- if it's needed to be emergency access
I wouldn't be opposed to that, I guess.
Hoaglun: All right. No. I appreciate that, Kent. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: Thanks.
De Weerd: Council, discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Bill. Bill, this parcel is still under a DA;
is that correct?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members -- Councilman Rountree, that is correct.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 18 of 66
Rountree: And does the DA specifically restrict access at this property?
Parsons: As Mr. Knickrehm has testified on the record, he stated that DA provision
correctly in the amended DA. I would point out to Council that before this site can
develop any new developer or current developer will have to come back with a DA mod
to attach a concept plan, plat the property, and get some of that -- those approvals in
place as well. Because there are so many DA's on this property we want to make sure
going forward that we have a clear record of how this property will develop, so one of
those provisions is they come back and amend the DA's in the future.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: I just want to remind whoever develops it is putting a big welcome to
Meridian feature. I -- I have a long-term memory on this, so just -- yeah. Just
remember that, Shawn. I want to make sure I remind them every time that the public
record is very clear. Okay. Council, if you have no further questions for the applicant or
staff, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing if you so desire.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would like to suggest that we keep the hearing open,
because I have some recommendations that might require some additional information.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: And if you will give me a minute I will tell you why. I don't have any particular
issue with coming up with an argument for the first two items that we need to -- we need
to address as part of the variance, but with respect to the safety issue and ITD, we have
heard testify that it's safe and it has approval and whatnot. I have one document from
ITD -- the word approval, the word approve, the word safe or safety is not in the letter in
any way, shape, or form. I have not seen a layout of that intersection as proposed. I do
understand that right of way has been granted to ITD with this property and the adjacent
property, but I still have not seen anything that will give me any dimensions to indicate
that that right of way width is sufficient to accommodate this deceleration lane or that
any other improvements that might be necessary at this intersection. So, at this point I
can't address the safety issue with the third item that we need to address on the
variance, so I would -- at this point have to vote to deny the request, but with additional
information that might address the safety issue specifically, I personally think we have
got to help to get this parcel developed. It can't just sit there as it is and I suspect that
that's the way it's going to sit if we can't work with the developer to get this going. But
by the same token Ican't -- I can't vote for a variance if I can't address one of the critical
points in the variance argument and that's the safety issue.
De Weerd: Yes.
Amar: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, specifically --
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name again for the record.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 19 of 66
Amar: For the record Kevin Amar.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Amar: To address that safety issue -- and we can certainly provide that exhibit, Mr.
Rountree, and we can provide that with ITD. That was one of the main items that Dave
Szplett, ITD engineer, was concerned with with safety and maybe it's something that we
-- we bring back during another hearing or something during the preliminary plat layout
or -- that's up to you how you want to address that, but we can certainly address that.
We feel like we have addressed that safety issue. Obviously, we don't have the exhibit
to show you, but I believe with that exhibit it could certainly answer Mr. Rountree's
question.
De Weerd: Well, we could continue this, so that you could bring that to our next -- next
meeting. I think we need to --
Rountree: That would be the 23rd.
Hoaglun: And Madam Mayor and -- Kevin, would that give you enough time, a week,
to --
Amar: Yeah. That would be fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I don't know if any of the other Council need additional
information, but that would be very helpful in -- in our deliberations and making a
decision on this, because variances are -- are subject to us being able to make those
arguments.
Bird: I agree wholeheartedly.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I also agree with Councilman Rountree. I guess while I have the microphone
I'll express my frustration at our having to deal with problems that have been created by
others. As all of you who have testified know we have been working on this for many
many years and trying to deal with the issues of what the traffic is going to be in the
future on Linder and Chinden and this is going to be an important intersection. I agree it
needs to be developed to a profitable and attractive way without messing up the traffic
on Chinden and Linder, so I, too, think it would be valuable to continue and if you come
-- I think what Councilman Rountree asked for was a drawing of what this intersection
would look like -- the intersection and the portion adjacent to the property at full build out
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 20 of 66
and I think we are thinking that's probably a seven or eight lane facility, plus your accel
and decel lanes, so that would be helpful for me to see that... Everybody knows I have
been strongly opposed to messing with our agreement about full access on the mile,
possibly on the half mile, and if a right-in, right-out happens it's on the quarter mile. But
I can see the necessity for working something out on this one. But I agree with seeing
something more. While I'm speaking I will also express the opinion that I'm not in favor
of closing off the through street. The people that want to access this facility will do so. I
don't believe it would be attractive to use the golf course area as a cut through. I think if
anybody's going to cut through they will stay on this property that we are talking about
right now and cut that corner, but other than the convenience for the residences who
might use this, I don't think the general public who don't live at Spurwing will go through
there, so I'm not in favor of bollarding or closing or making an emergency access out of
that public street. So, I gave you two opinions.
Hoaglun: And, Madam Mayor, I was going to ask Kevin, since we had him up here, just
your thoughts on closing or not closing.
Amar: I think -- I agree with Councilman Zaremba. I think that that access point will be
used by the residents more than people accessing Spurwing clubhouse or the golf
course. The access that they are building into Spurwing off of Long Lake now has a
direct shot to the clubhouse. It's very direct and it's very -- it's a right turn off of
Chinden. If anything, the people that cut through this property are going to be the ones
that live in that -- or will live in the Spurwing Challenge, the project that's being
developed now. Obviously, there is always some cut through as we have heard this
evening, but I don't see it as a main thoroughfare. But they did try to development or
design the site in such a fashion it wasn't a straight road. We certainly want. to
discourage that as well.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Well -- and maybe, Kevin, you can work with the property owner to the west
and do some -- just some brief discussions on what you could do to make that look less
convenient to slow the traffic down.
Amar: Yes, ma'am. We can --
De Weerd: And I guess to our public safety department I would love it if you come back
next week on the same sheet, so --
Amar: We will work with them.
De Weerd: Just wanted to point that out. Okay. Any other questions for Kevin?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 21 of 66
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
De Weerd: Yes, Mike. If you will, again, state your name for the record.
Reich: Just a few comments. I would request that maybe for the next hearing if there
could be an updated traffic study that would talk about how many cars the traffic
engineers feel might use that access connector between the two developments and the
other question I would have is if nobody believes anybody is going to be using the
connector why wouldn't we be able to eliminate the connector. Again, not for pedestrian
traffic, because we think that -- I understand the city's requirement that sidewalks be
contiguous and pedestrians have continuous access, but if -- you know, I'm hearing
everybody say they don't think that it will be used as a cut through or that it's not
necessary, so I would say why wouldn't you close it off at that point.
De Weerd: Well, I would agree probably with what Councilman Zaremba said, your
residents are going to use it more than anyone, because I wouldn't want to have to go
down to the light and, then, backtrack back. So, maybe you can talk to the developer
and talk about that as well.
Amar: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further from Council and what you
would like to see? Any additional information you need to come back at the next
meeting? Okay. I would entertain a motion, then, to continue this item to the 23rd of
April.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we continue Item 7-B until April 23rd.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-B to April 23rd. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. ublic Hearing: 13®005 adie Creek by Sadie Creek
Commons, LL Located Southwest Corner of . Eagle Road
and E. Ustick oa Request: Amend the Sadie Creek
Development Agreement (Instrument #108008770) for the
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 22 of 66
urpose o Attaching a Concept Ian and odifying Certain
Provisions
De Weerd: Item 7-C is a public hearing on MDA 13-005. I will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item on the
agenda is the Sadie Creek Promenade development agreement modification
application. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Ustick Road and
Eagle Road. It's currently zoned C-G and is approximately 14.79 acres of land. History
on this property. It was -- a portion of the site was annexed in 2004 with that C-G
zoning. With the annexation approval a DA was required. Also in 2005 a new concept
plan, a CUP, and a plat came forward to develop this site with a mix of commercial
uses, office, restaurant, retail. That is the concept plan on the left-hand side in front of
you. I would mention to Council that the CUP and the preliminary plat have expired.
However, the two existing DA's do govern the site and require some plans with certain
provisions and that's what we are here to discuss this evening. Again, the concept plan
on the left-hand side is what was acted on with the planned development back in 2005.
It included 11 buildings, a total square footage of 11 -- 113,000 square feet. Buildings
range in size between 3,000 square and 34,000 square feet. When these two
properties did annex in together there was a requirement that the two link together to
cross-access and through a consistent development theme. Here you can see the
applicant -- at least on this -- the approved concept plan. There was really a disconnect
with how this would interact with the Bienville Subdivision to the south. I would mention
to you at the time they did submit a variance for access to Eagle Road. They withdrew
that request and based on the withdrawal of that request the applicant was essentially
granted three access points to Ustick Road. That you see here as well. Also, as part of
that original DA there was a requirement that single story office buildings be provided
along the western boundary to provide buffering to the single family homes that were
developed in the Carol Subdivision to the west. Again, these are restricted to single
story and eventually would transition to your more intense commercial towards the
intersection and, then, again, there was no pedestrian or a public amenity for the mixed
use development either. Again, the applicant is here tonight to propose a new concept
plan. This plan does have more buildings, smaller scale in bulk style buildings than the
previous plan. The one benefit of this proposed concept plan is that there is an actual
central spine road here that connects to Bienville and doesn't allow -- doesn't require
the folks to cut through the parking lot to get to Ustick Road. I think that's probably the
best -- the better design concept than the previous plan. There is a central plaza area
here, based on staff recommendation and working with the applicant. There is one
public street access that is a lighted intersection here on that Center Point Way that was
deeded by a warranty deed to ACRD. In the future the applicant will come back and
plat this property as well. Again, the design concept that staff does like is that the
applicant has actually done a better job separating and splitting up the parking area
here. You have more streets up along the street. They definitely have a better street
edge or design along the street frontage versus the previous plan. And, then, also
having a smaller scale -- scaled buildings as well also adds and contributes to the look
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 23 of 66
of the building and given the type of residential development occurring to the south
there will be an additional need for commercial in the future. So, here again is what the
applicant -- the staff is recommending to you. Some of these are recommendations by
the applicant and some of them are from staff, but for simplicity purposes I have just
consolidated what we are proposing. The first section is Section 4.1. It basically just
states what they propose to do and that's to develop 150,000 square feet of office,
retail, and restaurant uses on 14.79 acres. The original DA spoke to the Kissler
annexation and the preliminary plat and the conditional use permit. As I stated to you
earlier, those permits are no longer valid, so it's necessary to remove that as the
amended DA. Section 5 references requirement for asite -- detailed site plan review for
-- through the conditional use process. Since this time the UDC has been amended.
We have an adopted design manual process, so staff shows that as no longer required
for them to come back and do detailed site plan review. We can handle that through the
development provisions that we are presenting tonight in the fact that they will have to
come back for CZC and design review for any commercial development on the site. So,
we feel that's adequately addressed through the ordinance. Provision number five
basically addresses what's to happen on those western most lots or up against that
residential subdivision to the west. Again, there will be single office lots only -- single
story office buildings and there will be a requirement for a block wall as well and a 25
foot landscape buffer along that as well, consistent with the Bienville Square
Subdivision to the south. Provision number eight is just delete that one altogether. That
requires approval for the drive-thru uses. Again, adrive-thru use is not within 300 foot
of the residential zone. There was another drive-thru use. That drive-thru will be
deemed an accessory use and, therefore, can be approved at staff level. If it does -- if it
is within those requirements it will have to come back through a conditional use permit
and Planning and Zoning Commission will take action on that conditional use permit
application. Provision nine is the one that I want to spend some time on. As I
mentioned to you the concept plan before you this evening does show three access
points to Ustick Road. The far left access point, again, is a public street. The center
access point will be a full access point at this point is what we are recommending to you
and, then, the eastern most driveway is a right-in, right-out only and these proposed
driveways again are consistent to what's occurring on the north side of the property with
the Center Point development. That's something that ACRD did act on back in 2005
with a plat. Staff did not receive any comments from ACRD on the access points for
you this evening, but, again, the concession was we are not getting access to Eagle, so
they were willing to take a hit on Ustick Road basically is what their recommendation
was back in 2005. Two thousand -- or excuse me. Provision number ten deals with,
again, limiting those uses to certain properties and the scheduled use in the UDC --
anything that's permitted would be allowed to go in, anything that requires a conditional
use permit would go before P&Z. Number 12 is a new provision that staff is
recommending. Basically because this is commercially zoned property the applicant is
not required to plat the property, but in discussions with the applicant they wanted to
have the ability to at least obtain approval of two certificate of zoning compliance
applications before they process this final plat -- or the preliminary plat and the final plat.
Staff felt that was an appropriate request and so, basically, what we have done is we
have recognized -- we will give you two CZC approvals, however, before getting the
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 24 of 66
other CZC approvals you must have a recorded plat and that central drive aisle would
have to connect from Bienville Square to the south and Ustick Road to the north.
Provision number 13 again is staff's recommendation to you. As I mentioned to you, a
portion of this site is subject to one DA and a portion of the property is subject to
another DA. So, what we want to do is basically remove this property and, then, just
have it subject to the DA back in 2005 and the amended DA that we are proposing this
evening. And, then, number 14 is a requirement that they comply with their submitted
concept plan that I have depicted before you this evening and that they provide a
central plaza area or pedestrian amenity and, then, also will have legal attach a new
legal description that explains the parameters of the property and a concept plan will act
as that exhibit to govern that moving forward. Staff did receive written testimony from
Matt Schultz. He is in agreement with the recommended changes before you this
evening. There are no outstanding issues before you this evening and at this time I
would stand for any questions you have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: The DA that would be eliminated in Item 13 I believe it was, that doesn't
include anything like fences or whatnot that might be applicable to this property as well?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it does not. When that -- when the
portion of this property came before you in 2004 they only had a bubble plan for how
they were to develop the site and that's why you have had acondition -- or staff
recommended that DA provision that they come back with either a planned
development to show you a master concept or go through individual detailed site plan
review through the conditional use process. Now that we have a concept plan, now that
we have a new ordinance in place, a new design review procedure we feel confident
that that's no longer applicable to develop the site.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Another question for Bill. The three access points that are
shown on the concept plan are consistent with the access points that are there?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is -- there is curb cuts there,
but the access point -- the two access points on Ustick north of the public -- or east of
the public street aren't constructed, only the public street is constructed at this time.
Rountree: Right. Right. The curb cuts are there.
Parsons: The curb cuts are there. Correct.
Rountree: And on the corner of Ustick and Eagle, the northern corner there, there is no
indication on the concept plan that that would be landscaped or otherwise. Is that just
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 25 of 66
an oversight or is something planned for that area that would not be landscaped and
bermed?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, I believe it's
an oversight. The applicant will be required to do a 35 foot landscape buffer along that
roadway segment.
Rountree: I see Matt shaking out there in the audience, so -- thank you.
Parsons: Yes.
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, question for Bill. That central plaza
landscaped area, is that a requirement or did they just put that in?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, this property is
designated mixed use regional on the Comprehensive Plan. At the time that this came
forward we didn't really have a requirement for those type of pedestrian facilities --
amenities if you will. Because the applicant is opening up the DA and wanting
something different we felt it appropriate that we have something in -- as part of this
development to have a more consistent plan with the Comprehensive Plan, so that was
a suggestion of staff for them to throw that in. They obliged staff. Although it's not in
the ideal location for the development, staff has encouraged them through the staff
report that when they develop this they should look at a better suited site for the central
plaza area adjacent to the drive aisle in the middle of nowhere. They should try to link
that to some of the buildings in the development as well. And I think they are in
agreement with that as well.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions for staff at this time?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I guess I'm remembering something differently than the way I heard you say
it and that is when Center Point Road -- is that what the signalized street is? That was
established to be a backage road, which was atrade-off for giving up some accesses to
Eagle, but it also meant that all of the accesses between there and Eagle Road would
eventually be right-in, right-out was my recollection and it disturbs me that we are
talking about one of these driveways being a full access. The driveway opposite is the
access in front of Kohl's, which is also at the moment not restricted. It's able to do that.
So, the other driveway to the right I believe does have curbing that acts like an island,
so the -- the driveway to the north and the driveway to the south into this property that
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 26 of 66
are closest to Eagle are already right-in, right-out, but my recollection was that as
development occurred and as traffic on Ustick increased, this other driveway was going
to be right-in, right-out as well and I suppose I don't have a problem saying that may still
be okay traffic wise today, but I think we need to have protection and maybe some
discussion with ACRD that at some point they may become right-in, right-out and that's
why the signalized intersection was supplied as a backage road and I don't know if we
need to have a discussion right this minute, but I keep getting Justin involved before the
applicant has made their statement. I don't know whether that's appropriate or not.
will let Madam Mayor decide that.
De Weerd: It's not appropriate.
Zaremba: Okay. I will ask my question later.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anything else for staff at this point? Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, thank you. Bill, you mentioned the drive-thru as it relates to
this application and any future applications and I have got to tell you that directly to the
east of here on Ustick the access into that particular development has some drive-thrus
that are immediately inside that development and they are a mess, particularly on a
busy week night and generally on the weekends there is a tremendous amount of
conflict with queuing for getting into the parking lots of -- and into the areas of the drive-
thrus and traffic trying to turn into the development itself and I think we need to take a
really hard look at that in allowing drive-thru operations near the entryways of these
developments, because that one is -- it's already a problem, but it's going to get worse
and the other thing -- and this has nothing to do with Matt and his application, but we
talked about right-in and right-out on several occasions this evening. The right-in and
right-out solution that has been used simply doesn't work and I would recommend that
staff get with ACRD and even ITD and develop a solution that does eliminate and
discourage people from driving through the pork chops that they have been using in the
past. They just don't stop people from making that move. You can drive around them
very easily and people do and we have seen aerial photos of them doing it here in other
applications. So, if you would put that on the list of something to address in the future.
Parsons: Certainly.
Rountree: That just reminded me of that. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment. You almost thought we were
on a different topic, uh?
Rountree: Well, we were off topic.
Schultz: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz, 8421 South Ten Mile in
Meridian. Here on behalf of Sadie Creek Commons, LLC.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 27 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you, Matt.
Schultz: Thank you. I was not involved in the original approvals of this back in -- in two
stages, I guess. Annexation, DA, 2004, 2006. The actual DA was signed in 2007,
recorded January 2008. Kind of took a little while, but I guess finally got it recorded,
which happens sometimes -- you know, the DA's, too, to go through the process and
with the economic downturn I could see how the owners were probably kind of dragging
a little bit, but what we see here is a result of somebody that came in first on the corner
and did a plan, got it approved, and, then, sat while people around them moved ahead.
The Bienville Square people to the south, they worked out some cross-access
easements with each other and kind of solved the no Eagle Road access as a little too
close to Ustick to safely get an access into the site -- this particular site in the middle
like it was originally designed and what you really see is the flow of that original site plan
kind of -- you could see they just eliminated the Eagle access and left the flow the way it
was really designed, so let's just approve it, we will fix it later with -- you know, when we
come back. I mean I could just see that happening reading between the lines of how
that site plan was done. So, when I picked it up and looked at it, we got with Cornell
Larsen, architect, read through this -- read through the history, read through the DA,
said, you know, the Eagle Road access, don't even try, especially at the current speed
limit, it's just not safe, and that was kind of our deal. We didn't want to move ahead on
that. It's essentially a cleanup of the DA that we are asking far and what really drove
this was there is three parcels out here and it's zoned C-G, has a DA, it's annexed into
the city, all the utilities are everywhere around this thing, the stub streets are cut in with
Ustick. Ustick was actually widened and those curb cuts put in after this was approved
in the locations that they show it. To Councilman Rountree's comment about the curb
cuts, they are where we show them where they were actually widened after this original
one was approved. So, there is not too many ways you can slice or dice this thing.
Commercial sites generally evolve as different tenants may or may not come in and pick
which pad they want first, who is your anchor and so we really wanted still to have some
flexibility, we are considering this apre-preliminary plat, if you will, concept plan to show
the -- the accesses, which are important, which are the north-south. One's existing and
one will be constructed, kind of show the general configuration and it was originally
approved for up to 150,000 square feet. We are not changing that condition. I doubt
we would ever get there, because if you -- Cornell Larsen did several iterations and to
provide the parking required -- not necessarily by the city, but by the tenants and users,
this is kind of what you get with many buildings and uses and four to five stalls per
thousand square feet and those things. Two around 110, 115. The only way to get
more would be to do like maybe two big ones. In the original DA, which is what we are
sticking with, except for some modifications, did allow up to a 75,000 square foot
building. You can see we didn't even get close to that. But we would still like some
flexibility moving forward. That north-south spine street could wiggle a little bit
differently, but it's still going to get to Ustick and it's still going to get to the south and
there is going to be a central complex area or a median area, whatever you will,
somewhere in the middle, we are not sure quite yet. This is -- this is still a concept that
at least cleans up the old concept, speaks to the landscape buffers and, Councilman
Rountree, that I think was just an auto CAD oops, some trees got left off there, but that
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 28 of 66
was mentioned going around there and, really, the big deal was we want some flexibility
in the timing of getting going on its momentum and so we are here to ask you for the
ability to get going to the three parcels out there in accordance with C-C zone, the CZC
process, design review, whatever needs to happen in a month or two before we have to
go to full blown preliminary plat, final plat, recorded plat. And it may -- it may end up
that it just happens that way anyway, then, we -- because I suspect we are going to get
going on a preliminary plat pretty soon, but we just wanted some flexibility. It could
save three months, six months and I don't think the city loses any control over what
goes in there. I think it still gives us flexibility to -- to get some things going and while
we were doing that we looked at the 11 conditions of the development agreement and
stepped through them. I propose my -- leave this as is, leave this as is, leave this as is,
let's tweak this, let's delete that and, then, Bill has some of the cross-outs and re-
tweaks. So, it's a little confusing, but I think it's just fairly straight forward stuff. We are
not changing the block wall. We don't want to change the block wall in DA's. I have
learned that lesson. I have seen people try to go through that process. We don't want
to change that. Single story on that side. Landscape buffer on that side. That's -- that's
fine. There is really no changes, other than just cleaning it up for the City of Meridian's
new process, this is how you look at -- how you look at the conditional use process or
don't anymore. How you look at -- at drive-thrus, which I do agree there needs to be
special attention paid to those -- those type of plans and how they come in and how
they take access. It gets to be a mess. I do agree with that. But what we are really
proposing here is a simple cleanup of the DA, it gives us the flexibility to choose to
move forward to -- but before we do anymore than that we would have to come back
with a preliminary plat, final plat, you know, bill everything to record the plat and move
forward and that may happen anyways. We are in concurrence with staff's revisions of
our proposed revisions and additions and we believe it's appropriate for that. And
speaking to the access, Councilman Zaremba, you mentioned -- I believe at the time
you were on Planning and Zoning, if I read the record right. I'm not sure. And,
unfortunately, the way I read it I couldn't find it. I was looking for it real quick. It did talk
to the fact that those two would be full right-in, right-outs. The one signalized, the one
unsignalized -- let me back up. Full access. One signalized. One full access
unsignalized. And the one closest would be a right-in, right-out and it kind of -- when
they did the Ustick Road widening they kind of extended the -- the little dividers, not
really a raised median, but it's the little -- the cone things or whatever you call them --
back to make that aright-in, right-out. There is no other way to treat that one and
ACRD -- I believe it was in the ACRD staff report, they -- they granted that. There was
a lot of discussion about Eagle Road and that was squashed and that's said three
different ways in the DA and we are not challenging that, but there will be Eagle Road
access. The owner does reserve the right, obviously, to come back later, if he so
chooses, ask for maybe aright-in only and maybe if the speed limit reduces at some
future date, but we are not here to ask for that tonight and you guys -- you may reserve
the right to be told no, too. But they could ask and -- later, but right now we are not
asking for anything to do with Eagle Road. We think that would not be appropriate at
the current speed limit. So -- so, with that I hope it's -- it's simple enough to say, hey,
we would like the flexibility for two -- the two CZCs and we are just cleaning up --
making it a clean legal description, a clean stand-alone DA and I know Bill was happy to
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 29 of 66
have a clean file if this goes through for moving forward. It's -- there is not a lot of what
the heck are we going to do with that condition of approval. You know, we will just kind
of clean it up. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Thank you for all you have done on this so far. I'm -- it's
been a long project. I know. Just in looking -- this is something we are beginning to
deal with all over where we have residential behind major buildings. In other words,
residential and public streets that are looking at the back of the building. Are you going
to propose or are you proposing any treatments that makes them a little prettier than
just the back of a building?
Schultz: Mayor and Councilman Zaremba, we -- we haven't got that far, but, obviously,
with the entrance coming off of Eagle, that back side actually becomes almost a de
facto front and, really, something does need to be done there and we haven't got that
far along in the -- in architectural treatment. We realized that from day one that with this
access shifted south coming in that we are cognizant of how that looks. There is a
landscape -- a little landscape up on our side, another one on their side, plus a road on
their side, so there is some separation, but to say we are not going to do anything is --
we do want to make it look nice, Councilman Zaremba. We just haven't got that far yet
in the process and I'm not sure what process, is it the design review or the view -- we
would look at those. That would be the avenue that those things would be discussed
through I believe at that time.
Zaremba: Great. I just wanted to know that you're being sensitive to that, so thank you.
Schultz: Appreciate it.
De Weerd: And because we have seen this a couple times before. I think this is a
great clean up. I do like the addition of your central plaza and, you know, I think Council
and the neighbors -- we saw this as a quality application with the elevations that were
attached to it and such, too. So, this does answer some of those circulation questions
that have been kind of a bugaboo. That's a technical term. But, you know, I do
commend you for bringing back a -- I think what looks like a better project. So, thank
you. Well, thank you, Matt.
Schultz: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to provide
testimony on this application? Yes. If you will, please, state your name and address for
the record.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 30 of 66
Grant: My name is Steve Grant. My address is 1534 Leslie Way. My property is on the
west -- western boundary and we have been here a time or two before.
De Weerd: Yes, you have.
Grant: As you may recall.
De Weerd: Yes, we have.
Grant: Just a little bit of history. I'm pleased to hear that Matt provided testimony that
they would continue the block wall. There is a couple of things that I think are important
to note about that wall. It is not on the property line, it's four feet onto their property,
which, in essence, made my backyard four feet bigger and to mitigate the -- the
landscaping issues there with the folks -- Idaho Mutual Trust, who assumed
responsibility for Red Creek when they defaulted, there was -- there was a landscaping
allowance provided for -- and it was negotiated separately with these property owners to
mitigate those -- those -- the fact that your yard just got bigger and needed to have
something done with it to make it attractive and so I would -- I'm certainly in favor of -- of
what they proposed. I think that's -- again, as long as the wall is extended -- it was
never built properly, as you may or may not be aware, but it ought to be continued with
the same construction it has now. It's actually higher than it was designed, which when
you're in your yard you really can't see anything on the other side. So, in terms of the
residential buildings I would think that provides some relief from -- from any transition
issues that might be incident to, you know, commercial buildings being there. So,
again, continuing the wall is -- is -- I'm pleased to hear that. Some kind of a landscaping
allowance for the property owners that are affected by that would be appropriate and
should be considered by -- by the developers. The other thing that we -- we talked
about previously was making sure that the lighting in that area had residential shields on
it, so that they are -- we could mitigate the effect of tree lighting and other lighting that
might be required for commercial properties. And if I could just comment on the -- the
issue that was raised about access from Ustick. As you gentlemen have properly stated
-- and being a resident there, that is already very congested and you don't have people
coming out of this proposed subdivision, so, you know, you would take a situation that's
highly congested and if you allowed somebody to turn left to go west on Ustick, now you
really got a safety issue. So, I think you have raised the proper concerns and that
would I think need some work, because I think that would become a serious problem,
because the road also being so narrow and there is not really a median there for any
length of -- you know, any space that will allow, you know, people to -- the time to get
into it -- or to be able to merge with traffic going west. That's all I had. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Steve, we do have a question for you.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 31 of 66
Zaremba: Just a minor one. My recollection is this is about the -- the block wall.
Grant: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: One of the issues was -- is I think everybody's understanding was that the
decorative side of the wall was supposed to be towards Leslie and that --
Grant: It was actually supposed to be two sided.
Zaremba: Oh, was it two sided?
Grant: Yes.
Zaremba: But at any rate --
Grant: You can imagine how it was constructed.
Zaremba: -- the current wall apparently got constructed with a plain side towards Leslie.
Grant: Plain side and no decorative cap stones or anything like that, so --
Zaremba: So, I guess my question is as this last portion is completed would you prefer
that it look like what you already have or would you like to have a decorative side on
your side?
Grant: Yes. I think it would be -- it wouldn't be right to make it different and, then, it
would really stick out. So, I think, yeah, that would be appropriate.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.
Grant: Thank you.
De Weerd: Before I ask Justin to come up, is there anyone else who would like to
provide testimony on this item?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm sure Justin remembers my question, but I just wanted to comment. We
have actually had this conversation over the years several places along Ustick. Over by
Meridian Road as well. As Ustick develops and grows there may be a number of
driveways that currently have full access that will lose it and I guess the question is
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 32 of 66
even if it's allowed today, is there a point at which ACRD has the power to say, no, this
can't happen anymore and does that happen?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Justin Lucas, Ada County Highway
District. 3775 Adams Street, Garden City, Idaho. The answer to the question is yes.
Absolutely. ACRD in the past has allowed full access with a provision that it will be
transitioned into right-in, right-out when traffic warrants it. Is that the case at this
specific location? I'm not sure. I didn't -- I have -- I don't have the original report in front
of me. To be honest, I don't even know if it's been acted upon for this property,
because this property has never gone through a platting process and so ACHD really
doesn't have an opportunity to provide those comments until an official application that
goes through the ACRD process happens. That having been said, ACRD reserves the
right to close any access they want if there is a safety issue. I mean the highway district
has the ability to close access points that have existed for a long time as full accesses
and turn them into right-in, right-outs regardless of the approval of that access. No
access is guaranteed as full access. Obviously there is lots of them that will always
remain that way, but through projects and through the widening of Ustick Road and as
traffic continues to change and the conditions change, ACRD can do specific studies
and put in a raised median, just like ITD did right down the center of Eagle Road. I don't
know when that's going to happen on Ustick. I don't know when those warrants will be
met, but certainly ACRD reserves the right for safety purposes to close off access
points. We could certainly -- when the -- this project goes through a CZC or a platting
process work with your staff to find the exact -- to get recommendations on ACHD staff
on that issue. It could potentially affect the site design if, indeed, ACHD comes back
and says, you know, we think we need to do this right now and we need to do it when
this project is built. That could have some impact on site design. But as I stated, the
MDA isn't the place where ACRD usually makes those comments, we wait until there is
amore imminent application, such as a CZC, such as a preliminary plat, something that
we have a chance to comment on those directly. I hope that makes sense what I'm --
what I'm saying there.
Zaremba: It does and thank you.
Lucas: Thank you.
Zaremba: Always happy to have you here.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Justin?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like
to comment on this item?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 33 of 66
Parsons: Madam Mayor? I'm sorry to interrupt.
De Weerd: Bill.
Parsons: Just some points of clarification for Council as well. You can see here the
recommended provisions that we have before you and if you look at number nine again,
it doesn't vest them with full access or anything for that central access point, it's just
here just on record that that's what it will be at this point. Again, ACHD, based on what
we have presented to you, merely just states those are the access points that are
approved there. So, if ACRD or staff feels moving forward that that needs to be
restricted, you can certainly entertain that and look at that again with the subdivision
process. The other thing is is our code asks -- requires Council to grant waivers or
additional access points to arterial streets. I mean this is a development agreement
modification. If it is your desire to have that as a right-in, right-out, you can certainly add
that as a provision tonight and the recorded -- or as part of the record and can add that
provision as well. So, there is nothing set in stone that says that's going to be full
access for ever and ever, it's just basically those are the curb cuts that were approved
with the widening and that's how the provision's written. The other issue is if we go
back to your design review comments, as the applicant stated, there aren't official
elevations before you this evening, but the applicant will have to go through a design
review process and certainly staff will pick your -- your recommendations and your
advisement when you review those elevations and remind the applicant that along at
least those portions along the street he should have -- try to incorporate four sided
architecture where possible.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Matt, do you want to wrap this up?
Schultz: Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate ACHD's comments on they reserve the right
to do whatever. At that time --
De Weerd: You want to restate your name?
Schultz: Matt Schultz.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Schultz: -- to -- in the interest of safety and how things are going right now we would
like to -- if possible, just leave it as it is, acknowledging that there is more stuff to move
forward before the full blown site gets developed, that -- through the CZC process
ACRD would have the ability to comment on that. I was looking back to the file. The
original traffic they did have that as a full and (believe -- I believe ACRD had approved
it as full, but subject to always, you know, hey, that was back in 2006, 2007, we are now
2013 -- yes, 2013. You know, it's been a long time. So, things change. Has it
dramatically worsened? I'm not a traffic engineer to make that call. But we do know
that we want some interconnectivity. That's what we are showing on the concept plan
and we acknowledge the -- it will be subject to whatever access standards need to be
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 34 of 66
met at that time that the zoning permit comes in or comes through. As far as a block
wall is concerned, the gentleman -- I can't remember his name, he did show up at the
neighborhood meeting, which is nice, to -- to convey his thoughts on the block wall and
the special circumstances that they went through during the previous developer to the
south process and that he was okay just continuing what was already done out and in
the same way just to make sure -- you know, just really jump out if something's
dramatically different and either way we are open to whatever makes sense. You know,
we want to get along with our neighbors if possible and those are the key things about
these applications. That, obviously, is how you get along with your neighbors. We want
that to go as smoothly as possible. So, with that I think it's a good step. It's a
foundational step to get this thing cleaned up -- the DA cleaned up and we are asking
for your favor, to give us the ability to have the two CZCs prior to the final plat and we
would ask for that to be part of the -- in accordance with what staff has put together.
So, thank you.
De Weerd: And, Matt, I would assume that with those two CZCs you put in all of the
sidewalks, the infrastructure; right?
Schultz: Mayor, if they want to do a -- like a little office on the very west side, then, the
sidewalk pertaining to that -- to that section, it was appropriate to do that, that would be
put in at that time, as would any -- I think what it comes down to is the parcels that are
the three parcels that are there would probably reconfigure through a parcel boundary
adjustment and the frontages on those parcels would be improved to your -- to your
requirement standards of the zone and through your process for that. But if we were
going to do a little medical office building back in the -- a single story back in the corner,
just to do all the frontage on Eagle and Ustick, that was never our intent to -- to be -- to
do that and full landscape buffer for the whole quarter mile frontage. That was never
the intent with those. We just did it for that section that was developed. But if that so be
your requirement, then, that would be something that we would not totally say we are
going to take a denial over objecting to that.
De Weerd: I guess I wouldn't be so concerned on Eagle, but certainly on Ustick. But
that's just my --
Schultz: If that's going to be your recommendation that we put in the frontage sidewalk
-- the curb and gutter is there, but the sidewalk is not, if you drive -- I believe if you drive
down there and the curb cuts, but there is no sidewalk yet the way it sits right now. So,
that is a valid concern that if something came in over here would you connect the
sidewalk from our -- our west boundary to whatever commercial or use you are
proposing to provide that access and that would be something that could be required
through the -- through the CZC process to get that there. ACRD is undertaking a
widening from I believe Locust Grove -- is that the next one over from Eagle? Up to our
-- our west boundary line very soon. They have even asked us for a little bit of sidewalk
easement for them to do that section between Center Point and our west boundary with
their project, to put the sidewalk in there with theirs, because this could -- I mean I hope
it moves forward quickly, but we just don't know until somebody goes, so we -- on behalf
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 35 of 66
of the owner they are -- they do -- you have several interactive parties. This is the last
corner available out there and there is a lot of interest in it. It is a little bit access
challenged, but it still works. So, we are hopeful that we do see this go fairly quickly
and the two CZCs may to the point before we are done and may just go straight to
preliminary plat on the timing before we are all done if it goes that fast, so -- thank you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Matthew, the -- my idea of a landscape allowance for apparently additional
property that -- I don't know if it ultimately got deeded or if it's just kind of an adverse
possession or what's going on with that property.
Schultz: Yeah. Mayor and Councilman Rountree, my experience with this -- and I
believe it's what happened over here, it's happened where your fence doesn't go on our
property line and it really becomes their property. What you do is you grant an
exclusive easement to that person for their use only of whatever is behind that wall,
even though technically it's owned by this parcel. So, that means you're not moving
property lines or doing anything too drastic, you're just granting an exclusive easement
and improving that to -- and I have done this on another site -- putting in some sod or
sprinklers and rocks or whatever -- whatever works for -- I believe there is two lots there
that back up to us and that's reasonable. You know, I don't think it's a big area that we
are talking about to go and cover that up with dirt.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Thank you. Council, if there is no further
questions for the applicant or staff, I would entertain a motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 7-C.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 36 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve MDA 13-005 for Sadie Creek, subject to all staff and
applicant comments.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a couple seconds approving Item 7-C. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. ublic Hearing: Public orks Department, nvironmental
Division Fee Schedule
De Weerd: Item No. 7-D is a public hearing with our Public Works Environmental
Division fee schedule. I will go ahead and open this public hearing and ask for staff
comments. Generally we have staff kind of introduce their item for public comment.
Mangerich: I'm introducing the fee distribution of 75 dollars to be attributed towards
planned review from our pretreatment staff and 75 dollars for a final field visit.
De Weerd: Okay. And these are two new fees?
Mangerich: This is a preexisting fee which has been split into two separate functions,
thereby, there is no increase in fee, but a more appropriate distribution of the fee
attached to specific service.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mollie. Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this
item?
Rountree: Seeing none, Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on Item
7-D.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 37 of 66
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-D. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
esolution o. 13-919: doting ublic orks Department,
Environmental Division Fee Schedule
De Weerd: Darn, you know, you got off way too easy. I think we should have invited
people in just to testify. Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 7-E, Resolution No. 13-919.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution on 7-E. If there is
no discussion, Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Noaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ulic Comment: Large- cale pedal vents Update t
1°eorry Use Code
De Weerd: Item 7-F is a public comment and I will turn this over to Madam Clerk.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is the second and possibly third reading of
this. These proposed changes to our large scale special events code. We haven't
received -- or I don't believe anyone signed up for public comment tonight, so we are
just asking for -- just ask for it to move forward at this point.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Jaycee? I know that she did her
presentation on this earlier.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 38 of 66
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to provide comment on this item? Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor? Seeing none, I would move that we close the public hearing
on Item 7-F.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public comment period on Item
7-F. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
econ eadin of rdinnce o. 1®1 Lar e® cl pedal
vents Update to Temporary Use Code
De Weerd: Madam Clerk, will you, please, read Ordinance 13-1549 by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1549, an
ordinance of the City of Meridian amending -- amending Meridian City Code Section 3-
4-1 relating to the definition of special event. Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-
4-3A6D regarding standards for denial of temporary use permit applications. Amending
Meridian City Code Section 3-4-3C6 relating to large scale special events and providing
an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who
would like to hear it read in its entirety? This is the second reading. Council, if you do
not want to waive a further reading, I will put this forward for the --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: May I ask Mr. Nary -- to include this -- while it is just on the agenda, the second
reading, can we advance to third reading, too, with no -- seeings how we had no public
comment and we closed the public comment?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Normally you could do that, but you did
notice it only as a second reading, so I wouldn't recommend that. You don't have to
take anymore comment, so we could put it on for third reading for approval next week.
De Weerd: Okay. We will be on for the third and final reading on April 23rd. Thank you
so much, Madam Clerk.
Item 8: Department Reports
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 39 of 66
olice Department: udget Amendment for Spending
uthority on Two UL (Enforcement of Underage Drinking
Laws) rants Awarded to Meridian Police Department for a
of-to- xcee mount of $10,410.00
De Weerd: Okay. We now move to item 8 under Department Reports and ask for our
Police Department comment on Item 8-A.
Overton: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I will try to be as brief
as the previous two. I come to you tonight with a budget amendment, not to request
money, but to ask for spending authority. For the third year now we have received two
grants from the Department of Juvenile Corrections, they are called EUDL grants and
EUDL stands for the Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws, and both of these are
grants. The first one is in the amount of 3,000 dollars. We used that grant -- we
actually put our grant together with Drug Free Idaho to combine the money to do public
education prior to high school graduation. We try to do the parents who host last year.
We do programs where we try to get out and educate families, both the kids, the
students, the parents, grandparents about the hazards of drinking as we get closer to
the senior prom and to graduation. That can be slides in the movie theaters, that can
be billboards, that could be inserts in the newspaper -- they get very creative on the
different ways that we can put that public outreach out and that's what that 3,000 dollars
will go towards. And, again, we are going to partnership with Drug Free Idaho again
this year. The second one for 7,410 dollars is the money we use for our alcohol
enforcement team. That is a team that's run by Sergeant Stacy Arnold that does all the
compliance checks, the shoulder taps, all of the various other undercover activities we
do to make sure that we are getting compliance from liquor stores, from all of our outlets
that sell various alcoholic beverages and also compliance checks on the kids
themselves. We have also included in the past two years checks on cabs and delivery
services to make sure they are not delivering alcohol to minors within our city as well.
So, that's the basis for how we are going to use those monies going forward and I stand
for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Lieutenant Overton. Any questions from Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the budget amendment for two EUDL, Enforcement of
Underage Drinking Laws grants, in a not to exceed amount of 10,410 dollars.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 40 of 66
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ulic ®rs: ecycled ater Plan Update
De Weerd: Item 8-B is our Public Works Department and I will turn this over to Warren.
Stewart: Good evening Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Several months ago
we and -- in another meeting, had a discussion regarding the reclaimed water program
and what we have learned about that program and also where we wanted to go and as
-- the clerk is handing out a map that we will allude to or that we will go to here in just a
few minutes. It wasn't going to show up very well on the presentation, so we wanted to
make sure you had a large enough copy to make some sense of it. And so tonight
what's going to happen is I'm going to give a brief bit of history and just kind of a status
report on where we are in the reclaimed water program and, then, I'm going to turn the
microphone over to Clint Worthington and he's going to talk a little bit about what we
have done since that last meeting to decide -- to prepare for development of the
reclaimed water program currently and how we might address some of the issues and
concerns coming up. So, there is sort of the agenda. Currently recycled water system
I'm going to talk a little bit about the regulatory environment that we are currently in and
how that affects reclaimed water. A little bit about our existing systems, the boundaries
and limitations and also the boundaries and limitations for the future program and, then,
turn it over for some logistics to Clint Worthington. Next slide. And some of this
information may be fairly familiar to you, so I'm going to try and be as expeditious as I
can and get through this, especially considering the hour. We currently have a 1,600
gallon booster station at the wastewater treatment planted. There is two 800 gallon a
minute pumps. One of those is a redundant pump, so the actual capacity that's -- you
know, that's a deliverable capacity of the booster station is 800 gallons a minute. We
have two 500,000 gallon storage tanks, 12,000 lineal feet of 16 inch main -- essentially
7,000 lineal feet of 12 inch HDPE and about 4,500 -- 4,400 lineal feet of 12 inch PVC
main line and our current investment total in reclaimed water with all that we have put
into it, both at the wastewater treatment plant and infrastructure in the ground is about
five and a half million dollars. We have -- I want to talk just a brief moment about the
evolution of our current permit. As you may recall we initially had received a small site
permit for a program at Heroes Park and we started that Heroes Park for the pilot
program. After we obtained that permit we went for a larger permit -- for a larger area or
larger portion of the City of Meridian and with the hopes and anticipation that we would
eventually be able to serve a much bigger portion of the city. In fact, this was -- at the
time we thought this was just sort of the initial phase or our -- our city wide reclaimed
water program. We have learned a lot of things since then and it's, you know, going to
affect the way we develop the program in the future. Some of that we shared with you,
along with a map. This is a kind of a map that we had showed to you a few months
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 41 of 66
ago, which spurred the discussion which basically is bringing this back tonight to you
and this, essentially, was after we had done our -- our modeling and our sewer master
planning and so forth we discovered that we were probably a little overambitious and
that, in fact, even at full build out we were going to have a somewhat limited area that
we could serve and so we are going to talk a little bit about that tonight and how we
have targeted those uses and how we intend to sort of develop the program. You can
see here with this map -- this is the old map. You got a new one in front of you that we
will discuss. We sort of have priority areas and secondary priority areas. You can see
the yellow -- the heavy yellow line is our permitted boundary or most of it and this is
what we think we can actually serve. Next slide. Current customers. We currently
serve the Heroes Park -- city park with reclaimed water. I-84 Ten Mile Road
interchange. Wastewater treatment plant landscape irrigation and the Fast Eddy's car
wash. We also have some committed customers. There are two commercial
properties, the Walmart at McMillan and Ten Mile, as well as the Brighton Development
down near the interchange, which we have had conditioned to use reclaimed water and
Oseola Park, which is a small park across the street from -- a proposed park across the
street from the wastewater treatment plant. And also the farmable acreage behind the
wastewater treatment plant. We put main line in there last year, so that we could at
some point -- we are actually in the process of trying to identify the best possible crop, if
you will, to use to grow back there with reclaimed water and we eventually will plant
something back there in that ground behind the wastewater treatment plant and we will
serve that. Current allowable uses. Under the permit there is commercial landscape
irrigation, commercial process water, so if we had a data center or something that had a
cooling tower or cooling needs we could use reclaimed water for that. And we have had
some interest in that, although there has not been anybody actually locate yet for that
purpose. Residential landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, golf course irrigation,
dust suppression, fire suppression are all permitted uses under our existing permit. We
also have some targeted uses and these targeted uses have come from -- you know,
we have learned from our own experience, as well as from the experience of other
communities that have used reclaimed water, about what things actually work in a
reclaimed water program and what things do not and we have also, based on our land
use planning, this -- these targeted uses, as well as our land use plan, has sort of
helped to develop the map which you have in front of you right now. So, we intend to
reach out and try and capture commercial landscape irrigation, commercial process
water uses, gold courses and the wastewater treatment plant agricultural land. These --
just wanted to point out once again that these strategies are consistent with other
programs that we have looked at in Colorado, Arizona, and California and in two of
those locations in Arizona and California they had initially in their initial phases of their
reclaimed water programs, they had reached out and tried to serve residential
developments and in both cases for regulatory reasons and the infrastructure costs and
the difficulty in working with the residents and reclaimed, both of them no longer pursue
that option as part of their reclaimed water program. Next slide. I wanted to touch for
just a minute on the regulatory environment or status that surrounds reclaimed water or
recycled water. As you know one of the drivers for our recycled water program was our
NPDES permit out at the wastewater treatment plant. It was issued in 1999. It expired
in 2004. It has been anticipated -- or extended since then -- administratively extended
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 42 of 66
and we right now, based on the latest information that we have, anticipate that the City
of Meridian will be in negotiations for our permit somewhere around the end of 2014 to
2015 and we have -- you know, city of Boise's permit is now completed. City of Nampa
is in the negotiations with the EPA right now over their permit. The last -- we thought
we were going to be next and our understanding is now that we will probably be after
the city of Caldwell and so we -- I think 2014 -- into 2014 is probably optimistic, but
that's the latest word that we heard. There are also some regulatory risk with regards to
our reclaimed water program. I think we have -- you know, spent some time with you
guys in the past talking about what those risks are, but there is a lot of -- I would say
maybe rhetoric or information that's being floated around that year around limits for
phosphorus on the Boise River and also on the Snake River are certainly on the EPA's
mind and that that may -- and those year around limits would certainly impact the
reclaimed water program, because our ability to actually irrigate anything in the
wintertime is pretty tough. So, that -- there is definitely some impacts there, if we -- if
there are year around limits imposed. Concentration versus mass base limits. This is
just, essentially, the way that the permits are written. Boise's permit is in a
concentration base limit, which would not be favorable for us. We have gotten some --
you know, we have had some discussions with the EPA and they have indicated that
they are interested in working with us to make sure that our reclaimed water program --
this is the local EPA -- working with us to try to make sure that the reclaimed water
program stays viable, but concentration limits, of course, essentially say no matter what
the flow is, whether it's a trickle or, you know, out of a huge pipe, the concentration in
parts per million have to be a certain level and when we are talking about a reclaimed
water program we, essentially, need to exchange the amount or the mass of
phosphorus that we are delivering to the reclaimed water system for what we are not
putting in the creek. So, there are two different kinds of regulatory limits and how they
decide to write our permit could have an impact on whether our reclaimed water
program is viable or not. Irrigation district challenges are also a concern for us and we
will talk a little bit more about that. Obviously, if we are going to reach out to customers
like Walmart and developments who also have land that is serviceable through the
irrigation district's irrigation water, we are going to have to work up an agreement with
them that is reasonable that everybody can, you know, feel comfortable with in how we
are going to use reclaimed water in cooperation with our irrigation districts and we have
a plan to do that. We have a plan to work with them. We have actually spoken with the
irrigation districts -- both irrigation districts in the past and let me know that we would
like to, you know, sit down with them when we have a little bit more information, which is
what we want to talk to you about tonight and talk with them how we would make this a
playground that could work for both entities. Next slide. I just want to touch a little bit
on, you know, the benefits of recycled water and one -- you know, specifically highlight
one of the main reasons that we chose this option in the first place. It's somewhat
amazing to me that we are still able to grow in the City of Meridian on a permit which
had a limit that was established in 1999. Can you imagine the growth that we have had
since that day? But continuing to grow with a seven MGD limit is getting more and
more difficult every year. In fact, last year if it wasn't for the reclaimed water program
we would have had a violation of our NPDES permit. We simply had more water
coming into the plant than our permit would allow. We were able to stay under that limit,
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 43 of 66
because we were able to deliver reclaimed water and maintain a level underneath that
seven MGD discharge limit. So, it has certainly been beneficial to the city and it is
certainly one of the things that will allow us to continue to grow in the interim between
now and when our permit is renegotiated. We have also been able to reduce
phosphorus delivered to Five Mile Creek. Last year I think the total water delivered by
our reclaimed water program was somewhere in the neighborhood of 23 million gallons
and that equates to approximately a thousand pounds of phosphorus. Well, that
thousand pounds of phosphorus didn't go to the creek and didn't go to the Boise River.
We have, like I said before, got EPA support. They have essentially said we like
reclaimed water. We like the idea. We want to try and work with you to -- to provide a
means where you can continue to use reclaimed water. I don't think they want to be -- I
don't think they want the publicity of saying that they -- they, essentially, wrote a permit
that would eliminate a reclaimed water program for the first municipal water -- or
reclaimed water program in the state of Idaho. So, they have an interest in that. But
the proof is in the pudding. So, we will have to wait and see how that goes. DEQ -- one
of the other advantages with the recycled water program is DEQ regulates recycled
water, instead of the EPA. Of course, the EPA oversees DEQ's programs, but we do
have the ability to work with the more local regulatory agency. Reclaimed water is -- if
the permit could be written and structured so that we can use it, it is certainly a more
cost effective approach for nutrient removal out of our wastewater treatment plant and,
of course, that's one of the other long-term benefits to this type of program. If we can
get a permit that makes it work.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: And, Warren, if I may. Just to clarify it. I don't want to leave the -- how close
we came to violating the seven MGD hanging out there. That -- that violation would
have been a paperwork violation of our permit, which has been extended. Our actual
plant capacity has grown over the years far in excess of what our permit allows and I --
if (remember correctly we actually are capable now, even though the permit has not
been made new, we are capable now of managing 12 MGD and even though for
paperwork purposes we came close to violating the seven, it was never a public safety
problem, it was just a paperwork problem. Am I correct on that?
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, you are correct. We have -- it's actually
10.2 right now, our limiting factor. Our existing treatment plant can treat up to 10.2
million gallons a day of effluent effectively and so we would not have had a water quality
violation, but we have the discharge limit that says no matter whether you're doing --
whether it's clean or not, you're only allowed to discharge seven million gallons a day
and that was --
De Weerd: It needs to be clean.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 44 of 66
Stewart: Exactly. But, anyway, that -- that was the limit that we were approaching.
There certainly wasn't any jeopardy of us discharging water that was not property
treated.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Stewart: You're welcome. I think -- we got there. Okay. So, I kind of want to talk just
a little bit about -- again about the present situation that we have and, then, a little bit
about where we are headed in the future and, then, introduce the map and let Mr.
Worthington take over. So, presently with the existing infrastructure that we have in
place we can irrigate approximately 60 acres of ground and we are just -- so everybody
knows, we are essentially there. With the commitments that we have right now we are
essentially at that 60 acre limit. Now, with some additional booster pumps at the
booster station and not too distant future some additional storage, we could -- we could
increase that. But it will take some plant expansion, some infrastructure in order to
make that work. Of course, one of the things that I wanted to highlight is the time of use
is a factor. So, although we have the ability to sow 60 acres, we have the ability in the
future to service a certain number of acres, timing is a big issue. Most -- because of the
regulatory requirements most of the irrigation on places have to take place at night.
That's also when the flows coming into the plant are at their lowest. So, it's kind of --
they work against each other. So, if we are going to serve large amounts of acreage we
have to be able to treat these largest loads during the day and store it, so that we can
deliver it at night when the flows are coming in much lower. So, time of use is a factor
and certain types of uses could be done during the day. In other words, Ten Mile
interchange could get done during the daytime, because there is nobody there. Heroes
Park would have to be done at night. So, it depends on when the uses occur also as far
as what we can serve and what we can't. And, then, we have limitations of our existing
booster station and to our storage tanks. And I want to just kind of set the stage for
Clint by talking a little bit about the future. Maximum irrigable acres at full build out. In
other words, when the city is built out fully to our city limits -- not our city limits, but our
impact area boundary and we have the full flows coming into the wastewater treatment
plant, essentially that's approximately 20 to 21 million gallons a day is what we
anticipate. What can we serve with a reclaimed water program? And the answer to that
question is approximately 2,200 acres of irrigated ground. What that really means when
you look at the map before you is although we have a pretty large permitted area, we
really can't serve anywhere close to that total area and so what we are talking about
here is sort of concentrating on the Ten Mile Corridor where we already have
infrastructure in place. We also have the capacity to upgrade or to bring the booster --
the existing booster station at the treatment plant can eventually have pumps installed
to deliver ten million gallons -- or ten -- 10,000 gallons per minute. Excuse me. In order
to get to that full build out, 2,200 acres, we would also need another one to two storage
tanks at the treatment plant and we would need four to five off-site storage tanks and
booster stations at strategic locations and the reason for that is, unlike our water
system, where we can sink a new well in close proximity to where the demands are, our
reclaimed water is produced in one location and in order to serve, you know, more
remote areas we are going to have to put storage and boosters in other areas.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 45 of 66
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor and Warren, what's the size of those storage tanks in gallons?
Stewart: About 500,000 gallons.
Hoaglun: Five hundred thousand? Okay.
Stewart: It's a million gallons total. So, I'm going to turn over the time now to Clint. Go
to the next slide if you would. And he's going to talk a little bit about this service area
map that was based -- that was developed based on our hydraulic model and our land
use planning and we think we could actually serve and these targeted uses that we
want to go after. Yes.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Warren, on the map you have talked to and showed us with the handout
there is some kind of a tank up in the Spurwing development and I can't differentiate the
color, whether it's a batch or a storage, but, anyway, there is a tank up there in that new
development. Has that been coordinated with them?
Stewart: No. And this is one of those things that as we grow as a system -- right now
we couldn't serve them if we wanted to.
Rountree: Right.
Stewart: They have expressed interest in having reclaimed water. They have come to
some of our meetings and we have had conversations with them and I don't want to get
too worried about the actual location of those tanks. We place them pretty generically,
so it makes -- you know, that's not exactly the location that that needs to necessarily be.
We just are going to need storage, because that's a long ways from the -- from the
treatment plant. We are going to need storage up in that. neighborhood somewhere in
that area in order to serve that golf course if we ever do.
De Weerd: Well, it's a thereabouts mark on the map.
Stewart: Correct. Correct.
Rountree: And what was the poundage of phosphorus you said we had not delivered to
the Boise River?
Stewart: Based on my understanding -- and I -- you know, we, essentially, delivered
about 23 million gallons of reclaimed water out to Heroes Park and to the interchange
and so forth and I did some rough calculations based on our average flows, an average
day at the treatment plant of somewhere between five -- or in upper five and a half to six
and a half million gallons a day and Tracy had indicated that based on those kind of
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 46 of 66
flows that we are somewhere between 250 to 300 pounds a day phosphorus that would
be normal for that kind of flow. So, I just did the math and essentially it comes to
approximately 1,000 pounds of phosphorus that we couldn't have essentially delivered
to the Boise River because of reuse.
Rountree: It just doesn't seem like it's near big enough. You're only talking about three
pounds a day.
De Weerd: That's year around, though.
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Councilman --
Rountree: Or was that a daily base?
Stewart: That's a -- the 250 to 300 is a daily --
Rountree: Yeah.
Stewart: -- amount based on six million -- approximately six million gallons of effluent
treated. So, six goes into 23, you know, not quite four times. So, three times 250 --
eight hundred -- you know, your rough math approximately a thousand pounds.
Rountree: Okay.
Stewart: Is my math right?
Rountree: Yeah. I'm trying to extend it on an annual basis.
Stewart: Okay. So, if we can -- if we can grow the program and deliver more reclaimed
water we will definitely get rid of even more pounds of phosphorus. Anymore questions
before I turn it over to Clint? If not, Clint.
Worthington: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, hi. I'm going to back up just a
little bit here before I get into the map and go over a couple of things, so -- Tom, if you
could go ahead one slide. Thank you. I will be going over the most recent work with
the recycled water program that we have been doing. We have identified the needs for
a process as it relates to development being conditioned to connect to the end use
recycled water. We have begun to establish this program and the following are needed
components of this process. They include the following documents: Developing an
ordinance and service area map, which Warren just showed you. A standard user
application. A standard user agreement. Design standards and specifications and I just
want to point out that currently we have all of these completed in draft form right now.
Tom, can I get the next slide?
De Weerd: Vanna? Tom Barry. You want to advance the slide.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 47 of 66
Hoaglun: Clint, you need to get better help. I don't know where you get some of these
people.
Worthington: Next I just wanted to briefly go over what makes up each of these
documents and what their purpose is. The recycled water ordinance, like ordinances for
water and wastewater there are rules and regulations for the recycled water program.
The ordinance will also address key structures, which with recycled water are currently
-- they are currently healthy, but the ordinance will be written to give us the ability to
change that in the future if we need to do that. Next slide, please. The service area
map which Warren mentioned previously has been created using modeling and our
comprehensive land use plan. This map includes area within our city's permitted limits
as the most feasible areas to serve based on modeling and our comprehensive plan
target areas based on zoning. The service area map allows us to capture new
developments as they begin the submittal process with the city. So, this is our draft
service area map that you say earlier. Kind of give a little explanation to it. The areas
within the solid gray boundary are primary service areas. They are considered primary,
because they are located along the Ten Mile corridor, as Warren mentioned, and are
the largest areas to potentially serve for the least amount of infrastructure cost. The
areas within the dashed gray line are the secondary areas, which are more of the
outliers and would cost more in infrastructure to serve them, which makes them
secondary. The colors on the map represent different uses based on zoning, with the
exception of the darker blue, which is existing areas. The lighter blue areas are
potential nonresidential areas, which are our primary target, which would -- that would
include industrial, commercial, those types of uses. These areas would include
commercial and industrial type uses. The gray color are areas that are residential and
more of a secondary target, with the exception of landscaping and common areas within
those residential developments. The bold magenta line represents piping that is
existing and the dashed magenta line being needed future piping. The tank symbols, as
Councilman Rountree pointed out earlier on the map, represent future storage tanks
needed to serve the area surrounding their location. The primary purpose is to allow us
to store water pumped from the treatment plant during the day and distribute that water
at night for irrigation use. Next slide, please. So, next I will go onto the next document
that we found a need for the programs or process that is a user application. This
application would be submitted by the developer or owner if the property is within the
service area map. The application will provide info specific to the owner's name,
location of the development, development -- type of development, proposed use for
recycled water quantity requirements. This application would then be reviewed and
modeled by Public Works to determine whether the development would be required to
connect to recycled water. Next slide. Once the development is determined to be
conditioned to use recycled water by the application process, agreement will be
prepared that will include the owner, location of the development, allowed uses of
recycled water, allowed quantity of recycled water, allowed times of use, and any fee
associated. Of course, as we said earlier there are currently no fees. The use
agreement will go along with the development agreement for a subdivided agreement
and is, basically, a legal agreement with the developer for specifics of recycled water
use. Design standards of the document that will be used to -- by design engineers to
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 48 of 66
insure that recycled water within developments, as well as capital projects are
consistent with the following design concepts, format, methodology, procedures, quality
of work, and adhering to other applicable standards, such as DEQ, IDWR, Idaho
Standards for Public Works Construction and others. Lastly are the -- are develop any
specifications for recycled water to be included in the city's supplemental specifications
to the ICWC. These specs guide construction activities and will be much like water and
sewer supplemental specs, but more specific to recycled water. They will include
requirements on construction materials, workmanship, and pay items. So, I have put
together some process flows of a couple different scenarios of how the recycled water
process would work for new developments and how they will be incorporated as a city
process, meaning the applications and the service agreements that I mentioned. The
first scenario would be for subdivided land development projects, which include
anything that requires a plat approval. Go to the next one. The second scenario is for
developments where land isn't being subdivided and requires a CZC and a building
permit. These flows -- these process flows are drafts and we will still need to get
consensus with other city departments, such as development services and the building
division before they can be finalized. So, our intent is to take these draft documents
and create a public outreach plan and reach out to developers, irrigation districts,
engineers, the BCA and, of course, our citizens and customers. The goal is to then
finalize the documents and programs based on comments and discussions on our
public outreach efforts. At this point we haven't started putting together that outreach
plan, but would be a next step in continuing with the program. The next item is fees.
Currently fees for recycled water use are waived, including application fees,
assessment fees, meter fees, and usage fees. We recommend this continues, for the
fact that the recycled water system essentially serves as a treatment option for the
wastewater treatment plant and acts as a trade-off for costly improvements at the
treatment plant. Recycled water also benefits the city water system by using recycled
water in place of potable water, which are used as -- as potable water usage and acts
as a conservation measure. So, our next steps. We would like to get Council direction
on how to proceed with the recycled water programs from this point and the options
would include, one, continue implementing the program, complete the draft program
process documents that I went over. Perform the public outreach, finalize the draft
documents, and implement the process. And the second option would be to put the
program on hold until the NPDES permit issue is resolved. Next slide.
Hoaglun: Clint, before you -- Madam Mayor. Before you move, that first option, number
one, what's your guess of the time frame on something like that?
Worthington: I think we could -- the documents are -- need to be reviewed internally.
Like I said, they are in draft, so they need to be finalized in a more substantial draft form
and, then, we need to perform a public outreach and I think, you know, with some of the
players and that, irrigation district and -- irrigation district mostly, it could take awhile --
six months. Six month time frame.
Hoaglun: My guess was a year, but Ididn't -- I wasn't sure, so --
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 49 of 66
Worthington: Well, six months to a year.
Hoaglun: Okay. I just wanted a context to consider against the NPDES permit process.
Worthington: Okay. Okay. Our recommended option, of course, is the first option, to
proceed with the program and continue the process. We feel like this is the way to go
for a few reasons. It allows us to capture any new development within the service area
and get them using recycled water, which provides benefit to both water and
wastewater systems. This option also assists us in staying within our wastewater
treatment plant permitted capacity limits without costly upgrades, as Warren mentioned
earlier. And, thirdly, having an established water -- recycled water program could
potentially be beneficial with the EPA and a new NPDES pool. So, with that I will stand
for any comments or questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Clint. Any comments or questions from Council?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: One very minor thing and this is on the -- oh. I appreciate the work that
you're doing on the program. It's doing great. But on the user agreements, you had a
couple categories there that would probably include my comment, but it's so important
that we make sure that nobody make across-connection to the potable water system,
that I would elevate that to a capital subject and give it its title and a separate paragraph
and not fold it into a subject of thou shalts and thou shalt not make -- make it a separate
thing that stands out.
Worthington: That's a good point, Councilman Zaremba. We -- actually, that's going to
be in the ordinance as well. The ordinance and the user agreement, like you said.
Zaremba: Well, I'm sure it would be in the ordinance, but I just want it right in front of
them, so that everybody knows.
Worthington: Sounds good.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Zaremba: And as an opinion I would go for option one.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 50 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: It's a great program. I think we need to move forward with it. I have some
concerns about fully developing option one. It's an unknown. We don't know what the
regulators are going to do. We already have made some promises to some public out
there for delivery and not been terribly successful. I fully support that we engage the
regulators and the folks that are stakeholders in terms of control of water, but if you start
entertaining this as a public process and you build the public's expectation that this is a
good thing and it's going to be there and you get a bunch of people signed up to do it
and, then, either we can't deliver it or we won't be delivering it because the regulatory
process won't allow it or, thirdly, our permit is such that it's not economically feasible for
us to proceed and, then, you have to turn around and you tell those folks thanks for
spending the year working with us to develop all of this bureaucracy, but, you know
what, it's not going to work. I don't like to do that to people. I have had it done to me
too many times in the past. I don't know where the middle ground is. But I think we
need to advance and get some of the leg work done up front. Definitely. But at some
point I think we need to put it to rest until -- we can go out and say we want to complete
this, because we know we can. And knowing what strings might be put on how we can
move forward, we can, then, move forward in that fashion and not build an expectation
that we may not be able to deliver.
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, fully understand the regulatory
environment that we are in and it causes us a lot of concern as well in trying to move
forward. In fact, we have -- we have taken steps to sort of put the brakes on capital
improvements in the reclaimed water system for the time being. Our concern is around
the existing infrastructure that lies sitting out there in the ground. If we have another --
let's say Walmart that comes in adjacent to our existing pipe and they are interested,
our concern is right now we don't have a very good process in place to say who -- you
know, what, where, when are we going to allow these people to hook up and under
what conditions and how are we going to regulate that connection and so on and so
forth. So, we feel like there is some need to answer some of those questions and put
some structure together for the immediate -- so, it may come in very easy targets to add
to the system and -- and be able to answer those questions and guide them through a
process that makes sense and determine whether or not they should use reclaimed
water. However, like I had indicated, our present program with the present
infrastructure at the wastewater treatment plant, quote, to max out if we just served
everybody that we could. So, even with that in mind, we would have to come back to
the Council if there were anew -- another Walmart or whatever store come along that
corridor somewhere and say we want to use that water. We would have to come back
to you and seek some funding for some additional booster pumps out at the wastewater
treatment plant and we will have the opportunity I think at that time to say, okay, this is a
target of opportunity, we want to pass on or do we want to give them the nod and say
yes. And there is a bit of a chicken and the egg here going on, but we feel like there is
a need for some structure to administer the program and -- that's already available to us
based on the existing infrastructure in the ground, but we also recognize that we don't
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 51 of 66
really want to get too aggressive about trying to expand the capital infrastructure at this
stage until after the permit's renegotiated. So, I don't know if that's helpful or not.
Rountree: No. I understand where you're coming from. I'm just concerned about -- if it
comes across as this is a selling process and we are out there soliciting folks that want
to participate in this and you build that expectation for them and, then, we either can't or
won't deliver, it's another black eye.
Barry: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: But, then, again, it's an unknown. We -- we don't know.
De Weerd: Mr. Barry.
Barry: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And, Councilman Rountree, you have hit the
dilemma right on the -- right squarely where it is and, you know, the way that we have
been proceeding with the current customer base is, essentially, under a first right of
refusal basis. Now, we only have been serving, essentially, irrigation customers, if you
will, except for Mr. Eddy down at Fast Eddy's there on Ten Mile and when we have
spoken with folks that are interested in this program we have told them that we would
like for them to participate and they have agreed to participate voluntarily, but that if we
are not ready or unable to serve them, that this first right of refusal would kick in under
their agreements and they could go to an alternative source with no additional cost.
Essentially the system we are establishing here would require from an irrigation
standpoint -- I'm talking about the irrigation system here. Would require them to newly
connect anyways for the primary water to be reclaimed and the secondary to be surface
irrigation. So, in that case they are building the same infrastructure they would normally
have to build with the same back flow prevention devises and those sorts of things and
-- and that's the way we have approached this and people seem pretty open to that.
What we are trying to do with tonight's presentation is, obviously, give you a status of
where we are in the program, continue to highlight some of the vulnerabilities, but also
formalize, essentially, the program as it has begun to evolve and that formalization
involves the things that Mr. Worthington and Mr. Stewart had described with regard to
the service area map, the conditions, the requirements, the specifications on those
developments that want to participate in this program and the process by which we
would evaluate whether they would be eligible or not. So, what this is is really a
formalization of the program without trying to put too much more capital into it. We do
want to formalize the actual process, so that those that come in and volunteer for this
have some assurance of the possibilities of the program and also the vulnerabilities in
such a way that they can make decisions regarding how they would design and operate
their infrastructure according to the possible limitations or lack thereof of the system.
Rountree: Well, as long as the latter is perfectly clear that whoever wants to sign up for
this service I'm okay with it, but it's not something we want to go out and wave our flag
about. It's -- it's a risk for both parties.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 52 of 66
Barry: It is definitely a --
Rountree: If they want to invest with us in that I'm okay with that and, I agree, we need
a process in order to do that. But the process needs to be perfectly clear that this -- we
don't know which is the high road and we don't know which is the low road.
Barry: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: And I think we knew that when we went down this road that being a
recommend trailblazer is not always the easiest in both delivering to the -- the public
piece to it and to the commercial piece and with being the first we will work out a lot of
kinks, which, indeed, we have and it's a good caution, but I would agree with the earlier
statement that EPA has been supportive of this and I would imagine they would
continue to as part of the permit, but it is a gamble. It's been a gamble. It's been a
gamble I think this Council has been willing to take and commit to, because it is the right
thing to do and it has allowed us to -- to weather continued growth as another strategy,
even interim to a long-term plan. So, I appreciate where we are today and to proceed
cautiously in how we continue to -- to build this strategy in dealing with phosphorus and
some of our flow issues until we do get a new permit.
Stewart: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Stewart: Council Members, I wonder if it would be -- if it would make it a little easier if
part of this outreach program -- I mean, obviously, we haven't developed that and we
are interested in doing this public outreach specifically because we want to -- we want
to make sure that we have agreements with the irrigation districts that they are
comfortable with and that we are comfortable with and we want to make sure the
development community is comfortable with, you know, the design standards and the
specifications and so forth. We would certainly, as a part of this, you know, public
outreach program make sure that one very significant component of that was the fact --
aclear expectation that this may go away, depending on regulatory requirements.
Rountree: I think that's cornerstone.
Stewart: So, we can definitely make that a major part of that outreach program to make
sure people are aware you're engaging in this program with us, but regulatory
requirements change and they could have drastic effects on where we go with this,
depending on what those regulatory requires are.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, that was my comment. I was agreeing with what Councilman
Rountree was saying, but we just -- as we go through this process and work with people
we have to make it perfectly clear that the regulatory rug could be pulled out from it at
some point in time by the EPA. If they know that and still want to work with us and go
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 53 of 66
through the process, that's great, but we just have to be clear about it. So, I think you're
right on track, Warren.
Rountree: So, will you take that a step further and put that into your agreements, then,
and applications as well? Make that clear when a user comes in to use recycled water?
Barry: Yeah. Madam Mayor, if I may, the discussion is I think -- is I think very
appropriate regarding where we are in the program. But there is just somewhat of a
crossroads where if we are going to pursue reclaimed water as a regulatory approach --
and (think we all recognize that at anytime, as Mr. Hoaglun has just stated, at anytime
whether it be in the next permit, the permit after that, the permit after that, there could
be at anytime -- these regulations are constantly changing -- an undermining of the
reclaimed water program. I think the likelihood of that happening the further we are in
the program is -- is lower and -- but there are no guarantees. The challenge here is if
we make the program optional as a treatment alternative, then, it doesn't work as a
treatment alternative. And so there is some -- some balance that has to be brought to
the discussion with regard to voluntary participation in the program and the vulnerability
that that places potentially on the customer against the city's need to get rid of the
water, which is, essentially, a treatment alternative if you will. And that's what we are
trying to balance here is the risks of the program, both from the city's perspective and
the end user's perspective, but also the need for the program to disseminate water as
widely as we can in order to make it viable. If we make this thing optional for those who
are in the primary service areas and they choose not to participate, I'm not sure that we
have a viable program and so there is -- that needs to be incorporated as part of the
discussion, I believe.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor and Tom -- yeah, I think that's a good discussion to have at
the point we have agreement with all the parties involved that need to be on board with
this that might have objections. So, until we reach that point where certain parties are
on board and say, yeah, your reclaimed water can be used in -- in place of ours, then,
think we could move forward for those -- from optional to -- to mandatory, but I want to
see that component first, because that could be difficult, so --
Barry: You bet. And we would be happy to do that.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm just -- certainly the EPA has approved or accepted reclaimed water
systems all over the country. I think one of the issues is many places where it's
commonly used they do irrigate and water their lawns and golf courses all 12 months of
the year, so -- one of our risks is if we get a year around restriction, then, there is three
or four months where we have a problem. But just to throw an opinion in, an anecdotal
opinion, I don't think the EPA is out to undue reclaimed water programs and I would
expect them to work with us for a resolution, of course, when they eventually bring their
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 54 of 66
hammer down and say this is the way it is, then, we have to live with that. But I -- they
have been supportive of reclaimed water programs other places and I would look to
them to continue that, just to be optimistic.
Worthington: And, hopefully, the local EPA, who is really supportive of it, has some
clout with the national EPA that can -- that's going to be pending sorting it out, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Anything else from staff? Did you get
feedback -- enough feedback? Do you want me --
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think if I got the gist of the
conversation is go ahead and proceed, proceed with caution and make sure everybody
is fully aware of the vulnerabilities associated with reclaimed water.
De Weerd: Sounds like it in a nutshell.
Barry: Thank you.
Department Report: eco mention to Adopt an
mendment to the City's olid ste ®rdinance Regarding
Commercial Recycling ervices by on-Franchised
Commercial Recyclers within City Limits (Commercial
ecyclin rdinance)
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Clint. Okay. Item 8-C is from our Solid Waste
Advisory Committee.
Mangerich: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm here this
evening representing the Solid Waste Advisory Commission. Forthwith I will refer to as
SWAC. I'd also like to mention to our Council and Mayor tonight that we are pleased to
also have in our audience representatives from a local recycling company, Western
Recycling company is here, as well as Steve Sedlacek, who can speak to those
historical services to SSC when he was our provider and now Republic Services, our
current solid waste provider. Meridian has enjoyed an exclusive solid waste franchise
agreement currently with Republic Service, providing services to residential, commercial
and multi-family premises within our city limits. Soon after the assignment of the SSC
solid waste franchise agreement to Republic Services the city was approached by a
local commercial recycler and asking for clarification as to what besides commercial
recycling services, if any, may be offered within the city limits by nonfranchisee
commercial recyclers. So, under the direction of our Mayor's office the staff formed a
subcommittee on this topic and it was comprised of representatives from our local
recycling community within the Treasure Valley Republic Services, our SWAC
members and city staff to review the matter. Meetings were held over a seven month
period with the following results. The committee worked hard in the development of the
initial development of a vast commercial recycling ordinance, which includes a provision
for not only identifying the recyclables that could be collected by nonfranchisees, but
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 55 of 66
also included a provision with a permit or a fee associated with it. After this was
developed we sent cover letters out and mailed out to 18 commercial -- known
commercial recyclers within our Treasure Valley area and, then, provided a public
comment opportunity at the following SWAC advisory commission meeting of which
there was good attendance. Based on comments, based on that first public comment
committee, the working group went back to the board, revised the commercial recycling
ordinance to, A, provide clarification on the definitions within the ordinance and, two,
remove that permit and see the permit provision. So, then, we sent this all back out to
those 18 commercial recycling service providers, opened another public comment
opportunity at the following SWAC meeting of which we received public comment all in
favor of agreeing to the commercial recycling ordinance without the permit provision and
at that SWAC meeting we voted unanimously to bring to you tonight to recommend for
your consideration the commercial recycling ordinance without the permit provision,
which is in your copy -- in your packet this evening. And I stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mollie.
Mangerich: You're welcome.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Mangerich: Well, thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess at this point we will just move into the first reading and see if
there is any comments that wish to be made at that time. So, Madam Clerk, will you,
please, read the Ordinance 13-1551 by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1551, an
ordinance amending Title 4, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 1, Sanitary Service
System of the Meridian City Code for the purpose of including definitions for commercial
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 56 of 66
recycler, coding of recyclable materials and for separated recyclable materials in 4-1-3
and to add: Or commercial recycler to 4-1-10H and to add a new 4-1-11 commercial
recycling exemption and reassign the existing Section 4-1-11 nuisance declared to
Section 4-1-12 and reassign the existing Section 4-1-12 penalty to Section 4-1-13 and
providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide comment on this
item? Okay. Good evening.
Sedlacek: Good evening.
De Weerd: You got to sit through our entire meeting to make comment. Thank you for
joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Sedlacek: Certainly. Steve Sedlacek.
Meridian, Idaho.
Republic Services, 2130 West Franklin,
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sedlacek: I just wanted to provide testimony that we support the ordinance change. It
is codifying basically the world as we know it or as it exists. We needed to update the
ordinances. It was a good idea to do this, so that we could more clearly state what does
go on and what should be going on, I guess, with regard to what's franchisable and
what's not. So, we took part in the process. We like how it came out and we hope that
you support it.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve.
Sedlacek: An questions?
De Weerd: Any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: No. Thank you.
Sedlacek: Could I -- one comment. I think Andrea Pogue did a great job herding all of
us, keeping us in -- on task and getting this thing done, so --
De Weerd: Well, we appreciate everyone that was involved. It was -- I think you ended
with a nice product and it's always the process, the journey of getting there and
appreciate the -- all of those that stuck with it.
Sedlacek: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Additional comment?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 57 of 66
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just would like to say that this is an example of how one of
our standing committees makes our job a little easier. They spent a lot of time
deliberating this, they had a bunch of folks participating when it was discussed in the
open forum of their meetings there really wasn't any major dialogue from the public,
they had already addressed the issues. They addressed some of the issues that I
brought up and I think they have done an excellent job of bringing all of that together
and did the wordsmithing and the committee did the logic and reasoning and brought
this particular ordinance proposal and change forward and I think it's a -- again, it's an
example of the -- the good work that our committees can do for us.
Bird: Amen.
De Weerd: If there is no comment, I guess I would look to Council for what you would --
this is -- this is listed as the first reading. If you would prefer to have second and third
reading at our next meeting or we can have it for the next couple of weeks.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would move that we move this forward to a second and
third reading at our next regularly scheduled meeting.
Bird: Second and third reading.
Rountree: Second and third. Yes.
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd: Okay. I'm not sure if you need a motion to do that, but I appreciate the
direction and we will put it on our next agenda for the second and third -- and final
reading for Council action on the 23rd. Sound like a plan? Okay. Very good. And
thank you for sticking out the meeting to be here for this item. Appreciate it. And your
involvement in the process.
Fire a rtent: M Joint oers reement icusion
De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-E is our Fire Department. Chief Niemeyer.
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, good morning.
De Weerd: It's not that late.
Niemeyer: Happy to report I do not have a PowerPoint and on this issue the police
department and myself are in total agreement, so we have gone with improvement.
De Weerd: We are improving with the evening.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 58 of 66
Niemeyer: This is a follow-up discussion to the EMS joint powers agreement
presentation that I gave last week. Certainly this historic nature of this discussion I want
to give it due time, but in the interest of time and looking for a little bit of direction on
what you want to take. Within your packet you should have an updated agreement that
identifies an issue that I believe Councilman Rountree brought up regarding the joint
powers board configuration of a number of folks that are on that board and specifically
the county commissioners having two representatives and, then, the rest of the
agencies having one. That got cleaned up by the legal teams at work. The other two
issues that were brought up during the presentation, one was termination of the
agreement. Through the discussion with the other agencies and legal teams working on
the agreement, it was kind of a unanimous consent that if the agreement is terminated
that would require unanimous consent to terminate the agreement, no differently than if
we make a change to the system and so we felt like the language currently in the
agreement recognizes that and has a provision for it. And, then, the other one that got
brought up was joint purchasing of real property and the question was what does that
mean, what does it look like. Under Section 4.5 prior to any joint purchasing happening
there would have to be by resolution outlining the distribution and ownership of that
property. So, before we even spend any money or did something together on any kind
of joint purchase, that resolution would have to be adopted prior and so we feel like that
was covered. In addition to that, you should have within your packet a document that
states fire department follow EMS joint powers agreement. These were issues,
thoughts, ideas that you as Council came to me with individually stating can we get
some clarification here, can we possibly make a change here and so we have outlined
those in the issues. Some of them we certainly can change to accommodate better
language. Others we are kind of stuck with. And an example of that is the separation of
the Ada County Commissioners with the Ada County Paramedics and district
commissioners. It doesn't make any sense to us, because they wear the same hat. It
doesn't make any sense to the director in the sense that they wear the same hat, but as
a result of the Kuna versus Ada County lawsuit that took place one of the prevailing
items that their legal team took out of that was the prosecuting attorney saying you need
to have clear delineation between these two groups. It's one of the things that the judge
mentioned also as a conflicting or -- a conflicting issue, so there needed to be
separation, so that's why you see it here that those two same groups wear different hats
and they are identified as such. As much as it confuses the language a little bit. I see
Councilman Rountree smiling on that one.
Rountree: Leave it to the lawyers.
Niemeyer: So, with that certainly
through this item by item to discus
you have seen within the document
De Weerd: Thank you, Chief.
looking for some direction here. We can either go
s or I could take questions from you based on what
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 59 of 66
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On your board quorum of 50 percent, I don't go for that. You got to be above 50
percent for a quorum.
Niemeyer: Okay.
Bird: And also in your agreement it's appoint chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, those
should be elected by the board members. It shouldn't be appointed.
Niemeyer: Elected instead of appointed?
Bird: Yeah. And the biggest -- the biggest thing we -- I compared this with the last draft
that we spent four years working on, there is some things in here that I -- to be blunt,
there is some things in here that -- that certain people within Ada County pushed to get
out of the state draft and now they are showing up in here that we weren't in favor of.
So, I -- I think you need to go forward on it, but I need some clarification. I think what
you did for Mr. Rountree's deal clarified a lot of stuff.
Niemeyer: Yes.
Bird: But the quorum has got to be over 50 percent, in my opinion.
Niemeyer: Just a follow up to that, Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird. Is there any
recommended number that you would like to see as a --
Bird: I think you got to do at least one over.
De Weerd: Just do percent plus one.
Niemeyer: Plus one?
Bird: Yeah.
Niemeyer: Okay.
Bird: So, if you have got five on there, you have got to have three.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I had a question for the lawyers on this. It was in page four, 3.4 withdrawal
and 2.4.1 said no party shall withdraw from this agreement unless it demonstrates one
or more of the following circumstances and, then, they delineate what those are. But --
and, then, I'm used to the fact that we as a Council -- we can enact something, but a
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 60 of 66
future Council is not bound by that, they can undo or redo and move forward and that
kind of speaks to that under page five, 3.4.3, there is a voluntary withdrawing or for
cause, but that first section on withdrawal, it just says it's going to be this, this, this or
this. So, I just wanted some clarification. Does this all work? I know there is a penalty
for withdrawing and that's what a future Council could -- would have to consider, but I
just wanted clarification, Bill, from -- are we -- is that okay? Just wasn't totally clear to
me.
Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, I think
the chief, since he was involved in negotiations, can probably talk about what the intent
-- because I think maybe what's necessary is some clarification, because I do think the
ultimate intent of the agreement is once the parties sign onto this, then, they really have
to work together to change it or if they really can't work together, then, if any individual
party wants to leave, then, really the penalty -- the sort of death penalty they get is they
are not performing this service. The -- I think the intent of the others -- and maybe
some clarification is needed, but is trying to get some -- put some framework around
how to work out whatever those differences are that talks about funding and staffing and
those types of things and maybe chief can expand on that, but it seems like one is really
designed to try to negotiate a resolution and one is saying if you can't do anything or
you just want out, you can get out, but here is the -- here is the --
Niemeyer: Yeah. I can follow up on that, Councilman Hoaglun. Ted and I worked on
this, we probably didn't get that to you in time. 3.4.1, outside of the court order that
would be 3.4.1.2, the other -- yeah. The other three are really dealing with voluntary
withdrawal from the -- in other words, we have a financial hardship, we can't continue to
provide this service and Mr. Nary hit it right on the head, the goal is for the system to
work with that agency or that jurisdiction to try and continue to keep them in the system,
if they can't, then, they can't, and so we have some language that identifies how you go
about doing that. 3.6 is where the board would say you are not in compliance with the
agreement and through a vote would, then, have, essentially, a forced withdrawal if you
will. And so 3.4 really gives it voluntarily, withdrawing other than the court order. 3.6 is
where a board takes an action against an agency due to noncompliance with the
agreement.
Hoaglun: And if -- but if they -- would the parties still be part of the board when that vote
is taken?
Niemeyer: Yes. But they aren't in the unanimous consent.
Hoaglun: Right. Okay.
Niemeyer: I think, you know, the reality is if we get to that point where there is that big
of an issue -- I'm only trying to forecast in the future, but my guess would be that the
agency has some reason why they cannot continue in the system and it's going to go
down the voluntary pathway.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 61 of 66
Hoaglun: Okay. Makes sense. Thank you.
De Weerd: Additional questions? So, I -- I guess, chief, there is still a couple of tweaks
that need to be made and, then, maybe you can bring it back in in full.
Niemeyer: And just an update on that, as I have discussed this with the other agencies,
there is only one party that jumped ahead and signed the agreement and that's North
Ada County Fire and we understand that as the commissioners finalize reading through
this they may have a couple questions. The city of Boise receives their presentation the
end of the month. They certainly may have questions. What we are going to be asking
our elected bodies to do is once they are comfortable with the agreement, once we
have all the tweaks to it, is to approve for the Mayor or the chair to sign and do a joint
signing where we have all the agencies at one table doing the signing. So, that's the
plan moving forward. So, the next time I come back to report to you it will be after all
the inputs have been given, the final tweaks have been made to make sure we
represent everybody's interest and, then, we will come back to you with a final product
on that request.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have got -- I have got a question. North Ada has -- aren't they in a joint powers
agreement with Boise city?
Niemeyer: They are.
Bird: Why are they listed when Meridian rural or none of them are under the same
agreement?
Niemeyer: The only reason that they are listed is that they still hold an EMS agency
license. When Whitney and Boise did their agreement Whitney removed their EMS
license. North Ada still has an EMS license, because they provide service up in Hidden
Springs and that's not part of the Boise agreement.
Bird: They are actually running a unit themselves then, Mark?
Niemeyer: Correct.
Bird: Okay. I did not realize that. Okay.
Niemeyer: Yeah. We asked that question initially, too, and we liked what the answer
was.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 62 of 66
De Weerd: I'm glad you had an answer. So, to bring this back with, again, the
changes, Council, then, you can either act on it then or you can wait if you feel more
comfortable after, you know, a couple of others have signed onto it and it won't change.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Keith indicated he had some issues between this and the
previous draft and changes that apparently were not necessarily agreeable. I would
hope that -- and not here, but you have an opportunity to talk to Mark and get those
resolved and get the resolution of those to us --
Bird: I have sat in on those things before and --
Rountree: So, we know what the issues have been and what the resolution is.
Bird: And I will tell you guys publicly, if you -- if we go for this, leave your egos at the
door when you go in, because there is no room on a committee like this for your political
egos. That was the biggest thing we fought for years was egos. Leave them at the
door when you go in.
De Weerd: And, fortunately, this agreement requires you to check egos at the door.
Bird: It says to, but it don't.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I agree that there is some little tweaking that needs to go on here, although I
guess my question would be do you need to bring this back next week. If Boise is going
to be considering it later in the month -- although next week is almost the end of the
month, but I'm not sure there is anything more we can add until we find out whether
other agencies are making tweaks to it. So, I would like a report back, but I don't need it
next week I don't think.
Niemeyer: I would agree wholeheartedly. I think it makes the most sense to wait until
we have all the tweaks on the table from all the elected officials and, then, bring back to
you a final product.
De Weerd: Well, let's target May 7th to get an update and we will go from there.
Niemeyer: Sounds good.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Thanks, Mark.
Niemeyer: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 63 of 66
De Weerd: Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Is May 7th election day? I think we are having our meeting on May 8th.
De Weerd: No. May 7th is not election day.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
De Weerd: May 21st is.
Zaremba: 21st. Okay.
Bird: The 21st is.
Zaremba: Wrong date stuck in my head.
De Weerd: I hope you get it unstuck.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. We are at Item F. We are zipping through this -- this agenda.
Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the shortest
presentation you will have tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: It's over?
Nary: No.
De Weerd: It's hard to believe.
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 64 of 66
Nary: If you don't interrupt me it will be the shortest. All it is that's in front of you is you
have previously heard this, this is the Red Tail development agreement modification by
Red Wing Subdivision -- or Red Wing Subdivision. The original development
agreement that was in front of you or the modification that you saw a couple weeks ago,
had as part of Exhibit D some photographs of the types of buildings they would
construct on the property. They were, basically, photographs of other developments
and other properties. Subsequent to that -- to that hearing they have actually provided
four pages of actual architectural renderings of buildings, so they asked to add that into
the development agreement, so you would actually have what they are actually going to
build, not a picture of something that was built elsewhere. So, we said that was fine, as
long as the Council is aware of it and they knew if they were approving this modification
that was all that was added into it. So, it's ready for approval, just wanted to make sure
you were aware of it.
Bird: Bring it forward.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: You can approve it now.
Bird: This is it, isn't it? Yeah.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move we approve MDA 13-002.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the MDA 13-002. Any comments
from Council? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item rdinance
Ordinance o. 1-1 n rdinance ( 1-002 Red in
Subdivision) For The e- one Of Tract f Land Situate In
Portion O The Northwest ne uarter f ection 30,
Township orth, nge 1 East, oise eridian, City
IVleridin, ituated In da County, Idaho nd Adjacent n
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 65 of 66
De Weerd: Item No. 9-A is Ordinance 13-1552. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read
this ordinance by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 13-1552, an
Ordinance RZ 13-002, Red Wing Subdivision, for the rezone of a tract of land situated in
a portion of the northwest one quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East,
Boise meridian, City of Meridian, situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and
contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of
Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of R-4, Low
Density Residential, 16.55 acres, and R-15, medium high residential, 16.32 acres,
zoning district in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be
filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and
providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only and I don't see anyone who
would even like to hear it read in its entirety.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Council? Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing that Frank don't want it read or Robert, either one, I will move that we pass
Ordinance No. 13-1552, with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Future eeting Topics
De Weerd: Any items from Council for future meeting agendas?
Meridian City Council
April 16, 2013
Page 66 of 66
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED At 10:33 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR T DE WEERD
Jr /~/°~ O/.3
DATE APPROVED
Item #76: Knightsky Estates (VAR -13-001)
Application(s):
➢ Access Variance to Chinden Boulevard
_,ze of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.34 acres, is currently zoned C -C, and is located on the NWC
of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard,
History: In 2006, the property received annexation and preliminary plat approval for a mixed-use development. As part of the
annexation approval, a DA was required. Over the last couple years, several addendums to that DA have occurred as well.
In 2011, a portion of the property was rezoned and platted for the development of a 9 -hole executive golf course and estate lot
subdivision known as the Spurwing Challenge Subdivision, The R-8 portion of the property was removed from the original development
agreement and subject to a new one. The remnant 9.34 acre piece is partially developed and is the subject of the proposed variance
application. This portion of the property is still governed by the previous recorded development agreements and requires a
development agreement modification prior to moving forward with the development of the property.
Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a right-in/right-out access point to SH 20/26 for a
commercial development. The proposed access is located approximately 500 feet west of the of Linder/Chinden signalized intersection.
For illustrative purposes, the applicant has submitted a concept plan depicting a neighborhood commercial development and additional
access points to the development.
UDC 11-31-1-46, regulates the standards for access to SH 20/26. Because the use of the site is proposed to change from agricultural to
a neighborhood commercial development, the UDC restricts access to the state highway. In 2006, ACHD approved an access point to
Linder Road and the Spurwing Challenge Subdivision to the west (currently under construction) is required to provide local street
access to the property. The approved street network parallels SH 20/26 and connects to N. Long Lake Way; a signalized intersection at
the half -mile, which is consistent with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan.
ITD has commented that the proposed access point meets District policies however, the approval has not been granted because the
proposed access violates City ordinance. Further, ITD has not indicated what site improvements or safety measures would be required
with the construction of the access point. The City still retains the authority to restrict access into the site from the state highway.
order to grant a variance, the Council needs to make the following findings:
1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. Staff is of the opinion that
granting a variance would allow a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed for properties that are adjacent to a
state highway. Both the commercial property to the south and the residential subdivision to the west of this property have
restricted access at the half -mile mark. Further, the ten (10) acre parcel on the southwest corner of Linder/Chinden was
denied access to Chinden Boulevard. With development of the site, a backage road/commercial driveway will be required that
connects to Linder Road and the residential subdivision to the west in accord with the UDC.
2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. Since future access can be facilitated from
Linder Road, a future commercial driveway and the road network approved with the Spurwing Challenge Subdivision, staff is
of the opinion there are no site characteristics that create an undue hardship.
3. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare Staff is of the opinion granting the subject
variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare by increasing the hazards associated with vehicles
entering/exiting the site and merging with traffic travelling at high rates of speed on Chinden Boulevard.
Staff recommends denial of the subject variance application.
Written Testimony: John Overton w/ Meridian PD recommends denial of the variance request due to traffic conflicts that may occur.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: Granting access that is not consistent with the UDC, Comprehensive Plan and the Draft 20/26
Access Management Plan.
Notes:
Item #7C: Sadie Creek Promenade (MDA -13.005)
Application(s):
➢ Development Agreement Modification
—,ze of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 14.79 acres, is currently zoned C -G, and is
located on the southwest corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Centrepoint Commercial development, zoned C -G
South: Bienville Square Subdivision, zoned R-8, R-15 and C -G
West: Carol Subdivision, zoned R-2
East: Gateway Marketplace Subdivision; zoned C -G
History: In 2004 (AZ only) and 2005 (AZ, PP and CUP) the property received annexation; preliminary plat and conditional use permit
approval for a mixed use commercial development. With annexation approval, development agreements were required, Both the plat
and the conditional use permit have expired but the property is subject to both development agreements.
Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting to modify the recorded DA approved for the Sadie Creek Promenade project. The
recorded DA allows the development of approximately 150,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office uses. With the approval of
the project, a concept plan was submitted for informational purposes only and was not tied to the recorded DA. The applicant has a
new vision for how the property may development and has submitted a concept plan which is to be tied to the amended development
agreement. The applicant states the site will generally develop with similar square footages thus the stated square footages in the
recorded DA are not proposed to change.
The applicant has provided a new concept plan that will be tied to the amended development agreement. The proposed concept plan
depicts fourteen (14) buildings ranging in square footages between 1,705 square feet up to 22,910 square feet. Proposed accesses
include a public street, one full access point and a right-in/right-out only access to point E. Ustick Road. A central private
+reet/commercial drive aisle is also planned to connect the E. Ustick Road full access point with the private street constructed within
Bienville Square Subdivision to the south. A central plaza area is proposed as an amenity for the development.
In general, staff believes the submitted concept plan details the development of the site far better than the previous plan.
Staff believes the suggested changes provide better clarity for the development of site therefore; staff is recommending approval of the
DA modification.
Written Testimony: Matt Schultz, in agreement with the proposed DA changes attached in Exhibit A.5 of the staff report.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Notes:
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Water and Sewer Main Easement for Commercial Southwest Subdivision No. 2
MEETING NOTES
WIN
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
WE IAMA
Community Development
Department
TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Members of the City*Council
FROM: Steve O'Brien
DATE: 4/3/13
Land Development Services
Meridian City Hall, Suite 102
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
SUBJECT: Water and Sewer Main Easement for Commercial Southwest Subdivision No. 2
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. Move to:
1. Approve a Water and Sewer Main Easement for the City of Meridian,
located on the site of Commercial Southwest Subdivision No. 2.
2. This easement provides the City of Meridian access to public sewer and
water mains installed to provide service for Commercial Southwest
Subdivision No. 2.
3. Authorize the Mayor to sign the easement, and the City Clerk to attest.
II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS
Bruce Chatterton, Community Development Director
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager
Steve O'Brien, Development Analyst II -
Steve O'Brien, Development Analyst II
�-AXW,'A"'M T --- ria_ jz�,
IN
Ph: 208.887.2211 0 www.merldiancity.ora
884-5533
489-0362
489-0371
Recommending
Approval
4 Fax 208.887.1297
Rev: 01/2013
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT .00 6
BOISE IDAHO nie Ob 03:16 PM
DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig113041514
Meridian
RECORDED -REQUEST OF
Meridian City
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT
THIS INDENTURE, made this day of Yi 1 , 20 t3 between
parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of-way
across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and
WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground
pipelines to be constructed by others; and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by
the Grantee;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and
other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto
the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary
sewer and water mains over and across the following described property:
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B)
The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary
sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and
replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities
at any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's
successors and assigns forever.
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto,
that after malting repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of
the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and
maintenance.. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring
anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation
of this easement.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Commercial -SW -2 -
Sewer -W ater-Ease.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.
GRA TOR:
President
1Z(0 ,fGb ar! ?00
Address
sem,
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss
County of Ada )
k
On this ,�— day of MA" , 20-L� , before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared DAVM W • T-d1,t21 w{ arid-
- known or identified to me to be the President acrd
Setar?sp$c#ily, of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
ti and year,fiaAb.ove. wt'!Lela.AMANDA McCURRY
� �
h
NOTARY PUBLIC
r
r� - WARY PUBLI F
FA TF OF" I AHO
Residing at:
Commission Expires:_
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement
Sewer-Water-Ease.doe
;al the day
Commercial -SW -2-
GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN
Tammy dyW/erd, Mayor
Jaycee L. Holman, City
Approved By City Council On:
;tco nu�usT
'-1
9�
q city of
EIDIZ
IDAHO
DAH-�
SEAL
j_
=w
U el -5
STATE OF IDAHO, )
ss.
County of Ada )
On this _day of ��r� \ , 2013, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L. Holman, 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.
a�%
N AR Y PUB C FOR I
R ding at: t-(cy�&o vi t D
Commission Expires: \-Vkv) i.1 , 2a1L-�
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Commercial -SW 2-
Sewer-Water-Ease.doc
TEALEY'S LAND 12594 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 160'- Boise, Idaho 83713
SURVEYING (208) 385.0636
a] 0 Fax (208) 385-0696
Project, No.: 3687 EXHIBIT "A"
Date: March 22, 2013
DESCRIPTION
OF
CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER & SEWER MAIN EASEMENT
FOR
COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST SUBDIVISION No. 2
EASEMENT #1:
A parcel of land being a portion of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25, TAN., R.1W.,
B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 25, marked by a brass cap;
thence along the West boundary of said Section 25
North 00°24'56" East 299.14 feet to a point on the extended North boundary of Commercial
Southwest Subdivision No. 1, filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder, Boise,
Idaho in Book 101 of Plats at page 13250; thence along said extended North boundary and said
North boundary
South 89035'04" East 260.54 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said North
boundary
North 00°24'56" East 110.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 89°35'04" West .23,00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00°24'56" East 30.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 89035'04" East 55.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00024'56" East 89.56 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 47006'41" West 109.53 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00024'56" East 85.30 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 89035'04" West 25.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00024'56" East 25.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 8903604" East 25.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00°24'56" East 83.58 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 89°35'04" West 25.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00024'56" East 20.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 89035'04" East 25.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00°24'56" East 33.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 89°35'04" West 25.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00024'56" East 20.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 89°35'04" East 25.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 00°24'56" East 92.43 feet to a point on a curve on the South right-of-way line of West
Deer Crest Street; thence along said South right-of-way line along the arc of a curve to the left
whose radius is 1029.00 feet, whose central angle is 1"40'20", whose length is 30.03 feet and
whose long chord bears
North 87°44'01" East 30.03 feet to a point; thence leaving said South right-of-way line
South 00024'56" West 361.07 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 47006'41" East 60.33 feet to a point; thence continuing
North 42053'19" East 10.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 47006'41" East 20.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 4205319" West 10.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 47°06'41" East 15.64 feet to a point; thence continuing
3687-water-sewer-ease-desc.doc-dnm Page 1 of 2
TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING 12594 W. Explorer Dr., Ste # 150, Boise, ID 83713 * (208) 385-0636
City of Meridian Water and Sewer Main Easements Page 2 of 2
Commercial Southwest Subdivision No. 2
South 00024156" West 238.36 feet to a point on said North boundary of Commercial
Southwest Subdivision No. 1; thence along said North boundary
North 89035'04" West 52.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said Parcel of Land Contains 24,633 Sq. Ft., more or less.
Together With:
EASEMENT #2:
A parcel of land being a portion of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 25, T.4N., R.1W.,
B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 25, marked by a brass cap;
thence along the West boundary of said Section 25
North 00°24'56" East 299.14 feet to a point on the extended North boundary of Commercial
Southwest Subdivision No. 1, filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder, Boise,
Idaho in Book 101 of Plats at page 13250; thence along said extended North boundary
South 89°35'04" East 38.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Commercial Southwest
,Subdivision No. 1 on the East right-of-way line of North Linder Road, marked by an iron pin;
thence along said East right-of-way line
North 00024'56" East 254.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing
North 00°24'56" East 20.00 feet to a point; thence leaving said East right-of-way line .
--South 89°3604"•East 28,00 feet to a point; thence .continuing
North 00°24'56" East 10.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 89035'04" East 20.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
South 00024'56" West 30.00 feet to a point; thence continuing
NQrth.89°35'.04" West 48.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
$aid. Parcel of Land Contains 1,160 .Sq. Ft., more Qr.less,
I
26rl/16
N 00°24138" E
1318.69'
ORNER
I
0----------------------- J---------
0�-
I
WEST DEER CREST STREET
S 89°35'11" E C-2 C-1 C -3--O-_.
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER &
SEWER MAIN EASEMENTS AT
COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST
SUBDIVISION No. 2
A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 SW 1/4, SECTION 25,
T.4N., R.M., B.M.
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
N
�L
SCALE IN FEET
I" = 100'
LINE TABLE
140.64'
TABLE
BEARING
LENGTH
CURVE
N 00'24'56" E(;':;;:;(
DELTA
LENGTH
1
CHORD
92.43'
1029.00'
I
30.03'
9
30,03'
C- 2
38'
I
33.12'
N 89°29'30" E
33.11'
C- 3
.7.
2°56'22"
52.79'
N 85°25'40" E
52.78'
L-7
N 00°24'56" E
20.00'
L-10
S 89'35'04" E
25.00'
L-11
N 42°53'19" E
10.00'
J L-4'*I
S 47'06'41" E
1
N
I
I N 00 °24'56" E I'
co
i
ID
U,
S 47'06'41" E
15.64'
83.58'
N 00'24'56" E
20.00'
�¢
z
e L-3�'
'i
o0
-
L-18
N'fl;:,'
20.00'
L-19
EASEMENT "2"
30.00'
w �I
N 89'35'04" W
i 1,160 S.F.
J al
TN 00°24'56" Eo
0
85,30 '-I(:;
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF MERIDIAN WATER &
SEWER MAIN EASEMENTS AT
COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST
SUBDIVISION No. 2
A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 SW 1/4, SECTION 25,
T.4N., R.M., B.M.
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
N
�L
SCALE IN FEET
I" = 100'
I- zL-17 �: S 47-06-41"
7 / 60.33'
Z L-16 L-18'',� /
L-22�- --N 47°06'41" W
109.53' +
i'
P.O.B. "2" N 00°24'56" E
89.56'
6 S 89 °35'04" E
w I 55.00' �^
i° N 00°24'56" E
v _ 30.00'
I O N'�
Z I N 89 °35'04" W
23.00'
5 o
P.O.B. 'Ili orti.:;
1 - S 89°35'04" E 260.54'
138.00' - - • "
i 222.54'
i
1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF
-" COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST No. I
m SUBDIVISION
N
264 25 WEST McIAILLAN ROAD
35 36
EASEMENT "I"
24,533 S.F.
N 89 °35'04" W
i 52.00'
LINE TABLE
CURVE
TABLE
BEARING
LENGTH
CURVE
RADIUS
DELTA
LENGTH
BEARING
CHORD
C- I
1029.00'
1°40'20"
30.03'
N 87°44'01" E
30,03'
C- 2
1029,00'
1°50'38"
33.12'
N 89°29'30" E
33.11'
C- 3
1029.00'
2°56'22"
52.79'
N 85°25'40" E
52.78'
I- zL-17 �: S 47-06-41"
7 / 60.33'
Z L-16 L-18'',� /
L-22�- --N 47°06'41" W
109.53' +
i'
P.O.B. "2" N 00°24'56" E
89.56'
6 S 89 °35'04" E
w I 55.00' �^
i° N 00°24'56" E
v _ 30.00'
I O N'�
Z I N 89 °35'04" W
23.00'
5 o
P.O.B. 'Ili orti.:;
1 - S 89°35'04" E 260.54'
138.00' - - • "
i 222.54'
i
1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF
-" COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST No. I
m SUBDIVISION
N
264 25 WEST McIAILLAN ROAD
35 36
EASEMENT "I"
24,533 S.F.
N 89 °35'04" W
i 52.00'
TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING
12594 W. EXPLORER DRIVE, SUITE 150, BOISE, ID 83713
3687-Woter- Sewer- Eose.dwg 03-22-13 09:52:58 dmorks 208-385-0636
T
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
LENGTH
L -I
N 89°35'04" W
25.00'
L-2
N 00°24'56" E
25.00'
L-3
S 89 °35'04" E
25.00'
L-4
N 89 °35'04" W
25.00'
L-5
N 00°24'56" E
20.00'
L-6
S 89°35'04" E
25.00'
L-7
N 00°24'56" E
33.00'
L-8
N 89'35'04" W
25.00'
L-9
N 00°24'56" E
20.00'
L-10
S 89'35'04" E
25.00'
L-11
N 42°53'19" E
10.00'
L-12
S 47'06'41" E
20.00'
L-13
S 42°53'19" W
10.00'
L-14
S 47'06'41" E
15.64'
L-15
N 00'24'56" E
20.00'
L-16
S 89°35'04" E
28.00'
L-17
N 00°24'56" E
10.00'
L-18
S 89°35'04" E
20.00'
L-19
S 00°24'56" W
30.00'
L-20
N 89'35'04" W
48.00'
TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING
12594 W. EXPLORER DRIVE, SUITE 150, BOISE, ID 83713
3687-Woter- Sewer- Eose.dwg 03-22-13 09:52:58 dmorks 208-385-0636
T
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5B
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Release of Development Agreement with Red Tail Communities, LLC.
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
When recorded, please return to:
City Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 E. Broadway
Meridian, Idaho 83642
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT .00
BOISE IDAHO 04/11/13 03:16 PM I
DEPUTY Bonnie Oherbillig
RECORDED -REQUEST OF 1141513
Meridian Ciry
RELEASE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Release of Development Agreement (this "Release") made by and between the City of
Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation ("City") and Red Tail Communities LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("Owner").
WHEREAS, City and Owner's predecessor -in -title entered into that certain Development
Agreement dated August 28, 2006, and recorded in the real property records of Ada County, Idaho, on
or about September 21, 2006, as Instrument No. 106151214, as amended by that certain Addendum to
Development Agreement dated May 12, 2008, and recorded in the real property records of Ada County,
Idaho, on or about June 6, 2008, as Instrument No. 108065958 (collectively, "Development
Agreement") as a condition of annexation and initial zoning of approximately 182.6 acres of real
property legally described in the Development Agreement and known at that time as the proposed
Tanana Valley Subdivision ("Original Property");
WHEREAS, on �Y, 110 , 2013, City adopted Rezone Ordinance 13 1,55
to rezone a portion of the Original Property consisting of approximately 31.83 acres, legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto ("Released Property'), following a public hearing on or about
:PAa -,) (p , 2013, before the Meridian City Council (Case No. RZ 13 --oO Z4 ),which
supersedes the initial zoning and related Development Agreement as to the Rezoned Property;
WHEREAS, City and Developer desires to execute and record this Release to memorialize that
the Development Agreement is no longer of any force or effect as to the Released Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals above, City declares and confirms, and
Developer agrees, that in light of the notice and public hearing held on-wamy-, a t0
2013, and the Rezone Ordinance 13 - \55 :� approved by the City Council on
fwA1( , 2013, the Released Property is hereby released from, and shall no longer
be subject, to the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect as all portions of the Original Property except the Released Property.
[end of text]
RELEASE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — 1
1672843-3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Release effective as of the /& d
2013. a of
Y
CITY:
OWNER:
CITY OF MERIDIAN, an Idaho municipal
corporation
BY - _ CQ
Mayor T y de Weerd
A
Holman, City Clerk
STATE OF IDAHO
County of Ada ) ss.
RED TAIL COMMUNITIES LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
By:
JanY Fullmer, Manager
��C�tA i - D A UCGsl.
GO I
w
I ow
!Y /] Cityof
ibAHO
F
SEAL 1
1111�1uTRE�9��'0
On this day of —P-pn
state, personally appeared T , 2013, before the undersigned notary
ammy de Weerd and Jaycee L Holman, known or identified to me to be the Mayor
' f the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation, the ersons public in and for the said
City Clerk o
foregoing instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation and acknowledged tpo me that who executed and attested the
Y and
same. said municipal executed the
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first above written.
�.' (a w
4�..Y t+
A
o ary Public for Id o
Residing at: �- c\\C"Vl l
w ,;, 0 My Commission Expires:
STATE OF IDAI40� �
:ss.
County of Ada
On this day of /Ver
state, personally , 2013, before the undersigned notary public in and for the said
appeared Randy Fullmer, known or identified to me to be a Manager of Red Tail Communities
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the person who executed foregoing instrument on behalf of said limited
liability company and acknowledged to me that said limited liability company executed the same,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first above written.
ALAN C. NOBLE
NOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public for Idaho
STATE OF IDAHO Residingat:
My Commission Expires:
RELEASE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -2
1672843-3
April 9, 2013
Project No. 112168
Red Wing Subdivision
31.83 Acres
THE LAND GROUP, INC.
Exhibit "A"
Page 1 of 2
A tract of land situated in a portion of Government Lot 1 and the Northeast One Quarter of the
Northwest One Quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found brass cap which monuments the Northwest Corner of said Section 30,
which bears South 89042'14" West a distance of 2,450.84 feet from a found brass cap which
monuments the North One Quarter Corner of said Section 30, thence following the northerly line of
said Section 30 and the centerline of East Victory Road, North 89°42'14" East a distance of 650.00
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence following said northerly line and said centerline, North 89°42'14" East a distance of
1,236.84 feet;
Thence leaving said northerly line and said centerline, South 0°1746" East a distance of
350.00 feet;
Thence 317.51 feet along a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 317.50
feet, a central angle of 57°17'49", a chord bearing of South 28°21'06" West and a chord
distance of 304.44 feet;
Thence South 57°4333" West a distance of 46.19 feet;
Thence 237.06 feet along a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 682.50
feet, a central angle of 1954'04", a chord bearing of South 47'4631" West and a chord
distance of 235.87 feet;
Thence South 35°4332" West a distance of 50.00 feet,
Thence 173.56 feet along.a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 530.56
feet, a central angle of 18°4436", a chord bearing of South 26021'15" West and a chord
distance of 172.79 feet;
Thence South 19°04'55" West a distance of 57.81 feet to a point on the centerline of the
Ridenbaugh Canal;
Thence following said centerline, North 70°55'11" West a distance of 1122.60 feet;
Thence following said centerline, North 57°31'47" West a distance of 69.47 feet;
Thence following said centerline, North 44°08'23" West a distance of 314.59 feet to a point
on the westerly Right-of-way line of said South Meridian Road;
Thence following said westerly Right-of-way line, North 0°25'49" East a distance of 346.74
feet to a point on the -southerly right -of -way -line of East Victory -Road;
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line, North 67011'27" East a distance of 65.30
feet;
10
Site Planning c tanrlscarie Architecture --Civil fnginecrin� e Gtptf E.'t7itrse Irrigation R. Enninetrint! t, Cirnphit. Corntrrunicacinn 0 Surveying
462 E. Shote Drive, Ste.100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 o P XM93rs.a04.i `:208,.939A44S - wwwAhelandgrouainc.com
\2D7.2\t1't168�aariii�iiJegals\I
130401 lxoperty boundary description 112168.doc
Page 2 of 2
THE LAND GROUP, INC,
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line, North 85058'50" East a distance of 89.71
feet;
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line, North 89°24'55" East a distance of 430.98
feet,
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line, North 0°17'46" West a distance of 32.00 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above-described tract of land contains 31.83 acres more or less, subject to all existing
easements and rights-of-way.
Prepared By; THE LAND GROUP, INC.
462 E. SHORE DRIVE, SUITE 100 S ODS��
EAGLE, IDAHO 83616
208-939-4041 0
208-939-4445 (FAX) a 14216 wo
qTF OF 0
AELH,c
q,?.00.3
0
Site Planning 401) dscope Architectare x Civd Engineeriny o Golf Course Irrigation & Engineering N Graphic Communication e ;urveyiny
462 E. Shore Drive, Ste.100, Eagle, Who 8361.6 v P 2M939.4043 P 208.939.4445 V www.ti)elandgroupinc.com
;\2012\i1'l_If i\adm��in\legals\E 130401 property boundary description 112168.do(
Title:
Date: 04-09-2013
Scale: 1 inch= 250 feet
File:
Tract 1: 31.826 Acres: 1386347 Sq Feet: Closure = n07.5445w 0.00 Feet: Precision >1/999999: Perimeter = 4940 Feet
001=n89.42I4e 1236,84
6� Delta=
II"�Ls 6 11111$9436
013=n67.1127e 65.30
002=s0.1746e 350.00
008=sl9.0455w 57.81
014=n85.5850e 89.71
Bng R282106wC d=304.441749
009=00.551 1w 1122.60
015=n89.2455e 430.98
004=s57.4333w 46.19
010=n57.3147w 69.47
016=n0.1746w 32.00
00,1, s47463i w 0did 235 0 404
011=n44.0823w 314.59
006=s35.4332w 50,00
012=n0.2549e 346,74
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5C
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Professional Services Agreement with Kings of Swing for Musical Talent for Concerts on
Broadway on July 20, 2013 for an amount not to exceed $1,800.00
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
MUSICAL TALENT FOR CONCERTS ON BROADWAY
This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — MUSICAL TALENT FOR
CONCERTS ON BROADWAY ("Agreement") is made this _�k day of April, 2013 ("Effective Date"),
by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Idaho ("City") and Tom Phelps, doing business as Kings of Swing, an assumed business name certified
under the laws of the State of Idaho, whose address is 10790 W. Hickory Drive, Boise, Idaho
{"Promoter").
WHEREAS, the City desires that the plaza at Meridian City Hall serve as a place where members
of the community can gather to enjoy downtown Meridian and to take part in the arts, and to that end, the
Meridian Arts Commission is presenting Concerts on Broadway, a series of concerts to be held in the
Meridian City Hall plaza during the summer; and
WHEREAS, the Parties mutually desire to present, as part Of Concerts on Broadway, the music of
Kings of Swing, a seventeen -piece band specializing in the performance of swing and big band music;
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:
L SCOPE OF SERVICES.
A. Performance. Tom Phelps and the Kings of Swing, shall perform for the public approximately
fifteen.(15) swing and/or big band songs, from 7:00 p.m. to at least 8:30 p.m., on Saturday, July
20, 2013, in the plaza at Meridian City Hall, at 33 E. Broadway, Meridian, Idaho, with one fifteen -
minute break during this time. In case of inclement weather, the venue will be moved to an indoor
location to be determined and agreed upon separately by the Parties.
B. Sound system; set up and sound checks. City shall provide, set up, and operate any and all
sound systems and equipment necessary to electronically amplify music and spoken
announcements, City shall set up sound systems and/or related equipment by 5:00 p.m. on July 20,
2013, and Kings of Swing may rehearse and/or perform sound checks at that time. All set-up,
rehearsal, and/or sound checks shall be completed by 6:30 p.m.
C. Risers. If Promoter elects to use risers to elevate the musicians, Promoter shall provide and set up
such risers, and shall utilize such materials necessary to protect City facilities from any and all
damage therefrom.
II. COMPENSATION.
A. Total amount. City shall make total payment to Promoter for services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement in the amount of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). This payment shall
constitute full compensation from City to Promoter and/or to the members of Kings of Swing for
any and all services, costs, and expenses related to services performed under this Agreement.
Promoter and/or the respective members of Kings of Swing shall be responsible for payment of
any.and all taxes due and owing for payment received under this Agreement.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -KINGS OF SWING, CONCERTS ON BROADWAY PAGE 1 Of 5
B. Cancellation of event. If Kings of Swing is present and prepared to perform at the time, date, and
place, and in accordance with the terms set forth herein, City shall pay Promoter in the amount set
forth herein, even if the event is cancelled due to unforeseen events not caused by Promoter or the
members of Kings of Swing. Any decision regarding whether to cancel the performance shall be
made no earlier than 6:30 p.m. on July 20, 2013.
C. Method of payment. Following the July 20, 2013 performance, Promoter shall provide City with
an invoice for the amount of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00) for services provided,
which City shall pay within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof. Payment of all taxes and other
assessments on such sums shall be the sole responsibility of Promoter.
III. VENUE
A. Plaza. City shall provide for the performance the outdoor plaza on the east side of Meridian City
Hall, 33 E. Broadway, Meridian, Idaho ("venue"), which is an outdoor, open, public venue.
Promoter shall be solely responsible for any and all measures necessary to protect equipment,
instruments, and Kings of Swing members from damage due to weather and other conditions that
do or may exist.
B. Public venae. Promoter acknowledges that the venue is a public place and that all members of
the public shall be invited to attend. To this end, the members of Kings of Sling shall perform
such material and in such a manner as shall be appropriate for all ages, values, and sensibilities.
Kings of Swing's performance and attire shall not include language, attire, and/or behavior that is
profane, sexual, violent, or discriminatory.
C. City policy applies. Promoter and Kings of Swing shall comply with all City policies and codes
applicable to use of City property and facilities, including, but not limited to, policies of the
Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, and any requirements of the City Building
Maintenance Technician, which requirements shall be reasonable and for the purpose of protecting
City facilities and property.
D. Photography and recording. City shall be authorized to photograph, record, video tape,
reproduce, transmit, or disseminate, in or from the plaza, the performance solely for educational
and public information purposes. City shall not be responsible for the actions of persons who are
not under its employment or control.
E. Merchandising. Promoter and/or Kings of Swing shall be authorized to sell albums and/or
merchandising material at the performance, and may retain the proceeds of such sales. City
respectfully requests that twenty percent (20%) of any proceeds from merchandise sold at the
Concerts on Broadway event be voluntarily donated to the Meridian Arts Commission. Promoter
and Kings of Swing shall be responsible for paying all sales and other taxes due and owing on the
proceeds from merchandise sold.
IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. Time of the essence. Promoter acknowledges that services provided under this Agreement shall be
performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence
with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder
shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT— KINGS OF SWING, CONCERTS ON BROADWAY PAGE 2 of 5
E. Promotion of event. City shall promote the performance in community promotional materials and
avenues, including the City newsletter, City website, Meridian Parks & Recreation Department
Activity Guide, and local media and event calendars. Promoter may undertake additional promotional
activities at his own expense and effort, subject only to the limitations set forth herein. City hereby
conveys to Promoter permission to use City's name in all forms and media and in all manners, without
violation of City's respective rights of privacy or any other rights City may possess in connection with
its role in the production of Concerts on Broadway, except that City's logo may not be used in any
manner whatsoever without the express, written consent of the Mayor's Executive Assistant. To the
extent practicable, Promoter shall be given the opportunity to review, for purposes of accuracy, and
approve all promotional materials in advance of their publication, broadcast or dissemination. The
band shall be listed as "Kings of Swing" in all promotional materials that are created by City or within
the City's control.
C. Subcontracting or assignment of obligations. Promoter shall not subcontract or assign any of the
obligations of Kings of Swing under this Agreement related to or that may relate to the band's talent or
expertise. Promoter may subcontract or assign obligations that do not require the band's artistic talent
or expertise, including, but not limited to, such obligations as transport and set-up of special
equipment and/or instruments. Any subcontractor or assignee shall be bound by all the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
D. lion -waiver of breach. A waiver of any breach or default of any provision of this Agreement shall
not be construed as a waiver of a breach of the same or any other provision hereof.
E. Indemnification. Promoter shall, and hereby does, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City and
any and all of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or elected officials from any and all losses,
claims, and judgments for damages or injury to persons or property, and from any and all losses and
expenses caused or incurred by Promoter and/or Kings of Swing, their assistants, servants, agents,
employees, guests, and/or business invitees, in connection with this Agreement or activities related
thereto. Promoter and each member of Kings of Swing acknowledge that provision of the services
described hereunder presents risks, some of which are unknown, and do agree to assume all such
known or unknown risks.
F. Waiver. Except as to rights held under the terms of this Agreement, Promoter and each member of
Kings of Swing shall, and hereby do, waive any and all claims and recourse against City, including the
right of contribution for loss and damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in
any way connected with or incident the performance of this Agreement, whether such loss or damage
may be attributable to known or unknown conditions, except for liability arising out of concurrent or
sole negligence of City or its officers, agents or employees.
G. Relationship of Parties. Promoter and each member of Kings of Swing is an independent contractor
and is not an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee
between Promoter or any member of Kings of Swing and City or any official, agent, or employee of
City. Promoter and Kings of Swing shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term
r
of this Agreement.
H. Compliance with law. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Promoter and each member of
Kings of Swing shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—KINGS OF SWING, CONCERTS ON BROADWAY PAGE 3 of 5
L Non -Discrimination, Throughout the course of this Agreement, neither Promoter nor any member of
Kings of Swing shall discriminate against any person as to race, creed, religion, sex, age, national
origin, sexual orientation or any physical, mental, or sensory handicap.
J. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This
Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or
agents of either party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or
contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered
except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto,
K. Costs and attorneys' fees. If either party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or
establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded.
L. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity,
interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada
County, Idaho.
M. Cumulative rights and remedies. All rights and remedies herein enumerated shall be cumulative and
none shall exclude any other right or remedy allowed by law. Likewise, the exercise of any remedy
provided for herein or allowed by law shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy.
N. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected.
®. Successors and assigns. All of the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement
shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each party and their successors, assigns, legal
representatives, heirs, executors, and administrators.
P. Notice. Any and all notice required to be provided by either of the Parties hereto, unless otherwise
stated in this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed communicated upon mailing by
United States Mail, addressed as follows:
City: Kings of Swing;
City of Meridian Tom Phelps
Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney 10790 W, Hickory Drive
33 E. Broadway Avenue Boise, Idaho 83713
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Either party may change its address for the purpose of this section by giving written notice of such
change in the manner herein provided.
Q. Warranty of authority. The undersigned expressly warrants that, to the extent set forth herein, he is
duly authorized to act as the representative and agent of Kings of Swing and each and every member
thereof. The undersigned further warrants that he is authorized to bind Kings of Swing and its
members to the obligations set forth herein, and to accept the liabilities as established herein on behalf
of Kings of S4ing and its members.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—KINGS OF SWING, CONCERTS ON BROADWAY PAGE 4 of 5
R. City Council approval required. The validity of this Agreement shall be expressly conditioned
upon City Council action approving the Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by the persons
referenced below prior to such ratification or approval shall not be construed as proof of validity in the
absence of Meridian City Council approval.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the bnday of
April, 2013.
PROMOTER:
Tom Phelps for
Kings of Swing
CITY OF MERIDIAN:
BY:
Tammy d,
eerd, Mayor
r;t ED AV L,S
Uel (1
�s
itAttest:
ER,TDTA
Ig4�610
ate` SS ATL
���he7ttG}5�'0
City Clerk
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT—KINGS OF SWING, CONCERTS ON BROADWAY PAGE 5 of 5
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5D
PROJECT NUMBER: TEC 13-002
ITEM TITLE: Bainbridge Sub
Final Order for Approval: TEC 13-002 Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Investments,
LLC Located Southwest Corner of W. Chinden Boulevard and N. Ten Mile Road
Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat for Bainbridge Subdivision
in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5E
PROJECT NUMBER: FP 13-001
ITEM TITLE: Isola Creek
Final Order for Approval: FP 13-011 Isola Creek Subdivision by Coleman Homes, LLC
Located East Side of N. Ten Mile Road and North of W. Ustick Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of 48 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 10 Common Lots
on Approximately 20.45 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
[-Y-4 PPOOVE
t
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 5F
PROJECT NUMBER: MDA 13-006
ITEM TITLE: Waverly Place
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Public Hearing: MDA 13-006
Waverly Place by Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management Located North Side of E.
Magic View Drive, West of S. Wells Street Request: Amendment to the Development
Agreement for Waverly Place Subdivision to Allow the Construction of Single -Family
Attached and Detached Homes Instead of Just Attached Homes
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7A
PROJECT NUMBER: AZ 11-003
ITEM TITLE: King Property
Public Hearing Continued from November 7, 2012: AZ 11-003 King Property by Dexter
King Located at 1 195 W. Overland Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 8 Acres
of Land within an R-8 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
W /
ViJIV/7�
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7B
PROJECT NUMBER: VAR 13-001
ITEM TITLE: Knightsky Property
Public Hearing Continued from April 2, 2013: VAR 13-001 Knightsky Estates by Iron
Mountain Real Estate, Inc. Located on the Northwest Corner of Chinden Bouelvard
and N. Linder Road Request: Right-In/Right-Out Access Point to State Highway 20/26
(Chinden Bouelvard)
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN—UP SHEET
DATE April 16, 2013 ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
VAR 13-001
PROJECT NAME Knightsky Estates
EL
PLEASE PRINT NAME
FOR
AGAINST
NEUTRAL
_ y
-
fes- ry
F TLJ'
s,s
r s
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7C
PROJECT NUMBER: MDA 13-005
ITEM TITLE: Sadie Creek
Public Hearing: MDA 13-005 Sadie Creek by Sadie Creek Commons, LLC Located
Southwest Corner of N. Eagle Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Amend the Sadie
Creek Development Agreement (Instrument #108008770) for the Purpose of Attaching
a Concept Plan and Modifying Certain Provisions
MEETING NOTES
Me IRS
MUIR;
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7D
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Public Works Department, Environmental Division Fee Schedule
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho that the City Council of the City
of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at Meridian City
Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding the City of Meridian Public Works
Department, Environmental Division Fee Schedule, set forth below. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials
should be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the public hearing. All testimony and materials
presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language
accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior
to the public hearing.
Pretreatment plan review — new commercial construction
$75.00
Pretreatment site inspection — new commercial construction
$75.00
Pretreatment plan review — tenant improvement
$75.00
Pretreatment site inspection — tenant improvement
$75.00
DATED this 29th day of March, 2013.
JAYCEE L.
PUBLISH on April 1, 2013 and April 8, 2013.
ED AUCUsr
r
n Js
ow
—��LL�u iowwo
SEA
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE April 16, 2013 ITEM #
cm
Public Works, Enviornmental Division Fee
PROJECT NAME Schedule
GPEASE PRINT NAME
FOR
AGAINST
NEUTRAL]
f- i 'T' C1 ERKS OFFICE
,y
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7E
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Resolution No. Proposed # 13-919: Adopting Public Works Department, Environmental
Division Fee Schedule
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. Z3 l / l q
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, HOAGLUN, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION; AUTHORIZING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION 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 April 16, 2013, the City Council of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption
of the proposed Fee Schedule of the City of Meridian Public Works Department, Environmental
Division, as set forth in Exhibit hereto; and
WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said
proposed Fee Schedule of the Public Works Department, Environmental Division;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO:
Section 1. That the Fee Schedule of the Public Works Department, Environmental Division,
as set forth in ExhibitA hereto, is hereby adopted.
Section 2. That the Public Works Department, Environmental Division is hereby authorized
to implement and carry out the collection of said fees.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
adoption and approval.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho this 16th day of April, 2013.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 16th day of April, 2013.
ATTEST:
aycee ftolman, City Cleric
APPROVED:
0OV
�pjIA-) AUCLg��.
ti$Go
City of
S- El' IDIA N�-
IDAHO
SEAL ti
hr TRE SUMO
eerd, Mayor
ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC WORIcs DEPARTMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION PAGE 1 OF 2
ExhibitA
FEE SCHEDULE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
Pretreatment plan review — new commercial construction
$75.00
Pretreatment site inspection — new commercial construction
$75.00
Pretreatment plan review — tenant improvement
$75.00
Pretreatment site inspection — tenant improvement
$75.00
ADOPTION OF FE, I•, SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ENWRONMENTAL DIVISION PAGE 2 OF 2
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7F
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Public Comment: Large -Scale Special Events Update to Temporary Use Code
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Meridian will accept public comment
at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, and at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at
Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding proposed updates to
Meridian City Code provisions regarding Temporary Use Permits for Special Events. The
proposed updates define "large-scale special events" and would require 1) that organizers of
large-scale special events meet with City staff prior to submitting an application for a temporary
use permit for a large-scale special event, 2) that complete applications be submitted sixty (60)
days prior to the event, 3) that organizers obtain additional insurance for large-scale special
events, and 4) where additional City services are needed in the presentation of a large-scale
special event, that organizers enter into a Special Event Agreement with the City. A complete
copy of the proposed ordinance is available at the City Clerk's Office or may be obtained by
contacting Nancy Radford by phone at (208) 888-4433 or by email at
nradford@meridiancity.org. Any and all interested persons shall be heard. Written testimony is
welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the public hearing. All
testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory,
visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at
least 48 hours prior to the public hearing.
DATED this 10th day of April, 2013.
JACY
PUBLISH on April 15, 2013 and April 22, 2013.
O4Q,TED AUGUST
----- 4
lTY CLD City of
E IDIZ IAN.
a IDAHO
SEAL ti
y
P
T6A°�1de TRFAS�A��
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE April 16, 2013 ITEM #
7F
PROJECT NUMBER
Large Scale Special Events Update to Temporary
PROJECT NAME Use Code
ME I FOR I AGAINST I NEUTRALI
yr
__ R i
I aati __ �_
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 7G
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-1549 Large -Scale Special Events Update to
Temporary Use Code
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
April 3, 2013
RE: Proposed Update to City of Meridian Temporary Use Code that may affect you
Dear Special Event Organizer:
I wanted to let you know that in the coming weeks, the City Council of the City of Meridian
will be considering changes to the City's Temporary Use Code that may be of particular interest to
you. Specifically, the proposed changes will update the provisions of City Code relating to special
events occurring within Meridian. A copy of the proposed ordinance is enclosed.
The proposed ordinance change will require that a complete application for a Temporary Use
Permit for a Large-scale Special Event be submitted at least sixty (60) days prior to the planned event,
and that the organizer must meet with City employees prior to submitting the application.
Additionally, there will be heightened insurance requirements for Large -Scale Special Events, and
where any City services will be used for the event, the organizer must negotiate a Special Event
Agreement with the City to establish terms and conditions for the provision of these services.
I invite your feedback on the proposed ordinance. Please provide any written comments to me
via e-mail or U.S. mail, addressed as set forth below. The first reading of the ordinance will be at the
regularly -scheduled Meridian City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 9, 2013, at 7:00 p.m.; the
second reading will be at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 3:00 p.m.; and the
third reading will be at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. All of these
meetings will be held in City Council Chambers at Meridian City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, in
Meridian, Idaho. Written or verbal public testimony will be accepted at each of these meetings.
Thank you for your interest in the City of Meridian. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Radford
Assistant City Clerk
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian ID 83642
nradford@meridiancity. org
(208) 489-0391
Encl.
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: $A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Police Department: Budget Amendment for Spending Authority on Two EUDL
(Enforcement of Underage Drinking Laws) Grants Awarded to Meridian Police
Department for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $10,410.00
MEETING NOTES
,,
F 'm IU,
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: $B
PROJECT NUMBER:
Public Works: Recycled Water Plan
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: $C
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
SWAC Department Report: Recommendation to Adopt an Amendment to the City's
Solid Waste Ordinance Regarding Commercial Recycling Services by Non -Franchised
Commercial Recyclers within City Limits (Commercial Recycling Ordinance)
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
I
Date: April 11, 2013
To: The Mayor and City Council
From: Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission:
Steve Cory, Chair, citizen commissioner
Karie Glenn, Vice -Chair, staff commissioner
Nancy Mann, citizen commissioner
Cheryl Caldwell, citizen commissioner
Robert Corrie, citizen commissioner
Jeffrey Townsend, citizen commissioner
Ashley Burgess -Miller, youth commissioner
Mollie Mangerich, staff commissioner
Andrea Pogue, staff commissioner
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird
Brad Hoaglun
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
Re: Recommendation to adopt an amendment to the City's Solid Waste Ordinance
regarding commercial recycling services by non -franchised commercial recyclers
within City limits (Commercial Recycling Ordinance).
Meridian has an exclusive solid waste franchise agreement with Republic Services, Inc. that includes
providing recycling services to residential, commercial and multi -family premises within City limits.
Residential recycling services are provided exclusively by Republic Services. In 2012, the City was
asked by a local commercial recycler (Western Recycling Co.) to provide clarification as to what
commercial recycling services, if any, may be offered within City limits by non -franchised
commercial recyclers. The inquiry was based on Western's assertion that they have had a
commercial recycling customer base in Meridian that pre -dates the City's franchise agreement with
Republic Service's predecessor, Sanitary Services Company (SSC). The 2012 assignment of the
franchise to Republic Services prompted Western Recycling to approach the City for assurance that
it may continue providing commercial recycling services to its established clientele.
Under direction of the Mayor's office, the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission (SWAC)
formed a subcommittee to assess the status of the City's commercial recycling program, chaired by
Commissioner Steve Cory, and comprised of representatives from SWAC, City Environmental
Division, Republic Services, CINTAS, United Metals, North American Recycling, and Western
Recycling. The subcommittee met seven times. Various other local commercial recyclers
participated during the review process such as PC Recyclers of Idaho and Gem Text Recyclers.
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE REGARDING COMMERCIAL
RECYCLING -1
BACKGROUND
The subcommittee first clarified that, historically, SSC allowed independent commercial recyclers to
continue providing recycling services to commercial accounts that pre -dated the SSC franchise
agreement where the collected recyclable materials qualified as a commodity (i.e., the collection of
the material(s) results in a net commodity payment to the producer of the recyclable material(s)
greater to or equal to any collection fees paid by the producer of the recyclable material(s) to the
commercial recycler), or to "fill the gap" by collecting recyclable materials from commercial
premises that did not fit within SSC's corporate business model/resources to do so. The City was
not impacted financially by the approach taken by SSC as the sale of commercially -generated
recyclables is not treated the same as the sale of residentially -generated recyclables, which is
consistent with modern solid waste franchise agreements.
Based on these historical commercial recycling service "exceptions" to SSC's exclusive solid waste
franchise agreement, the SWAC subcommittee deemed it timely (given the recent assignment to
Republic Services) and appropriate (given the questions raised by Western Services) to develop a
commercial recycling exemption that clarifies the scope and parameters of the City's minimum
commercial recycling service standards, and balances the interests of the City's solid waste
franchisee and those of other commercial recycling service providers who have, or may wish to,
provide commercial recycling services within City limits.
GOALS OF THE COMMERCIAL RECYCLING ORDINANCE
During the course of the working meetings, the subcommittee designed the proposed ordinance to
accomplish the following:
• Codify the non -franchised commercial recycling services currently being provided within
City limits ( i.e., collection of source -separated recyclable materials);
• Preserve the integrity of the exclusive automated commingled commercial recycling services
by the City's solid waste franchisee;
• Be responsive to secondary market fluctuations and technological advances in the recycling
industry by exempting both: (1) a category of source -separated recyclable materials that
meet the definition of a commodity (meaning that the collection of the material(s) results in
a net commodity payment to the producer of the recyclable material(s) greater to or equal to
any collection fees paid by the producer of the recyclable material(s) to the commercial
recycler); and (2) eighteen (18) discrete categories of source -separated recyclable materials,
as defined by industry standards, that are generated (and sorted by the generator) on
commercial premises within City limits;
• Add pertinent definitions to Title 4, Section 1, Chapter 3 of the City's Solid Waste
Ordinance (i.e., commercial recycler, commingled recyclable material(s), and source -
separated recyclable material(s));
• Promote commercial recycling and its benefits within City limits;
• Be enforceable; and
• Require a permit and annual reporting component to allow the City to gain a complete
picture of the scope and extent of the type and weight of recyclable materials being collected
residentially and commercially within City limits.
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE REGARDING COMMERCIAL
RECYCLING - 2
PUBLIC PROCESS
The subcommittee received input and gained support while drafting the proposed ordinance from the
City's Clerk's office, Code Enforcement, Public Works, Finance, and the Utility Billing
Departments. The subcommittee voted unanimously in favor of the proposed ordinance and brought
it before SWAC in the fall of 2012.
Letters and copies of the proposed ordinance were mailed to eighteen known commercial recyclers
in the Treasure Valley area, with an invitation to provide comment at the February 27, 2013 SWAC
meeting. Based on comments and questions received during the initial public comment period
regarding the permit requirement, SWAC modified the ordinance by deleting the permit provision
and re -circulated it for review and comment. The SWAC held a second public comment opportunity
at its March 27, 2013 meeting to address both versions of the proposed ordinance. All of the
comments received were positive, including comments from Western Recycling and Republic
Services, and tended to favor the permit -less version. Prior to its March meeting, SWAC also
ascertained from the relevant City departments that the permit -less version was preferred (mainly to
reduce administrative burden of processing). The collective sense is that the City could add a permit
at some time in the future if desired.
Based upon all of the comments received, SWAC unanimously voted to bring the permit -less
version of the proposed Commercial Recycling Ordinance, as attached hereto, before City Council
with its recommendation that it be approved and made effective immediately.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Commercial Recycling Ordinance codifies the non -franchised commercial recycling
services which have been, and are currently being provided within City limits. The exemption strikes
a balance between preserving the integrity of the exclusive automated commingled commercial
recycling services provided by the City's solid waste franchisee and allowing non -franchised
commercial recyclers, whether or not historically active or recently started up, to collect, haul,
transport and/or dispose of source -separated recyclable materials that meet the definition of a
commodity and/or fit withinl 8 discrete categories of recyclable materials, as defined by industry
standards, that are generated (and sorted by the generator) on commercial premises within City
limits. The SWAC's recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed ordinance is that it be
approved and made effective immediately.
Thank you.
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE REGARDING COMMERCIAL
RECYCLING - 3
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: $D
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
SWAC Department Report: First Reading Of Ordinance No. Proposed # 13-1551: An
Ordinance Amending Title 4, Public Health & Safety, Chapter 1, Sanitary Service
System, Of The Meridian City Code, For The Purpose Of Including Definitions For
Commercial Recycler, Commingled Recyclable Material(S), And Source -Separated
Recyclable Material(S) In 4-1-3; And To Add "Or Commercial Recycles" To 4-1-10 H.
And To Add A New 4-1-11 Commercial Recycling Exemption; And Re -Assign The
Existing Section 4-1 -1 1 Nuisance Declared To Section 4-1-12; And Re -Assign The Existing
Section 4-1-12 Penalty To Section 4-1-13; And Providing An Effective Date
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: $E
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Fire Department: EMS Joint Powers Agreement Discussion
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
r
Y OF
Fire Department Follow up to EMS JPA presentation
❖ Issue: Section 4.1.2 Joint Powers Board Membership
Suggestion: Changed to identify one elected official representing each party and a total of two
elected officials of the Ada County Board of Commissioners.
Issuer Section 4:3- Although there is unanimous consent required, what number makes up
a quorum for the board meetings? Councilman Rountree recognized that would be in the
by-laws, but thought it a good idea to address it in the agreement as well. In addition,
what is the remedy if a member elected continues to not show?
Suggestion:
4.3 Meetings, decisions, and communication. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for
the conduct of their meetings that are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
4.3.1 The Board shall meet regularly to confer and carry out the business of the Board and the
System in the following manner:
4.3.1.1 For all meetings of the Board fifty percent 50%) of the members of the Board
shall constitute a quorum to conduct business.
4.3.1.2 All motions, resolutions, and actions of approval on any matter by the Board require a
unanimous vote of the Board members present.
4.3.1.2.1 In regards to matters before the Board that only involve a combined licensure as
provided in Article V of this Agreement, only the Board members of Parties that have combined
their licenses may vote.
4.3.1.3 The Board must provide at least fourteen (14) days advance written notice to all Parties
when considering all matters requiring a vote of the Board members.
4.3.1.4 Only Board members, or their alternates, shall have voting privileges.
4.3.1.5 In the event a Partv's Board member or alternate fail to attend three (3) meetinas in a
row or fail to attend 1/2 of the meetings of the Board within one (1) calendar year, notice of
absence shall be sent to the offending Party which notice shall be withdrawn if the offending
Party's Board member appears at the next regular scheduled Board meeting and shows good
cause for the absences and presents a commitment to regular attendance in the future. In the
event the offending Party does not appear and show cause then the same shall be a material
breach of the terms of this Agreement and the offending_ party will then be subject to the
termination provisions of Section 3.6 of this Agreement and the notice of absence shall stand as a
notice of default.
❖ Issue: Confusion with terminology of Ada County Commissioners and Ada County
Ambulance District Commissioners.
Suggestion: No change. A negative side effect of the Kuna V. Ada County ruling indicating need
to clearly identify each group although it's the same people.
❖ Issue: In section 6.3.4 the Administrative Committee is the conduit for interaction with
the groups listed, but we do not identify "Citizens" as stakeholders. It may seem like
semantics, but "Citizens" are not the same as customers and patients but rather folks in
our communities that we serve. As an elected official, he would feel more comfortable
with the draft if we included recognizing the citizens input when applicable.
Suggestion:
6.3.4 Conduct EMS services informational meetings and consult with public officials and
agencies, the medical community, the public and civic, educational, professional, or other
organizations.
❖ Issue: Medical Directorate- with only two, why not make them Co -Chairs.
Suggestion:
No Change. It does seem that someone should conduct the meeting of the Medical Directorate
and establish the agenda and the language of the Agreement would address that need.
❖ Issue: In section 7.2 outlining the duties of the Medical Directorate consider changing
language to "executes the contracted functions established by the board". The current
wording had him wondering if the Board was going to somehow tell the docs how to do
medicine.
Suggestion: due to the provisions of Section 7.1 and 7.3 and 7.4 , Section 7. 2 could be
simplified to eliminate this concern as follows:
7.2 Compliance with State Laws and Rules and Regulations. The System Medical Directorate
executes its duties and functions in accordance with the applicable laws of the state of Idaho, the
rules and regulations of the Idaho EMS Physicians' Commission, the State of Idaho EMS
Bureau, and any associated rules and regulations concerning emergency medical services.
❖ Issue: What is the intent of section 8.2? I could not explain it adequately as it was in
legalize.....
Answer: This provision follows the intent of the joint exercise of power by the parties in the
performance of the Agreement.
❖ Issue: Section 11.10 and 11.11 clarification. If unanimous consent of the board is
required to propose an amendment to the agreement, why do we need these last two
sections. Official record keeping purposes?
Answer: It will be desirable to have an official record of the approval of amendments and a way
to communicate officially with all parties on the approval of an amendment to the Agreement.
❖ Issue: Section 12.7 clarification. What would be the examples of this section being
executed? I used the example of an agency that took their toys and went home, but
continued to provide EMS outside of the agreement. Didn't know if I was missing
something here.
Answer: This section is intended to provide for attorney fees, in the event of a law suit between
any of the parties to the agreement, to the prevailing party. The question I believe is: whether or
not this section can invoke the provisions of I.C. § 12-120 or is I.C. §12-117, which provides for
attorney fees for suits between government agencies, is exclusive. I believe the Idaho Supreme
court has found I.C. 12-117 is exclusive. We may not need section 12.7 in the agreement.
❖ Issue: Clarify Section 3.4 and section 3.6.
Answer: Section 3.4 focuses on voluntary withdraws, with the exception of 3.4.1.2 in which a
court has ordered the discontinuation of EMS services by an agency. Essentially all possible
solutions shall be examined prior to a withdrawal. Section 3.6 focuses on a party termination by
the board due to non-compliance. Either way, the leaving party is obligated to cease providing
EMS services.
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: $F
PROJECT NUMBER: MDA 13-002
ITEM TITLE: Red Wing Subdivision
Legal Department: Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 13-002 Red Wing
Subdivision by WH Moore Company Located Southeast Corner of S., Meridian Road
(SH 69) and E. Victory Road Request: Modification to the Cavanaugh Development
Agreement to Exclude the Subject Property from the Agreement
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT .00 54
BOISE IDAHO 04117/13 03:16 PM
DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig
RECORDED -REQUEST OF 11�41if
Meridian City
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian
2. Red Tail Communities, LLC, Owners/Developers
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this Agreement), is made and entered into
this day ofA 2013, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal
corporation of the State of Idaho, hereinafter called CITY, and Red Tail Communities, LLC
whose address is 660 East Franklin Road, Suite 270, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 hereinafter called
OWNERS/DEVELOPERS.
1. RECITALS:
1.1 WHEREAS, Owners/Developers are the sole owners, in law and/or
equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho,
described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto and by
this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after
referred to as the Property;
1.2 WHEREAS, the Property described in Exhibit A was originally
annexed in September, 2006 and was bound by a Development
Agreement recorded on or about September 21, 2006; as Instrument No.
106151214, as amended by that certain Addendum to Development
Agreement dated May 12, 2008, and recorded in the real property
records of Ada County, Idaho, on or about June 6, 2008, as Instrument
No. 108065958. The Property described in Exhibit A has been fully
released from such Development Agreement and Addendum and is now
bound in full by this Development Agreement.
1.3 WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 67-6511A provides that cities may, by
ordinance, require or permit as 'a condition of re -zoning that the Owners
/Developers made a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject Property; and
1.4 WHEREAS, City has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment
of Ordinance 11-513-3, which authorizes development agreements upon
the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and
1.5 WHEREAS, Owners/Developers have submitted an application for
annexation and re -zoning of the Property described in Exhibit A, and has
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 1 OF 10
requested a designation of R-4 (Low Density Residential District) and
R-15 (Medium High Density Residential District), (Municipal Code of
the City of Meridian); and
1.6 WHEREAS, Owners/Developers made representations at the public
hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and
before the Meridian City Council, as to how the subject Property will be
developed and what improvements will be made; and
1.7 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and
zoning designation of the subject Property held before the Planning &
Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include
responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City
of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and
comment; and
1.8 WHEREAS, City Council, the 91h day of April, 2013, has approved
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, set forth in Exhibit `B",
which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if
set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the Findings); and
1.9 WHEREAS, the Findings require the Owners/ Developers to enter into
a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on
annexation and zoning designation; and
1.10 OWNER/DEVELOPER deem it to be in their best interest to be able to
enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was
entered into voluntarily and at his urging and requests; and
1.11 WHEREAS, City requires the Owners/Developers to enter into a
development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is
developed and the subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being
established as a result of evidence received by the City in the
proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions
providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected
property owners and to ensure re -zoning designation is in accordance
with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian on April
19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784, and the Zoning and Development
Ordinances codified in Meridian Unified Development Code, Title 11,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set
forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual
and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 2 OF 10
3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words,
tends, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein
provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise:
3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this
Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government
subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law
of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue,
Meridian, Idaho 83642.
3.2 OWNERS/DEVELOPERS: means and refers Red Tail Communities,
LLC, whose address is 660 E. Franklin, Suite 270, Meridian, ID 83642,
the party that is developing said Property and shall include any
subsequent owner and/or developer(s) of the Property.
3.3 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of Property
located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A
describing the parcels to be re -zoned R-4 (Low Density Residential
District) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential District) attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT:
4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses
allowed under City's Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian Unified
Development Code.
4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed
without modification of this Agreement.
5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the
following special conditions:
a. Development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual
development plan shown on the landscape plan in Exhibit C and the conceptual
building elevations shown in Exhibit D. The plan depicts an apartment complex
consisting of 228 dwelling units on the western portion of the site and 48 single-
family residences on the eastern portion of the site. A conditional use permit is
required for the multi -family development.
b. A 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway is required to be constructed along S. Meridian
Road (SH 69) as shown on the landscape plan. The pathway shall be constructed in
accord with the standards contained in the Pathways Master Plan and in a location
approved by the Parks and Recreation Director.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 3 OF 10
c. A public pedestrian easement for the multi -use pathway along S. Meridian Road
(SH 69) is required to be submitted to the City, approved by City Council, and
recorded prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer and/or
development of the multi -family portion of the site. The pathway shall be
constructed in its entirety with the first phase of development.
d. Noise abatement in the form of a berm or bene and wall combination is required for
residential uses along state highways, per UDC 11 -3H -4D. The landscape plan
depicts a berm adjacent to S. Meridian Road (SH 69). The owner/developer shall
submit a cross-section of the berm (or berm/wall combination) in relation to the
centerline of SH 69 demonstrating compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3H -4D with the final plat application.
e. A minimum five-foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along E.
Victory Road as shown on the landscape plan in accord with UDC 11-3A-17.
f. A conditional use permit is required for a multi -family development in the R-15
zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2.
g. Vehicular access to S. Meridian Road (SH 69) is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-
3.-4.
6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and
the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed,
upon an uncured material default of the Owners and/or Developers or Owners/Developers'
heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing
Development of Subject Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this
Agreement is effective, and after the City has complied with the notice and hearing procedures
as outlined in Idaho Code § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof.
7. DEFAULT/CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF
ZONING DESIGNATION:
7.1 Acts of Default. Either party's failure to faithfully comply with all of
the terms and conditions included in this Agreement shall constitute
default under this Agreement.
7.2 Notice and Cure Period. In the event of Owners/Developers' default
of this Agreement, Owners/ Developers shall have thirty (30) days from
receipt of written notice from City to initiate commencement of action to
correct the breach and cure the default, which action must be prosecuted
with diligence and completed Within one hundred eighty (180) days;
provided, however, that in the case of any such default that cannot with
diligence be cured within such one hundred eighty (180) day period,
then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such
period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with
diligence and continuity.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 4 OF 10
7.3 Remedies, In the event of default by Owners /Developers that is not
cured after notice as described in Section 7.2, Owners/Developers shall
be deemed to have consented to modification of this Agreement and de -
annexation and reversal of the zoning designations described herein,
solely against the offending portion of Property and upon City's
compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances and rules, including any
applicable provisions of Idaho Code §§ 67-6509 and 67-6511.
Owners/Developers reserve all rights to contest whether a default has
occurred. This Agreement shall be enforceable in the Fourth Judicial
District Court in Ada County by either City or Owners/Developers, or
by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties
hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in
equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements,
conditions, and obligations contained herein,
7.4 Delay, In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed
hereunder by either Owners /Developers or City is delayed for causes
that are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such
performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil
disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance
shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay.
7.5 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by Owners/Developers of any
one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to
the default and defaults waived and shall neither bar any other rights or
remedies of City nor apply to any subsequent default of any such or
other covenants and conditions.
8, INSPECTION: Owners/Developers shall, immediately upon completion of
any portion or the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this Agreement
or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's
inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all other ordinances of the
City that apply to said Property.
9. DEFAULT:
9.1 In the event Owners/Developers, or Owners/Developers' heirs,
successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the Property or any other
person acquiring an interest in the Property, fail to faithfully comply
with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in
connection with the Property, this Agreement may be terminated by the
City upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
9,2 A waiver by City of any default by Owners/Developers of any one or
more* of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 5 OF 10
breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or
remedies of City or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other
covenants and conditions.
10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record either a
memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at
Owners/Developers' cost, and submit proof of such recording to Owners /Developers, prior to
the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re -zoning of the
Property by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails
to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation 'and zoning of the Property
contemplated hereby, the City shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of
this Agreement.
11. ZONING: City shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement,
enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein.
12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent
jurisdiction by either City or Owners /Developers, or by any successor or successors in title or
by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at
law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions,
and obligations contained herein.
12.1 Subject to Sections 6 and 7 of this Agreement, in the event of an uncured
material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that City and
Owners/Developers shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of
said breach to correct the same prior to the non -breaching party's
seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in
the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within
such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting parry shall commence to
cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall
prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time
allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be
reasonably necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence
and continuity.
12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder
by either Owners/Developers or City are delayed for causes which are
beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such
performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil
disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance
shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay.
13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds,
irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed
under Meridian City Code §11-5-C, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the
Owner/Developer agrees to provide, if required by the City.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 6 OF 10
14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The Owners/ Developers agrees that no
Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the City
and Owners/ Developers have entered into an addendum agreement stating when the
improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of
Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed,
completed, and accepted by the City.
15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owners/Developers agree to
abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Property shall be subject to de -
annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions
contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this
Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after
deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, addressed as follows:
CITY:
City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
with copy to:
City Attorney
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
O"ER/DEVELOPER
Red Tail Communities, LLC
660 E. Franklin, Suite 270
Meridian, ID 83642
16.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the
other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties
hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any
other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a
Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract
between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement.
18. 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
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 7 OF 10
hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a
breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform.
19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal
representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This
Agreement shall be binding on the Owners/Developers of the Property, each subsequent owner
and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way
prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation
shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both
benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees, upon
written request of Owners/Developers, to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of
termination of this Agreement if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that
Owners/Developers have fully performed their obligations under this Agreement.
20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this
Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained
herein.
21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements,
agreements, condition and understandings between Owners/Developers and City relative to the
subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding,
either oral or written, express or implied, between Owners/ Developers and City, other than as
are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment,
change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to
writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with
respect to City, to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City.
21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re -zoning of the
subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the
approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in
accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or
amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment.
22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective
on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning
Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property and execution of the
Mayor and City Clerk.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 8 OF 10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and
made it effective as hereinabove provided,
CITY:
CITY OF MERIDIAN, an Idaho municipal
corporation
Mayor Ta y de Weerd
ATTEST:
Holman, City Clerk
GOA` �StA t L' D i1 UC'USr7
� 19
V O.
(-11y of
E TDTA N�--
.� IghNq
SEAL
he rxeas���
OWNERS/DEVELOPERS:
RED TAIL COMMUNITIES LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
By:
Randy ullmer, Manager
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 9 OF 10
STATE OF IDAHO )
:ss.
County of Ada
On this 1 In day of2013, before the undersigned notary
public in and for the said state, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L Holman,
known or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, an Idaho
municipal corporation, the persons who executed and attested the foregoing instrument on
behalf of said municipal corporation and acknowledged to me that said municipal executed the
same.
IN WITNESS YIIEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first
above written. ��0tA�
�`10T�
,
v' No Public for Idaho
Residing at: exp d 1 c n'1 -Ic)
My Commission Expires:,,, Y) 2�6 I L✓,
STATE OF IDAHO )
County of Ada )
On this N day of APk 1 c 2013, before the undersigned notary
public in and for the said state, personally appeared Randy Fullmer, known or identified to me
to be a Manager of Red Tail Communities LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the
person who executed foregoing instrument on behalf of said limited liability company and
acknowledged to me that said limited liability company executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first
above written.
-------------
ALAN C. NOBLE
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF IDAHO
Notary Public for Idaho
Residing at: /W "rd,�N r p
My Commission Expires: a/2 (h 2
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT— RED WING SUBDIVISION (RZ 13-002 & MDA 13-002) PAGE 10 OF 10
April 9, 2013
Project No. 112168
Red Wing Subdivision
31.83 Acres
tit
. Page 1 of 2
THE LAND GROUP, Inc.
Exhibit "A"
A tract of land situated in a portion of Government Lot 1 and the Northeast One Quarter of the
Northwest One Quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found brass cap which monuments the Northwest Corner of said Section 30,
which bears South 89042'14" West a distance of 2,450.84 feet from a found brass cap which
monuments the North One Quarter Corner of said Section 30, thence following the northerly line of
said Section 30 and the centerline of East Victory Road, North 89°42'14" East a distance of 650.00
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence following said northerly line and said centerline, North 89°42'14" East a distance of
1,236.84 feet;
Thence leaving said northerly line and said centerline, South 0°17'46" East a distance of
350.00 feet;
Thence 317.51 feet along a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 317.50
feet, a central angle of 57017'49", a chord bearing of South 28021'06" West and a chord
distance of 304.44 feet;
Thence South 57°4333" West a distance of 46.19 feet;
Thence 237.06 feet along a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 682.50
feet, a central angle of 19°54'04", a chord bearing of South 47046'31" West and a chord
distance of 235.87 feet;
Thence South 35043'32" West a distance of 50.00 feet;
Thence 173.56 feet along a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 530.56
feet, a central angle of 18°44'36", a chord bearing of South 26°21'15" West and a chord
distance of 172.79 feet,
Thence South 19°04'55" West a distance of 57.81 feet to a point on the centerline of the
Ridenbaugh Canal;
Thence following said centerline, North 70°55'11" West a distance of 1122.60 feet;
Thence following said centerline, North 57'31'47" West a distance of 69.47 feet;
Thence following said centerline, North 44°08'23" West a distance of 314.59 feet to a point
on the westerly Right-of-way line of said South Meridian Road; r
Thence following said westerly Right-of-way line, North 002549" East a distance of 346.74
feet to a -point on the southerly right -of -way -line of East -Victory -Road;
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line, North 67°11'27" East a distance of 65.30
feet;
i
Site. Plaiming ? Landscape Architecture. e Civil f nflincering lrrrelaticn & bVirreering v Graphic Communicrntioo E Surveying
462 E. Share Drive, Sto. 1n0, Ear le, Idaho UGIG $ P 208.9319.4-041 F 20M_'19.4445 e www.thelandgroupinc,com
g;\2t712\3.:1:?lE B\adrr}irc\M ahs\I .130401 ;)ttiperiy h(Ainda ry description 112168.doc
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line, North 85°58'50" East a distance of 89.71
feet;
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line, North 89°24'55" East a distance of 430.98
feet;
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line, North 0°17'46" West a distance of 32.00 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above-described tract of land contains 31.83 acres more or less, subject to all existing
easements and rights-of-way.
Prepared By, THE LAND GROUP, INC. iaL LAAb
.462 E. SHORE DRIVE, SUITE 100
EAGLE, IDAHO 83616
208-939-4041 0
208-939-4445 (FAX) a 14216 }
`IgTe OF
GAEL It.
q'
01
Site Plaimrg r Landscape Architecture 7 [:ivii Eogirieering '7 Gatf Course lrrigc tion & Engineering 0 Grnphir. Commuoi ation e Surveying
462 C. Shor, Drivr�, Ste, hitt; Eagle, Idahr1836M Q P 2OR-9 9.A0 1. F 2C1`�.9:5�.•i4<?S Q www, thelandgroupinc.com
i:\2U=i2\11;�1£;8iatlrnin\iega{s\i 13C74(i1 iirr:�pnrty L•pundarlt description 1i21{,3.r1ot
Lemnd.
EXHIBIT C
Yi' If st aX4N
J� -ir
Red Tail Communities, LLC
ProfirNnaty Plot - Landstmpo Dotal],
M-k�l N
Red Wing Subdivision Development Agreement — Exhibit C
V
�n
cr
rk
U
®m
Cr
C.
to
cr
Cr
NIr
8
cr
p° jn
A
r_.
D
,r k
N
w
it
-li
■
cr
OWN
r4r
A
'u
E2
wj
a'
A
`�
mo■
Cr
rolL
Lw]
CL
to
cn
a
Cr
Qe
_C
�l
Mi
"J
I IL
All
`1
e ■
cr
P'FL
m
m
x
.-
A
obm
cr
rolk
A
Exhibit D
Single -Family Residential
� Y �
Red Wing Subdivision Development Agreement — Exhibit D
CITY OF MERIDIAN EfkIDIAN?t�-
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAWAND IDAHO
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for an Amendment to the Development Agreement; Rezone to the R-4
and R-15 Zoning Districts; and Preliminary Plat Consisting of Forty -Eight (48) Single -Family
Residential Building Lots, One (1) Multi -Family Building Lots, and Nine (9) Common/Other Lots
for Redwing Subdivision, Located at the Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and E.
Victory Road, by W. H. Moore Co.
Case No(s). MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
For the City Council Hearing Date of, March 26, 2013 (Findings on April 16, 2013)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 26, 2013, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 26, 2013, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 26, 2013,
incorporated by reference) '
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of March 26, 2013, 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.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S), MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
-1-
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
Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of March 26, 2013, 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 an amendment to the development agreement is hereby approved
per the provisions in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 26, 2013, attached
as Exhibit A.
2. .The applicant's request for a rezone to R-4 and R-15 is hereby approved with the requirement
of a development agreement per the provisions in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date
of March 26, 2013, attached as Exhibit A.
3. The applicant's request for a preliminary plat is hereby approved per the provisions in the
attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 26, 2013, 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 11-613-713).
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).
Notice of Two (2) Year Development Agreement Duration
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
-2-
The development agreement shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the City
within two (2) years of the City Council granting annexation and/or rezone (UDC 11 -5B -3D),
A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the
agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement
to be signed and returned to the City if filed prior to the end of the two (2) year approval period
(UDC 11-513-317).
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 March 26, 2013
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
-3-
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
2013.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN
COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT CHARLIE ROUNTREE
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA
COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD
(TIE BREATHER)
Mayor Tar y de Weerd
Attest: o440Rp'YBTi At/CUsrr
tk—.�---� ZG 190
� � _ A � City of
day of _
VOTED Ck,4__
VOTED_ 00. 2
VOTED—" C_
VOTED U4c?.
VOTED ' --
v IHO
Ja e fit City Cler c d PA
n SEAL 4
hc TRE�S����
Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning D nt, Public Works Department and City Attorney.
By: CP�GIC>.P,�P ��(I l.l'�� Dated:.
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
-4-
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
EXHIBIT A
March 26, 2013
Mayor & City Council
Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
E IDIAN*--
IDAHO
MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003 — Red Wing Subdivision (fka Cavanaugh
Subdivision)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, W. H. Moore Co., has applied for a modification to the existing development
agreement (MDA) for Cavanaugh Subdivision; rezone (RZ); and preliminary plat (PP) for Red Wing
Subdivision.
The proposed modification to the development agreement (DA) excludes the subject property from
the existing overall DA for Cavanaugh Subdivision (flea Tanana Valley).
The applicant proposes to rezone 32.87 acres of land from the C -N (Neighborhood Commercial;
13.59 acres) and TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center; 16.49 acres) zoning districts to the R-4
(Low Density Residential; 16.55 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Residential; 16.32 acres) zoning
districts.
The proposed preliminary plat consists of 48 single-family residential building lots, 1 multi -family
residential lot, and 9 common open space lots on 31.11 acres of land.
NOTE: A request to modify the Future Land Use Map for portions of this property that is not yet
complete. This application (CPAM-12-005) was previously acted on by the Commission and is
scheduled for action by the City Council on February 19th. In analyzing the subject applications, Staff
is assuming Council will approve CPAM-12-005. This request was approved by City Council on
March S. 2013.
See Section VIII, Analysis, for. more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA, RZ, and PP applications based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. NOTE., The Planning & Zoning
Commission need not make a recommendation on the MDA application.
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on February 21, 2013. At the
public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject RZ and PP
requests.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Jonathan Seel
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Jonathan Seel
v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters
A. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. The two proposed accesses via Victory Road.
e. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13.002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 1
EXHIBIT A
i. None
d. Outstanding Issues) for Citv Council:
i. The applicant requests a waiver from City Council to UDC 11-3A-3, which restricts
access to arterial streets to allow both two accesses via Victory Road The Commission
recommended bath accesses be approved
The Meridian City Council heard these items _on March 26, 201'3, At the public he_a_ring, the
Council approved the subject MDA; RZ and PP reo 1 s _ _ _ _ ___
a
1-11 11pa 1"Wil KOHN
I 1 11:
1 1 1 1 11 1
11111'1 I!
( 1 ' 1na=77 I.
1:1 ►/II
\ 1 1'
71 WWWWO]
1 : 11
1' •!_ ' 11
II
1 1 s •. 11 : 1 1)•
\ 1 1
I ' 1 : 1 1' 1' 1 1_ I l r 1
_! ITS
/ 1_ I : 1. 1 1 (I I
I I I 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1' 1, 1 1
• �. 1 1 1 1
U 1(1 1!
1 I r
I'' 1 1 11 1
: 1: I
►1:1IFIRSIMMA
�/ 11rx 1 1!
"41 i 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1. 1 11
< I 1' : 1 1 i' . 1 1 1, r 1
i
U 1. 1 ►i1 , 11
1• s11 MMI WrMIWIMEMMU1111M 1 1
1. 1 1 11T=11
1 !' 1 1 1 1' 1 1
•u•1
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers MDA -13-
002, RZ-13-002 and PP -13-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 26,
2013, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers MDA -13-
002, RZ-13-002 and PP -13-003, as presented during the hearing on March 26, 2013, for the following
reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number MDA -13-002, RZ-13-002 and PP -13-003 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 on the southeast corner of S• Meridian Road (State Highway 69)
and E. Victory Road, in the northwest ''/a of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 2
EXHIBIT A
B. Applicant:
W. H. Moore Company
1940 Bonito Way, Ste. 160
Meridian, Idaho 83642
C. Owner:
Red Tail Communities, LLC
1940 Bonito Way, Ste. 160
Meridian, ID 83642
D. Representative:
Jonathan Seel, W. H. Moore Company
1940 Bonito Way, Ste. 160
Meridian, ID 83642
E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject applications are for a rezone, preliminary plat, and development agreement
modification request. Except for the MDA request, which only requires Council review, 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: January 4, and January 18, 2013 (Commission); March 4,
and 18, 2013 (City Council)
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 1, 2013 (Commission); Februa
28, 2013 (City Council)
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 8, 2013 (Commission); March 15, 2013 (City
Council
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s): This site is currently vacant/undeveloped.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: Victory Road, Fuel facility/convenience store, landscape nursery, zoned C -G; and
residential properties, zoned R-4
South: Undeveloped property, zoned R-8
East: Undeveloped property, zoned R-8 and TN -R
West: Meridian Road (SH 69) and rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County
C. History of Previous Actions:
® In 2006, this site received annexation and zoning (AZ -06-015) approval with R-8 and C -N
zoning with the Tanana Valley project. A development agreement was required as a provision
of annexation and recorded as Instrument #106151214.
A preliminary plat (PP -06-013) for Tanana Valley Subdivision was approved for 105 single-
family residential building lots and 1 commercial building lot on the subject portion of the
Tanana Valley property.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13.002; PP -13.003
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT A
® In 2008, the subject property was rezoned (RZ-07-014) from R-8 to C -N (13.59 acres) and TN -
C (16.49 acres).
A new preliminary plat (PP -07-015) for Cavanaugh Subdivision was approved that included the
subject property. Lots on this site consisted of common area for landscaping and parking, and
building lots for a neighborhood market, condominium units, apartments, vertically integrated
residential lofts above retail, and commercial.
A development agreement modification (MI -07-011) (Instrument #108065958) was also
approved to address the new neighborhood center plan on this site.
® An 18 -month time extension (TE -08-022) on the preliminary plat to obtain the City Engineer's
signature on the final plat for the first phase of development was approved by the Director on
October 15, 2008.
® Another 18 -month time extension (TE -10-005) on the preliminary plat to obtain the City
Engineer's signature on the final plat for the first phase of development was approved by City
Council on March 23, 2010.
® A two-year time extension (TEC -11-005) on the preliminary plat to obtain the City Engineer's
signature on the final plat for the first phase of development was approved by City Council on
September 27, 2010 and will expire on August 22, 2013 unless a final plat is signed or another
time extension is approved.
D. Utilities:
a) Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer to serve the subject site exists directly adjacent in E.
Victory Road.
b) Location of water: Domestic water to serve the subject site exists directly adjacent in E.
Victory Road.
c) Issues or concerns: The subject site is obligated to pay $1,465.56 per acre to proportionally
offset costs incurred by the City of Meridian for the Victory Road Gap Sewer Project. Said
payment must be received prior to obtaining the City Engineer's signature on any final plat.
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Ridenbaugh canal runs along the southern boundary of this
site and the Kennedy canal runs north/south on the east portion of the site.
2. Hazards: NA
3. Flood Plain: This property does not lie within the floodplain or flood way.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
CITY OF MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS:
EXISTING:
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan currently designates the
western 21+/- acres of site as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the eastern 11+/- acres as
Mixed Use — Neighborhood (MU -N) with a Neighborhood Center (N.C.) Overlay.
The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses typically
include single-family homes at densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (pg. 20).
The purpose of the MU -N designation is to assign areas where neighborhood -serving uses and
F' dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single -
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT A
use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily
residential with supporting non-residential services. Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be
smaller scale and provide a good or service that people typically do not travel far for and need
regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged.
Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is critical in MU -N
areas. Tree -lined, narrow streets are encouraged. Developments are also encouraged to be designed
according to the conceptual MU -N plan depicted in Figure 3-1 of the Comprehensive Plan (see pgs,
24-27).
PROPOSED:
A Future Land Use Map Amendment, CPAM-I2-005 request is scheduled to be heard by the City
Council on February 19, 2013; the Commission recommended approval of the CPAM request on
January 17, 2013. This request was approved by_City Council on March S. 2013.
The applicant proposes to change the FLUM designation on the western 16,32-+-/- acres of the site
from MDR to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR). The designation on the eastern 10.77+/ -
acres is proposed to change from MU -N with a N.C. overlay to MDR making the total area of the
MDR designated areal6.55+/- acres (a portion of the site is already designated MDR and will stay as
such).
The MHDR designation allows for the development of a mix of relatively dense residential housing
types including townhomes, condominiums and apartments. Residential gross densities should range
from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre, with a target density of 12 units per acre. These are relatively
compact areas within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near
mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for
residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and
thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with
adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and individual project identity (pgs. 20-21).
The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may
include single-family homes at densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre (pg. 20).
The applicant proposes to develop the western portion of the site with an apartment complex
consisting of 215-228 units resulting in a gross density of 15 dwelling units per acre with a clubhouse
and supporting amenities (see Exhibit A.5). The eastern portion of the site is proposed to develop
with 48 single-family residential building lots resulting in a gross density of 3 dwelling units per acre.
Staff is of the opinion the density proposed by the applicant is consistent with the FLUM designations
requested.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to
the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):
® "Require landscape street buffers for new development along all entryway corridors." (2.01.02E,
pg. 13)
A 3S foot wide landscape buffer will be required along S. Meridian Road, an entryway corridor
in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -7C Landscape Buffers along Streets.
® "Use the Comprehensive Plan, the Unified Development Code, and the Design Manual to
discourage strip development, and encourage clustered, landscaped business or residential
development on entryway corridors." (2.01.02D, pg. 13)
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT A
Future development of this site adjacent to Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, is required to
comply with UDC landscape and design standards and design guidelines in the Design Manual
in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
® "Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-
family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income
groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development." (3.07.03B, pg. 56)
The future development of single family and multi family residential uses on this site will provide
ownership and rental options for individuals with varying income levels.
® "Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other permanent
major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares." (3.07.02,
pg. 55)
An apartment complex is proposed on the corner of S. Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, and
E. Victory Road, an arterial street. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the southern boundary of
the site which will be developed as an open space corridor and will contain a section of the City's
multi -use pathway system.
® "Provide a walkable community through good design." (2.01,01A, pg,13)
VIII. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION (MDA): The applicant proposes to amend the
existing development agreement (DA) for the overall Cavanaugh property to remove the subject
property from the agreement and enter into a new DA with the City for the subject property (see
` Exhibits A.1, A.2, and B).
The reason for the request is that ownership of the property has changed. The previous
development (Cavanaugh Subdivision) consisted of 177-+/- acres and went through bankruptcy
proceedings; the property is now owned by several different entities.
Staff supports the applicant's request to remove the subject property from the existing Cavanaugh
DA and enter into a new DA concurrent with the rezone process.
REZONE (RZ): The applicant proposes to rezone 32.87 acres of land from the C -N
(Neighborhood Commercial) and TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) zoning districts to the
R-4 (1655 acres) and R-15 (16.32 acres) zoning districts.
A conceptual development plan is shown on the landscape plan in Exhibit A.5. The applicant
plans to develop the R-15, western portion of the site with an apartment complex consisting of
228 dwelling units and the R-4, eastern portion of the site with 48 single-family residences.
Development Agreement: The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction
with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, conceptual development plan, and preliminary plat, staff
recommends a DA is required as a provision of the rezone. Staff s recommended DA provisions
are included in Exhibit B.
The proposed zoning designations and densities are consistent with the proposed changes to the
FLUM noted above in Section VII. Therefore, staff is supportive of the rezone request.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 6
EXHIBIT A
PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 48 single-family residential
building lots, 1 multi -family residential lot, and 9 common open space lots on 31.11 acres of land
in the proposed R-4 and R-15 zoning districts.
Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat and future development is required to comply with
the dimensional standards of the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 and
11-2A7 respectively. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and found several line and chord
segment dimensions to be missing and some lots (L9 & L10, B2 and L24, B1) that don't meet the
minimum street frontage requirements. Also, street knuckles are required to be separated from
through traffic by a landscape island, per UDC 11-2A-3; landscape islands are not depicted on the
plan. The final plat(s) will need to comply with the dimensional standards of the applicable
district in effect at the time of final plat application submittal. Note: ,staff is currently in the
process of proposing a text amendment to the UDC that may remove the requirement for street
knuckles to be separated from traffic by a landscape Island.
Access: Two accesses are depicted on the plat via E. Victory Road and one access is depicted to
the east to eventually connect to the collector street planned to be constructed on the adjacent
property. No access via Meridian Road (SH 69) is proposed.
Because this site lies on the corner of a state highway (SH 69/Meridian Road) and an arterial
street (Victory Road), access to the site is restricted. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
and UDC 11 -3H -4B prohibits access to SH 69/Meridian Road; UDC 11-3A-3 limits access to
arterial and collector streets; and the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) limits access to
Victory Road.
Access to a local street is not available to this property. Therefore, an access to Victory Road is
needed. However, the applicant is proposing two access points to Victory Road. The applicant is
requesting a waiver of City Code from City Council for the proposed access points to Victory
Road. Approval for any/all access to Victory shall also be obtained from ACHD. In accord with
UDC 11-3A-3, staffrecommends only one access via Victory Road Is approved.
Multi -Use Pathway: A multi -use pathway is required to be constructed on this site along S.
Meridian Road (SH 69) within a public use easement in accord with UDC 11 -3H -4C.4. A multi-
use pathway is depicted on the landscape plan. The developer is required to submit a public use
easement for the pathway to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department
for approval by City Council prior to signature on the final plat.
Noise Abatement: Noise abatement in the form of a berm or berm and wall combination is
required for residential uses along state highways, per UDC 11 -3H -4D. The landscape plan
depicts a berm adjacent to S. Meridian Road (SH 69). The applicant should submit a cross-section
of the berm (or berm/wall combination) in relation to the centerline of SH 69 demonstrating
compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3H -4D.
Landscaping: A 35 -foot wide landscape street buffer is required along S. Meridian Road (SH
69), an arterial street & entryway corridor; a 35 -foot wide buffer is shown on the landscape plan
in accord with this requirement. A 25 -foot wide landscape street buffer is required along E.
Victory Road, an arterial street; a 25 -foot wide buffer is proposed on the multi -family portion of
the site and a 30 -foot wide buffer is proposed on the single-family portion of the site in accord
with this requirement. The property does not abut the future collector street to the east; therefore,
a street buffer is not required to be provided on this site. Landscaping is required in accord with
the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -7C; the proposed landscape plan complies with these
standards.
Common Open Space & Site Amenities: All single-family and multi -family developments over
5 acres in size are required to provide open space & site amenities in accord with the standards
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 7
EXHIBIT A
listed in UDC 11-3G-3. A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for
the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3B. Based on 15,9 acres for
the single-family portion of the development, a minimum of 1.59 acres of qualified open space is
required. The fat depicts 1.82 acres of common area; however, it does not appear to meet the
"qualified" open space requirements as set forth in UDC 11 -3G -3B. Prior to the City Council
meeting, the applicant should submit revised plans showing compliance with this standard
(or calculations detailing how the current plan meets these requirements).
Development area under 20 acres in size is required to provide a minimum of one site amenity.
The applicant proposes a seating and picnic area as an amenity in the single-family portion.
Open space and amenity requirements for the multi -family portion of this project will be
evaluated with the future Conditional Use Permit and/or Certificate of Zoning
Compliance/Design Review.
Sidewalks: A five-foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along E. Victory
Road as shown on the landscape plan in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. In addition to the sidewalk,
the applicant is proposing to enter into a developer cooperative with ACHD to widen Victory
Road to 3 -lanes and build curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to be reimbursed
for the impact fee eligible portion of the roadway widening work with future impact fee credits.
Fencing: Fencing appears to be depicted on the landscape plan; however, it is not labeled as such
nor is the type (materials, height) of fencing shown. Fencing is required adjacent to the
Ridenbaugh Canal located along the southern boundary of the site as set forth in UDC 11 -3A -6B,
unless the canal is improved as part of the development to be a water amenity. Fencing adjacent
to all pathways and common open space is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC
11-3A-7.
Waterways: The Ridenbaugh Canal lies off-site along the southern boundary of this site. The
irrigation district's access road for the canal lies on the subject property.
Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations for the multi -family and single-family
structures are included in Exhibit A,6. Final design of the multi -family structures will be required
to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the
Design Manual. Staff has no objections to the conceptual elevations as they appear to be of
quality material and design.
,Staff is supportive of the proposed development agreement modification, rezone and preliminary
plat with the comments noted above and the conditions listed in Exhibit A
IX. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings/Other
1. Vicinity Map
2. Applicant's Proposed Changes to Development Agreement
3. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Rezone Area
4. Proposed Preliminary Plat - REVISED 2/20/13
5. Proposed Landscape Plan/Conceptual Development Plan— REVISED 2/21/13
6. Conceptual Building Elevations
B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions
Red Wing Subdivision MDA. -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 8
EXHIBIT A
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 9
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A,1: Vicinity Map
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; M"13-002; PP -13-003
PAGL 10
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.2: Applicant's Proposed Changes to Development Agreement
When reeordal, please return to.
City Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 E. Broadway
MMdian,Idaho 83642
RELEASE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Release of Development Agreement (this "Release") made by and between the City of
Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation ("City") and Red Tail Communities LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("Owner').
WHEREAS, City and Owner's predecessor -in -title entered into that certain Development
Agreement dated August 28, 2006, and recorded in the real property records of Ada County, Idaho, on
or about September 21, 2006, as Instrument No. 106151214, as amended by that certain Addendum to
Development Agreement dated May 12, 2008, and recorded in the real property records of Ada County,
Idaho, on or about rune 6, 2008, as Instrument No. 108065958 (collectively, "Development
Agreement") as a condition of annexation and initial zoning of approximately 182.6 mores of real
property legally described in the Development Agreement and known at that time as the proposed
Tanana Valley Subdivision ("Original Property';
WHEREAS, on , 2013, City adopted Rezone Ordinance
to rezone a portion of the Original Property consisting of approximately 31.84 acres, legally descnibed in
Exhibit A attached hereto ("Released Property'), following a public herring on or about
2013, before the Meridian City Council (Case No. ), which
supersedes the initial zoning and related Development Agreement as to the Rezoned Property,
WHEREAS, City and Developer desires to execute and record this Release to memorialize that
the Development Agreement is no longer of any force or effect as to the Released Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals above, City declares and awfirms, and
(Developer agrees, that in light of the notice and public hearing held on
2013, and the -Rezone Ordinance approved by the City Connell on
2013, the Released Property is hereby released irons, and shall no longer
be subject, to the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect as all portions of the Original Property except the Released Property.
[end of text]
RELEASE OF DEvELopma AoREB aw--1
1672843-3
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 11
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.3: Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Rezone Area
a
pop 1of2
XRE LAND GROUP, INC.
January 8, 2013
Project No, 112168
Rezone Description lfr4 Zone
Red Tall Communities, UC
16.55 Acres
GN1f[IfG "A"
A tract of land situated In a portion of the Northwest/1one quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North,
Range 1 East, Doke Meridian, City of Meridian, Idaho, described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found brass cap which monuments the Northwest Comer of said Section 34
which bears South 89.42'14" West a distance of 2,450.84 feet from a found brass cap whfda
monuments the North One Quarter Comer of said Section 30, thence following the northerly Nne of
said Section 30 and the centerline of East victory Road, North 8904214" East a distance of 1,011.84
feet to the POINTOP SEGNNING.
Thence following said northerly ilna and sold conterlI ne, North 89'421],4" East a distance of
ti 875.00 feet;
Thence leaving sold nlortherty tine and sold centerline, South 0°17'46" East a distance of
$50.00 ken;
Thence 317.51 feet along a circular curve to the right, said curia having a radius of 817.50
het, a central angle of 57°1748"', a chord bearing of South 28.21'06" West and a chord
distance of 304.44 Meet;
Thence South 57143133" West a dtstarwe of 46.19 foot;
Thence 237.06 feet along a circular curve to the left, said.aaw hrAV a radius of 682.50
feet, a central angle of 19954'04", a chord bearing of South 47'46'31" West and a chord
distance of 235.87 feet;
Thence South 35.4313x" West a distance of 50.00 fort;
Thence 17356 feet along a circular curve to the left, sold curve having a radius of 172.79
foot, a central angle of 181416", a chord bearing of South 26'21'1Y West and a chord
distance of 172.79 feet;
Thence South 19'04'55" West a dhtanca of 57.81 feet to the centerline of the Rldonbaugh
Canal;
Thence following said centeri(ne, North 70'x5'11" West a distance of 411.60 foot;
Thence leaving said centerline, North 0'1746" West a a0ance of 912.09 feet to the POINT
Of BEGINNING.
The above-described tract of lend contains 16.55 acres more or less, subject to all existing
easements and rights-of-way. The Intent of this description is for rezone purposes only and is not
Intended to describe or transfer property rights.
Attached hereto h Exhibit "8" and by this reference Is made a part hereof.
or
Site Planning • Landscape Architecture r C141 Engineering i Ga1JCow s a 104000 A Engineering a Grophk Communkation a Surw)ft
442 E. Slate Drive, $1e, 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 • P 208.939.4041 r 206.439.4445 •
WM
SA2012\112168\admin\Ieg AI 130105 141600110M r•8 dmiption b 112168.chn
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 12
EXHIBIT A
F4 �,, nage 2 of 2
THE LAND GROUP, INC.
Prepared 8y: THE LAND GROUP, INC,
462 E. SNORE DRIVE, SURE 100
EAGLE, IDAHO 83616
208-934.4041
208-939.445 (FAX)
REV(- PROVAL
JAN 2 8 20B
MWORKs DEPT
/. a. 2015
I
Site PlomNng•LondstppeAtrhlte<twa•Civil Enplacertnp•Got/Courselrrlgotionaengineaing•6rophkCb mwNtatton•Surveykv
462 F- Shore IHIve, Ste. 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 • P208.939.4041 F 208539,1445 •
t'\2012\117168\admin\ippabV 130106 annexation r-8 description b 112168.doc
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 13
January e, 2013
Project No.112168
Rezone Description R-15 Zone
Red TO Communities, LLC
16.32 Acres
EXHIBIT A
Wim,
Pagel of 1
T14B LAND GROUP, Mr -
Exltlbtt "A"
A tract of land situated In a portion of the Northwest one Quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North,
Range i East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Idaho, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a found brass cap which monuments the Northwest Comer of said Section
30, which bears South 89941114" West a distance of 2,454.84 feet from a Lound brass cop
which monuments the North One Quarter Comer of said Section 30, thence following the
northerly Me of said Section 30 and the centerline of East Victory Road, North 89'42'14"
East a distance of 1,011.84 feet;
Thence kaft said northerly Noe and said centerfUne, South 0.1746" East a distance of
212MI"t to a point on the centerline of the Woribaugh Canal;.•
Thence following said centerline, North 701511" West a distance of 711.00 feet;
Thence following said centerline, North 57`31'47" West a distance of 69.47 feet;
Thence following said centerline, North 44.48'23" West a distance of 414.34 het to the
westerly line of sold Section 30 and the centerhne of South Meridian Road;
Thence following said westerly line and said centeri@ne, North 0°25149" East a distance of
339.80 beet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above-described tract of land contains 16.32 acre more or less, subject to all existing
easements and rights-of-way. The Intent of this description Is for rezone purposes only and Is not
Intended to describe or transfer property rights.
Attached hereto is Exhibit "B" and by this reference is made a part hereof.
Prepared By: THE LAND GROUP, INC.
462 E. SNORE DRIVE, SUITE 104
EAGLE, IDAHO 83616
208.939-4041
208-9394445 (FAX)
BY REVI • TPROVAL
JAN 2 8 2013
MERIDIAN �hP��UppBLiC IV
Site planntnOlbddt�dp�i IA sure • CMI Engineeiing • Goff Course lUVOUon 81 Engineering • 6rephk Commvnkatbn •Sarwykig
462 E. Share Drive, Ste. 100, EBate, W3110 83616 o P 2011.939,4041 F 203.939.4445 •
gi\201AI12168\adm1n\1ega1s\I 130108 annexation rr15 detcr"on 112168,doc
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 14
NW CORNER
SECTION 30
EXHIBIT A
SItUated In Township 33 North, RwVV 1
a 414 D.M Mn , Waho
2013
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 15
N 1/4 CORWR
SECTION X30
564V 00y
e
Curve Tem
SEGMT
LENGTH
6Atkos
DUTA r.ffito LENGTH
QM
Ct
s176!'
31r9o'
6nr'4A' wow
S28.21on
c�
asr oe'
�zeor
�saoo4• >
147'40•W
1r '�ss�
50.68'
t84e$�' ir7y
msv
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 15
N 1/4 CORWR
SECTION X30
564V 00y
e
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.4: Proposed Preliminary Plat — REVISED 2/20/13
Revised Preliminary Plat Of: !.° _...._._... :.
-_
-Red Wing Subdivision;;,
,µms'
W.YMory fd.
'� _.`�-ter �'� ����—lp,s- �� - .._��_ _ •• �f � - :J�"♦:
• _ ��. set �.--�i.,. _� _ n - _ {._�-...._ —�•^; �!;f `7j 1 ��
� ;-_ it `_` �� i ��:_. i_;,,'�i_���,;...:j,� i,�' .;► d
�•-'tt � •.aa. �� ! .-- -�-•.. 1—. —,—.. —(—.:rte .. i is � :1
\ -1 } •► I �s f 1� � c s
_%
lr.,��yy6p �9•yIfF�•�vyyP��it � .f n {i'�XR:Cti. � , K si ra re'
24,ir•. .+IdLS•AE f. am"�i`is f:�w..+.,... a.wT�a. ' t y��!�+L'°=
+•4.64.w. Ml i
^ C. N��<tE r1��lu�ti7:algL
LotDifrNnsbns
.�.« Red Tail Communities, LLC
Pf On*u y Plat
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13.002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 16
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.5: Proposed Landscape Plan/Conceptual Development Plan REVISED 2/21/13
PrNiNnay+ PW • W Wtcpo Plan
0.1w, %I*.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 17
d
W
EXHIBIT A
AH
d Tell Communities, L
PmOWnay PLm - Lwxlscao DsWlB
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 18
bra
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.6; Conceptual Building Elevations
Multi -Family Apartments
[ted Wing Subdivislon MDA -13-002;122-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 19
EXHIBIT A
m
MWf 1'419WI
A
s
-"t S' rAl
NN
Red Wing Subclivisio,n MDA -13-002;12Z-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 20
EXHIBIT A
B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The applicant shall obtain City Council approval of the Release of Development Agreement
attached in Exhibit A.2 prior to Council approval of the following DA at the same Council
meeting.
1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of the rezone of this property. Prior to
the rezone ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the
property owner(s) at the time of rezone ordinance adoption, and the developer. The Applicant
shall contact the City Attorney's Office to initiate this process. The DA shall be signed by the
property owner and retuned to the city within two (2) years of the City Council granting the
rezone. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the City Cleric's office prior
to commencement of the DA. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
a. Development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan
shown on the landscape plan in Exhibit A.5 and the conceptual building elevations shown in
Exhibit A.6. The plan depicts an apartment complex consisting of 228 dwelling units on the
western portion of the site and 48 single-family residences on the eastern portion of the site.
A conditional use permit is required for the multi -family development.
b. A 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway is required to be constructed along S. Meridian Road (SH
69) as shown on the landscape plan. The pathway shall be constructed in accord with the
standards contained in the Pathways Master Plan and in a location approved by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
c. A public pedestrian easement for the multi -use pathway along S. Meridian Road (SH 69) is
required to be submitted to the City, approved by City Council, and recorded prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer and/or development of the multi -family
portion of the site. The pathway shall be constructed in its entirety with the first phase of
development.
d. Noise abatement in the form of a berm or berm and wall combination is required for
residential uses along state highways, per UDC 11 -3H -4D. The landscape plan depicts a berm
adjacent to S. Meridian Road (SH 69). The applicant shall submit a cross-section of the beim
(or berm/wall combination) in relation to the centerline of SH 69 demonstrating compliance
with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3H -4D with the final plat application.
e. A minimum five-foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along E. Victory
Road as shown on the landscape plan in accord with UDC 11-3A-17.
f. A conditional use permit is required for a multi -family development in the R-15 zoning
district per UDC Table I 1-2A-2.
g. Vehicular access to S. Meridian Road (SH 69) is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3H-4.
1.2 Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.2.1 Prior to the City Council meeting, the applicant shall submit a revised plat and landscape
plan showing compliance with the qualified open space requirements listed in UDC 11 -3G -
3B.
1.2.2 A 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway is required to be constructed within a public use easement in
Lot 1, Block 1 as shown on the landscape plan attached in Exhibit A.S. Landscaping is required to
be installed in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. The pathway and landscaping shall be installed in its
entirety with the first phase of development on the site.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 21
EXHIBIT A
1.2.3 The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC,
consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC I 1-3A-7 and I 1-3A-613.
1.2.4 The applicant shall provide a minimum of one (1) site amenity (seating & picnic area) and 1.59
acres (10%) of qualified open space that meet or exceed the standards set forth in UDC 11-3G-3.
1.2.5 Prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat, the applicant shall obtain City Council approval
of and record a public pedestrian easement for the 10 -foot wide multi -use pathways shown on the
plat.
1.2:6 Unless 9 apied otherwise ise t Cit n •t d A CHD c
rr' � Two accessed to
this site from Victory Road 4o= approved as shown on the preliminary plat. No vehicular access
to Meridian Road is allowed.
1.3 General Conditions of Approval
1.3.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the R-4 and R-15 zoning districts listed
in UDC Tables 11-2-A-5 and 11-2A-7 respectively.
1.3.2 Comply with all provisions of I 1-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. Direct access to S.
Meridian Road is prohibited. Access via E. Victory Road shall be approved by the City of
Meridian and ACHD.
1.3.3 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set
forth in UDC 11-3A-6.
1.3,4 Construct the pathway and adjoining fencing and landscaping consistent with the standards as set
forth in UDC 11 -3A -7A7 and 11-313-12C respectively.
1.3.5 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC I I -3A-
15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28.
1.3.6 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC I 1-3A-17.
1.3.7 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11 -3B -5J.
1.3.8 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC I 1-3C-6
for single-family and multi -family dwellings as applicable.
1.3.9 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11 -3B -
7C.
1.3. 10 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC I I -3B-
11 C.
1.3.11 Construct all parkways consistent with the standards asset forth in UDC 11 -3A -17E, 11 -3G -3B5
and 11 -3B -7C.
1.3.12 Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3,
including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements,
blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement.
1.3.13 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.
1.3.14 Construct a multi -use pathway along SH 69 as set forth in UDC 11 -3H -4C4.
1.3.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11 -3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13.002; PP -13-003
PAGE 22
EXHIBIT A
1.4 Ongoing Conditions of Approval
1.4.1 The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets
the standards as set forth in UDC 11-313-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth
in UDC 11-3B-5, UDC 11-313-13 and UDC 11-313-14.
1.4.2 All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set
forth in UDC 11 -3G -3F1.
1.4.3 The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of
approval associated with this site.
1.4.4 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.
1.4.5
The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways.
1.4.6
The applicant has a continuing obligation to comply with the outdoor lighting provisions as set
forth in UDC 1 I -3A-11.
1.4.7
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 I I -
3A-3.
1.5
Process Conditions of Approval
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
r"
Article D and receive approval for such signs.
1.5.2
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.
1.5.3
The final plat, and any phase thereof, shall substantially comply with the approved preliminary
plat as set forth in UDC 11-613-3C2.
1.5.4
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 11-613-
713.
1.5.5
The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant falls 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.
1.5.6
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 1 I -3B -14A.
1.5.7
At such time that the multi -use pathway connects from one major street to another and is greater
than one-half mile long, the applicant may petition the City to assume maintenance
responsibilities.
2. PUBLIC WORics DEPARTMENT
2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of mains in W. Victory
Road. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision except for the 24 inch
sewer trunk that is master planned along the west boundary along S Meridian Road; applicant
shall coordinate main size and routing and easement widths with the Public Works Department,
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13.002; PP -13.003
PAGE 23
EXHIBIT A
and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. In
addition, the applicant shall be required to dedicate a permanent and temporary easement for said
24 inch sewer trunk line. 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. The subject site is obligated to pay
$1,465.56 per acre to proportionally offset costs incurred by the City of Meridian for the Victory
Road Gap Sewer Project. Said payment must be received prior to obtaining the City Engineer's
signature on any final plat.
2.2 Water service to this site is available via extension of mains in W. Victory Road. The applicant
shall be responsible to install two water connections due to fire flow requirements. The applicant
shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size
and routing with Public Works.
2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot common lot for all public water/sewer mains outside of
public right of way. The common lot shall be covered with a blanket easement to the City of
Meridian.
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
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat
by the City Engineer,
2.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6.
Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association
(ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
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.
2.8 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.
2.9 Street signs are to be in place, 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.
2.10 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.
2.11 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro -paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 24
EXHIBIT A
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.
2.13 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.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
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.
2.18 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.
2.19 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 ACRD. 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.
2.20 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.
2.21 100 'Watt and 250 Watt, high-pressure sodium street lights shall be required per the City of
Meridian Department of Public Works Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. All street
lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department for approved. The street light contractor shall obtain the approved design on
file and an electrical permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing
installations. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of
Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC.
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. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
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. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
3. POLICE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to this application.
4. FIRE DEPARTMENT
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 25
EXHIBIT A
4.1 One and two family dwellings not exceeding 3,600 square feet require a fire -flow of 1,000 gallons
per minute for a duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. One and two family dwellings in
excess of 3,600 square feet require a minimum fire flow as specified in Appendix B of the
International Fire Code. Fire Hydrant spacing shall be provided as required by Appendix C of the
International Fire Code.
4.2 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water
quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
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 ''/z" 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 Y2" 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 Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth
in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2.
4.5 Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a
vertical clearance of 13'6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1.
4.6 Fire lanes, streets, and structures (including the canopy height of mature trees) shall have a
vertical clearance of 13'6 as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.2.1.
4.7 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 50 homes, as set forth in International Fire Code
Section D107.1. The two entrances should be separated by no less than Y2 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).
4.8 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.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5,1 Republic Services has no comments related to this application.
6. PARKS DEPARTMENT
6.1 The applicant shall design and construct the multi -use pathway along S. Meridian Road/SH 69
consistent with the location and specifications (Chapter 3) set forth in the Meridian Pathways Master
Plan unless otherwise approved by the Parks and Recreation Director.
6.2 The applicant shall have an ongoing obligation to maintain all pathways.
7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval
7.1.1 Enter into a development agreement with the District to improve Victory Road to 3 lanes with curb,
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 26
EXHIBIT A
gutter, and 7 -foot wide detached concrete sidewalk from Meridian Road/SH-69 east to the site's east
property line, approximately 1,820 -feet.
7.1.2 Comply with requirements of ITD and City of Meridian for Meridian Road/SH-69 frontage. Submit
to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat
or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first.
7.1.3 Provide a permanent right-of-way easement for the 7 -foot wide detached sidewalks proposed to be
constructed on Victory Road abutting the site.
7.1.4 Construct a dedicated right turn lane for the driveway located approximately 660 -feet east of
Meridian Road/SH-69. The right turn lane should designed with an I I -foot wide lane and provide a
100 -feet of storage. The applicant should be required to coordinate the Design and Construction of
the dedicated right turn lane with District Development Review staff. ACHD will not reimburse the
applicant for the additional right-of-way to accommodate the construction of, or for the construction
of the right turn lane.
7.1.5 Construct Red Tail Street, Blackspur Way, Silver Wing Drive, Andros Way, Black Hawk Drive, and
White Tail Way as 33 -foot street sections, curb, gutter and 5 -foot attached concrete sidewalks within
50 -feet of right-of-way, as proposed.
7.1.6 Provide written fire department approval for the 33 -foot street sections, prior to plan approval.
7.1.7 Construct Andros Way to intersect Victory Road, located approximately 560 -feet west of Standing
Timber Avenue, as proposed with a 52 -foot wide approach, 2 21 -foot travel lanes, curb, gutter, 5 -
foot wide detached concrete sidewalk, and a 10 -foot wide landscape median. Provide a permanent
right-of-way easement for any sidewalks placed outside of the dedicated right-of-way and dedicate
the landscape median as right-of-way.
7.1.8 Construct one stub to the east, Black Hawk Drive, located approximately 580 -feet north of Victory
Road. Install a sign at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
7.1.9 Construct one 52 -foot wide driveway to intersect Victory Road, located approximately 660 -feet east
of Meridian Road/SH-69 with 2 21 -foot travel lanes and a 10 -foot wide landscape island onto
Victory Road as proposed. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond
the edge of pavement of the roadway.
7.1.10 Construct a 30 -foot wide driveway onto Blackspur Way at approximately 125 -feet (measured
centerline to centerline) from the Red Tail Street/Blackspur Way intersection and approximately
155 -feet (measured centerline to centerline) from the Black Hawk Drive and Blackspur Way
intersection, as proposed. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond
the edge of pavement of the roadway.
7.1.11 Payment of impacts fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit.
7.1.12 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval
7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way.
7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way.
7.2.3 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.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 27
EXHIBIT A
7.2.4 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.
7.2.5 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.
7.2.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
7.2.7 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.
7.2.8 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.
7.2.9 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.
7.2.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy.
7.2.11 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 ACRD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from
ACRD.
7.2.12 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.
8. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
(See next page)
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 28
EXHIBIT A
IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
PO, Box 8026
Boise, ID 63707.2026
(208) 33446300
ltd.ldaho.gov
February 4, 2013
Machelle Hill
Meridian City Clerk's Office
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642 VIA EMAIL
Re: RZ 13-002 and PP 13-003 Red Wing
The Idaho Transportation Department has reviewed the referenced rezone and preliminary plat
for the Red Wing project site on Victory Road near SH -69 (Meridian Road). ITD has the
following comments:
1) ITD has no objection to a local jurisdiction's changes to a land use plan. The proposed
change to the comprehensive plan requires no ITD-related mitigation.
2) ITD has an access management plan for SH -69 (Meridian Road). The plan does not
include any access to SH -69 between Victory Road and Harris Street. The applicant's site
does not appear to affect ITD's access management plans.
3) The proposed change in land use is a net reduction in site -generated trip volume that has an
important impact on the regional roadway system. The conversion from employment /
commercial center to residential development separates homes from employment
opportunities and increases the average joumey-to-work and home -to -shopping trip
distance. Although this project is relatively small, the cumulative impact of such
rezone/comprehensive plan changes will certainly increase regional travel demand and
necessitate additional investment in the transportation system. These incremental changes
to the development plans incur a regional cost to expand the roadway network. This site's
location on the regional highway system could have provided some benefit in improving
accessibility and reducing both travel distance and the number of trips.
If you have any questions, you may contact Matt Ward at 334-8341 or me at 334-8377.
Sincerely,
Dave Szplett
Development Services Manager
dave.szplettQitd.idaho.gov
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13-003
PAGE 29
EXHIBIT A
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Rezone 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 a rezone, the
Council shall make the following findings:
a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan;
The Applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to the R-4 and R-15 zoning
districts. The City Council finds that the proposed map amendment (zoning) is generally
consistent with the proposed MDR and MHDR land use designations for this site and the rest
of Cavanaugh development to the south and east of the site. Therefore, the City Council
finds the amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan
(see section Vll above).
b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The City Council finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-4 and R-15 zoning
districts and proposed single-family and multi -family residential development of the property
is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential district in that it will
provide for a range of housing opportunities.
c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. City utilities will be extended at the expense of the applicant.
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 City Council 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 (as applicable) is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-511-3.E).
Because the subject request is for a rezone, the City Council finds this finding is not
applicable.
2. 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;
The City Council finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the
adopted and proposed Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and
circulation. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff
Reportfor more information.
Red Wing Subdivision MDA -13-002; RZ-13-002; PP -13.003
PAGE 30
EXHIBIT A
b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
The City Council finds that public services 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, the City Council 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;
Based on comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.), the
City Council finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the
proposed development. (See Exhibit B for more detail.)
e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare; and
The City. Council finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or general welfare.
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 13-002
ITEM TITLE: Red Wing Subdivision
Ordinance No. Proposed # 13-1552: An Ordinance (RZ 13-002 Red Wing Subdivision)
For The Re -Zone Of A Tract Of Land Situated In A Portion Of The Northwest One
Quarter Of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City Of
Meridian, Situated In Ada County, Idaho And Adjacent And Continuous To The
Corporate Limits Of The City Of Meridian As Requested By The City Of Meridian;
Establishing And Determining The Land Use Classification Of R-4 (Low Density
Residential; 16.55 Acres) And R-15 (Medium Density Residential; 16.32 Acres) Zoning
Districts In The Meridian City Code.
MEETING NOTES
x s t
r
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT .00 10
BOISE IDAHO 04/11113 03:16 PM
DEPUTY Bonnie
RECORDED—REQUEST OIF
Meridian City 113041511
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO.—
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, HOAGLUN, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA
AN ORDINANCE (RZ 13-002 RED WING SUBDIVISION) FOR THE RE -ZONE OF A
TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST ONE
QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE
MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND
ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY
OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ESTABLISHING
AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-4 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; 16.55 ACRES) AND R-15 (MEDIUM HIGH
RESIDENTIAL; 16.32 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE MERIDIAN CITY
CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIEES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED
WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND
THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND
PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A
WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description
herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit"A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian,
Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re -zoning by
the owner of said property, to -wit: Red Tail Communities, LLC.
SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re -zoned land from the C -N
(Neighborhood Commercial; 13.59 acres) and TN -C (Traditional Neighborhood Center;16.49 acres)
zoning districts to the R-4 (Low Density Residential; 16.55 acres) and R-15 (Medium High
Residential; 16.32 acres) zoning districts, in the Meridian City Code.
SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property.
SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the
laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re -zone said property.
SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well
as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of
the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance.
RE -ZONE -- ANNEXATION — RZ 13-002 RED WING SUBDIVISION Page 1 of 3
SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval and publication, according to law.
SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the
effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a
draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of
Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file
simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State
of Idaho.
SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the
Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading
in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in frill
force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this
day of , 2013.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this
day of , 2013.
ATTEST:
HOLMAN, CITY
MAYO AMMY de WEERD
Obi\T {D A UCUgr
GGlj4 , �y
Glylyf f
DIANt-
IUUNh 7
SEAL
A
J
l�°�the TRF.a��4�
RE -ZONE - ANNEXATION — RZ 13-002 RED WING SUBDIVISION Page 2 of 3
STATE OF IDAHO, )
ss:
County of Ada )
On this � (e) day of Y , 2013, before me, the undersigned, a Notaiy Public
in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY de WEERD and JAYCEE L. HOLMAN,
known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and
who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed
the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
0
Vy
I'I'I;
N ARY PUBLI FORI,DAH
RESIDING AT: i`-� V\1 0.t I
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:,—) o� Yi , 20 �
RE -ZONE - ANNEXATION — RZ 13-002 RED WING SUBDIVISION Page 3 of 3
January 8, 2013
Project No. 112168
Rezone Description R-15 Zone
Red Tail Communities, LLC
16.32 Acres
YrN
�Page 1 of 1
4
THF LAND GROUP, INC.
Exhibit "A"
A tract of land situated in a portion of the Northwest One Quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Idaho, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a found brass cap which monuments the Northwest Corner of said Section
30, which bears South 89°42114" West a distance of 2,450.84 feet from a found brass cap
which monuments the North One Quarter Corner of said Section 30, thence following the
northerly line of said Section 30 and the centerline of East Victory Road, North 89°42'14"
East a distance of 1,011.84 feet;
Thence leaving said northerly line and said centerline, South 0°17'46" East a distance of
912. et to a point on the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal;. -
Thence following said centerline, North 70055111" West a distance of 711.00 feet;
Thence following said centerline, North 57°31'47" West a distance of 69.47 feet;
Thence following said centerline, North 44608'23" West a distance of 414.34 feet to the
westerly line of said Section 30 and the centerline of South Meridian Road;
Thence following said westerly line and said centerline, North 0°25149" East a distance of
339.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above-described tract of land contains 16.32 acres more or less, subject to all existing
easements and rights-of-way. The intent of this description is for rezone purposes only and is not
intended to describe or transfer property rights,
Attached hereto is Exhibit "B" and by this reference is made a part hereof.
Prepared By: THE LAND GROUP, INC.
462 E. SHORE DRIVE, SUITE 100
EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 Q.T� LAND
208-939-4041 �� LN
208-939-4445 (FAX) d
a 14216
l "'E OF V
Site. Planning a tundseupe Architecture o Civil Engineering & Golf Course h•rigation & Engineering o Graphic Communication e Surveying
462 E. Shore Drive, Ste. 100, Eagle, Idaho 836115 o P 208.939.4041 F 208.939.4.445 a www,thelandgrouninc.com
g:\2012\112168\admin\legals\I 130108 annexation r-15 description 112168.doc
January 8, 2013
Project No, 112168
Rezone Description R-8 Zone
Red Tail Communities, LLC
16.55 Acres
° Page 1 of 2
THL LANA GROUP, INC.
Exhibit "A"
A tract of land situated in a portion of the Northwest One Quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Idaho, described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found brass cap which monuments the Northwest Corner of said Section 30,
which bears South 89°42'14" West a distance of 2,450.84 feet from a found brass cap which
monuments the North One Quarter Corner of said Section 30, thence following the northerly line of
said Section 30 and the centerline of East Victory Road, North 89°42'14" East a distance of 1,011,84
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence following said northerly line and said centerline, North 89°42'14" East a distance of
875.00 feet;
Thence leaving said northerly line and said centerline, South 0°17'46" East a distance of
350.00 feet;
Thence 317.51 feet along a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 317.50
feet, a central angle of 57017'48", a chord bearing of South 28°21'06" West and a chord
distance of 304.44 feet,
Thence South 574333" West a distance of 46,19 feet;
Thence 237.06 feet along a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 682,50
feet, a central angle of 19°54'04", a chord bearing of South 4704631" West and a chord
distance of 235,87 feet,
Thence South 354332" West a distance of 50.00 feet;
Thence 173.56 feet along a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 172.79
feet, a central angle of 18044'36", a chord bearing of South 26°21'15" West and a chord
distance of 172.79 feet;
Thence South 1904'55" West a distance of 57.81 feet to the centerline of the Ridenbaugh
Canal;
Thence following said centerline, North 70°55'11" West a distance of 411.60 feet;
Thence leaving said centerline, North 0°17'46" West a distance of 912,09 feet to the POINT
OF BEGINNING.
The above-described tract of land contains 16.55 acres more or less, subject to all existing
easements and rights-of-way. The intent of this description is for rezone purposes only and is not
intended to describe or transfer property rights.
Attached hereto is Exhibit "B" and by this reference is made a part hereof.
or
Site Planning # Landscape Architecture o Civil Engineering -?Goff Course Irrigation & Engineering ,Graphic Communication -Surveying
462 E. Shore Drive, Ste. 7.00, Eagle, Idaho 83616 o P 203.939,4041 F 208.939,4445 a www.thelandgroupinc.com
g.\2012\1121G8\adn)in\legalsV 130108 annexation r-8 description b 112168.doc
Page 2 of 2
dab
THE LAND GROUP, INC.
Prepared By: THE LAND GROUP, INC.
462 E. SHORE DRIVE, SUITE 100
EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 gti— NSN�SCr
208-939-4041
208-939-4445 (FAX) o ,4
a 14216
q� OF 0��
Site Planning o tundscape Architecture o Civil Engineering o Goff Course G'rYgotion & Engliteering o Graphic Communication o5urveying
462 C. Shore Drive, Ste. 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 a P 208.939.4041 r 205.939.4445 a www.thelandaroupinc.com
g:\2012\112168\admin\Iegals\i 130108 annexatir n r-8 description b 112168.doc
PROF S
A
v
O
I
Ln V
O Ln
CD i%
r W
W
N
n
o
ayS
I- A
�~141r
0
f
�"®
rn
N
0 `•� p9�
�
p�b�
M
M
go
A
v
O
I
Ln V
O Ln
CD i%
r W
W
N
n
o
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
®�+►®*� TIME UM OROUP. INC
f
�"®
rn
w
Sale �
. Ga Caum dr d4rgf"aQr[ng
M
M
�hlo Conlm+�pt{oH�
Land Su9'"; q
sAorw Ph, /� fQ aSBl6
Afnnf as) asa Iff (xc�a) esa ,vis
s
YJINfS f 710.0MlI
I+
M
�
r
16
16
bl
-bt
vI
0)
1
D
Crl
0
0
Or
R.
t
CD
�7
ro
CA
Z
c,j
a
o
3:
d
AZ
V I
A
v
O
I
Ln V
O Ln
CD i%
r W
W
N
n
o
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
®�+►®*� TIME UM OROUP. INC
f
�"®
�� �."d ..Garldanapo droMtaotww
iFD w
Cn
Sale �
. Ga Caum dr d4rgf"aQr[ng
D
�hlo Conlm+�pt{oH�
Land Su9'"; q
sAorw Ph, /� fQ aSBl6
Afnnf as) asa Iff (xc�a) esa ,vis
s
YJINfS f 710.0MlI
S. Meridian RoadNO'25'49"E
— 339.80'
M Z
co Gn
-r
O
ao
iFD w
Cn
D
� ro
I+
M
r+ z
o ()0
� ca
�'I N
O -;
Q. rrj
SO'17'46"E 912.09' N�
cn
0
-1P
OD
� Ul
X1
o
A O V
c�D �
It
I Z:n GTI J
S017'46"E
350.00' 2
C:)
o�
PROJECT INFORMATION
Red Tail Communities, LLC
Rezone Description
Meridian, Idaho
O
w
C
O p�
ro
Q
w
2 ro
N m Z
�KY
o
W �
O
ro
0-0
!v
O
Scale: 1" = 250'
1/8/2013
112168
Exhibit B
1011.R4
Title:
Date: 01-08-2013
I Scale: 1 inch =150 feet Wile: I
Tract 1: 16.316 Acres: 710729 Sq Feet: Closure = s46,2638e 0.01 Feet: Precision =11350166: Perimeter = 3459 Feet
001=n89.4214e 1011.84
002=s0.1746e 912.09
003=00.551 lw 711.00
004=07.3147w 69.47
005=n44.0823w 414.34
006=n0.2549c 339.80
Title:
975.00
Date: 01-08-2013
Scale: 1 inch =150 feet
I File:
Tract 1: 16.546 Acres: 720753 Sq Feet: Closure = nt,66.4956w 0.01 Feet: Precision =1/581443: Perimeter = 3438 Feet
001=n89.4214e 875.00
Bngs47.4631w0�hd=235.874� 009=n70.5511w411.60
002=s0.1746e 350.00
>03: Rt
006=s35.4332w 50.00 010=10.1746w 912.09
R 317,50 DOW -57.1748
3ng s28,210Gw, C�hd 304,44
007: L 9 172.79 Delta=16.4436
Bn�s�6,2115w, �hd=172.79
004=s57.4333w 46.19
008=s19.0455w 57.81
C
N o
W •�` y
T C
C U
M cts
M
11 O
N
z
co a)
.2-
0 O
C
to U
I I ,00rosc 3.sid�.os 3
00
z� I m Wt � o
�n
Aum uouuL'O .Scm
1 z
I /
\ \
co
cco
/
N_
O I d M a r X d v/ s tp in Gi
r
0i/(/l\NW omN� N
~'any soapuy S 01
//
/
8 F5
Q w
W' I to N W N o `°
i I I
co00, /
N Id
•any indsmo-e18 •SL
z /
co oo�N$o r N M
ON. �d..!" roN
BZ• Z �L/t� u CO
ci /
J N
ga,
PIT Im
Nis g
i; l ,os a
jg
F L.' z-
.0
WIL
1 . . .. . — ..lg
"`�1
psoa uslplaaW 'S --t� y a'qpg
NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A)
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 13 -
PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting re -zoning of a tract of land situated in a
portion of the Northwest One Quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. This parcel contains 32.87 acres more or less. Also, this parcel is
SUBJECT TO all easements and rights-of-way of record or implied. As surveyed in attached exhibit
"B" and is not based on an actual field survey. A full text of this ordinance is available for
inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This
ordinance shall become effective on the day of , 2013.
City of Meridian
Mayor and City Council
By: Jaycee L. Holman, 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. 13 -
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. 12- of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete
and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A (3).
DATED this day of , 2013.
William. L.M. Nary
City Attorney
ORDINANCE SUMMARY — RZ 13-002 RED WING SUBDIVISION Page 1
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: April 16, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: 10
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Future Meeting Topics
MEETING NOTES
f
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS