Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWilkins Ranch @ Lakes Sub PPMayor ROBERT D. CORRIE Council Members CHARLES ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live C11"Y OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 884-4264 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 8, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 17, 1998 HEARING DATE: September 15, 1998 REQUEST: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick intersection, South of Ustick TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF R EC LAMATIO N (PRELIM & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on September 15, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Steiner Development LLC for annexation and zoning of approximately 36.71 acres of land located in the NW'/, Section 3, T.3N.,R.1W., Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located east of the Black Cat/Ustick intersection and south of Ustick Road. The application requests a zone R-4/P.U.D. Further the applicant requests preliminary plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 260 units of single family attached townhouses for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision. Further the applicant requests a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. DATED this 26th day of August, 1998. �; WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK PUBLISH August 28 and September 2, 1998 of ��111�4{titi7ifT!/!! _ SES w ** TX CONFIRM( ?4 REPORT ** AS OF AUG 26 45 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD#t STATUS 03 08/26 16:44 208 888 1097 EC --S 00'35" 001 195 OK NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on September 15, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Steiner Development LLC for annexation and zoning of approximately 36.71 acres of land located in the NW %, Section 3, T.3N.,R.1W., Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located east of the Black Cat/Ustick intersection and south of Ustick Road. The application requests a zone R-4/P.U.D. Further the applicant requests preliminary plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 260 units of single family attached townhouses for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision. Further the applicant requests a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. A more particular description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. DATED this 26`h day of August, 1998. �; WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CfTY IbLERK PUBLISH August 28 and September 2,199B. WkytiI ►11111niy OF i ++++ttro� t+tNttt NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on April 14, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Steiner Development LLC for annexation and zoning of approximately 36.71 acres of land located in the NW 1/4, Section 3, T.3N.,R.1W., Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located east of the Blackcat/Ustick intersection and south of Ustick Road. The Application requests a zone of R-4/P.U.D. Further, applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 260 of single family attached townhouses for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 18th of March, 1998. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. rr��j ERK Orr PUBLISH March 27 and April 3, 1998. ^� SEAL ��i 9� % w ��w` ** TX CONFIRM(` REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 15 03/18 08 19 208 888 1097 AS OF MAR 18 '( 3:20 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC --S 00'34" 001 252 OK NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on April 14, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Steiner Development LLC for annexation and zoning of approximately 36,71 acres of land located in the NW %4, Section 3, T,3N., R,1 W., Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located east of the Slackcat/Ustick intersection and south of Ustick Road, The Application requests a zone of R-4/P.U.D. Further, applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 260 of single family attached townhouses for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 18th of March, 1998. PUBLISH March 27 and April 3, 1998. 'rrrr��rrri 'o MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 6 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 7 REQUEST PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED PLAT & BOOKLET CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: rL ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Sincerely, PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS A division of POWER Engineers, Inc. ' KLJ:smg Keith L. Jacobs, Jr., P. E. Enclosure(s) Sent Via; Delivered sol 58-150 If enclosures are not as noted, please notify us at once. Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation CITY OF MERIDIAN "Hub of Treasure Valley" 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 888-•4433 customers �. f Order N Dat�eD Name i Address Phone: SOLD BY CASH C.O.D. CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE. RETD. PAID OUT J I i I U 0 �� ' l)•,L ',/ 1 �� C -k/// 1 / /x'76 I I 1 I I i I I All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bill.. TAX 7�3S19`� �0 0 0 8 9 31 Received G TOTAL rl GS -202-2 PRINTED IN U.S.A. SOYINK . CV ►"��' 11200 2 14 Lii■ is 12 4 10 15 5 5I: 12 L.0 1 20 2 ? L 14n■ TO THE ORDER OF —7—C-1/ DOLLARS KeyBank of Idaho 1� B80soeloi, Idaho 83701 - .1ffZ1fON' FORNP -- n■00157Gill 1: 124L0155SI: 12401202?12211' ,.a.. ._ - :.'�...�h-� rz.�e��.cv._w��4 •rrc •i [t'v- 'ry tin„r-r3 t""�i,:^i'[:L.i1S'sd. 1.�.._�,�,..��.....,. ,........._.. ....._...,.......�..., _ .__ ._._ ...__._ \�\\ \\\ ON O . \\\ \�o.. .\ \�\\\�Q`;\�.wgt "\\ \\�\'�\\\"• \� \Key tar2k\ f Idaho\\, ` 2140 \ \\\ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \\ Steiner Devedopmen, LLCM \ MM \ a tib �entp, Offlow\ \ \\ \ \ 554 E:ellevue'ftoaa Sulu \ \ \\\ \\\�\ \\o \.; &\ \ ,\� Bone Ib 83701 \\\ \ \\` .\ \ \\� \ \\ �o�\\ \� \ '� ,• \ \\�\ \\ \\• \\ \ , Cc> Atwater, CA953Q1 \\ \\c \ \:; \ 921551241„ \\ ' \\,\e\\\ \\ \\ \ Ph 209=35 87 Fax 209 X57=0553\ ; •\\\\ ;\ ..\ .: \ \ . •: \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \\ MW"AE pggq N;r\ ���\��\ �: per\\��\Q�, \ _^\•„� ` \ @e y\\\;O�' �� Pa ,a N- Hundred Fouq' Seim &: luu Doila \\ \\ \.... \ o AA \\'.� �.\\�..\>:\\\ \\�� \� �;��\` �\ � `• •�\.. a?V \\\��.Ca\.\\ .n _�\�\�\\�\,,.� TO THi~ ` I OR MER DI \ \\ :\:, •>,\ ,; ;... ,; \o. \� ``�\ OF �� 00000-0000` \ \ \ p”, MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1998 - 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. TABLED FROM JULY 14, 1998: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - EAST OF BLACKAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:���z ������ /AIP vye ��cvv,�,�n cCa.f�rr el 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 14, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (260 LOTS ON 51.88 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICINTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 14, 1998: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: ` MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: AUGUST 11, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 7/22/98 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1998 - 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TABLED FROM JULY 14, 1998: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS �] OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (APPROVE FINDINGS - APPROVE;, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) _.') 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 14, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (260 LOTS ON 51.88 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING) 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 14, 1998: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS) MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JULY 22 1998 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Malcolm MacCoy at 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Keith Borup, Mark Nelson. OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Will Berg, Bruce Freckleton. ITEM NO. 1: TABLED FROM JULY 14,1998: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: MacCoy: Commissioners, you have read the material. Are there any comments? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I feel I think with the same mind I was last time. This is annexation and zoning, and I don't have any problem with proceeding ahead with that aspect. MacCoy: Okay any other comments on that from you? Borup: Not at this point. I'm ready to proceed with the motion. MacCoy: Commissioner Smith? Smith: I don't have anything. MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson? Nelson: I have no comments. MacCoy: Okay, what is the decision of Commissioners? Borup: Does staff have any comment on that before we proceed? I guess not. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Very good. Thank you. ROLL CALL: Borup, yea. Smith, aye. Nelson, aye. De Weerd, absent. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: 3 ayes, 1 absent. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the city council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above in the conclusions for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the applicant be specifically required to meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and if the conditions are not met that the property be de -annexed. MacCoy: All in favor of the motion. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Second by the way. Thank you. All in favor of the motion? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 14,1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: MacCoy: It looks like we got a full house, but standing in view of the law, is there anybody here that would like to make a statement at this moment. I think you are going to have to — yes, sir, stand up and speak your piece. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you very much. As you all know, I am representing Steiner Develop in this application. You've seen this thing a number of times over the past several months, and during that process a number of issues have been raised and last month the hearing was continued in order to permit the applicant to try to work those issues out. And by the way I appreciate you folks accommodating us in setting this special meeting so that we can try to move this matter along as quickly as possible. I appreciate your accommodation in that respect. What I hope we can accomplish tonight is I guess in the big picture is to try to get a decision and perhaps as we go along try to work out whatever issues there may yet be to resolved and I'm hoping for some dialog and interchange between us and you so that when we leave here tonight we're all pretty well assured of just where we are. I invite you to please talk to us so that we can try to work it out and get an understanding of what you would like to see to .the extent of what my presentation doesn't cover that we need to talk about. I identified Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 3 from the minutes of the meeting that was here a month or so ago seven different issues, and I am prepared to address those seven different issues, and it shouldn't take me too awfully long assuming we don't get too bogged down in a lot of questions and answers. Not that I don't want them, but I can get through this quickly. You have had a revised plat was submitted to you folks at the last meeting. The blue line plat, and on that plat there's a table that sets out the amount of open space that's been set aside in the project, and according to the engineers, the total amount of open space which has been set aside consisting of the park areas and the landscaped areas if 5.5 acres, and the total of parcel size that's being considered for development is 51.88 acres, and by my math that calculates out to a total of 11 % of open space being provided. So we meet the ten percent requirement that's set forth in the city's ordinances. Issue number two as was discussed here a month ago had to do with the distribution and location of the open space. And let me show you a little bit about where things are so that you got an idea. You have probably in front of you a drawing that looks like this. It might be just as easy to point to this piece here. This lot is lot 76, and that is a park area, which is just about an acre in size. And that is the largest of the park areas that has been set aside. Well except for what we might call the path area along the lateral there, but that's an acre that's been set aside in this portion of the project. The reason that that's the largest is because that's the area that has the greatest density. There are more lots. There are 68 units, and our perception and belief is that that is the area where the greatest need for open space would located in this area. So we've got a large park there for the use of these residents. The next one is lot 51 which is this lot here. And that too is set aside for this portion of the project and that's just about a half acre in size and there we kind of figured that's about the second highest density in the project. Forty eight lots are included in there. So this piece would designed then to serve the residents of that area. The third park space is here, which is again it's just over a half acre, and then of course we have the walking path which is in this location between what we're calling the villages and Moonlake Park. Together those are — well they come close to two acres total, not quite. It's half acre and then an acre and a third, and of course that park area is designed to be used by everybody in the subdivision. The thinking is of course that these are the larger lots. The location of the larger lots are here. And that the perhaps if you want to look at it this way, the per unit need for open space in these areas would a little bit less than the per unit need for open space in these areas, and that's why it's laid out and designed that way. Another thing that is probably worth pointing out to you is that this drawing that I provided to you is just kind of a sketch of the Dakota Ridge Subdivision, which was approved sometime back by the council. And it is located immediately adjacent to and east of this project here. And what they did in that is that there was a set aside of 12 acres for a school site. And that school site orders this proposed subdivision along the vast majority of its eastern border, and included in that school site of course is several acres of playground area, and our thinking is because we have a pedestrian connection coming across here, that's lot 88 on the plat that there is also the opportunity for children who need some play space to easily access that school yard and make use of the open spaces that are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 4 available there. And of course the point of all that is to let you know that we have attempted to spread the open space throughout the project. We have attempted to put the larger open space areas in the areas that we think have the greatest need, and of course we all need to recognize I think it's fair to recognize that there is a school yard proposed for immediately next door to this subdivision. So that there's even more opportunities for play areas for kids. Let's see the third issue was density, the overall density of the project, and what we've done is since the last time — well maybe let's do it this way, since this project was originally proposed, it was proposed for 260 lots. The plat that you have before has a total of 233 lots. As originally proposed the 260 lots came out to a density of about 5 units per acre, just a dead on. And now with 233 lots, we calculate that at 4.49 units per acres. So just a hair under 4.5 units per acre. In the northwest section of the project, the gated area that we are calling the Meadows, there's a total of 48 lots. I think you got on your drawing, it summarizes those numbers for you. There's a total of 48 lots, and that's down 11 lots from the originally proposed 59. In the northeast portion of the project what we're calling the Plains, we're proposing 68 lots, and that's down 6 lots from the original 74. In the central portion of the project in what we're calling the Villages, that's a total of 56 lots. That's down 3 from the original 59, and actually that moved around a little bit because the last time we were here, we were actually at 63 — no that's not true. Originally the numbers of those lots moved around they increased and then they decreased again as a result of the redesign for the connection through to the west. In any event the bottom line is we started with 59 and we're at 56. And then the golf course portion what we're calling Green Briar is proposed for 26 units now. That's down a total of 7 units from the originally proposed 33. So what we've been able to accomplish is to get the density down just below 4 Y2 units per acre, and have taken lots out of all portions of the project. Issue number four I think was and in my shorthand anyway was a concern that there were not enough or enough larger lots included in the project, and so what we've done in part of reducing the density is to increase some of the lots sizes and those are especially found.it what we're calling the Villages that yellow area on your drawing. In the project proposed there are 19 lots that are over 10,000 square feet. Six of those 19 are over 12,000 feet. And then we have 16 more lots that are over 9,000 square feet, and that makes a total of 35 lots over 9,000 and there's a total of 58 lots that are over 8,000 square feet. We did a break down of them. Twenty five percent of the units are between 8,000 and over. Nine percent are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Seventeen percent are between 6,000 and 8,000. If you are interested I can hand this out to you. If you are all writing it down, I can just hand it out to you. So 17% between six and eight thousand, 21 % between five and six thousand square feet and then 28% at 4,000 feet and lower. What I wanted to point out to you is that among the dispution, but I think the most important point is to let you know that there are a number of lots that are well in excess of the R-4, 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. There's 19 total lots that are over 10,000 square feet and 35 over 9, so what I think that shows is that although there are smaller lots in the subdivision, there are also some very large lots in the subdivision. Issue number five was the landscape buffer from the road that goes in to Dakota Ridge Subdivision Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 5 which is entering at their service access to the school site. On the (inaudible — off the microphone). You can see that from your drawings that I've given to you. What we've done is we've added a buffer strip that is the 13 1/2feet wide adjacent to that proposed roadway for Dakota Ridge. Now the conversation and I think staffs recommendation was for a 20 foot wide buffer strip. I guess two issues, we are not proposing to provide the full 20 feet because we need to have certainly got to have enough room on those lots to meet some reasonable setbacks number one, and number two we thought that 20 feet was probably a bit excessive since that's the amount of landscape buffer which is required to be placed next to an arterial like Ustick, and of course our project does propose 20 foot buffer strip along Ustick. Well this road here is simply a residential standard road and it doesn't seem that a 20 foot buffer strip for that sort of road would be necessary given the fact that it is 20 feet for an arterial — well 20 feet for an arterial makes sense, but I'm not sure that 20 feet for a local road makes the same sense given that the volumes of traffic are going to be substantially less. In any event what we've suggested and designed into the plat is a 131/ foot landscape buffer along that road. Issue number six, I'm going to swap these because I was going to talk about ACRD, but I want to talk about fire department first. Mr. Campbell here met with the fire chief with respect to this access down here in the golf course lots in what we're calling the Green Briar and the fire chief has indicated to Mr. Campbell that he has no problem with that design, that that would be acceptable to the fire department. Issue seven is the Ada County Highway District approval. I handed out to you a staff report which ACHD produced here this past week. In the staff report, excuse me, the staff was proposing to approve the design and the layout of the streets as proposed including the private streets and those two most northerly portions of the project. Apparently from what we gather there is an internal dispute among the ACHD staff and by the way it was scheduled to go to the Ada County Highway District Commission tonight for approval of the staff report that you've seen. There was apparently some internal dispute among the staff at the Highway District. Some members of the staff thinking that this proposal was appropriate and at least one member of the staff thinking that there should be a public road connection over to the Dakota Ridge Subdivision. The staff couldn't work it out among themselves as to which way the recommendation ought to go. So we're attempting to schedule a meeting with the staff and with the supervisors hopefully next week so we can get it to the ACHD commission. I spoke with Steve Arnold of the Highway District, one of the highway district staff people today, and told him we were coming to see you folks tonight and that I asked him if it would be helpful if he had some input from you about what you think you might like to see, what makes sense to you. So that you can either through your staff or through us or however you want to handle it, let the Ada County Highway District know what you think. Now they may accept it. They may reject it. They may ignore you. I don't know, but I'm thinking that it might be helpful to them and Mr. Arnold seemed to think that it would be helpful if you folks put your two cents worth in. Here's the arguments as I understand them. The staff person who is thinking that there ought to be a public road through to Dakota Ridge is thinking neighborhood interconnectivity connecting this project into Dakota Ridge. Now of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 6 course we've only got, we've got a limited opportunity to do that because the school site covers most of the boundaries. There's really only one reasonable place to put it which is adjacent which is across from that roadway which goes into Dakota Ridge. So connectivity is the one argument that would suggest public road access through there. The other side of that argument goes something like this, that because the distance between Ustick an arterial and this intersection is so short, a short distance. It's only about 150 feet, about 150 feet between those two roadways that that intersection is potentially unsafe because you'd have cross traffic coming across just 150 feet after somebody turns in after an arterial, and so the argument from those staff people is the way he described it to me is that a T -intersection is much safer, many times safer than a full four way intersection and that's their worry is that it's maybe not very safe. Second, the other staff person's thinking is that the likelihood of needing a connection between Dakota Ridge and this project at this location — let me back up and put it this way, among the argument for the connectivity issue is so that people can drive their kids from this project, from Wilkins Ranch over to the new school, and his argument is well wait a minute. If they really do need to drive their kids to school, number one it doesn't make them go too far out of the way to have to come out on to Ustick to negotiate a right turn on Ustick and then negotiate another right turn in the Dakota Ridge and head on into the school. Second he's saying the school site is immediately next door to this project and the likelihood how many people are going to be driving their children from this project over to that school especially given the fact that there's the pedestrian access going to be provided in at least two locations. (Inaudible) And so his argument is with the pedestrian connections that the inter -neighborhood connectivity issue really isn't an issue. I think the highway district staff you know, I don't know, what do you guys think? Borup: One question, Steve. Moonlake Drive ties into Lakes at Cherry Lane, which also is tying into Dakota Ridge is what it looks like on — that's what it looks like on here. So you do have connectivity at that location. Bradbury: That location. Borup: The ACHD map shows it. Bradbury: That's right. Borup: Assuming that Moonlake ties over to the Lakes at Cherry Lane, Moonlake Street. So if those two still tie together, it looks like it's got the connectivity. Bradbury: They do, and as a matter of fact that was one of the things I spoke with Mr. Arnold about is that there actually is connectivity to the east because of Moonlake, the connection at Moonlake. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 7 Borup: Speaking specifically to that aspect I'd would agree with the second argument that it makes more sense with the walk paths there. You're talking like you say 150 feet back to Ustick and around if they really feel they needed to drive right up to the school. You've got the connectivity at the other end and that's where you need it is at the back end of the subdivision not at the entrance in my mind. That's where those concerns and problems are is people living way back at the back end and those are all tying together back in those locations. That's my (inaudible) Smith: Extending that W. Corral Lane over to the east, it's too close to Ustick. The way this plat is designed right now at that location doesn't work. It doesn't work. I don't know that I agree with'all the arguments presented for one way or the other but the one about it being too close to Ustick is — it just doesn't make any sense. Bradbury: Those were all the issues that I had identified were concerns to you the last time we got together and that's the extent of the comments that I had. Well I did hand out to you one more thing and maybe I ought to show this. I talked to you briefly about the reduction in the number of lots in the — down there in the golf course and the part that we're calling Green Briar and it's down to 26 units. Again we have in reducing the total number of units, it also required a redesign. We've abandoned the idea of the large triplex units and have returned to the original proposal which were two unit townhouses. I've handed out to you a front and rear elevation drawings and floor plans of the proposed units for this area and hopefully this time the elevations and the floor plans match. We think they do. And I guess the site plan showing they would be laid out in the portion of the subdivision and I don't know if you have any questions or concerns or would like to talk about those. But obviously the idea there was to reduce the number of units and try to give a variety of — well we don't want to present one big long blank flat wall and so you can see that the units are staggered to some extent. They're off set a little bit different so they are not all just in straight lines. And the idea is to present something other than just a blank uniform flat appearance across there and to also preserve a little bit of the feel of some open space between the units. We can talk about details of that sort of stuff if you'd like. The other Mr. Campbell, Robert Campbell who does some of the layouts, he's here and he can talk design if you are interested in that. Other than that that's all I had to talk about, and I am please to respond to any questions or engage in any conversation or interchange that you folks might like to do. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Steve this map of Dakota Ridge the scale on that says it's one inch equals a hundred. Bradbury: (Inaudible) Smith: So this has been reduced. 1 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ,July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 8 Bradbury: (Inaudible — off the microphone). Smith: Can I see that a minute? I saw what I wanted to see there. MacCoy: Anything else Commissioner Smith? Smith: Not at the moment. MacCoy: Mr. Nelson. Nelson: The city had done quite a bit of work to reduce from 5 units per acre to 4 1/2. Why aren't we shooting for 4 if you don't mind my asking? It is R-4 and all. Bradbury: Right and what we're aiming for is the approval of the density bonus which is allowed under the PUD ordinance in exchange for — by reason of going through the planned unit development process and providing the open space that meets the requirement of the ordinance the city has the discretion to approve a density bonus of 25%. 1 think it's 25% density bonus which would get us up actually if you go from R-4, 25% would take you to a total of 5 units per acre. Now, we've had a lot of conversations about what that ought to be multiplied have a density and 've one thagwou d get through somewhere he process I mean we're hopeful that we can bonus close to in the 4'/2 range, which isgenerally calculated the Lakes at Cherry Lane. I think Vt d the 40 acre teeter portion of that project at 41h units per acre as well. So if you're asking me — you're asking me why not 4. Well, because the ordinance allows for up to five and so we're splitting the difference with you. That's one way to look at it maybe. Another way to look at it is we've prepared a project that we think meets the requirements of the ordinance, and it gives you some good variety in housing types. And in order to be able to make all of this work and to provide all of the facilities and the amenities we need to be able to sell a couple of extra lots. Borup: Just some information for Commissioner Nelson, I did some rough figures along the same line, and we maybe starting with a not a hundred percent valid assumption but the comment was made last time and I think some staff verified that, 3.7 units per acre is fairly average for R-4. I know it's going to vary from subdivision to subdivision, but taking that assumption 25% density bonus would come out 240 lots. And we're looking at 233, so assuming the 3.7 is a valid figure, they would be a little bit under that. Nelson: Well, as far as the quantity of lots go. Borup: Yes, with the 25% density bonus. I figured 3.7 times 51.88 acres is 192 lots, and then 25% more is 240. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 9 Bradbury: There's always a nature tension between a developer who by nature is going to want to squeeze every lot possible on to a given piece of property and the desire of the city, and zoning authority to try to provide a living environment that meets the expectations of quality of life whatever that may mean to you, and often times it means lesser density and what we're hoping that you are recognizing is that we're trying to meet you half way. We're trying to find some common middle ground with you folks, and clearly I think the developer has certainly demonstrated a willingness to do that by taking about 30 lots out of the project. Borup: I guess I've got to say I think they've made a big effort here. I'm comfortable with the number of lots given the density bonus open space trade off, but the only thing I don't know if I'm a hundred percent comfortable on is the open space. And you've got some nice areas on there, but some of the areas, I don't know is any different landscaping than what any other subdivision would be without open space. Specifically the landscaped area along Ustick and the entrances. I guess maybe that — I don't know if anybody got any comments on that. That's really the only thing I wondered about. Nelson: My question is I'm not familiar with the bonus thing. I mean that's the first development since I've been here that's come — Borup: Well, it's not that common. Nelson: Oh, it's not that common and so if the bonus is a bonus, then we assume that it's been somewhat earned. What generally justifies the additional density? Borup: Maybe Mr. Bradbury would like to expand on that. Nelson: I mean if we're just barely — if we only have 10% more than required open space going from ten to eleven percent, and for that we're giving them 12 % percent more developed lot or numbers of lots. Bradbury: The reason — Nelson: I guess the bullet item of what the bonus justifications are coming from. Smith: Commissioner Nelson in the subdivision ordinance, one of the items under bonus density there's a number of items and one of them is provision for private common open space shall be considered for density increases not to exceed 25%. Character identity and siting variation incorporated in a PUD be considered cause for density increases. Part of that is landscaping, siting, design feature, street sections, architectural styles, publicly dedicated land, which could be considered under park and environmentally sensitive areas which are preserved in the nature state. What I'm hearing is the applicant is arguing for the bonus density based on the open space Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 10 provided meeting the ten percent of the land area. I don't mean to put word in Mr. Bradbury's mouth. Bradbury: No, you did a real good job because while I was hiding behind the podium here, I was trying to find my copy of the ordinance that the commissioner was reading from. Before I came here a week ago I actually pulled it out and read it again so that I could be prepared to answer this question and then of course I lost it in my file, but I found it now. In the ordinance in 9607F7, that's under part of the subdivision ordinance which deals with planned unit developments, and I won't read the whole thing but it says the following bonus densities may be granted within a planned development but shall not be treated as cumulative and then it sets out essentially four possible criteria for you to consider in granting a bonus density. One of the four criteria is the provision of open space. And then later in the ordinance it talks about the open space needing to be at least ten percent of the project area, so among the four possible criteria which would allow for that bonus density is the provision of open space. Another one of those criteria as Commissioner Smith pointed out is you know kind of these design features. If we've done some special design issues and provided some unique landscaping features and those sorts of things that too can serve as a basis for the bonus density even without the ten percent open area as a matter of fact. We can pick one or all of these four criteria. A third criteria that can give you the right to provide a bonus density is if there's a public dedication made. A space set aside for a public park or maybe dedicated to the city for part of the golf course which is what was being proposed in the project we talked about a week ago, the Villas over there by the golf course on the other side of the golf course. And another of those four criteria is the preservation of these unique and environmentally sensitive areas, and in this case we don't really have anything that probably very easily qualifies there. And so the idea for this bonus density is to encourage developers to give you something other than the typical R-4 8,000 square foot cookie cutter subdivision. It's to encourage the developers to do what this developer has done and that is to set aside some of these open areas to provide additional landscaped areas above and beyond what you might ordinarily expect to see in a typical R-4 subdivision and I agree with Commissioner Borup that the 20 foot landscape strip along Ustick is standard, and so that's not really special, but we also are providing a fairly significant landscape. We're providing nice landscape entry areas. We're landscaped area here what we're calling Green Briar. We're providing these three sizable park areas, and hopefully intending to provide the walking path along the lateral there. So that all together the landscaped areas and the park areas comes up to exceed the ten percent minimum requirement which theoretically by itself would provide you with the justification to allow that bonus density. In addition we're trying to do other things. We're trying to provide a variety of housing. We trying to do something a little bit different with some of the layout and all that of course costs a little extra money and the hope is that the developer can reap a reasonable return. Prior: Mr. Chairman, could I make a statement? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 11 MacCoy: Yes, you may. Prior: Just to point out to the commission, the bonus density and I think I said this last time, even if Mr. Bradbury's plan does all of these things the bonus density and he said that may — and the important term is may be provided. You folks — he can put 20% open space here and you can say sorry the bonus density we don't want to do it in this instance. You have a lot of discretion here. The other thing is as far as the open space requirements, it should enhance the common enjoyment of recreational pursuits or provide visual or aesthetic or environmentally amenities. What that means to me and I guess it's a matter of interpretation is that visual aesthetic and environmental amenities are a little more than just grass on landscape in my mind. So that's something that you folks may want to keep in mind. Obviously hehas in my nion there's parks s enough, but as fahere as the some other things here. it's just whether you folks think that letter of the law is concerned, interpretation, it is subject to some interpretation on number five open space. If you perceive visual aesthetic or environmental amenities as more trees, more plants, more type of thing clearly sat would thawhat he's done here would be permissible. By the same token you could also y is visual aesthetic amenities and would also constitute. its depending on how you individually interpret that. Is that neutral enough? Bradbury: I agree. I think Mr. Prior has presented that fairly well. I'm not going to try to trick you into Prior: And I'm not trying to bounce you either way folks. That's not my intention. Bradbury: There's a whole laundry list of issues to talk about on open space and the first one says this and I think that Mr. Prior is right on the button. It says the location, size and shape of the common open spaces shall be suitable for the use proposed and shall enhance the common enjoyment of recreational pursuits or provide visual aesthetic or environment amenities. And so it's not only just park lands but also landscaped area and things that look good to the eye. And all of those I think are appropriately considered as a part of the open space in a project, and can include the enhancement of an existing irrigation canal. Borup: Steve, I don't know if you have addressed this because like you said this has been a few times. Have you addressed the landscaping? (Inaudible) Bradbury: In terms of what exactly is going to go there? Borup: Not exactly, but you know trees, shrubs. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 12 Prior: Mr. Chairman, may I say one more thing? And I'm going to stop. For your knowledge all PD's, planned developments, are required to go through a design review. If you folks find this acceptable, you can also dictate that he's going to come back for a design review and that time he's going to have to come back and you folks can say okay, we're not giving our final stamp until you tell us specifically and commit specifically to what kind of trees, what kind of flowers, what kind of bushes. Whatever you want to do and dictate that as well. That's purely within your purview to do that. Like I said yeah, all PD's shall be subject to design review by the city staff and the council. (Inaudible) Prior: Well the council in the past has passed the design review on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. l think that's appropriate and they have the authority to delegate down to Planning and Zoning Commission is they wish, but there probably going to be some amendments in this thing anyway in the future. But at that time, you will probably see a design review on this if it's your desire. MacCoy: Thank you counselor, I was going to raise the same thing. They do have that option still to do that. Prior: And I'm done now. Bradbury: I want to just answer Commissioner Borup's question because there's a couple of things that I can maybe help perhaps. One we would be happy to go through a design review process. We did it on the Lake at Cherry Lane and that worked out just fine. We haven't got a problem in the world with the concept. Second if you want to get an idea for what you can expect to see in terms of landscaping in this project, go over to the Lakes at Cherry Lane and look at the landscaping that's been provided at the entryways and the common areas over there. There will be a good example of what you can plan to see, and if that doesn't suit you, then tell us what does. MacCoy: Mr. Borup, you have anything else? Borup: I guess we're still looking for comments. I'm feeling pretty comfortable at this point. I guess the only thing that now I have any uneasiness about is they can do what they're talking about doing on Eight Mile Lateral. If that's eliminated then you're definitely under the ten percent again. Bradbury: I can't remember Commissioner if we talked about this last time, but apparently the city of Nampa is making good progress with Nampa Meridian. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 13 Borup: Yeah, that's what I understand. Bradbury: So am I going to give you my personal guarantee that it will work? Borup: (Inaudible). Bradbury: I understand it's Nampa Meridian. Prior: So Steve you wouldn't be adverse to making it a condition of approval that you're able to — successfully able to enter into a license agreement with the irrigation district. Bradbury: Certainly. Borup: And I would encourage the city to do whatever we can to facilitate that project too. Bradbury: I've said it in the past. Borup: I mean this has been city policy for the last five years or more well no, comp plan called for (End of Tape) Borup: .. never been able to accomplish it yet. Maybe this should be one to start making some progress on. Smith: Mr. Chairman I'm not really interested in splitting in how the open space was calculated. I guess I'd be a little reluctant to say that the islands in the street are usable from a recreation standpoint. However they are nice amenities to dress up the entryway and the roads a little bit, but this lot five over on the southeast part of the parcel, that's an awkward space and I just can't visualize how — that just seems kind of awkward and also the one up in the northwest side lot 53, -- 33. How that's really going to be utilized and enhance the development. 38 and 39 down in the lower southwest portion, those could I guess be developed so that it kind of provides a nice entry to that finger sticking down on the south side of the development and I share Commissioner Borup's concerns about the lateral there and would like to see something entered into what Mr. Prior's suggested or brought up. But if we could get back to that other map behind this one. The — I'm just having a hard time. It seems real clumsy. You had to pull that cul- de-sac down back away from the last two lots there because I'm assuming you didn't have enough room there to get a cul-de-sac in and develop any of those lots down there, and to do that you had to put in a narrower private street and I don't recall anything from the fire department about what their comment was on that. Bradbury: Mr. Campbell met with the fire chief before the last meeting to talk about that issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 14 Smith: Did he tell him where the reverse gear on his truck was? Bradbury: Apparently the fire chief knows how to find it. I don't know about everybody else, but he seems to feel — the fire chief expressed no reservations about that layout from his perspective. Smith: And the last time we talked about building designs, it was — there was a comment made that the intent was to just kind of show the character of the building, that it wasn't necessarily the actual design of the residence that was going to go in. So would I be safe in assuming that the same is true what you presented to us tonight. These elevations are just maybe a representative of the scale and materials. Bradbury: I think that's fair to say. Right. Smith: So there may be a number of different — you have two shown here. A Roma and a Florence so there could be a number of different floor plans and maybe they are not all two story. Maybe some are one, single story. Bradbury: I think that's certainly possible what we're trying to convey to you folks is that this is conceptually what the developer intends to put there. I don't think either the developer — I don't think that the developer would be comfortable saying this is exactly what you're going to get and exactly where you are going to get it, and I am hopeful that that isn't an expectation from your standpoint. We're certainly willing to live with any perimeters that you wan to establish in terms of the material choices and the sizes and the general layouts. We can certainly work within perimeters that might be established. Smith: The only thing is from a design standpoint is I'm not interested in dictating materials or these are single story and these are two story. I don't know that the site conditions warrant that, but what I am concerned about though is these are townhomes and that they are designed to break up the mass of the building to where it doesn't look like a big huge box. Sensitivity to human scale and the siting of the proximity to the golf course, and they are not just humongous looming overwhelming structures. I am disappointed and this is what we see in all these residential developments is you just see a bunch of garages on the street site elevation and I hope — I'd like to see somebody come in here and start proposing something a little unique and different that addresses that and I am not — it's just a comment. It's not project specific necessarily, but — Bradbury: You know and I have heard you say it a couple of times, and I've thought about it some and ultimately my conclusion and in conversations I've had with Mr. Campbell, is that in this particular site which is the part we really want to have that good visual appeal. The part interior to the private roadway which is by the matter it is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 15 private roadway and gated, so it's not a public roadway or are we interested in trying to have the aesthetic appeal from the golf course side? And the choice was — the choice given the space we have to work with we're trying to work from the golf course side. Smith: Well I don't want to belabor that. But I did want to make that statement. I'm done, but when Commissioner Nelson is finished, I'd like to hear staff. They seem to still have some concerns about this. And I'd like to hear what some of those are if we haven't already covered them. MacCoy: We'll cover them again. Before we go on with Commissioner Nelson, I'd like to ask just one question about the same vein that Commissioner Smith is on. It's just an information piece for myself is that are you as a Steiner Corporation, dictating, this is four or five designs you the buyer have to choose from or can they make some variation because they have some desires that they want and you're minimal to making those changes. Bradbury: Let me ask Bob Campbell to come up and talk to you about these design things because you're getting a filter through a lawyer and that's not good. Bob can talk about these issues and he's a lot better off. ROBERT CAMPBELL 2638 N. TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Campbell: What we were trying to do with these particular (inaudible). I do apologize for the last time (inaudible). What we tried to do here in connecting the garages which I feel the same as Byron working in the architectural field for quite a few years is that you always have the garage aspect. It looks like a auto center, but I think that if we can get into more detail with the structures by recessing the garage doors and having them sit back and bring out columns in the front will help considerably to soften that. But what we did do on the back side where people will see these on the golf course and people from Ashford Greens and so forth is we really split the unit so they have the same setback as it would if there was a normal R-1 lot. You're ten feet between these two structures here. Even though they are attached at the garage, so that from the rear they don't look like they are townhouses, per say. So and in between these where we have these sidewalks going up walking through wrought iron gates, between each one of these units these blue things are fountains so that when you walk through that gate, you have this fountain and the amenities that go in that garden area which you share because all the common area within this development here are taken care of by homeowners association which is part of what we call Green Briar. And then we really enhanced Moonlake with a lot of landscape and visual things and this area here is a water feature with planting all the way around so that if someone comes up to enter the gate and they can't gain access they have adequate space to turn around, this would become (inaudible) concrete and just be a first class looking development. As far as the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 16 interior of the units, if people wanted to make changes, that would be no problem. The developer could do that, and I would think that the exterior would stay pretty much in line with what we're doing on the sketches that were submitted. MacCoy: But they could make some changes minor as they may be. Campbell: Yeah, you know that's a catch 22. All of a sudden you got some guy putting a (inaudible) up on top of the roof and it doesn't conform. I think everything has to conform. You have to remember one thing. A developer when he gets into a project like this, he's got all his money on the line. He has to make sure what he's building. If he builds something here that is of a certain quality, he can't go down here a little further and start cheapening it, and I think you have to understand how a developer should approach a project like this. He's in it for the long haul. He's not — MacCoy: Yeah, I've been in construction and I'm also an architect and an engineer, so I understand it. Campbell: Well then you understand exactly. MacCoy: Yes, I just wanted to know, because I've been with some groups that have said no, this is just it. You take my design and that's it, or you don't — Campbell: No, I think that we could work with the clients especially when you get into the price class of homes this is. It's not the top end, but I would say this, like this particular project here as opposed to Ashford Greens townhouse area where they have 74 units they have an awful lot of these slit streets and so forth. There are 74 units in that particular project, but they are all garage. If you have ever been out there, and I think this deals with it a little bit better. Those are 50 foot wide, I think or 40 foot wide units, and we tried to give a good look from the outside where most people will be seeing these units from because this street here, the only people that are really going to see this are the people who live there, and if they are happy with that then we should be happy with it. So we've tried to give it our best shot as far as architecturally and what you see will be that or better. I will say one thing. I've worked for Mr. Steiner for quite a few years and he doesn't do anything excuse me half assed. He does a nice job. MacCoy: Thank you for your comments. Commissioner Nelson? Nelson: I guess I would comment as far as this bonus thing goes, I'm still kind of have a tendency to not approve. Of course I don't have the experience that some of the other board members, so I'll let them sell it to me. But I would like some comment from the staff in that although 25% of the lots exceed the 8,000 foot requirement, that means that 75% don't. How does that address frontage requirements and that sort of thing as far as the ordinances go, and as you look at the open spaces that are the visual amenities Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 17 and the like, for instance lot 5 and some of these others are really going to be visual to such a minor part of the subdivision. Very little drive through traffic is going to see that. And really lots 51 and 76 or whatever are really about the only ones you really see as you come in. It looks nice and all but with that being private you are really limiting access to some of that stuff. I guess for those issues I'm still not 100% convinced of the bonus because we are — it's still at 12 1/z% bonus and whether we're the slight additional amenities or — space wise it's barely over the 10% so that means to me things like this circle drive with the amenities have to be pretty nice. I'd like to hear the staffs comments on if they had any issues on like I said the frontages and any of the other ordinances. Stiles: (Inaudible) Prior: No, what are you, dense? Stiles: Commissioners, I guess my biggest concern with this is the open space. Part of it that's calculated I wouldn't count the planting strip that required of all subdivisions along that arterial to be common area that's available to all residents of the subdivision. Also they counted the medians and the roadway, this is designated as a collector to a point here, as such there would be no frontage allowed on that. The street setbacks normally it would be 20 feet, so on this stretch of the road here where they've shown, I don't know how wide it is, 7 feet in some places up to ten that would normally per the ordinance be a 20 foot setback. They couldn't have a fence within 20 of that anyway. It would be landscaped. The same goes for the area adjacent to Dakota Ridge. The reason for that 20 foot setback request is that is the setback for a fence along a street. Even giving them the Eight Mile Lateral the full square footage of the Eight Mile Lateral if you took out the pieces that are merely street landscaping, I calculated about 1.18 acres of that I would not consider to be common area at all. There is the golf course available there. There is a school available there. The PUD ordinance is very vague as to how these things are calculated. It's not written well at all. I know that in Boise City what they do is they take the lots if you're proposing say the R-4, which they are proposing, you would take all the lots that are deficient that are less than 8,000 square feet and the difference would the common area that they would have to provide. I don't know what the number would be, I mean for comparison it would be interesting. I don't know what that would be, but most of the lots in this one area don't meet even R-15 requirements as far as frontage. In the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, they did a PUD on that, but they also zoned it appropriately for the uses that were there. I don't know if you have any other questions. Did I even answer any of what you asked? Nelson: Yeah, how compliant it was with the ordinances as far as the frontages and — Stiles: The minimum frontage in an R-4 zone for a typical R-4 is 80 feet. In an R-8, it's 65 feet. In an R-15, it's 50 feet. I guess I had one question of the applicant about Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 18 designating multi family housing for a lot of these lots, multi family housing is not permitted at all in an R-4 zone even with a PUD, and then in the comprehensive plan, it's designated single family residential. I think that's what they mean. Townhouses, and townhouses I consider single family homes, not multi family. Smith: Single family attached? Stiles: Yeah. Single family, I mean it's separate ownership. They own their lot. They own the house. It's still a single family unit. Multi family I would think of like apartments and four plex or something like that with no individual ownership. So I think that was a little question I had there. Smith: If I understand you correctly the setbacks fence is 20 feet along this north Wilkins Way, which is a collector, your setback for the Stiles: Yes, in a typical development. Smith: And that's required to be landscaped? Stiles: Well typically it is. It's part of somebody's lot. Smith: Right. Stiles: There's not a lot of lots out there that have the double frontage like this does. I mean even though it's not frontage. They're bounded on both sides by streets. Borup: Chateau Meadows is one that's that way. I believe the entrance into Chateau Meadows? Stiles: With the collector in there. And they've got double fronting. Yeah. Borup: Only not a lot of landscaping. Stiles: No. Smith: So if I understand you and Commissioner Nelson correctly your main issue from getting behind this thing is the amount of open space. Stiles: Yes, that's mine. Smith: I mean let's say for example down here in the yellow the southeast part of the development to get around this exchange of the calculating the open space along Ustick in the islands and what's being lost well the iffyness of the eight mile lateral, I mean you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 19 could say we want lots 9, 10 and 11 to be designated as open space all contiguous with that. Lot 5 would be a lot nicer amenity to the development and maybe something like that would satisfy your concerns. I mean I am not trying to put words into your mouth. I mean I'm looking at that. I'm just saying that seems to be an area that makes sense to me to add more space. I mean it's three lots, but still though if we're haggling over the amount of open space being provided maybe that's a compromise that we can make or a request that we can make that of course I don't know how the applicant, you know, if they are adamantly opposed and I don't know that that's the right place to do it either. Maybe lot 10 here next to the Eight Mile Lateral is a good place to add green space and open up that whole corner there. I mean I could support doing both. Nelson: Yeah, I am not inclined to include the school's amenities in lieu of this development providing both amenities. I know there's a lot of discussion about keep in mind that the school's next door. There's plenty of green space there. But I'd rather see the green space being in the development itself. Borup: I just had a question for Shari, did you say Boise and calculating a reduction, it's a straight proportional trade off? Stiles: That's my understanding. I mean I don't know what the exact wording of it is, but say you got a 3500 square foot lot, you subtract that from the 8,000 that's required and for every 3500 square foot lot, you've got to come up with 4500 square feet of common area and it's has to be in one place. Borup: Okay. There's no incentive to do something like that. Stiles: Well they've done it. There's no incentive? Borup: Well not in my mind there isn't. I mean that's Boise, not us. Stiles: Well I know, but I was just giving you that for an example. Borup: I was just curious. It doesn't seem like there's any incentive for a developer to do that, unless they are in a spot that they feel they can justify prices that would allow them to do that. MacCoy: Shari, do you have anything else? Okay, -- Stiles: I'm sorry other than I'm still not convinced three gated communities. I mean I don't have a particular concern about the one that's surrounded by the golf course. The other two I don't feel that those are necessary and it's just false sense of security and it tends to segregate neighborhoods rather than make it a overall neighborhood. t Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 20 MacCoy: Bruce? Freckleton: Nothing. MacCoy: You had nothing. Bradbury: Yes, I'll try to go quickly. One of the things that I think you have to bear in mind in addition to just setting aside the space, the dirt, is that of course the developer is going to improve it, and in this case it's going to have some landscape treatment in virtually all of these areas and park like improvements in the larger the park areas. So you've got to remember it's not just a straight on dirt for dirt. We got to think about dollars and the developer, Mr. Campbell, is whispering in my ear and he says that he figures rough estimate there's going to be between $350,000 and $400,000 minimum of landscape expense to improve these areas. So although I certainly understand the issue about how much ground, but you also have to think in terms of what it's going to cost to do — I mean if it was just going to be left there in dirt, rocks and weeds, yeah, square foot for square foot. But there's going to be money that's going to be spent to improve these things. Let me propose something to you, if we take out the square footage that's included in the landscape buffer between Ustick or between the subdivision and Ustick Road and the landscaped areas that are included in along Wilkins Way in those areas take out the square footages in there, which Mr. Campbell estimates to 18,000 square feet, and I haven't tried to figure that number out, and included that into the parcel or the lot, the park area that Commissioner Smith was talking about here. So we take it out and just add the same number of square feet into that space, does that help? Smith: I think — like I said I'm not trying to split hairs on the amount of space, a lot of it too is the shape and configuration of that space. Bradbury: And by the way — Smith: That's why I said 9, 10 and 11. Then you get a nice rectangular chunk of ground there. Basically you're doubling the size of it or probably a little bit more. But you certainly are coming up with something that's more usable from a recreation standpoint. Kids playing ball or throwing a Frisbee or whatever. The way it's configured right it chokes down and it skinnies down the farther you get away from it. You get that perspective looking at a rectangle, that thing shrinks down to a point visually all ready and this is going to be even more that way although you are not going to get really far away from the open end. I guess I'd like to see all three of those lots go into that and I know I can appreciate the money part and the cost of doing that and so forth, but I think Commissioner Nelson and Shari bring up some real good points about the frontages on these lots and we're in this kind of juggling thing. I support the mixed densities and developments going in if they are done properly and done appropriately but one of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 21 trade offs you give for having a higher density is you provide those open space amenities to provide areas for people to go out and be able to be outside and enjoy the outdoors. I don't know if I answered your question, but — Bradbury: Yeah, I know exactly where you're coming from. I'm thinking in terms of amount as well as configuration, and I think you and I are on the same wave length there. Smith: I think from a design standpoint it would be a better design of that space than having the awkward shape there. And that's I guess what my biggest thing that I've been wrestling with on this whole project has been some of the irregular shapes of land, not to say that's bad, but because it would be very nice along the Eight Mile Lateral with some curvilinear paths and things going along and not having straight shots of stuff. But this particular space here in the middle of some single family lots I think is a different — raises different design issues and questions. Personally I think I would have a lot less reservation about this whole thing if — I still have some concerns about the gated communities up along Ustick, but I'm willing to listen still I get my way. That's all I can say about it. Borup: I think the — isn't the main thing we're looking at here is the bonus density. Isn't that what all this discussion is about? MacCoy: It's a PUD. Borup: You can have a PUD without having reduced density, I guess. If you want to do some of the amenities. But the ten percent open space is not the only criteria for the bonus density as I pointed out that's one of them. The street scape and other design features, and a lot of the other stuff. I think maybe we're not — I don't know if we're focusing too much on the ten percent and not on the overall aspect. MacCoy: I think a lot of the discussion has been based on the overall view though. Borup: I think we're down to where — three months ago I don't know that we even had a marginal project. I think they've made some improvements on that. MacCoy: Yes, they have. Borup: And I agree with what Commissioner Smith just said about getting a larger open area, but I'm still on my one little kick on the water pathways. If they could get that approved and get a real walking path along that waterway, I'd feel comfortable the way it is now. If that doesn't happen then perhaps something else, increasing the park like he was talking over there on lot wi h block he kr5 anon district uld be thenr'ate. Because if you're just talking a chain something can't be coordinated g Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 22 link fence and whatever along there. They don't even want the homeowners to maintain. MacCoy: You're raising a very good point. Borup: But I would feel comfortable the way it is if something could happen along the lateral. I don't know how we address that. MacCoy: Well there is a way here. I want to hear what Steve has to say about it. Smith: I'd like to see both. Because again I'm not trying to split hairs on the ten percent, but I'm coming at this area around — this number 5 green space and just looking at it from a design standpoint. Borup: I guess I'm looking beyond this project. If they can get some type of agreement with Nampa Meridian on this, I would think that would open the door for other projects and maybe we can finally start accomplishing things on that line, and for them to do it, they've got a tough fight ahead of them. I guarantee you that. It's just not going to be a phone call and they are going to say sure go ahead. So there would be some real effort there, but I think it would benefit the city long term down the road. I guess I would put some credence to that. Bradbury: Yeah, I think the answer to that is simply put a condition of approval and if we don't make it, we don't get the licensing agreement, then we're back in front of you and trying to figure out where we're going to make it up. Nelson: I would rather make it that it be — if you don't make it — not that I don't want to see you again mind you. But I'd rather the condition just be that if the Eight Mile Lateral doesn't play, then we deal with the lot 5 issue, but I would recommend you deal with the lot 5 issue anyway because if I lived in there, I would even though the school is right there, I would be sending my rihood around theher Not over to the school with theds to play over tee where I can keep an eye on hw de em and where I know the neighborhood range of age of children and what not so we extensively use the open space in our subdivision, and — Bradbury: Let me make a suggestion. Because we're going to be here all night going back and forth if we don't try to find something that will work. What if we do this. What if we include lots 9 and 10 in that space and so we can square it off and will take some of that ground back from extend lot 11 back up, square it off so you got 9 and 10 in here included in this space so it's squared. It's a square space or close to a square space. Smith: That works for me. t Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 23 Bradbury: Does that do it for you? Smith: Yes, and then Commissioner Borup's — Prior: What's going to need to happen to interject, Steve is going to have a difficult time with the license agreement with Nampa Meridian having to deal with them on other occasions with license agreements, but what you can basically do is make it a condition of approval that they enter into a license agreement, and if they fail to enter into the license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation, then they need to make necessary adjustments to make up the actual square footage somewhere else. And I think that the applicant would agree to that and I think that's fair and then we can have them come back for a design review if that need be the case. I think everybody could be satisfied with something like that. Borup: I agree with that. Maybe it would be fair though to give them credit for lot 9 and 10 in that. Prior: Whatever your preference. Smith: I'm certainly willing to look at them recalculate the open space area and have that as part of their presentation to city council. I think we're ready to make a motion on this. Prior: I think folks my preference having sat in on city council now and I sit from one entity to the next and Malcolm and I had this discussion I believe on Tuesday morning, when you folks have a tendency to say we're going to pass this along and subject to well we'll do this for the city council. The problem is the city council gets the plans as they were presented and then they hear there were some other things that were involved and those don't always get incorporated Mr. Smith. There was discussion about something you wanted added to the project. It didn't get added to the project. It was something you wanted to make a condition on one of the previous projects from last nights meeting. My preference is that when a plan comes forward, and you put your stamp on the preliminary plat or anything else, that preliminary plat goes forward as it's been submitted to you, not subject to the condition that you do this, subject to the condition you do that. Subject that these lots get moved around for the city council. Well unfortunately the city council doesn't see that and it has nothing to do with the applicant. It's just that the applicant said well these were part of the condition, and the city council has a tendency to disregard all that. My preference in the future and I won't drag this out is that when you folks put a stamp on something and say this is the project I want to go to the city council, make sure that what you have in front of you is exactly what you want. Not subject to what the applicant prepare. Make the applicant prepare it the way you want it, look at it and then send it that way to the city council. Otherwise you are going to create a lot of problems for all of us in the future. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 24 Smith: So this needs to come back here. Prior: Well Steve will — and Steve just for your explanation these folks on the conditional use permit are going to require me to do Findings. The preliminary plat does not require Findings, so once I do the Findings on the CUP, the preliminary plat and CUP will go on at the same time anyway so you're not losing any time on this. All I'm going to ask and I didn't mean to turn this into a lecture on this, but please I implore you in the future as a commission, please, please, please when you say you're going forward with something make sure that what you have in front of you is exactly what you want to send to the city council. if you do not do that, you're not getting what you want. I guarantee you you're not. Borup: But I have to agree with that. I sat in on city council last night and it came up a couple of times. Prior: At least a couple of times. Borup: Well it came up more than a couple of times. But it was on the specific projects. But I think where the potential is when it's a controversial project. When there's opposing public testimony. Prior: And this isn't controversial with Steiner Development. I'm not implying. that. Borup: So on this one, I don't think we have potential, but on other stuff where there's a lot of public testimony, -- Prior: And in all fairness to the applicant, would you please specify tonight maybe decide as a decision what exactly you want them to do so they are perfectly clear so there's no misunderstanding and then when it comes we can just push this thing along for the benefit of them. Smith: So Mr. Prior, am I correct in assuming that — let's just go back to the example that Mr. Bradbury was just proposing in that including lot 9 and 10 in this open space and extending lot 11 up to include that as part of lot 11, that next month when we are reviewing and voting on the Findings of Fact, they could present the revisions at that time. We would have them in front of us and as long as they incorporated these changes that we asked for then we could at that point forward it on to city council, and that's what would be presented. Prior: I was going to ask you to table this preliminary plat anyway, because my preference is that you folks pass the conditional use permit on and then the preliminary plat. You're basically saying we're approving a preliminary plat. Then you are going to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 25 approve a conditional use permit. In my mind that's out of order, and the listing on this agenda was incorrect, and I'm sorry I should have caught that. My suggestion on this is that we can continue the public hearing on this preliminary plat, allow the applicant to submit the very changes that we've talked about tonight that you folks decide you want to do. I assume that Steve is not going to say anything else about the conditional use permit. He's just going to open it up and incorporate. We'll move on and at that time I will prepare Findings. He will have the preliminary plat, and the game is on, and I would have the conditional use permit Findings ready by the August 11th meeting. Smith: Okay. I'm ready to vote on this. MacCoy: Before we do that I just wanted to make a statement to all the commissioners that Commissioner Borup and I have had discussion about this over the last year, and with Commissioner Johnson and when our counsel changed to John, we've had considerable discussion. I have met with the Mayor and we've got the approval and what John has just finished saying to you is the beginning of that very thing is that this commission here for the very reason that what John and Keith have mentioned has been very apparent as we go before the council, there is things dropped away and lost from what we do here, and we know for a fact that the council and I've talked to Charlie Rountree who is chairman of the council that they don't do the detail work that we do here and they count on us to actually spelling it out to the detail. I think from now on we're going to do that and we're not going to release anything from this table until we are darn sure that what we have specified gets carried forward to the council. It's going to be a cut and dried thing for them because we can't afford in the future to have problems like this like we had last night. From a side point Commissioner Borup's name was on the council last night. Your name, Commissioner Smith, was on the council several times last night. All for good points. The fact that the public that sat here those nights stood up in front of the council last night and said well Commissioner Smith said so and so and it's not on the council tonight, and so it's very apparent that we do make a point ,but we are going to have to say it so that the council understand that we have been putting that on the table and we want it acted upon and not passed over or forgotten. So as I say we have spent considerable time behind the scenes with all the people so that we will be allowed to do and what our laws says we can do we can do this. It is now approved. We will do it as we see it, and we'll not foot around on it. Borup: I think that's very important on substantial projects, and I hope we still have some flexibility on those. MacCoy: On all projects as we have stipulations that we want to make sure that council understands. Prior: Did you reach a consensus then? i t f Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 26 Borup: Yeah, are we assuming that this meets what the applicant (inaudible). Smith: To replot 9 and 10? That works for me. I don't know if there's anything additional that either of you want to add on to it. And do we want to table this or continue the public hearing? Prior: Actually you want to continue the public hearing is the proper procedure. Now how much the city clerk Berg may not want to hear this, we need to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to make the necessary changes. The lots 9 and 10 if I'm clarified on this is to be incorporated into open space. Then it will be resubmitted. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing on preliminary plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lake, give the applicant time to revise the preliminary plat to include lots 9 and 10 along North Cowhide Avenue into the open space identified as lot 5 and incorporate the part of lot 5 that is now open space into lot 11 until our August 11th meeting. MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Nelson: Second. Borup: I believe that's lot 8, block 5. Smith: I'm sorry. Borup: Yeah, that little one is too hard to read. Smith: I'm sorry I — block 5, lot 8, thank you. Borup: Are covered on the correction okay? Prior: You're fine. There's been a motion that lot 8, block 5 and lot 10 and lot 9 are incorporated. There's been a motion. There's been a second. I need a vote. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 27 STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I don't have anything to add to this item. I'd simply like to ask that the testimony and discussion from the previous item be incorporated into this public hearing. But I would be pleased to respond to any additional questions. MacCoy: Mr. Borup, do you have any questions? Borup: I have none. MacCoy: Mr. Smith? Smith: None. Nelson: I have none. MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson doesn't have any either. And we don't have anybody in the house, so Commissioners what do you have in mind? Prior: Is the public hearing closed? I'm sorry I missed that. MacCoy: No, I didn't close the pubic hearing. Borup: We have no other comments. We can close the public hearing. Don't we need to close the public hearing first before we make a. motion? MacCoy: Yes, we can. Since there's no other comments, the public hearing is now closed. Commissioners? Smith: Is the motion on this — is the appropriate time to ask for the license agreement with the irrigation district? Prior: I wouldn't worry about it too much. The public hearing has been closed at this point so no. Smith: I mean making that as part of a motion? Prior: That you prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. You can do that if you'd like. I'm going to do it anyway so whether you do it or not, it doesn't make any difference. At this point Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law would be the proper motion though. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 28 Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we direct the Assistant City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item. Nelson: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we adjourn. Smith: Second. Wait, I'll withdraw that second and allow Mr. Prior — Prior: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I had an opportunity to speak with some of the special counsel and some of the concerns about the lengthy meetings, and I'll be very brief here. I spoke with them. What we are going to try to do is pass some type of a resolution for a policy. What I'm going to ask the commission very briefly is come up with some ideas as to what they would like to incorporate as a policy for the next meeting. I'm talking about things such as requiring all people who come up to speak to be limited to a five minute discussion about their projects, and that will be it. Some things such as having a cap on the length of the meeting itself. In other words allowing the meeting to only go until 11:00 p.m. and anything after the 11:00 deadline will have to be considered at the next meeting. It's purely within your procedural rights to set those kinds of things. Anything else that you would like to add then I'll draft an ordinance with your approval within 30 days. That's all I have. MacCoy: All right. Thank you. Borup: Are we going to discuss that sometime? Prior: I would like you to come up with some ideas and — MacCoy: He's jumping the gun on me right here. He's a head of me. Between now and the next meeting for the commissioners, we will have a meeting, and I've already asked you to come up with some suggestions of what you're going to see. Some of the material we are going to discuss on that is just what John's gone through because he and I have spent a considerable time like I already said going through some of these details because I have personally fed up with this 2:00 in the morning situation. Nobody does well at that, and we are all going to end up looking up for a better timing. I am willing to go as we have discussed in the past all of us for two meetings a month if we have to based on the log that we have to review the material that is presented to the city. So that will be something we will have to discuss. But before our next meeting we will have had our meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 29 Borup: So do we have a date? MacCoy: No, I want about that after we get out of here. Borup: That makes sense to me. I just hope we keep it not have it too restrictive where there's some flexibility. (Inaudible) Prior: Mr. Chairman, my preference obviously is that you discuss that on an individual basis individually with each of the commissioners after the meeting. MacCoy: Yes, sir. That's the point I am not going into any more detail. Okay. Let's get the last piece on here. Smith: I'll second that motion by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:14 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK •N_49 WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt, JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President "Irt'"Y OF MERIDIAN' RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIANI, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433 . FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 MALCOLM MACCOY Legal Department (208) 884-4252 KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON ROBERT D. CORRIE BYRON SMITH Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 7, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 18. 1998 HEARING DATE: April 14, 1998 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision NW '/4 Section 3, T.31sl.,RAW., BY: Steiner Development LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick Intersection, south of Ustick Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z _BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR _RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER PARKS DEPARTMENT CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: i 4. Density per acre 0.20 5. zoning Classification(s) RT/R4 6. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City Limits but within the jurisdictional mile, what is the existing zoning classification RT 7. Does the plat border a potential green belt Yes 8. Have recreational easements been provided for Yes Explain Common area lots for play areas and walking paths 9. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City Yes Explain Golf Course adjacent to Block 7 10. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? Yes Explain Private open spaces For future parks? No Explain 11. What school(s) service the area Meridian , do you propose any agreements for future school sites No Explain 12 -acre site has been ac uired by school district east of project. 12. Other proposed amenities to the City Yes Water Supply Extension of Main Fire Department No , Other Explain 13. Type of Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial or combination)Residential 14. Type of Dwelling(s) Single Family, Duplexes, Multiplexes, other Single family attached townhouses 15. Proposed Development features: a. Minimum square footage of lot(s), Varies b. Minimum square footage of structure(s) 1250 sa ft. c. Are garages provided for, Yes square footage 400 d. Are other coverings provided for No 2 e. Landscaping has been provided for Yes Describe Extensive landsca in alon Ustick and throw bout common areas. f. Trees will be provided for Yes ______.► Trees will be maintained Private Compan_y - g. Sprinkler systems are provided for Yes h. Are there multiple units Yes, Type Single Family remarks i, Are there special setback requirements Yes Explain 15' fronts, 15' corners, 18' garage setback. Please refer to booklet for detail. j. Has off street parking been provided for Yes, Explain Normal off-street arkin k. Value range of property $125,000 - 250,000 1. Type of financing for development conventional M. Protective covenants were submitted No , Date 16. Does the proposal land lock other property No , Does it create Enclaves No STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: 1, Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be constructed to standards as required by Ada County Highway District the nd Meridian Ordinance. Dimensions will be determinedby in City Engineer. All sidewalks will be give (5) f width. 2. Proposed use is in conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. Development will connect to City services. 4. Development will comply with City Ordinances. 5, Preliminary Plat will include all appropriate easements. 6. Street names will not conflict with City grid system. 3 REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND/OR FINAL PLAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TIME TABLE FOR SUBMISSION: ity A request for preliminarye 1 than pthree days must bfollowing e in the Cthe Clerks possession no lat regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hear the request at the monthly meeting following the month the request was made. After a proposal enters the process it may be acted upon at subsequent monthly meetings provided the necessary procedures and documentation are received before 5:00 P.M., Thursday following the Planning and Zoning Commission action. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Annexation and Subdivision. Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision 2. General Location, NW �, Section 3 T 3N R 1W B M. 11314 feet east of Blackcat Ustick intersection south of Ustick Road 3. Owners of record, John and Ruth Wilkins Ustick Road Meridian ID Zip 83642 Address, 4085 W. Telephone 888=2583 record, Steiner Development. Inc. 3. Owners of Address, P O Box 190472, Boise, ID Zip 83719 Telephone 884-2076 4. Applicant, Steiner Development Inc. Address, P.O. Box 190472 Boise Idaho 83719 5. Engineer, Keith Jacobs, Jr. Firm Pacific Land Surveyors 6. Name and address to receive City billings: Box 190472 Name Doug Boise, Campbell Steiner Development_ Address P.O. Id 83719 Telephone 884-2076 PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST: Subdivision Features 1. Acres 51.88 2. Number of lots 282 = 260 buildable + 22 non -buildable 3. Lots per acre 5.01 WILKINS RANCU MERIDIAN U AHO 12 March 1998 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian ID 83642 RE: Wilkins Ranch at The Lakes Subdivision Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: The above referenced application comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission on Steiner Development, L.L.C.'s application for annexation, conditional use permit for a planned development, and preliminary plat approval. Copies of the application materials are included in this booklet, The proposed project is located south of Ustick Road between The Lakes at Cherry Lane subdivision and Ashford Greens subdivision. The Chevy Lane golf course is adjacent to and south of the proposed subdivision. The property which is the subject of this application consists of a total of nearly 52 acres on which are proposed 260 building lots, yielding a gross density of approximately five units per acre. The project is divided into five different sections providing a variety of housing types and living choices all in one community. For example, the proposal includes some larger lots for single family detached dwellings, some smaller lots for single family detached dwellings, and some lots for townhouse units. The a is to provide as many different 1�1 of his booklet you will find detailed Informatiochoices as Possible, consistent with an overall n of designand an and workmanship. Behindtabs 7 through about each of the five separate sections proposed for the project. As the Commission undoubtedly knows, Section 9-e07(E) of the City's Subdivision and Development Ordinance provides that an approval of a planned development may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed planned development Pursuant to that provision of the City's ordinance, Steiner Development, L.L.C. does seek certain exceptions from the City's standard regulations. Those exceptions are described together with the section of the project to which they are applicable. This project Is similar in concept and design to The Lakes at Cherry Lane subdivision which includes housing types and living choices similar to those being offered here. This project is for that reason, we believe, compatible with the existing and planned development in the vicinity. The primary difference is that this project will not include areas which are intended for senior citizens only. We apprvciate your giving this matter its due consideration. D!l;4c�gll Steiner Development, L.L.C. STRtM MVEL04'1LENT LIZ 2195 N Tarr MM Ro" WR'M74" MA.tiq UU2 MM 208 M 2M MX 884 2086 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 (208) 378-6387 Fax (208) 378-0025 March 12, 1998 Mayor and City Council City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Subject: 549121 Preliminary Plat for Wilkins Ranch at The Lakes Subdivision Dear Mayor and City Council: This subdivision will be constructed with curb, gutter, and five -foot -wide sidewalk in accordance with Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian standards. The exception will be the 42 -foot -wide private streets and the sidewalk along one side of the street. Lot 16 Block 2 and Lot 15 Block 1 are proposed to be private streets. The subdivision is in conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, except as noted in the accompanying booklet. The development will be served by City of Meridian water and sewer services. The sewer is proposed to be in conformance with City requirements, except that part of the sewer trunk in North Wilkins Way. The trunk line in North Wilkins Way is proposed to be placed at 0.003'/ LF (0.3n/o). Reducing the sewer slope on this trunk line will lessen the fill material required to raise the street and lots. The minimum cover on the sewer will be three feet. This development complies with City of Meridian ordinances, except as noted on the accompanying booklet. The preliminary Plat includes the appropriate easements. Street names will comply with the City's grid system. If you have questions, please call me at 378-6385. Sincerely, PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS A division of POWER Engineers, Inc. KLJsmg Keith L. Jacobs, Jr., P. E. PLS.-BOI 58-177 Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation 12 m � F bjIN s E � e E Z >; a u 2 n kn = m W 933�33��,35 to 0 8 Y-6°00 n O I Z,5 �000 ' o�o amcmv �afc� fnam�v a X sell 1 Z=gid��„aRt�J. Pli ”, ;3 ggtF st jc� z; 1 jycls eta 44 s a6e id kp saQ 9f 5� Ell 52c�1 CITY COUNCIL MEE i ING OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 3 Motion made by Councilman Bentley and seconded by Councilman Bird to direct the city attorney to prepare annexation ordinance. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #7: CONTINUED PUBLIC,: HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED_WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (231 UNITS ON 51.88 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Testimony given by Steve Bradbury, Lowell Pumphrey, and David Zaremba. Closed public hearing. Motion made by Councilman Bentley and seconded by Councilman Anderson to deny the preliminary plat. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #8: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Testimony given by Steve Bradbury and David Zaremba. Closed public hearing. Motion made by Councilman Bentley and seconded by Councilman Anderson to deny the conditional use permit with attorney to prepare new Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. V. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (48 LOTS ON 8.53 ACRES) FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT— NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1. Testimony given by Steve Bradbury. Closed public hearing. Motion was made by Councilman Rountree and seconded by Councilman Bentley to approve subject to staff comments and P & Z recommendations. MOTION CARRIED: 3 ayes, 1 nay. ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) — THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1. Testimony given by Steven Bradberry, Shari Stiles and Malcolm MacCoy. Closed public hearing. Motion made by Councilman Rountree and seconded by Councilman Bird to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared by P & Z commission with two CITY COUNCIL MEE i ING OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 2 All requirements such as three readings, publication, etc. have been meet. Motion made by Councilman Bentley and seconded by Councilman Anderson to approve ordinance #800 with legal staff to prepare resolution for funds to go to public safety (fire & police) funding, effective date of November 1, 1998. ROLL CALL: Rountree — aye, Anderson — aye, Bentley — aye, Bird — aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #4: ORDINANCE #801 - ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES BY EAGLE PARTNERS — NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW. Explanation and discussion from Steve Brown, attorney representing Eagle Partners and Wyatt Johnson, attorney representing Idaho Power Employee Credit Union, concerning the hours of operation noted in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion was made by Councilman Anderson and seconded by Councilman Rountree to approve Ordinance #801 with suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL: Rountree — aye, Anderson — aye, Bentley — aye, Bird — abstain. MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one abstain. ITEM #5: TABLED JULY 21,1998: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY EAGLE PARTNERS — NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW. Motion made by Councilman Rountree and seconded by Councilman Bentley to have the attorney prepare new Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one abstain. ITEM #6: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES for R-4 FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Testimony given by Steve Bradberry, Lowell Pumphrey and David Zaremba. Closed Public Hearing. Motion made by Councilman Bird and seconded by Councilman Rountree to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL: Rountree — aye, Anderson — aye, Bentley — aye, Bird — aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Motion made by Councilman Bird and seconded by Councilman Bentley to approve decision. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1998 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL: X RON ANDERSON X CHARLIE ROUNTREE X GLENN BENTLEY X KEITH BIRD X MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE CONSENT AGENDA A. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 15,1998: (APPROVE) B. MINUTES FROM SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 22,1998: (APPROVE) C. MINUTES FROM SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28,1998: (APPROVE) REGULAR AGENDA TABLED SEPTEMBER 15,1998: SANITARY SERVICES RATE RESTRUCTURING: (SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING FOR OCTOBER 27, 1998 @ 7:00 PM FOR RATE INCREASE) 2. TABLED SEPTEMBER 15,1998: B.S.U. CONTRACT WITH CITY AT WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING: (BRING BACK OCTOBER 20TH FOR FINAL SIGNATURE) 3. TABLED SEPTEMBER 15,1998: ORDINANCE #800 - CITY OF MERIDIAN / IDAHO POWER FRANCHISE: (APPROVE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1,1998) 4. ORDINANCE #801 - ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES BY EAGLE PARTNERS - NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: (APPROVE) 5. TABLED JULY 21, 1998: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY EAGLE PARTNERS - NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE) 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AKES SUBDIVISION (260 UNITS ON36.7 ED WILKINS RANCH AT THE ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (231 UNITS DENY PRELIMINARY PLAT) 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (DENY - ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (48 LOTS ON 8.53 ACRES) FOR -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: (APPROVE) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: IT DEVELOPMENT NTO(48 UO NDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED U NITS ON 8.53 ACRES) - THE VILLAS SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- AT THE LAKES NE VILLAGENO. 1: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS OF ST OF CHERRY LA FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.18 ACRES (R-2) BY WILLIAM C. HUMPHREY FOR LAND LOCATED AT 939 E. PINE: (APPROVE DECISION -APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDINANCE) 12. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO. 3 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION - PORTION OF THE W Y2 OF THE W Y2 OF SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W.,:(TABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER 17, 1998 MEETING) 13. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO.4 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION - (TABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER 17, 1998 MEETING) 14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING FOR STARBUCKS BY SUE GENTY -1742 E. FAIRVIEW AVENUE:(APPROVE DECISION - APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ATTORNEY TO PREPARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) 15. WATER, SEWER, TRASH DELINQUENCY - (APPROVE) CITY COUNCIL MEE i ING OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 3 Motion made by Councilman Bentley and seconded by Councilman Bird to direct the city attorney to prepare annexation ordinance. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #7: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (231 UNITS ON 51.88 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Testimony given by Steve Bradbury, Lowell Pumphrey, and David Zaremba. Closed public hearing. Motion made by Councilman Bentley and seconded by Councilman Anderson to deny the preliminary plat. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #8: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Testimony given by Steve Bradbury and David Zaremba. Closed public hearing. Motion made by Councilman Bentley and seconded by Councilman Anderson to deny the conditional use permit with attorney to prepare new Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. V. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (48 LOTS ON 8.53 ACRES) FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT— NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1. Testimony given by Steve Bradbury. Closed public hearing. Motion was made by Councilman Rountree and seconded by Councilman Bentley to approve subject to staff comments and P & Z recommendations. MOTION CARRIED: 3 ayes, 1 nay. ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) — THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1. Testimony given by Steven Bradberry, Shari Stiles and Malcolm MacCoy. Closed public hearing. Motion made by Councilman Rountree and seconded by Councilman Bird to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared by P & Z commission with two CITY COUNCIL MEE i ING OCTOBER 6, 1998 PAGE 2 All requirements such as three readings, publication, etc. have been meet. Motion made by Councilman Bentley and seconded by Councilman Anderson to approve ordinance #800 with legal staff to prepare resolution for funds to go to public safety (fire & police) funding, effective date of November 1, 1998. ROLL CALL: Rountree - aye, Anderson - aye, Bentley - aye, Bird - aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #4: ORDINANCE #801 - ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES BY EAGLE PARTNERS - NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW. Explanation and discussion from Steve Brown, attorney representing Eagle Partners and Wyatt Johnson, attorney representing Idaho Power Employee Credit Union, concerning the hours of operation noted in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion was made by Councilman Anderson and seconded by Councilman Rountree to approve Ordinance #801 with suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL: Rountree - aye, Anderson - aye, Bentley - aye, Bird - abstain. MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one abstain. ITEM #5: TABLED JULY 21, 1998: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY EAGLE PARTNERS - NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW. Motion made by Councilman Rountree and seconded by Councilman Bentley to have the attorney prepare new Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one abstain. ITEM #6: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES for R-4 FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Testimony given by Steve Bradberry, Lowell Pumphrey and David Zaremba. Closed Public Hearing. Motion made by Councilman Bird and seconded by Councilman Rountree to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL: Rountree - aye, Anderson - aye, Bentley - aye, Bird - aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Motion made by Councilman Bird and seconded by Councilman Bentley to approve decision. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1998 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL: X RON ANDERSON X CHARLIE ROUNTREE X GLENN BENTLEY X KEITH BIRD X MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE CONSENT AGENDA A. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 15,1998: (APPROVE) B. MINUTES FROM SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 22,1998: (APPROVE) C. MINUTES FROM SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28,1998: (APPROVE) REGULAR AGENDA 1. TABLED SEPTEMBER 15,1998: SANITARY SERVICES RATE RESTRUCTURING: (SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARINGWEETING FOR OCTOBER 27, 1998 @ 7:00 PM FOR RATE INCREASE) 2. TABLED SEPTEMBER 15,1998: B.S.U. CONTRACT WITH CITY AT WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING: (BRING BACK OCTOBER 20TH FOR FINAL SIGNATURE) 3. TABLED SEPTEMBER 15,1998: ORDINANCE #800 - CITY OF MERIDIAN / IDAHO POWER FRANCHISE: (APPROVE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1,1998) 4. ORDINANCE #801 - ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES BY EAGLE PARTNERS - NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: (APPROVE) 5. TABLED JULY 21, 1998: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY EAGLE PARTNERS - NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLC - EAST OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE) 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY (260 UNITS ON36.7 PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, LLCEAST OF BLACK UNITS DENYCAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: PRELIMINARY PLAT) 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CORN PROPOSED WILKTIONAL USE RMIIT FOR A RANCH AT THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOEAT R LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, UROADS: _ STICK ROADS OF BLACK CAT / USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT BY SL(48 OTS O 8.53 ACRES) FOR -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: (APPROVE) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE MITHE VILLAS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMBY STEINER DEVE OPMEN(48 UNITS ON 8.53 EST- NORTHWEST AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION ND LOCATED ATND ZONING . 939 E 1.18 ACRES (R-2) BY WILLIAM C. HUMPHREY PINE: (APPROVE DECISION-APPROVE FINDINGS OF CT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDINANCE) 12. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT FOR ASHFORDNS O. SECTION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION - PORTION OF THE W /Z OF THE T.3N., R.1W.,:(TABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER 17, 1998 MEETING) 13. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT FOR ASHFORD GRE 1998 MEETINGS BRIGHTON CORPORATION - (TABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER 17, 14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING FOR DEC SIONSTARBUCKS BY SUE GENTY -1742 E. FAIRVIEW AVENUE.(A APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ATTORNEY TO PREPARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) 15. WATER, SEWER, TRASH DELINQUENCY - (APPROVE) cl NmVV! N3:t�- Nm VNO ] 0 00 00 0 I� IM Z moui ' zol I Ilk m-�� �ir aoxA iiF 1S88�i o P �000 �mo_y 4> +m �a yyp t� 8 �wyv: � e r X z N m D z n T D-� c mm n r -� Dr„ m N MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: SEPTEMBER 15 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RAN H AT THE LAKES SUB, AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM P & Z SEE ATTACHED REVISED PLAT SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: r MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: il fi , ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ,£ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Ma�prials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: 3 ayes, 1 absent. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission he annexation recommends to the city council of the City of Meridian that they approve and zoning as stated above in the conclusions for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the applicant be specifically required to meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the conditions of these Findings de annexed d Conclusions of Law and if the conditions are not met that the property be MacCoy: All in favor of the motion. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Second by the way. Thank you. All in favor of the motion? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING A ROH JLAKES SUBDIVISION BY Y 14,1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: MacCoy: It looks like we got a full house, but standing in view of the law, is there anybody here that would like to make a statement at this moment. I think you are going to have to — yes, sir, stand up and speak your piece. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you very much. As you all know, I am representing Steiner Develop in this application. You've seen this thing a number of times over the past several months, and during that process a number of issues have been raised and last month the hearing was continued in order to permit the applicant to try to work those issues out. And by the way I appreciate you folks accommodating us in setting this special meeting so that we can try to move hat matteris along Wh t I hopely as we can accomplish appreciate your accommodation int respect. tonight is I guess in the big picture is to try to get a deeision to resod ed and I'm hoperhaps as eing for along try to work out whatever issues there may y p some dialog and interchange between us and you so that when we leave here tonight we're all pretty well assured of just where we are. I invite you to please talk to us so that we can try to work it out and get an understanding hat we need to talk about.eto see to l identified the extent of what my presentation doesn't ode Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 3 from the minutes of the meeting that was here a month or so ago seven different issues, and I am prepared to address those seven different issues, and it shouldn't take me too awfully long assuming we don't get too bogged down in a lot of questions and answers. Not that I don't want them, but I can get through this quickly. You have had a revised plat was submitted to you folks at the last meeting. The blue line plat, and on that plat there's a table that sets out the amount of open space that's been set aside in the project, and according to the engineers, the total amount of open space which has been set aside consisting of the park areas and the landscaped areas if 5.5 acres, and the total of parcel size that's being considered for development is 51.88 acres, and by my math that calculates out to a total of 11 % of open space being provided. So we meet the ten percent requirement that's set forth in the city's ordinances. Issue number two as was discussed here a month ago had to do with the distribution and location of the open space. And let me show you a little bit about where things are so that you got an idea. You have probably in front of you a drawing that looks like this. It might be just as easy to point to this piece here. This lot is lot 76, and that is a park area, which is just about an acre in size. And that is the largest of the park areas that has been set aside. Well except for what we might call the path area along the lateral there, but that's an acre that's been set aside in this portion of the project. The reason that that's the largest is because that's the area that has the greatest density. There are more lots. There are 68 units, and our perception and belief is that that is the area where the greatest need for open space would located in this area. So we've got a large park there for the use of these residents. The next one is lot 51 which is this lot here. And that too is set aside for this portion of the project and that's just about a half acre in size and there we kind of figured that's about the second highest density in the project. Forty eight lots are included in there. So this piece would designed then to serve the residents of that area. The third park space is here, which is again it's just over a half acre, and then of course we have the walking path which is in this location between what we're calling the villages and Moonlake Park. Together those are — well they come close -to two acres total, not quite. It's half acre and then an acre and a third, and of course that park area is designed to be used by everybody in the subdivision. The thinking is of course that these are the larger lots. The location of the larger lots are here. And that the perhaps if you want to look at it this way, the per unit need for open space in these areas would a little bit less than the per unit need for open space in these areas, and that's why it's laid out and designed that way. Another thing that is probably worth pointing out to you is that this drawing that I provided to you is just kind of a sketch of the Dakota Ridge Subdivision, which was approved sometime back by the council. And it is located immediately adjacent to and east of this project here. And what they did in that is that there was a set aside of 12 acres for a school site. And that school site orders this proposed subdivision along the vast majority of its eastern border, and included in that school site of course is several acres of playground area, and our thinking is because we have a pedestrian connection coming across here, that's lot 88 on the plat that there is also the opportunity for children who need some play space to easily access that school yard and make use of the open spaces that are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 4 available there. And of course the point of all that is to let you know that we have attempted to spread the open space throughout the project. We have attempted to put the larger open space areas in the areas that we think have the greatest need, and of course we all need to recognize I think it's fair to recognize that there is a school yard proposed for immediately next door to this subdivision. So that there's even more opportunities for play areas for kids. Let's see the third issue was density, the overall density of the project, and what we've done is since the last time — well maybe let's do it this way, since this project was originally proposed, it was proposed for 260 lots. The plat that you have before has a total of 233 lots. As originally proposed the 260 lots came out to a density of about 5 units per acre, just a dead on. And now with 233 lots, we calculate that at 4.49 units per acres. So just a hair under 4.5 units per acre. In the northwest section of the project, the gated area that we are calling the Meadows, there's a total of 48 lots. I think you got on your drawing, it summarizes those numbers for you. There's a total of 48 lots, and that's down 11 lots from the originally proposed 59. In the northeast portion of the project what we're calling the Plains, we're proposing 68 lots, and that's down 6 lots from the original 74. In the central portion of the project in what we're calling the Villages, that's a total of 56 lots. That's down 3 from the original 59, and actually that moved around a little bit because the last time we were here, we were actually at 63 — no that's not true. Originally the numbers of those lots moved around they increased and then they decreased again as a result of the redesign for the connection through to the west. In any event the bottom line is we started with 59 and we're at 56. And then the golf course portion what we're calling Green Briar is proposed for 26 units now. That's down a total of 7 units from the originally proposed 33. So what we've been able to accomplish is to get the density down just below 4 1/2 units per acre, and have taken lots out of all portions of the project. Issue number four I think was and in my shorthand anyway was a concern that there were not enough or enough larger lots included in the project, and so what we've done in part of reducing the density is to increase some of the lots sizes and those are especially found.it what we're calling the Villages that yellow area on your drawing. In the project proposed there are 19 lots that are over 10,000 square feet. Six of those 19 are over 12,000 feet. And then we have 16 more lots that are over 9,000 square feet, and that makes a total of 35 lots over 9,000 and there's a total of 58 lots that are over 8,000 square feet. We did a break down of them. Twenty five percent of the units are between 8,000 and over. Nine percent are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Seventeen percent are between 6,000 and 8,000. If you are interested I can hand this out to you. If you are all writing it down, I can just hand it out to you. Sobetween 28 % a 4,000 feet andthousand, lower.% What between five and six thousand square feet and then I wanted to point out to you is that among the dispution, but I think the most important point is to let you know that there are a number of lots that are well in excess of the R-4, 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. There's 19 total lots that are over 10,000 square feet and 35 over 9, so what I think that shows is that although there are smaller lots in the subdivision, there are also some very large lots in the subdivision. Issue number five was the landscape buffer from the road that goes in to Dakota Ridge Subdivision Meridian Planning and Zoning commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 5 which is entering at their service access to the school site. On the (inaudible — off the microphone). You can see that from your drawings that I've given to you. What we've done is we've added a buffer strip that is the 13 1/2 feet wide adjacent to that proposed roadway for Dakota Ridge. Now the conversation and I think staffs recommendation was for a 20 foot wide buffer strip. I guess two issues, we are not proposing to provide the full 20 feet because we need to have certainly got to have enough room on those lots to meet some reasonable setbacks number one, and number two we thought that 20 feet was probably a bit excessive since that's the amount of landscape buffer which is required to be placed next to an arterial like Ustick, and of course our project does propose 20 foot buffer strip along Ustick. 20 folthis road here is ot buffer strip for that slort of road would standard road and it doesn't seem that a be necessary given the fact that it is 20 feet for an arterial — well 20 feet for an arterial makes sense, but I'm not sure that 20 feet for a local road makes the same sense given that the volumes of traffic are going to be substantially less. In any event what we've suggested and designed into the plat is a 13 1/2 foot landscape buffer along that road. Issue number six, I'm going to swap these because I was going to talk about ACRD, but I want to talk about fire department first. Mr. Campbell here met with the fire chief with respect to this access down here in the golf course lots in what we're calling the Green Briar and the fire chief has indicated to Mr. Campbell that he has no problem with that design, that that would be acceptable to the fire department. Issue seven is the Ada County Highway District approval. I handed out to you a staff report which ACHD produced here this past week. In the staff report, excuse me, the staff was proposing to approve the design and the layout of the streets as proposed including the private streets and those two most northerly portions e ACRD staff atnd by the way it fromwhatwe gather there is an internal dispute amongroyal of scheduled to go to the Ada County Highway District Commission tonight for app the staff report that you've seen. There was apparently some internal dispute among the staff at the Highway District. Some members of the staff thinking that this proposal was appropriate and at least one member of the staff thinking that there should be a public road connection over to the Dakota Ridge Subdivision. The staff couldn't work it out among themselves as to which way the recommendation ought to go. So we're attempting to schedule a meeting with the staff and with the supervisors hopefully next week so we can get it to the ACHD commission. I spoke with Steve Arnold of the Highway District, one of the highway district staff people today, and told him we were coming to see you folks tonight and that I asked him if it would be helpful if he had some input from you about what you think you might like to see, what makes sense to you. So that you can either through your staff or through us, or however you want to handle it, let the Ada County Highway District know what you think. Now they may accept it. They may reject it. They may ignore you. I don't know, but I'm thinking that it might be helpful to them and Mr. Arnold seemed to think that it would be helpful if you folks put your two cents worth in. Here's the arguments as I understand them. The staff person who is thinking that there ought to be a public road through to Dakota Ridge is thinking neighborhood interconnectivity connecting this project into Dakota Ridge. Now of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 6 course we've only got, we've got a limited opportunity to do that because the school site covers most of the boundaries. There's really only one reasonable place to put it which is adjacent which is across from that roadway which goes into Dakota Ridge. So connectivity is the one argument that would suggest public road access through there. The other side of that argument goes something like this, that because the distance between Ustick an arterial and this intersection is so short, a short distance. It's only about 150 feet, about 150 feet between those two roadways that that intersection is potentially unsafe because you'd have cross traffic coming across just 150 feet after somebody turns in after an arterial, and so the argument from those staff people is the way he described it to me is that a T -intersection is much safer, many times safer than a full four way intersection and that's their worry is that,it's maybe not very safe. Second, the other staff person's thinking is that the likelihood of needing a connection between Dakota Ridge and this project at this location — let me back up and put it this way, among the argument for the connectivity issue is so that people can drive their kids from this project, from Wilkins Ranch over to the new school, and his argument is well wait a minute. If they really do need to drive their kids to school, number one it doesn't make them go too far out of the way to have to come out on to Ustick to negotiate a right turn on Ustick and then negotiate another right turn in the Dakota Ridge and head on into the school. Second he's saying the school site is immediately next door to this project and the likelihood how many people are going to be driving their children from this project over to that school especially given the fact that there's the pedestrian access going to be provided in at least two locations. (Inaudible) And so his argument is with the pedestrian connections that the inter -neighborhood connectivity issue really isn't an issue. I think the highway district staff you know, I don't know, what do you guys think? Borup: One question, Steve. Moonlake Drive ties into Lakes at Cherry Lane, which also is tying into Dakota Ridge is what it looks like on — that's what it looks like on here. So you do have connectivity at that location. Bradbury: That location. Borup: The ACHD map shows it. Bradbury: That's right. Borup: Assuming that Moonlake ties over to the Lakes at Cherry Lane, Moonlake Street. So if those two still tie together, it looks like it's got the connectivity. Bradbury: They do, and as a matter of fact that was one of the things I spoke with Mr. Arnold about is that there actually is connectivity to the east because of Moonlake, the connection at Moonlake. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 7 Borup: Speaking specifically to that aspect I'd would agree with the second argument that it makes more sense with the walk paths there. You're talking like you say 150 feet back to Ustick and around if they really feel they needed to drive right up to the school. You've got the connectivity at the other end and that's where you need it is at the back end of the subdivision not at the entrance in my mind. That's where those concerns and problems are is people living way back at the back end and those are all tying together back in those locations. That's my (inaudible) Smith: Extending that W. Corral Lane over to the east, it's too close to Ustick. The way this plat is designed right now at that location doesn't work. It doesn't work. I don't know that I agree with all the arguments presented for one way or the other but the one about it being too close to Ustick is — it just doesn't make any sense. Bradbury: Those were all the issues that I had identified were concerns to you the last time we got together and that's the extent of the comments that I had. Well I did hand out to you one more thing and maybe I ought to show this. I talked to you briefly about the reduction in the number of lots in the — down there in the golf course and the part that we're calling Green Briar and it's down to 26 units. Again we have in reducing the total number of units, it also required a redesign. We've abandoned the idea of the large triplex units and have returned to the original proposal which were two unit townhouses. I've handed out to you a front and rear elevation drawings and floor plans of the proposed units for this area and hopefully this time the elevations and the floor plans match. We think they do. And I guess the site plan showing they would be laid out in the portion of the subdivision and I don't know if you have any questions or concerns or would like to talk about those. But obviously the idea there was to reduce the number of units and try to give a variety of — well we don't want to present one big long blank flat wall and so you can see that the units are staggered to some extent. They're off set a little bit different so they are not all just in straight lines. And the idea is to present something other than just a blank uniform flat appearance across there and to also preserve a little bit of the feel of some open space between the units. We can talk about details of that sort of stuff if you'd like. The other Mr. Campbell, Robert Campbell who does some of the layouts, he's here and he can talk design if you are interested in that. Other than that that's all I had to talk about, and I am please to respond to any questions or engage in any conversation or interchange that you folks might like to do. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Steve this map of Dakota Ridge the scale on that says it's one inch equals a hundred. Bradbury: (Inaudible) Smith: So this has been reduced. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 8 Bradbury: (Inaudible — off the microphone). Smith: Can I see that a minute? I saw what I wanted to see there. MacCoy: Anything else Commissioner Smith? Smith: Not at the moment. MacCoy: Mr. Nelson. Nelson: The city had done quite a bit of work to reduce from 5 units per acre to 4 1/2. Why aren't we shooting for 4 if you don't mind my asking? It is R-4 and all. Bradbury: Right and what we're aiming for is the approval of the density bonus which is allowed under the PUD ordinance in exchange for — by reason of going through the planned unit development process and providing the open space that meets the requirement of the ordinance the city has the discretion to approve a density bonus of 25%. 1 think it's 25% density bonus which would get us up actually if you go from R-4, 25% would take you to a total of 5 units per acre. Now, we've had a lot of conversations about what that ought to be multiplied a of and gwou d get one ustup he somewhere rocess I mean we're hopeful that we can have density bonus tha close to in the 4 1/2 range, which is generally consistent with what was approved over at the Lakes at Cherry Lane. I think we calculated the 40 acre teeter portion of that project at 4 1/2units per acre as well. So if you're asking me — you're asking me why not 4. Well, because the ordinance allows for up to five and so we're splitting the difference with you. That's one way to look at it maybe. Another way to look at it is we've prepared a project that we think meets the requirements of the ordinance, and it gives you some good variety in housing types. And in dneed toer be lbe able to sellall of athis couplerk and to provide all of the facilities and the amenities we of extra lots. Borup: Just some information for Commissioner Nelson, I did some rough figures along the same line, and we maybe starting with a not a hundred percent valid assumption but the comment was made last time and I think some staff verified that, 3.7 units per acre is fairly average for R-4. I know it's going to vary from subdivision to subdivision, but taking that assumption 25% density bonus would come out 240 lots. And we're looking at 233, so assuming the 3.7 is a valid figure, they would be a little bit under that. Nelson: Well, as far as the quantity of lots go. Borup: Yes, with the 25% density bonus. I figured 3.7 times 51.88 acres is 192 lots, and then 25% more is 240. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 9 Bradbury: There's always a nature tension between a developer who by nature is going to want to squeeze every lot possible on to a given piece of property and the desire of the city, and zoning authority to try to provide a living environment that meets the expectations of quality of life whatever that may mean to you, and often times it means lesser density and what we're hoping that you are recognizing is that we're trying to meet you half way. We're trying to find some common middle ground with you folks, and clearly I think the developer has certainly demonstrated a willingness to do that by taking about 30 lots out of the project. Borup: I guess I've got to say I think they've made a big effort here. I'm comfortable with the number of lots given the density bonus open space trade off, but the only thing I don't know if I'm a hundred percent comfortable on is the open space. And you've got some nice areas on there, but some of the areas, I don't know is any different landscaping than what any other subdivision would be without open space. Specifically the landscaped area along Ustick and the entrances. I guess maybe that — I don't know if anybody got any comments on that. That's really the only thing I wondered about. Nelson: My question is I'm not familiar with the bonus thing. I mean that's the first development since I've been here that's come — Borup: Well, it's not that common. Nelson: Oh, it's not that common and so if the bonus is a bonus, then we assume that it's been somewhat earned. What generally justifies the additional density? Borup: Maybe Mr. Bradbury would like to expand on that. Nelson: I mean if we're just barely if we only have 10% more than required open space going from ten to eleven percent, and for that we're giving them 12 % percent more developed lot or numbers of lots. Bradbury: The reason — Nelson: I guess the bullet item of what the bonus justifications are coming from. Smith: Commissioner Nelson in the subdivision ordinance, one of the items under bonus density there's a number of items and one of them is provision for private common open space shall be considered for density increases not to exceed 25%. Character identity and siting variation incorporated in a PUD be considered cause for density increases. Part of that is landscaping, siting, design feature, street sections, architectural styles, publicly dedicated land, which could be considered under park and environmentally sensitive areas which are preserved in the nature state. What I'm hearing is the applicant is arguing for the bonus density based on the open space Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 10 provided meeting the ten percent of the land area. I don't mean to put word in Mr. Bradbury's mouth. Bradbury: No, you did a real good job because while I was hiding behind the podium here, I was trying to find my copy of the ordinance that the commissioner was reading from. Before I came here a week ago I actually pulled it out and read it again so that I could be prepared to answer this question and then of course I lost it in my file, but I found it now. In the ordinance in 9607F7, that's under part of the subdivision ordinance which deals with planned unit developments, and I won't read the whole thing but it says the following bonus densities may be granted within a planned development but shall not be treated as cumulative and then it sets out essentially four possible criteria for you to consider in granting a bonus density. One of the four criteria is the provision of open space. And then later in the ordinance it talks about the open space needing to be at least ten percent of the project area, so among the four possible criteria which would allow for that bonus density is the provision of open space. Another one of those criteria as Commissioner Smith pointed out is you know kind of these design features. If we've done some special design issues too can serve as a basis for the bonusde density ping features and those sorts of things that even without the ten percent open area as a matter of fact. We can pick one or all of these four criteria. A third criteria that can give you the right to provide a bonus density is if there's a public dedication made. A space set aside for a public park or maybe dedicated to the city for part of the golf course which is what was being proposed in the project we talked about a week ago, the Villas over there by the golf course on the other side of the golf course. And another of those four criteria is the preservation of these unique and environmentally sensitive areas, and in this case we don't really have anything that probably very easily qualifies there. And so the idea for this bonus density is to encourage developers to give you something other than the typical R-4 8,000 square foot cookie cutter subdivision. oencourage the some of these open areas topers odo provlde t this developer has done and that is to set aside additional landscaped areas above and beyond what you might ordinarily expect to see in a typical R-4 subdivision and I agree with Commissioner Borup that the 20 foot landscape strip along Ustick is standard, and so that's not really special, but we also are providing a fairly significant landscape. We're providing nice landscape entry areas. We're landscaped area here what we're calling Green Briar. We're providing these three sizable park areas, and hopefully intending to provide the walking path along the lateral there. So that all together the landscaped areas and the park areas comes up to exceed the ten percent minimum requirement which theoretically by itself would provide you with the justification to allow that bonus density. In addition we're trying to do other things. We're trying to provide a variety II thatsofcourse tcoists a little extrado hing a money and bit different with some of the layout the hope is that the developer can reap a reasonable return. Prior: Mr. Chairman, could I make a statement? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 11 MacCoy: Yes, you may. Prior: Just to point out to the commission, the bonus density and I think I said this last time, even if Mr. Bradbury's plan does all of these things the bonus density and he said that may — and the important term is may be provided. You folks — he can put 20% open space here and you can say sorry the bonus density we don't want to do it in this instance. You have a lot of discretion here. The other thing is as far as the open space requirements, it should enhance the common enjoyment of recreational pursuits or provide visual or aesthetic or environmentally amenities. What that means to me and I guess it's a matter of interpretation is that visual aesthetic and environmental amenities are a little more than just grass on landscape in my mind. So that's something that you folks may want to keep in mind. Obviously he has in my opinion there's parks here and some other things here. It's just whether you folks think that's enough, but as far as the letter of the law is concerned, interpretation, it is subject to some interpretation on number five open space. If you perceive visual aesthetic or environmental amenities as more trees, more plants, more type of thing clearly that would be something that would be permissible. By the same token you could also say that what he's done here is visual aesthetic amenities and would also constitute. Its depending on how you individually interpret that. Is that neutral enough? Bradbury: I agree. I think Mr. Prior has presented that fairly well. I'm not going to try to trick you into — Prior: And I'm not trying to bounce you either way folks. That's not my intention. Bradbury: There's a whole laundry list of issues to talk about on open space and the first one says this and I think that Mr. Prior is right on the button. It says the location, size and shape of the common open spaces shall be suitable for the use proposed and shall enhance the common enjoyment of recreational pursuits or provide visual aesthetic or environment amenities. And so it's not only just park lands but also landscaped area and things that look good to the eye. And all of those I think are appropriately considered as a part of the open space in a project, and can include the enhancement of an existing irrigation canal. Borup: Steve, I don't know if you have addressed this because like you said this has been a few times. Have you addressed the landscaping? (Inaudible) Bradbury: In terms of what exactly is going to go there? Borup: Not exactly, but you know trees, shrubs. i Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 12 Prior: Mr. Chairman, may I say one more thing? And I'm going to stop. For your knowledge all PD's, planned developments, are required to go through a design review. If you folks find this acceptable, you can also dictate that he's going to come back for a design review and that time he's going to have to come back and you folks can say okay, we're not giving our final stamp until you tell us specifically and commit specifically to what kind of trees, what kind of flowers, what kind of bushes. Whatever you want to do and dictate that as well. That's purely within your purview to do that. Like I said yeah, all PD's shall be subject to design review by the city staff and the council. (Inaudible) Prior: Well the council in the past has passed the design review on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I think that's appropriate and they have the authority to delegate down to Planning and Zoning Commission is they wish, but there probably going to be some amendments in this thing anyway in the future. But at that time, you will probably see a design review on this if it's your desire. MacCoy: Thank you counselor, I was going to raise the same thing. They do have that option still to do that. Prior: And I'm done now. Bradbury: I want to just answer Commissioner Borup's question because there's a couple of things that I can maybe help perhaps. One we would be happy to go through a design review process. We did it on the Lake at Cherry Lane and that worked out just fine. We haven't got a problem in the world with the concept. Second if you want to get an idea for what you can expect to see in terms of landscaping in this project, go over to the Lakes at Cherry Lane and athe there. There will be a good example of what rovided at the entryways and the common ares over you can plan to see, and if that doesn't suit you, then tell us what does. MacCoy: Mr. Borup, you have anything else? Borup: I guess we're still looking for comments. I'm feeling pretty comfortable at this point. I guess the only thing that now I have any uneasiness about is they can do what they're talking about doing on Eight Mile Lateral. If that's eliminated then you're definitely under the ten percent again. Bradbury: I can't remember Commissioner if we talked about this last time, but apparently the city of Nampa is making good progress with Nampa Meridian. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 13 Borup: Yeah, that's what I understand. Bradbury: So am I going to give you my personal guarantee that it will work? Borup: (Inaudible). Bradbury: I understand it's Nampa Meridian. Prior: So Steve you wouldn't be adverse to making it a condition of approval that you're able to — successfully able to enter into a license agreement with the irrigation district. Bradbury: Certainly. Borup: And I would encourage the city to do whatever we can to facilitate that project too. Bradbury: I've said it in the past. Borup: I mean this has been city policy for the last five years or more well no, comp plan called for (End of Tape) Borup: .. never been able to accomplish it yet. Maybe this should be one to start making some progress on. Smith: Mr. Chairman I'm not really interested in splitting in how the open space was calculated. I guess I'd be a little reluctant to say that the islands in the street are usable from a recreation standpoint. However they are nice amenities to dress up the entryway and the roads a little bit, but this lot five over on the southeast part of the parcel, that's an awkward space and I just can't visualize how — that just seems kind of awkward and also the one up in the northwest side lot 53, -- 33. How that's really going to be utilized and enhance the development. 38 and 39 down in the lower southwest portion, those could I guess be developed so that it kind of provides a nice entry to that finger sticking down on the south side of the development and I share Commissioner Borup's concerns about the lateral there and would like to see something entered into what Mr. Prior's suggested or brought up. But if we could get back to that other map behind this one. The — I'm just having a hard time. It seems real clumsy. You had to pull thatn't cul- de-sac down back away from the last two lots there because I'm assuming y ou have enough room there to get a cul-de-sac in and develop any of those lots down there, and to do that you had to put in What their rower comment wasand onithat,don't recall anything from the fire department about Bradbury: Mr. Campbell met with the fire chief before the last meeting to talk about that issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 14 Smith: Did he tell him where the reverse gear on his truck was? Bradbury: Apparently the fire chief knows how to find it. I don't know about everybody else, but he seems to feel — the fire chief expressed no reservations about that layout from his perspective. Smith: And the last time we talked about building designs, it was — there was a comment made that the intent was to just kind of show the character of the building, that it wasn't necessarily the actual design of the residence that was going to go in. So would I be safe in assuming that the same is true what you presented to us tonight. These elevations are just maybe a representative of the scale and materials. Bradbury: I think that's fair to say. Right. Smith: So there may be a number could be a numbe ent — you have two shown here. A Roma and a Florence so there rr of different floor plans and maybe they are not all two story. Maybe some are one, single story. Bradbury: I think that's certainly possible what we're trying to convey to you folks is that this is conceptually what the developer intends to put there. I don't think either the developer — I don't think that the developer would be comfortable saying this is exactly what you're going to get and exactly where you are going to get it, and I am hopeful that that isn't an expectation from your standpoint. We're certainly willing to live with any perimeters that you wan to establish in terms of the material choices and the sizes and the general layouts. We can certainly work within perimeters that might be established. Smith: The only thing is from a design standpoint is I'm not interested in dictating materials or these are single story and these are two story. I don't know that the site conditions warrant that, but what I am concerned about though is these are townhomes and that they are designed to break up the mass of the building to where it doesn't look like a big huge box. Sensitivity to human scale and the siting of the proximity to the golf course, and they are not just humongous looming overwhelming structures. I am disappointed and this is what we see in all these residential developments is you just see a bunch of garages on the street site elevation and I hope — I'd like to see somebody come in here and start proposing something a little unique and different that addresses that and I am not — it's just a comment. It's not project specific necessarily, but — Bradbury: You know and I have heard you say it a couple of times, and I've thought about it some and ultimately my conclusion and in conversations I've had with Mr. Campbell, is that in this particular site which is the part we really want to have that good visual appeal. The part interior to the private roadway which is by the matter it is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 15 private roadway and gated, so it's not a public roadway or are we interested in trying to have the aesthetic appeal from the golf course side? And the choice was — the choice given the space we have to work with we're trying to work from the golf course side. Smith: Well I don't want to belabor that. But I did want to make that statement. I'm done, but when Commissioner Nelson is finished, I'd like to hear staff. They seem to still have some concerns about this. And I'd like to hear what some of those are if we haven't already covered them. MacCoy: We'll cover them again. Before we go on with Commissioner Nelson, I'd like to ask just one question about the same vein that Commissioner Smith is on. It's just an information piece for myself is that are you as a Steiner Corporation, dictating, this is four or five designs you the buyer have to choose from or can they make some variation because they have some desires that they want and you're minimal to making those changes. Bradbury: Let me ask Bob Campbell to come up and talk to you about these design things because you're getting a filter through a lawyer and that's not good. Bob can talk about these issues and he's a lot better off. ROBERT CAMPBELL 2638 N. TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Campbell: What we were trying to do with these particular (inaudible). I do apologize for the last time (inaudible). What we tried to do here in connecting the garages which I feel the same as Byron working in the architectural field for quite a few years is that you always have the garage aspect. It looks like a auto center, but I think that if we can get into more detail with the structures by recessing the garage doors and having them sit back and bring out columns in the front will help considerably to soften that. But what we did do on the back side where people will see these on the golf course and people from Ashford Greens and so forth is we really split the unit so they have the same setback as it would if there was a normal R-1 lot. You're ten feet between these two structures here. Even though they are attached at the garage, so that from the rear they don't look like they are townhouses, per say. So and in between these where we have these sidewalks going up walking through wrought iron gates, between each one of these units these blue things are fountains so that when you walk through that gate, you have this fountain and the amenities that go in that garden area which you share because all the common area within this development here are taken care of by homeowners association which is part of what we call Green Briar. And then we really enhanced Moonlake with a lot of landscape and visual things and this area here is a water feature with planting all the way around so that if someone comes up to enter the gate and they can't gain access they have adequate space to turn around, this would become (inaudible) concrete and just be a first class looking development. As far as the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 16 interior of the units, if people wanted to make changes, that would be no problem. The developer could do that, and I would think that the exterior would stay pretty much in line with what we're doing on the sketches that were submitted. MacCoy: But they could make some changes minor as they may be. Campbell: Yeah, you know that's a catch 22. All of a sudden you got some guy putting a (inaudible) up on top of the roof and it doesn't conform. I think everything has to conform. You have to remember one thing. A developer when he gets into a project like this, he's got all his money on the line. He has to make sure what he's building. If he builds something here that is of a certain quality, he can't go down here a little further and start cheapening it, and I think you have to understand how a developer should approach a project like this. He's in it for the long haul. He's not — MacCoy: Yeah, I've been in construction and I'm also an architect and an engineer, so I understand it. Campbell: Well then you understand exactly. MacCoy: Yes, I just wanted to know, because I've been with some groups that have said no, this is just it. You take my design and that's it, or you don't — Campbell: No, I think that we could work with the clients especially when you get into the price class of homes this is. It's not the top end, but I would say this, like this particular project here as opposed to Ashford Greens townhouse area where they have 74 units they have an awful lot of these slit streets and so forth. There are 74 units in that particular project, but they are all garage. If you have ever been out there, and I think this deals with it a little bit better. Those are 50 foot wide, I think or 40 foot wide units, and we tried to give a good look from the outside where most people will be seeing these units from because this street here, the only people that are really going to see this are the people who live there, and if they are happy with that then we should be happy with it. So we've tried to give it our best shot as far as architecturally and what you see will be that or better. I will say one thing. I've worked for Mr. Steiner for quite a few years and he doesn't do anything excuse me half assed. He does a nice job. MacCoy: Thank you for your comments. Commissioner Nelson? Nelson: I guess I would comment as far as this bonus thing goes, I'm still kind of have a tendency to not approve. Of course I don't have the experience that some of the other board members, so I'll let them sell it to me. But I would like some comment from the staff in that although 25% of the lots exceed the 8,000 foot requirement, that means that 75% don't. How does that address frontage requirements and that sort of thing as far as the ordinances go, and as you look at the open spaces that are the visual amenities Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 17 and the like, for instance lot 5 and some of these others are really going to be visual to such a minor part of the subdivision. Very little drive through traffic is going to see that. And really lots 51 and 76 or whatever are really about the only ones you really see as you come in. It looks nice and all but with that being private you are really limiting access to some of that stuff. I guess for those issues I'm still not 100% convinced of the bonus because we are — it's still at 12 Y2% bonus and whether we're the slight additional amenities or — space wise it's barely over the 10% so that means to me things like this circle drive with the amenities have to be pretty nice. I'd like to hear the staffs comments on if they had any issues on like I said the frontages and any of the other ordinances. Stiles: (Inaudible) Prior: No, what are you, dense? Stiles: Commissioners, I guess my biggest concern with this is the open space. Part of it that's calculated I wouldn't count the planting strip that required of all subdivisions along that arterial to be common area that's available to all residents of the subdivision. Also they counted the medians and the roadway, this is designated as a collector to a point here, as such there would be no frontage allowed on that. The street setbacks normally it would be 20 feet, so on this stretch of the road here where they've shown, I don't know how wide it is, 7 feet in some places up to ten that would normally per the ordinance be a 20 foot setback. They couldn't have a fence within 20 of that anyway. It would be landscaped. The same goes for the area adjacent to Dakota Ridge. The reason for that 20 foot setback request is that is the setback for a fence along a street. Even giving them the Eight Mile Lateral the full square footage of the Eight Mile Lateral if you took out the pieces that are merely street landscaping, I calculated about 1.18 acres of that I would not consider to be common area at all. There is the golf course available there. There is a school available there. The PUD ordinance is very vague as to how these things are calculated. It's not written well at all. I know that in Boise City what they do is they take the lots if you're proposing say the R-4, which they are proposing, you would take all the lots that are deficient that are less than 8,000 square feet and the difference would the common area that they would have to provide. I don't know what the number would be, I mean for comparison it would be interesting. I don't know what that would be, but most of the lots in this one area don't meet even R-15 requirements as far as frontage. In the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, they did a PUD on that, but they also zoned it appropriately for the uses that were there. I don't know if you have any other questions. Did I even answer any of what you asked? Nelson: Yeah, how compliant it was with the ordinances as far as the frontages and — Stiles: The minimum frontage in an R-4 zone for a typical R-4 is 80 feet. In an R-8, it's 65 feet. In an R-15, it's 50 feet. I guess I had one question of the applicant about Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 18 designating multi family housing for a lot of these lots, multi family housing is not permitted at all in an R-4 zone even with a PUD, and then in the comprehensive plan, it's designated single family residential. I think that's what they mean. Townhouses, and townhouses I consider single family homes, not multi family. Smith: Single family attached? Stiles: Yeah. Single family, I mean it's separate ownership. They own their lot. They own the house. It's still a single family unit. Multi family I would think of like apartments and four plex or something like that with no individual ownership. So I think that was a little question I had there. Smith: If I understand you correctly the setbacks off the street along this north Wilkins Way, which is a collector, your setback for the fence is 20 feet? Stiles: Yes, in a typical development. Smith: And that's required to be landscaped? Stiles: Well typically it is. It's part of somebody's lot. Smith: Right. Stiles: There's not a lot of lots out there that have the double frontage like this does. I mean even though it's not frontage. They're bounded on both sides by streets. Borup: Chateau Meadows is one that's that way. I believe the entrance into Chateau Meadows? Stiles: With the collector in there. And they've got double fronting. Yeah. Borup: Only not a lot of landscaping. Stiles: No. Smith: So if I understand you and Commissioner Nelson correctly your main issue from getting behind this thing is the amount of open space. Stiles: Yes, that's mine. Smith: I mean let's say for example down here in the yellow the southeast part of the development to get around this exchange of the calculating the open space along Ustick in the islands and what's being lost well the iffyness of the eight mile lateral, I mean you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 19 could say we want lots 9, 10 and 11 to be designated as open space all contiguous with that. Lot 5 would be a lot nicer amenity l am not trying totand maybe put words into your something that would satisfy your concerns. ea I mean I'm looking at that. I'm just saying that seems to be an area that makes sense to me to add more space. I mean it's three lots, but still though if we're haggling over the amount of open space being provided maybe that's a compromise that we can make or a request that we can make that of course I don't know how the applicant, you know, if they are adamantly opposed and don't le Laterah stthat's the a good place ht place add green spache and Maybe lot 10 here next to the Eight open up that whole corner there. I mean I could support doing both. Nelson: Yeah, I am not inclined to include the school's amenities in lieu of this development providing both amenities. I know there's a lot of discussion about keep in mind that the school's next door. There's plenty of green space there. But I'd rather see the green space being in the development itself. Borup: I just had a question for Shari, did you say Boise and calculating a reduction, it's a straight proportional trade off? Stiles: That's my understanding. I mean I don't know what the exact wording of it is, but say you got a 3500 square foot lot, you subtract that from the 8,000 that's required and for every 3500 square foot lot, you've got to come up with 4500 square feet of common area and it's has to be in one place. Borup: Okay. There's no incentive to do something like that. Stiles: Well they've done it. There's no incentive? Borup: Well not in my mind there isn't. I mean that's Boise, not us. Stiles: Well I know, but I was just giving you that for an example. Borup: I was just curious. It doesn'tseem feel there's can justify prices that would allow do that, unless they are in a spot that they they them to do that. MacCoy: Shari, do you have anything else? Okay, -- Stiles: I'm sorry other than I'm still not convinced three gated communities. I mean I don't have a particular concern about the one that's surrounded by the golf course. The other two I don't feel that those are necessary and it's just false sense of security and it tends to segregate neighborhoods rather than make it a overall neighborhood. e Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 20 MacCoy: Bruce? Freckleton: Nothing. MacCoy: You had nothing. Bradbury: Yes, 1,11 try to go quickly. One of the things that I think you have to bear in mind in addition to just setting aside the space, the dirt, is that of course the developer is going to improve it, and in this case it's going to have some landscape treatment in virtually all of these areas and park like improvements in the larger the park areas. So you've got to remember it's not just a straight on dirt for dirt. We got to think about dollars and the developer, Mr. Campbell, is whispering in my ear and he says that he minimum of figures rough estimate there's going to be between $350,000 and $400,000 landscape expense to improve these areas. So although I certainly understand the issue about how much ground, but you also have to think in terms of what it's going to cost to do — I mean if it was just going to be left there in dirt, rocks and weeds, yeah, square foot for square foot. But there's going to be money that's going to be spent to improve these things. Let me propose something to you, if we take out the square footage that's included in the landscape buffer between Ustick or between the subdivision and Ustick Road and the landscaped areas that are included in along Wilkins Way in those areas take out the square footages in there, which Mr. Campbell estimates to 18,000 square feet, and I haven't tried to figure that number out, and included that into the parcel or the lot, the park area just add thehat Commissioner Smith was same number of square feet into talking about here. So we take it out and 1 that space, does that help? Smith: I think — like I said I'm not trying to split hairs on the amount of space, a lot of it too is the shape and configuration of that space. Bradbury: And by the way — Smith: That's why I said 9, 10 and 11. Then you get a nice rectangular chunk of ground there. Basically you're doubling the size of it or probably a little bit more. But you certainly are coming up with something that's more usable from a recreation standpoint. Kids playing ball or throwing a Frisbee or whatever. The way it's configured right it chokes down and it skinnies down the farther you get away from it. You get that perspective looking at a rectangle, that thing shrinks down to a point visually all ready and this is going to be even more that way although you are not going to get really far away from the open end. I guess I'd like to see all three of those lots go into that and I know I can appreciate the money part and the cost of doing that and so forth, but I think Commissioner Nelson and Shari bring up some real good points about the frontages on these lots and we're in this kind of juggling thing. I support the mixed densities and developments going in if they are done properly and done appropriately but one of the t Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 21 trade offs you give for having a higher density is you provide those open space amenities to provide areas for people to go out and be able to be outside and enjoy the outdoors. I don't know if I answered your question, but — Bradbury: Yeah, I know exactly where you're coming from. I'm thinking in terms of amount as well as configuration, and I think you and I are on the same wave length there. Smith: I think from a design standpoint it would be a better design of that space than having the awkward shape there. And that's I guess what my biggest thing that I've been wrestling with on this whole project has been some of the irregular shapes of land, not to say that's bad, but because it would be very nice along the Eight Mile Lateral with some curvilinear paths and things going along and not having straight shots of stuff. But this particular space here in the middle of some single family lots I think is a different — raises different design issues and questions. Personally I think I would have a lot less reservation about this whole thing if — I still have some concerns about the gated communities up along Ustick, but I'm willing to listen still I get my way. That's all I can say about it. Borup: I think the — isn't the main thing we're looking at here is the bonus density. Isn't that what all this discussion is about? MacCoy: It's a PUD. Borup: You can have a PUD without having reduced density, I guess. If you want to do some of the amenities. But the ten percent open space is not the only criteria for the bonus density as I pointed out that's one of them. The street scape and other design features, and a lot of the other stuff. I think maybe we're not — I don't know if we're focusing too much on the ten percent and not on the overall aspect. MacCoy: I think a lot of the discussion has been based on the overall view though. Borup: I think we're down to where — three months ago I don't know that we even had a marginal project. I think they've made some improvements on that. MacCoy: Yes, they have. Borup: And I agree with what Commissioner Smith just said about getting a larger open area, but I'm still on my one little kick on the water pathways. If they could get that approved and get a real walking path along that waterway, I'd feel comfortable the way it is now. If that doesn't happen then perhaps something else, increasing the park like he was talking over there on lot 5 or block 5 would be appropriate. Because if something can't be coordinated with the irrigation district then you're just talking a chain Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 22 link fence and whatever along there. They don't even want the homeowners to maintain. MacCoy: You're raising a very good point. Borup: But I would feel comfortable the way it is if something could happen along the lateral. I don't know how we address that. MacCoy: Well there is a way here. I want to hear what Steve has to say about it. Smith: I'd like to see both. Because again I'm not trying to split hairs on the ten percent, but I'm coming at this area around — this number 5 green space and just looking at it from a design standpoint. Borup: I guess I'm looking beyond this project. If they can get some type of agreement with Nampa Meridian on this, I would think that would open the door for other projects and maybe we can finally start accomplishing things on that line, and for them to do it, they've got a tough fight ahead of them. I guarantee you that. It's just not going to be a phone call and they are going to say sure go ahead. So there would be some real effort there, but I think it would benefit the city long term down the road. I guess I would put some credence to that. Bradbury: Yeah, I think the answer to that is simply put a condition of approval and if we don't make it, we don't get the licensing agreement, then we're back in front of you and trying to figure out where we're going to make it up. Nelson: I would rather make it that it be — if you don't make it — not that I don't want to see you again mind you, But I'd rather the condition just be that if the Eight Mile Lateral doesn't play, then we deal with the lot 5 issue, but I would recommend you deal with the lot 5 issue anyway because if I lived in there, I would even though the school is right there, I would be sending my kids to play over there where I can keep an eye on them and where I know the neighborhood around there. Not over to the school with the wide range of age of children and what not so we extensively use the open space in our subdivision, and — Bradbury: Let me make a suggestion. Because we're going to be here all night going back and forth if we don't try to find something that will work. What if we do this. What if we include lots 9 and 10 in that space and so we can square it off and will take some of that ground back from extend lot 11 back up, square it off so you got 9 and 10 in here included in this space so it's squared. It's a square space or close to a square space. Smith: That works for me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 23 Bradbury: Does that do it for you? Smith: Yes, and then Commissioner Borup's — Prior: What's going to need to happen to interject, Steve is going to have a difficult time with the license agreement with Nampa Meridian having to deal with them on other occasions with license agreements, but what you can basically do is make it a condition of approval that they enter into a license agreement, and if they fail to enter into the license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation, then they need to make necessary adjustments to make up the actual square footage somewhere else. And I think that the applicant would agree to that and I think that's fair and then we can have them come back for a design review if that need be the case. I think everybody could be satisfied with something like that. Borup: I agree with that. Maybe it would be fair though to give them credit for lot 9 and 10 in that. Prior: Whatever your preference. Smith: I'm certainly willing to look at them recalculate the open space area and have that as part of their presentation to city council. I think we're ready to make a motion on this. Prior: I think folks my preference having sat in on city council now and I sit from one entity to the next and Malcolm and I had this discussion I believe on Tuesday morning, when you folks have a tendency to say we're going to pass this along and subject to well we'll do this for the city council. The problem is the city council gets the plans as they were presented and then they hear there were some other things that were involved and those don't always get incorporated Mr. Smith. There was discussion about something you wanted added to the project. It didn't get added to the project. It was something you wanted to make a condition on one of the previous projects from last nights meeting. My preference is that when a plan comes forward, and you put your stamp on the preliminary plat or anything else, that preliminary plat goes forward as it's been submitted to you, not subject to the condition that you do this, subject to the condition you do that. Subject that these lots get moved around for the city council. Well unfortunately the city council doesn't see that and it has nothing to do with the applicant. It's just that the applicant said well these were part of the condition, and the city council has a tendency to disregard all that. My preference in the future and I won't drag this out is that when you folks put a stamp on something and say this is the project I want to go to the city council, make sure that what you have in front of you is exactly what you want. Not subject to what the applicant prepare. Make the applicant prepare it the way you want it, look at it and then send it that way to the city council. Otherwise you are going to create a lot of problems for all of us in the future. i Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ,July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 24 Smith: So this needs to come back here. Prior: Well Steve will — and Steve just for your explanation these folks on the conditional use permit are going to require me to do Findings. The preliminary plat does not require Findings, so once I do the Findings on the CUP, the preliminary plat and CUP will go on at the same time anyway so you're not losing any time on this. All I'm going to ask and I didn't mean to turn this into a lecture on this, but please I implore you in the future as a commission, please, please, please when you say you're going forward with something make sure that what you have in front of you is exactly what you want to send to the city council. If you do not do that, you're not getting what you want. I guarantee you you're not. Borup: But I have to agree with that. I sat in on city council last night and it came up a couple of times. Prior: At least a couple of times. Borup: Well it came up more than a couple of times. But it was on the specific projects. But I think where the potential is when it's a controversial project. When there's opposing public testimony. Prior: And this isn't controversial with Steiner Development. I'm not implying that. Borup: So on this one, I don't think we have potential, but on other stuff where there's a lot of public testimony, -- Prior: And in all fairness to the applicant, would you please specify tonight maybe decide as a decision what exactly you want them to do so they are perfectly clear so there's no misunderstanding and then when it comes we can just push this thing along for the benefit of them. Smith: So Mr. Prior, am I correct in assuming that — let's just go back to the example that Mr. Bradbury was just proposing in that including lot 9 and 10 in this open space and extending lot 11 up to include that as part of lot 11, that next month when we are reviewing and voting on the Findings of Fact, they could present the revisions at that time. We would have them in front of us and as long as they incorporated these changes that we asked for then we could at that point forward it on to city council, and that's what would be presented. Prior: I was going to ask you to table this preliminary plat anyway, because my preference is that you folks pass the conditional use permit on and then the preliminary plat. You're basically saying we're approving a preliminary plat. Then you are going to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 25 approve a conditional use permit. In my mind that's out of order, and the listing on this agenda was incorrect, and I'm sorry I should have caught that. My suggestion on this is that we can continue the public hearing on this preliminary plat, allow the applicant to submit the very changes that we've talked about tonight that you folks decide you want to do. I assume that Steve is not going to say anything else about the conditional use permit. He's just going to open it up and incorporate. We'll move on and at that time I will prepare Findings. He will have the preliminary plat, and the game is on, and I would have the conditional use permit Findings ready by the August 11 h meeting. Smith: Okay. I'm ready to vote on this. MacCoy: Before we do that I just wanted to make a statement to all the commissioners that Commissioner Borup and I have had discussion about this over the last year, and with Commissioner Johnson and when our counsel changed to John, we've had considerable discussion. I have met with the Mayor and we've got the approval and what John has just finished saying to you is the beginning of that very thing is that this commission here for the very reason that what John and Keith have mentioned has been very apparent as we go before the council, there is things dropped away and lost from what we do here, and we know for a fact that the council and I've talked to Charlie Rountree who is chairman of the council that they don't do the detail work that we do here and they count on us to actually spelling it out to the detail. I think from now on we're going to do that and we're not going to release anything from this table until we are darn sure that what we have specified gets carried forward to the council. It's going to be a cut and dried thing for them because we can't afford in the future to have problems like this like we had last night. From a side point Commissioner Borup's name was on the council last night. Your name, Commissioner Smith, was on the council several times last night. All for good points. The fact that the public that sat here those nights stood up in front of the council last night and said well Commissioner Smith said so and so and it's not on the council tonight, and so it's very apparent that we do make a point ,but we are going to have to say it so that the council understand that we have been putting that on the table and we want it acted upon and not passed over or forgotten. So as I say we have spent considerable time behind the scenes with all the people so that we will be allowed to do and what our laws says we can do we can do this. It is now approved. We will do it as we see it, and we'll not foot around on it. Borup: I think that's very important on substantial projects, and I hope we still have some flexibility on those. MacCoy: On all projects as we have stipulations that we want to make sure that council understands. Prior: Did you reach a consensus then? i Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1998 Special Meeting Page 26 Borup: Yeah, are we assuming that this meets what the applicant (inaudible). Smith: To replot 9 and 10? That works for me. I don't know if there's anything additional that either of you want to add on to it. And do we want to table this or continue the public hearing? Prior: Actually you want to continue the public hearing is the proper procedure. Now how much the city clerk Berg may not want to hear this, we need to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to make the necessary changes. The lots 9 and 10 if I'm clarified on this is to be incorporated into open space. Then it will be resubmitted. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing on preliminary plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lake, give the applicant time to revise the preliminary plat to include lots 9 and 10 along North Cowhide Avenue into the open space identified as lot 5 and incorporate the part of lot 5 that is now open space into lot 11 until our August 11th meeting. MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Nelson: Second. Borup: I believe that's lot 8, block 5. Smith: I'm sorry. Borup: Yeah, that little one is too hard to read. Smith: I'm sorry I — block 5, lot 8, thank you. Borup: Are covered on the correction okay? Prior: You're fine. There's been a motion that lot 8, block 5 and lot 10 and lot 9 are incorporated. There's been a motion. There's been a second. I need a vote. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. IN71 OF MERIDIAN TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 8 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 17 1998 HEARING DATE: September 15, 1998 REQUEST: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick intersection, South of Ustick TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT 2FUILDING DEPARTMENT IRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORN EY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (PRELIM & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION/DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: / ` 4d 0 �1111 y _ , w HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Mayor A Good Place to Live (208) 884-4264 ROBERT D. CORRIE CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS Council Members BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO (208) 887-2211 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83 GLENN BENTLEY 1PLANNING • Fax AND ZONING RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 (208 DEPARTMENT KEITH BIRD AUG (208) 884-5533 IN71 OF MERIDIAN TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 8 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 17 1998 HEARING DATE: September 15, 1998 REQUEST: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick intersection, South of Ustick TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT 2FUILDING DEPARTMENT IRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORN EY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (PRELIM & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION/DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: / ` 4d 0 �1111 y _ , w HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor A Good Place to Live ROBERT D. CORRIE Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 Fax (208j??j -`--JELD RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208)884-4264 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-2211 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 8 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 17 1998 HEARING DATE: September 15, 1998 REQUEST: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick intersection South of Ustick TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE AUG 19 1998 v CITY OFITWERIDWN ,-I') S RE.- HVED AUG 1 7 1998 t,',nfidian City !,q.tej Superintendent Meridian City Council Meetin'' September 19, 2000 t Page 2 100 vehicles by Ada County Highway District currently in a C -G zone — southwest corner of Meridian Road and northeast corner of Overland Road: Item F. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC — southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads: Item G. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 78.4 acres with 263 building lots and 12 other lots for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties — southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads: Item H. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-005 Request for vacation of the alley intersecting East 1St between Pine Avenue and Idaho Street on the east side currently in an OT zone for Generations Plaza by Gary Benoit — East 1St and East Pine Avenue: Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 10.19 acres from RT to R-8 for proposed Wilkins Ranch .Village planned -unit development by Steiner Development, LLC — south of Ustick Road and east of Black Cat Road: Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 building lots with 1 existing home and 5 other lots on 10.19 acres for proposed Wilkins Ranch Village planned -unit development by Steiner Development, LLC — south of Ustick Road and east of Black Cat Road: Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit for proposed Wilkins Ranch Village planned -unit development consisting of 48 single-family lots ranging from 5,252 s.f. to 9,525 s.f. in a proposed R-8 zone by Steiner Development — south of Ustick Road and east of Black Cat Road: Item L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-017 Request for variance from the maximum 1,000 -foot block length for Bear Creek Subdivision by Briggs Engineering — east of Stoddard Lane and south of Overland Road: Meridian City Council MeetinT September 19, 2000 Page 3 Item M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-005 Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 of Block 10, The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6, by Ron Leslie: Item N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-007 Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common lot line between Lots 35 and 36, Block 17 of Haven Cove Subdivision No. 9 by Glenn Blaser — east of Ten Mile Road and north of Pine Avenue on Ebbtide Street: Item O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-013 Request for a variance of the 1,000 -foot maximum block length for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLP, in a proposed R-4 zone — north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road: Item P. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-017 Request for annexation and zoning of 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision — north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road: Item Q. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision with 106 building lots, 1 HOA recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Primeland Development Co., LLP — north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road: Item R. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-043 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned -unit development consisting of 106 building lots by Primeland Development Co., LLP for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision — north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road: Item S. Development Agreement: Packard Acres Subdivision with Packard Estates Development, LLC: Item T. New Beer and Liquor License: Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar by Restaurant Concepts II, LLC — 1460 North Eagle Road: Item U. Resolution No. 336: For first addendum for franchise agreement to perform solid waste collection for SSI to provide for the addition of recycling program: Meridian City Council Meeting September 19, 2000 Page 4 Item V. Resolution No. 337: To provide for the increase in rates and set solid waste collection rates: Corrie: Okay, Council. You have the Consent Agenda in front of you. What would you like to do with that? Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Item B we'd like to table to October 3, 2000; Item D tabled to October 3, 2000; We'd like to pull Item F to IF on the regular agenda; pull Item G to 1 G on the regular agenda; pull Item H to 1 H on the regular agenda; and U, the number is 336, Resolution No. 336; and V is Resolution No. 337. With that I would make a motion that we approve the Consent Agenda as noted. McCandless: I'll second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with Item B being tabled until October 3`d and Item D to October 3`d and F, G and H would be pulled and be the first items on the regular agenda. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll -call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll -call: Anderson, aye; De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item F. Tabled from September 5, 2000: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC — southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads: Cerrie: Now, the Regular Agenda. We will take up Item F which is pulled from the Consent Agenda. This is the Item — Findings of Facts Conclusion of Law: AZ 00-009 — request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for Autumn Faire Subdivision. Staff, comments. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The revisions to the proposed findings after I received a letter from the attorney for the applicant pointed out some corrections that needed to be made. I can go through those fairly quickly. This is on the annexation and zoning. Page 1, we had incorrectly listed Langley Farms as the applicant, when in fact it was Gem Star Properties, so we made that correction. Then down to page 6 — what previously was Item 16.8 and 16.10 in the previous ones were duplications, so we just left 16.8 and moved the rest of them up. Then, the next item, which was also on page 6, which is Item 16.13 in the revised findings, they wanted us to designate where this pathway was going Jones'* Gledhill . Hess . Andrews . Fuhrman Bradbury & Eiden, P.A. A T T 0 R N E Y S A T L A W Stephen A. Bradbury September 11, 1998 BY FACSIMILE Mayor Robert Corrie City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Wilkins Ranch Subdivision The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 Subdivision Dear Mayor Corrie: JZWEIvED SEP 1 1 1998 CITY OF MERIDIAN As you know, this firm represents the developer of the above -referenced subdivision projects, Steiner Development LLC. The Meridian City Council currently has scheduled for its consideration on September 15, 1998 applications for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat for the Wilkins Ranch Subdivision. I have been asked to request that the Council postpone consideration of those applications until its meeting of October 6, 1998. The reason for the requested delay is to permit the applicant to compile and submit to the City as complete and accurate a package in support of its application as possible. I have also been asked to request the Council to consider a modification to the conditional use permit for The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 Subdivision which was approved on February 18, 1997, to delete the requirement that the residents in the subdivision be age 55 or older. It is Steiner Development's hope that this request can be scheduled for consideration by the City Council at its September 15, 1998 meeting, in place of the Wilkins Ranch Subdivision matter. P.O. Dox 1097 ♦ 877 Main Street, Suite 500 + Boise, Idaho 83701 Phone (208) 331-1170 ♦ Fax (208) 331-1529 E -Mail Address: jg@idalaw.com SEP 11 '98 14:54 PAGE.02 Mayor Robert Coy de September 11, 1998 Page 2 In the event that you have any questions or concerns, or should you with to discuss this matter further, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, tephen A. Bradbury SAB:II cc: Doug Campbell (by fax) Will Berg (by fax) PAGE. 03 SFP 11 198 14:54 JONES ♦ GLEDHILL ♦ HESS ♦ ANDREWS ♦ FUHRMAN BRADBURY & EIDEN, P.A. 877 West Main Street, Suite 500 P.O. Box 1097 Boise, Idaho 83701 208-331-1170 208-331-1529 (fax) TELECOMMUNICATION COVER PAGE 3 pages including cover page TO: Will Berg FAX: 887-4813 FROM: Stephen A. Bradbury DATE: September 11, 1998 RE: Wilkins Ranch Subdivision/The Lake at Cherry sane No. 7 Subdivision DOCUMENTS SENT: 9/11/98 correspondence to Mayor Corrie NOTE'S: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This facsimile transmission, and/or the documents accompanying it, may contain confidential informntion belonging to the sender which is protected by the attorney/client privilege. Thu information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended rcciplent, you are hereby noticed that wiy disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited, If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone to arrange for return of the documents. ❑ Original will not Billow ❑ Original will follow d By US, mail ❑ By overnight mail: Federal Ftxpress U.P.S. ❑ By ❑ Picase call upon receipt ❑ R=prnue needed &S.A.P. or by ❑ ror yottr approval/signaturc ❑ For your review and/or comments ❑ For your information/tilts NOTE: If you do not receive the total number of pages indicated, please contact Laurie at 331.1170. qPP 11 '98 14.54 PAGE.01 IRFcElvED SEP 1 5 1998 CITY OF MERIDIAN Memorandum To: MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE CC: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CfTYCLERK WILI_IAM G. BERG From: WILLIAM F. GRIGRAY Date: 09/15/98 Re: WILKINS RANCH SUBDIVISION & LAKE @ CHERRY LANE #7 I am in receipt of the September 11, 1998 letter from Stephen Bradbury; my recommendation regarding his request for postponement can be taken up at the City Council Meeting tonight. Regarding my response to the request that the Council consider a modification of the conditional use permit for the Lake at Cherry Lane #7 Subdivision (which was approved Feb. 18`h, 1997), this is a request that should have be made to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In my opinion, all matters wherein a developer would seek modification of a condition use permit would have to follow the same process as the original application due to the rights of the affected parties to have public hearings and to address any requested modifications. I am also of the opinion that the criteria and consideration for condition use permit modification are the same as the original application for condition use permit. Further, my recommendation that notification should be given to Mr. Bradbury as to whether the City intends to proceed with the modification of the conditional use permit. I am willing to assist the Zoning Administrator on this matter if authorized to do so. Very truly yours, �l William F. Gi ay Meridian City Attorney TO: Mayor Corrie and City Council Members FROM: Tammy de Weerd, P&Z Commission Member Keith Borup, P&Z Commission Member DATE: September 2, 1998 RE: Wilkins Ranch Conditional Use Permit / Preliminary Plat On August 1 It" the Planning and Zoning Commission voted, 3 ayes to 2 nays, to adopt and approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for a Conditional Use Permit for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision. All were in favor of the motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Later, after further study of the submitted plat, it was apparent the applicant did not meet the Commission's initial request for change in the open space requirements. The applicant's representative, Mr. Steve Bradbury, assured the Commission that the desired changes noted at the Special P&Z meeting on July 22nd had been made. The plat was then given to Commission members during Mr. Bradbury's comments at the 8/11 meeting. At first glance it appeared the changes were satisfactory. These changes were to include lot 9 and 10 in the open space shown in block 5, lot 8. Following the meeting, at second glance, the changes made were not reflective of the specific request. In our opinion, the motion to recommend both the CUP and the preliminary plat was based on a false premise. We believe that Mr. Bradbury and Steiner Corporation misled the Commission by giving the assumption that the needed changes were made and not giving the Commission adequate time to study the new plat. We have made several special allowances for this applicant. This project has been viewed numerous times by the Commission. The Commission held a special meeting July 22nd specifically to address this project. The Commission allowed viewing of the revised plat at the last moment, against better judgement, with the assurance from Mr. Bradbury that everything was in order. The project now forwarded on to the City Council, as proposed by the applicant, is not what the P&Z Commission was led to believe it was and thought approved. Keith Borup and I take responsibility for this oversight and for letting our impatience with this long drawn-out project to be passed on before we knew without a doubt it was drawn as desired and verbally presented. We feel that the Commission was deceived. It would be our personal recommendation that this project be denied and go through the application process again. SENT BY: 7-22-98 ; 8:59AM POWER ENGRS BOISEy l ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Modified Preliminary Plat - Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes/ ;# 2/11 -7 Ustick Rd. e/o Black Cat Rd. J U ,_ 2 21 19-98 MPP -02-98 CITY OF Y 5PRIDM Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes is a 260 -lot residential subdivision on 51.88 -acres. The site is 1W located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately 1/4 -mile east of Black Cat Road. This development is estimated to generate 2,600 additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. On April 15, 1998, the Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes/Mpp-2-98. The applicant has resubmitted the application with several modifications. The following report has been modified to reflect those modifications. Roads impacted by this development: Ustick Road ACHD Commission Date - July 22, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. SENT BY, 7-22-98 ; 9:02AM ; POWER ENGRS BOISE --j ># 4/11 I V1 tic) �• Z4+ 91+ W Z Q - - . _. usnpC ROAD 0( 1 2 1615 14 13 g^ 6 5 4 3 2 Z i z s 1T to tf 7 I� N 12 10 W. BISAIARK DR G i4 1 2 3 ��Yj 11 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 4 �? 4 F�lq 8L0 5 p 5 6 2 g 9 10 11 12 13 �a�xa x 7 x0 J4 a � 9 ' K) `.�C;tp�;'r $ 9 Q 13 12 11 10 o 8 7 T C' 3 L 4 14 15 16 17 1 11 z 18 a L I A2 © �=y Z 9 $O FUTURE SCHOOL SITEW. BEDROCK ST ' 12 13 14 1s 1s 19 m �x 12.0 ACRES $ 4 20 21 U L" : r- 21 Zp 19 18 17 f% OF THIS PARTT A 21 22 W. CHERVIL DR r 1 23 5 ¢ 3 2 1 a 2 8L0 24 6 7 8 9 10 3 ' W. ANGEUCA OR 4 •I ( 13 12 11 1 10 9 1 8 7 5 14 HL K 6 Ate , f"l �tl1m,I G A'in'` jt .. 21 20 19 A ,T 16 7S H 12 11 q g U N'. MOON LAKE ST. 1557 34 33 32 31 30 T 29 O 6 -Txe I.AKE 25 5 t, -AN ZT ti f. 26 Z 4 23 ��• 0� 23 3 _ 22 24 C x 'f ti el 1 z 1 s,. m I 20 2 tv. TETER 5Y. o / t V 3 z 19 3 a t t 11 to • --< � —, , 'Jill, fill = m� I is 1 �I I , lit 3 —, , , I is 1 �I I , lit 3 I 11 p fill flififti f1# f I. r z W ...,Y Z 4 0 k' X SENT BY. 7-22-98 ; 9:03AM POWER ENGRS BOISE - Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner - John and Ruth Wilkins Applicant - Steiner Development, Inc. RT/R-4 - Existing zoning 51.88 -Acres 260 - Proposed building Iots 5,800 - Total lineal feet of proposed public streets 264 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada - Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities - Impact Fee Assessment District UsticiJiGad Minor arterial with bike lane designation Traffic count 1,712 on 9/25/96 1,300 -feet of frontage 50 -feet existing right-of-way (25 -feet from centerline) 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from centerline) Ustick Road is improved with 25 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. ;# 5/11 B. On June 22, 1994 the ACHD Commission reviewed and approved Ashford Greens Subdivision, a 225 -single family lot, with 216 -unit townhomes on 154 -acres. All lots in the subject subdivision abutting Moon Lake Drive and Greenbelt Place were previously approved as apart of the Ashford Greens Subdivision. C. On September 24, 1997, the Commissioner reviewed and approved Dakota Ridge Subdivision, located abutting the subject site's eastern property line. D. On April 15, 1998, the Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes/MPP-2-98. The applicant has resubmitted the application with several modifications. In staffs original recommendation to the Commission, staff recommended that The proposed private streets on the east and west side of Wilkins Way located approximately 300 -feet south of Ustick Road should be constructed as public streets and provide stub streets to the east and west off these public streets. Staff made the recommendation in order to provide vehicular connectivity between this subdivision and the parcels on both the east (Dakota Ridge Subdivision) and west. Staff has reevaluated the need for the stub street to the east, to the school, and have found that W ILKINS.MOD Page 2 SENT BY; 7-22-98 ; 9:04AM ; POWER ENGRS BOISE-+ ;# 6/11 adequate vehicular connectivity would be provided from this parcel and the parcel to the east without stubbing Corral Lane to the east as previously recommended by staff. A stub at this location would only serve the school site. The Wilkins Ranch Subdivision will have pedestrian connectivity to Dakota Ridge Subdivision via a pedestrian pathway to the east, located approximately 930 -feet south of the north property line between Lots 92 and 94, Block 2. Vehicular connectivity will be provided via Moon Lake Drive approximately 1/4 mile south of Ustick Road, The applicant has also redesigned the subdivision to provide a stub street to the west via Longhorn Drive extended to the west property line, located approximately 550 -feet south of the north property line. The applicant will maintain private streets on the east and west side of Wilkins Ranch Drive as previously proposed. Staff supports the applicant's redesign. The applicant will be required to provide a paved temporary turnaround at the western terminus of Longhorn Drive with an easement for the turnaround provided to the District. Coordinate the design of the turnaround with District staff. E. As private roads, the applicant should be required to construct Ranch Lane, located as proposed on the east and west side of Wilkins Ranch Drive, approximately 300 -feet south of Ustick Road. Graveled private roads abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. The applicant should be required to pave the roadways-a'minimum of 24 -feet and at least 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Wilkins Ranch Way and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. The applicant should provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach speed of 20 MPH and a maximum intersection approach grade of 2% for at ]cast 40 -feet. Street namc and stop signs are required for the private road_ The signs may be ordered through the District at the cost of $115. VPr. fieation of the correc"pbroved name of alma" F. A.CHD does not make any assurances that the private road which is apart of this application will be accepted as a public road if such a request is made in the future. Substantial redesign and reconstruction costs may be -necessary in order to qualify this road for public ownership and maintenance. G. the applicant is proposinS to construct the main entrance to Wilkins Ranch on Ustick Road located approximately 600 -feel cast of the west property line. This location meets District policy. Wilkins Way is anticipated to have volumes of traffic more than 1,000 ADT. Therefore, it should be classified as a residential collector street from Ustick Road to Moon Lake Drive. The applicant has not proposed any front -on housing on Wilkins Way. The applicant is proposing to construct Wilkins Way= • From Ustick Road to a point 700 -feet south of Ustick Road with. two 36 -foot wide street sections with curb and gutter separated by a 38 -foot wide center WiLKINS.MOD Page 3 SENT BY: 7-22-98 ; 9:05AM ; POWER ENGRS BOISE-� ;# 7/11 median tapering down to an 8 -foot wide center median. This design exceeds District street design and would require the dedication of 80 to 115 -feet of public right-of-way. District staff is concerned that the excessive width will encourage speeding and recommends that the applicant be required to construct Wilkins Way with two 21 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide sidewalk separated by a center median and located as proposed. The applicant should be required to transition the street section with the median to a 41 -foot street section. Construct the median a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum loo -square foot area and dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. The applicant is proposing to construct Wilkins Way as a 41 -foot street section within 60 -feet of right-of-way from a point 700 -feet south of Ustick Road to Longhorn Drive. This design meets District policy. The applicant is proposing to construct Wilkins Way, where it intersects with Moon Lake Drive with two 36 -foot wide street sections with curb and gutter separated by a 38 -foot wide center median. This design exceeds District street design and requires 100 -feet of public right-of-way to be dedicated. District staff recommends that the applicant be required to construct Wilkins Way with two 21 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide sidewalk separated by a center median and located as Proposed. Construct the median a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum 100 -square foot area and dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. H. District policy requires the applicant to cone sidewalk with District detached concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road. Coordinate the location o 1. The applicant should be required to construct Pinto Street. Cowbide Avenue, Longhorn Drive and Greenbelt Place as public 37 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks on both sides within 50 -feet of right -of --way, J, Moon Lake Drive currently terminates at the site's westem prop erty line d Moons a 37-fbot Lake Drive l section with a detached sidewalk. The applicant is Proposing op g a 37400E street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicant will be required to transition the attached sidewalk in Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision to the detached sidewalk in Ashford Greens Subdivision. No stub streets should be required to the south of Moon Lake Drive, because there is an existing golf course approved as part of Ashford Greens Subdivision and Lake at Cherry Lanes No. 4 Subdivision. WILKINS.MOD Page 4 SENT BY. 7-22-98 ; 9:06AM ; POWER ENGRS BOISE-� ;# 8/11 K. Tile applicant is proposing turnarounds at the termini of Greenbelt Place, Filly Place and Longhorn Drive. District policy requires the applicant to construct the turnarounds with a minimum radius of 45 -feet to back -of -curb. L. There is a wide knuckle at the Longhorn Drive/Cowhide Drive intersection. The applicant should be required to construct a traffic island in the knuckle at the Longhorn Drive/Cowhide Drive intersection. The traffic islands should be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet, and designed to channel traffic to Cowhide Drive. The design should be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Planning and Development staff. M. There is a wide "knuckle" at tli.e Pinto'Street/Cowhide Drive intersection. The applicant should be required to construct a,traffic island in the knuckle at the Pinto Street/Cowhide Drive intersection. The traffic islands should be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet, and designed to channel traffic to Cowhide Drive. The design should be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Planning and Development staff. N. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file nuimbers) for details. The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to A.CH]b approval of the final plat: Site Specifie Requirements: Dedicate 48 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit Or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for any additional right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. If the owner wishes to be paid for the additional right-of-way, the owner must submit a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACRD Ordinance #188. 2. Construct Wilkins Way from Ustick Road to a point 700 -feet south of Ustick Road with two 21 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide sidewalk separated by a center median transitioning to a 41 -foot street section located as proposed. Construct the median a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum 100 -square foot area and dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 3. Construct Wilkins Way as a 41 -foot street section within 60-fect of right-of-way from a point 700 -feet south. of Ustick Road to Longhorn Drive. 4_ District staff recommends that the applicant be required to construct Wilkins Way where it intersects with Moon Lake Drive with two 21 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot WILKINS.MOD Page 5 SENT BY: 7-22-98 ; 9=07AM ; POWER, ENGRS BOISE-, ;* 9/11 wide sidewalk separated by a center median and located as proposed. Construct the median a minimum of 4 -feet wide to total a minimum 100 -square foot area and dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way plus the additional width of the median. 5. Construct a 5 -foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on Ustick Road, Coordinate the location of the sidewalk with District staff. 6. Construct Ranch Lane on either side of Wilkins Way, located as proposed approximately 300 -feet south of Ustick Road. Pave the private roadways a minimum of 24 -feet and at least 30 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Wilkins Ranch Way and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. The applicant should provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach speed of 20 MPH and a maximum intersection approach grade of 2% for at least 40 -feet. Street name and stop signs are required for the private road. The signs may be ordered through the District at the cost of $115. Verification of the correct. approved name of the road is 7. ACRD does not make any assurances that the private road which is a part of this application will be accepted as a public road if such a request is made in the future. Substantial redesign and reconstruction costs may be necessary in order to qualify this road for public ownership and maintenance. 8. Construct Pinto Street, Cowhide Avenue, Longhorn Drive and Greenbelt Place as 37 -foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalks on both sides within 50 - feet of right-of-way. 9. Construct Moon Lake Drive as a 37 -foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Transition the sidewalk in Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision to the detached sidewalk in Ashford Greens Subdivision to the west. 10. , Construct an ACRD approved turnaround at the terminus of Greenbelt Place and Longhorn Drive. District policy requires the applicant to construct the turnaround with a minimum radius of 45 -feet to back -of -curb with curb, gutter and 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk, 11. Construct a traffic island in the knuckle at the Longhorn Drive/Cowhide Drive intersection. The traffic islands should be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet, and designed to channel traffic to Cowhide Drive. The design should be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Planning and Development staff. 12. Construct a traffic island in the knuckle at the Pinto Street/Cowhide Drive intersection. The traffic islands should be a minimum of 4 -feet wide with a minimum area of 100 -square feet, and designed to channel traffic to Cowhide Drive. The design should be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Planning and Development staff. WIL.KINS.MOD Page 6 SENT BY: 7-22-98 ; 9:08AM ; POWER ENGRS BOISE- ;#10/11 t 13. Utility street cuts in new pavement Tess than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) .for details. 14. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. 1.5. Other than Wilkins Way, direct lot or parcel access to Ustiek Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall he made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall. specifically identi enc expl lati of w y sueh a T�,�.ir�mPnt ;��ald reQ�!1 'n a sub antial hardship or ineauiT ThP mitted to the District no later than.200 a m. on the day Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall. be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within two weeks of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. ThP reouest for reconsideration shall cnr•r:fir n 1 each requirement to be reconsidered djnrlLde written�entarion of data that was not available to the Comm_ic,iQn at the time` of i s original decision_ The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable .ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. WILKINS.MOD Page 7 SENT BY: 7-22-98 ; 9:09AM ; POWER ENGRS BOISE- ;#11/11 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for oeeupa.ncy. 7. 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 the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 8. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless.a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: 1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. WiLIUNS.MOD Page 8 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 14, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 13 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUB. - EAST OF BLACK CAT USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 6/17/98 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 24 from the commission, and we have nobody coming up from the audience, let's take it back to us and what's the proposal? De Weerd: And we're talking about annexation and zoning, right? MacCoy: Correct, number two. Smith: Is the public hearing still open? MacCoy: Well, let's see. Okay, I will close the public hearing at this time and request from the commissioners a decision. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we have the assistant city attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Okay, at this time, we are going to need a roll call. Is that right, or just a straight forward? Prior: That's fine. All we're doing is sending a recommendation Mr. — all you need to do is there was a motion that the assistant city attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. I heard a second, I know somewhere. Then I believe all you need to do Chairman is just, all in favor, all opposed and so on and then we'll proceed. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT KEEASTBDIVISION (260 OF BLACK CAT/DOTS ST COKNNTERSEC51.88 T ON BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: MacCoy: Applicant, do you have anything else you want to add at this point? Prior: Chairman, I think what we'll need to do is we'll need to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat. MacCoy: Correct. Prior: Until the next meeting at which time we'll consider that after the annexation and zoning and assuming you folks make a motion on the conditional use permit for the Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 25 PUD. And the next meeting there will be an opportunity for Mr. Bradbury address the issues on the preliminary plat, and that will be taken up at that time. MacCoy: Okay, you're correct. Since this is a continued public hearing, is there a motion at this point? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Prior, we're going to drag this thing out another month before they get any comments back from us on the preliminary plat? Prior: Well, the only concern if I can address it, Mr. Chairman. It's been the policy of the city that we take the annexation and zonings and the conditional use permits and address those issues and then when those have gone through, assuming that is one or the other a decision, then we consider the preliminary plat. That has been the policy of the city. That's the way we do things, and the reason and the theory behind that it allows the city to have some assemblance of control as to what's being designed. Otherwise what we are doing is we are in essence saying yes, we're going to pass the preliminary plat along to the city council for their approval, and we haven't even voted as to whether this land is even going to be annexed into the city as of yet. You folks have not made a decision as to whether this will be approved for an annexation. And whether you will approve my Findings one way or the other, that needs to come first before we consider a preliminary plat, and that's the reason behind that. Smith: Well, that makes a lot of sense. I just guess these guys have been coming here for about two or three months. And I'm just — Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might be heard on this. Prior: You are probably going to need to be sworn in that, Steve. STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Bradbury representing Steiner Development. I think I agree with the city attorney maybe probably about 75% of the way, and the place that I come short on is that it seems to me that it would be acceptable for this body to take all of the testimony it needs to take on all of the issues that are before it, and simply before you vote to approve the preliminary plat then you ought to have first voted to approve the annexation and the rezone and I guess the conditional use permit falls into that same category. I think that Mr. Prior is correct. You got to get it in the right order, but my experience here has been that we don't have to come back month after month after month to do the public hearings. We handle the public hearings. We get all the testimony taken care of, and you just order your affairs for purposes of approval so that you get them in the right order. Otherwise, I mean you are going to be annexing and theoretically zoning property into your city without Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 26 knowing what's going to get built there, and that's the whole reason why we bring all of these to you at one time. So that you have an opportunity to deal with all the issues at one time. Borup: My interpretation is exactly what Mr. Prior said. At least how I interpret what he said. So, I think we're all in agreement. Bradbury: I guess what I'm trying to say is — Borup: We have normally been doing the other and taking all the testimony on the preliminary plat and then just not voting on it until after we've read the Findings. Prior: My preference just for a clarification, Mr. Chairman, is that and this is purely my preference, and I would advise — I would request that the commission follow my recommendation please that we consider the annexation and the zoning and the conditional use permit and then Mr. Bradbury will be required to come back on item number three for a discussion on the preliminary plat. That is my preference to do it that way. Obviously you as a commission can do whatever you wish and go against anything and act any way you see fit. Bradbury: Maybe you can help us to understand why that's necessary, Mr. Prior. Why we can't complete our public hearing tonight? Prior: My preference is just from a liability standpoint, Steve. I don't want any possibility of any confusion whatsoever that we did not consider this annexation first, then we considered the conditional use permit, then we consider the preliminary plat. That is purely my preference from a legal standpoint. I do not want a developer or anybody else coming in here and challenging me in court saying we did not follow proper procedure. Now, if the commission decides to act otherwise they can do that. But I'm telling them and from my comfort level my preference is that we do the annexation and zoning, we continue the public hearing on this preliminary plat, we do the conditional use permit. I will prepare those in that order and then the preliminary plat public hearing will be continued until next month and considered at that time. That is my preference folks, but obviously I defer to your authority. MacCoy: That's normally what we've done though in the past. Borup: Maybe speaking to Mr. Prior's comments. It might be reason for us to think about how we handle this. On a project like this especially where it's contiguous an ongoing, almost an ongoing project, I don't see any reason why we couldn't have acted on the annexation two months ago. I mean we continued the thing on because of the plat. Not because of what we felt about the annexation, so maybe that's something we need to look at how we handle things as maybe move the annexations through in a Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 27 more timely manner, and then we can discuss the real issue that we're concerned about and that's the plat, and in the case, the common area, density and everything else. I don't know that in some of these standard projects where we have to worry about are we going to want to de -annex it later on. Prior: My concern, if I could address that Chairman. Another concern, and I guess this is all ties in is that if you annex property and provide them with an annexation on a property and zone that property at the same time, such as let's say we annex and zone in R-8, and then you don't immediately address the issues of the conditional use permit at the same time, you're losing at least a slight bit of the control over the particular project,, and once again the issue is the cities being able to control what goes in to a particular site. So, that's the reason I feel very strongly about this, just to protect the city's interest. And that's why it is my preference. MacCoy: Okay, thank you counsel. This has been done in the past. The way you've stated it. History is such that's fast. We got a meeting coming up next month or next week and we'll have a chance to discuss this internally with our commission and staff. So I think that those of you who are concerned about it, put it on your agenda, and we'll bring that up then. And now I — Smith: Mr. Chairman, I might also point out to the rest of the commissioners, we have three more projects on the agenda tonight that all have request for annexation and zoning followed by item for preliminary plat. I guess we're going to follow precedence on this one and put all those off until month too. Borup: (Inaudible) Are we still trying to get passed item number three, Mr. Chairman? MacCoy: We're on number three right now. Prior: You need to entertain a motion. MacCoy: That's what I asked for, yeah. Smith: Well before that I'd just like to make a comment to the developer. It seems like Commissioner De Weerd has some concerns on the plat. As she's reviewed it, so far. I have a number of issues that I've observed upon further review since we met prior to the last meeting. And I would encourage you to sit down with us again and so you might be able to expedite this thing and address some of these things prior to the next meeting. Just a suggestion. You know, you are free to do whatever you wish, but there seems to be a lot of things on the plat here that I'm going to bring up as concerns to myself. That's all I have. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 28 Borup: Mr. Chairman, I also have some additional questions on the plat itself. I wonder if this wouldn't still be the appropriate time to get them in the record so that the information will be available for council preparing the Findings, and I think Mr. Smith had some others. I think this is probably the appropriate time to bring them up rather than bringing them up a month from now, and then having them go back and revise it at that time. If that's what — MacCoy: Are you planning on listing those right at this moment and then we move on? Borup: I've got one item that I'd like to address, and I think I need maybe some clarification from Mr. Bradbury on some of my maps, and right now I'm looking strictly at the density issue. The issue of the bonus area which I believe you say you can add up to 25% by the ten percent, and we're probably — they're coming down to essentially to the ten percent open space. And that's probably the major item. And I've got to say I like seeing a project with some variety. I really have a problem with cookie cutter subdivisions where every lot is exactly the same size, and then you've got no options for any other type of lifestyles. So I like that aspect of what you are doing. The question I had on and maybe I need some. help on my math here. You said the Lakes at Cherry Lane — let me maybe clarify one thing. You said the non -PUD area was 3.29; was that correct or did I write that down wrong? Bradbury: Yes, that's correct. That's the numbers that I was provided, and I guess I should probably warn you that I didn't do the math. Borup: That's fine, and that's about what I remember from past subdivisions is that density's normally come out give or take a point or two. It's just seems like that's about what it comes out. Tammy had mentioned the figure of 3.7, which is even higher. And I'm not sure — in fact that came from — De Weerd: I asked Bruce about that today. Borup: Well, let me ask Bruce about that then. Is that just a general off the top of your head or is that an accurate average, or do you know? Freckleton: That was probably more of a off the top of the head average across the city. Granted there's some developments that will be higher. There's some developments that will be lower depending on the design. Borup: I guess right off I need to say I'm in favor of the PUD status and the bonus density, but you were talking coming out about 4.8. If we take Lakes at Cherry Lane at 3. 29, 1 come up with, -- and add a 25% bonus, that comes out to about 4.11, if I did that correct. Even at 3.7, comes out 4.6. So I guess my feeling is at 4.8 you may not be Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 29 above a 4 per acre density, but it would be above what's a normal density. So it looks to me like if that's how we are going to judge on that criteria, you'd be above the 25%. Bradbury: Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying, and I guess what it comes down to .probably is the question of interpreting the ordinance as to what the bonus is suppose to be. Borup: The legal interpretation would be the 4 per acre. I don't know. Prior: It's four per acre. Borup: Even in the combination of all your Lakes at Cherry Lane, you are at 3.9 even with the reduced density there. So I don't think we have a project — in fact I don't think unless you had a straight grid subdivision, I don't think you can get 4 per acre and have 8,000 foot lots. Theoretically you could. Bradbury: Maybe, I don't know. Borup: I tried to do some figuring on that, and I think theoretically you could, but I don't there's a subdivision in town that that's the case. So I would like to see your density down closer to the 25% on what's a normal density. And beyond any other input than that, I guess that would be up to the designer to look at. Bradbury: The one thing that I think that you need to perhaps bear in mind, I don't know if it changes your thinking, though is that in the PUD portion of the Lakes at Cherry Lane, which is only part of that project, -- Borup: It's 3.9. Bradbury: Well, that was an overall. But the PUD portion was 4.5. Borup: Oh, right. Bradbury: Okay. Borup: Yeah, I had that written down. I didn't multiply that one out. Bradbury: Right, and the reason I point that out is because that I guess maybe to the extent that precedence means anything. Borup: (Inaudible). That's all I had Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Okay, does any other commissioner have any comment to make at this point? Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 30 Smith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bradbury, I'm a little confused on the gated communities and could you explain the concept of what you are proposing to do there with the gated communities? Who you will be marketing these parcels to and you know what's the intent by providing gate there at those? Bradbury: I can try and maybe a better — somebody who is better describing that might be the people who actually have to — who are in the marketing end of it, but let me take the first crack at it. The theory on these things is to provide both an additional measure of privacy to the people who live in these gated areas, and an additional measure of security to the people who live in these gated areas. Although pedestrians can come and go, there is the protection of having strange vehicles come in and going out. I think most people feel more secure and have that feeling of privacy. In terms of the marketing, it's the — these areas are designed to attract people who don't want to have large lots that they need to maintain. That may not spend their entire twelve months a year here. They may be people that spend part of the time of the year traveling. Although this is not designed to be marketed to senior as is the case in the Lake at Cherry Lane. I would expect that you would probably see a fair number of people without children living in these areas. It's not exclusively designed for that. The idea is to provide and to market to people who want something different than the typical R-4 8,000 square foot lot. The makeup could be anybody from single people living alone to married people without children, or people who — empty nesters perhaps, all of whom people that maybe travel a lot and so want to have that extra measure of security. That's what the aim is. That's what the goal is. Smith: I guess it just kind of seems to contradict allowing the pedestrians versus providing the security. I guess the biggest concern with that is the access to the school to the east, and then this sense of this is our green space. You outside the fence can't come in and use it, although it's being developed for the entire subdivision here, and we've got two thirds of the main green space areas are in these two gated areas. So that's a concern of mine. And another question I had was the Eight Mile Lateral is shown extending through lot 46 of block 7. Now because of the size of that lateral, you weren't going to be tiling it in, which is — you know that would concur with all the comments that have been made on the pathway and so forth. Although I think too actually have a plan, we need to develop some kind of green space or green belt kind of plan (End of Tape). Smith: -- so that's the only portion you can tile, so you can develop lot 46. Bradbury: Correct. Smith: Then if — you could bring that one diagram out again that you had of Green Briar. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 31 Bradbury: I think — Smith: Well I don't think, I know. Rendering is a little — its a little misleading in that — am I to assume that this rendering is just showing one dwelling unit and not the whole building? Bradbury: It's just showing a suggestion. Smith: Yeah, its a concept I mean its — the idea is to give you the idea of what these units will — Bradbury: -- Exterior appearance of those units — that's right isn't it? Smith: All three together or — okay, because of what you've shown on your plan there shows the garage — the most prominent feature on the front elevation of the house of a street side is going to be the garage. This kind of glosses over the actual treatment that you're going to get for the garage door here and then it doesn't show a garage at all on the other side, it really only shows one garage and I mean I'm not trying to nit-pick this but I'm trying to get to — Bradbury: No I understand and the last thing in the world I want to try to do is be misleading to you folks and I hope I haven't been because I didn't mean to be. We're trying to present you folks with a visual concept and the details of it are far from worked out at least in terms of exactly what the footprints are going to look like and how these things are going to lay out and — Smith: Sure, yeah I understand that -- Bradbury: -- And so if I gave you a view that causes you to doubt what it is that we're trying to convey to you I apologize for that but the idea is we're trying to — we want to present visually what the developer is envisioning, these footprints are the same thing, their concept as well, I mean and they were prepared before that was prepared and you know we've been kind doing this piece meal and I guess we're going to continue to do a little more piece meal on it but I guess what I want to say to you, yeah, I recognize that I mean the pictures that you get and the footprints that you have, they're not all coming together exactly right and what we're conveying to you is the vision as opposed to the execution. Smith: Right, well if we could get back to the plan here -- Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 32 Borup: I had the same question Commissioner Smith did, it looks to me like the rendering is of a model home community where they don't have driveways going to the garages, is that — Bradbury: Yeah, that's — Borup: I mean, so there's only a third of the concrete here showing that — Bradbury: Well, and I don't think there's the entire building — Borup: it could be, it looks like the garages are (inaudible) Smith: There's triplexes and duplexes there so — but on the south end you've quite a long — is that going to be a private drive? Bradbury: Right. Smith: I just would be curious how the Fire Department would react to that because they don't recognize the fact that they have a reverse gear in their trucks so — Bradbury: That would be something we'd need to deal with, I agree. Smith: And then, on your breakdown of your spaces you've listed the zoning out off to the right, is this the current zoning, because there's some rural transitional listed there. Bradbury: Yeah, that's the proposed zoning throughout the project would be R-4, some of the property that you're annexing into the city is currently zoned RT, assuming you do annex it, the part that's in the county is currently zoned RT, the proposal is for all the properly once annexed to be zoned R-4. Smith: I guess the only other, it's not really a question, it's more of a comment, is I agree with Commissioner Borup, I'd like to see a variety of uses in a development and I think it's good planning and there's been some very successful examples done in the past, I guess the only thing that I'd like to see though is instead of everything being more dense than an R-4 is to see some more — some densities that are less than an R-4, you know maybe some larger lots and/or maybe some more larger, usable green space areas outside of just the gated community areas. I mean I know that we've got lot 9 in block 5 and I don't know that lot 11 in block 8 is really going to be of much benefit to anyone and I guess I don't really understand lot 40 in block 7 and I don't know if lot 9 was just kind of a leftover — Bradbury: No, the intention there is to provide a real nice landscaped entry area to the Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 33 Smith: For? Bradbury: For the Green Briar, for this — again, the idea is to provide something that has a real nice, fancy feel to it for lack of better words, that's the idea, so those are landscaped areas. Smith: Okay. That's — oh, and on your plat map I was pretty impressed when I first opened this up when the minimum lot size is five acres. Bradbury: And you want bigger lots than that? Smith: That's all. MacCoy: Any other comments here? Mr. Nelson do you have anything, are you getting ready to say something here? Nelson: No, I don't have any further comments, I'll defer mine later. MacCoy: Okay, is there any other Commissioners? de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess my other two comments, now that we're at the appropriate item number, I wondered if the Fire Department has reviewed this and if they've had a chance to look at those narrow drives into some of the lots? Bradbury: I'm trying to remember if I have seen a transmittal back from the Fire Department and I can't recall, I guess I'm assuming that in the natural course of things the plats been transmitted to the Fire Department for comment. de Weerd: I guess when Commissioner Smith had raised that one issue you know that kind of was another question if they've really reviewed that to see if they can turn their trucks around in those circle drives. I guess the last one would be in reading staffs comments it talked about a buffer between your development and Dakota Ridge and it indicated a twenty -foot planting strip and I don't see any comments or — Bradbury: Right, well I'll tell you, a couple of things, one is that this developer now owns or is acquiring Dakota Ridge and so that the ability to work something out in terms of some sort of a buffer is likely to be considerably easier if in fact a buffer is something that is going to be necessary. It certainly could be provided and probably the best place to provide it is going to be on the other side of that line, the property line, because that's where the road is and its just a matter rather than cutting off lots, just move the road over a little bit and figure out a way to provide it there if the City feels that its necessary I'm sure we can work it out. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 34 de Weerd: Well I guess I raise that because that is where your high density lots are and their lots are supposed to be 8,000 square feet and — Bradbury: Right, but in between the backs of these lots and the first Dakota Ridge lot is this road that we were talking about that provides access to the school, that road borders right up against that common boundary line and there certainly ought to be a way to provide some sort of landscaping treatment along that road if that becomes necessary and as it turned out it just so happens that Steiner Development is in the process of acquiring that project as well. MacCoy: Is that it? de Weerd: Yes. MacCoy: Bruce? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question on that issue. Hasn't that property, Mr. Bradbury, already been sold to the School District? Bradbury: I think it has. Freckleton: So that road is probably already laid out, the property for the road? Bradbury: Well you know I guess I don't know, I've had the idea that that was a public road, that it was a part of the Dakota Ridge Subdivision and that the school actually takes access more southerly, I mean the school access is actually off of a public road. Freckleton: Okay, I guess where my question was headed was since that property has been conveyed, do they have the ability to put a twenty -foot planting strip, do they have the room, was it provided for when that property was conveyed? Bradbury: To the School District? Freckleton: Yes. Bradbury: The School District doesn't own it, the School District doesn't own the property that we're talking about, well wait a minute, I take that back, wait a minute — part of it I guess — maybe we're getting ourselves crossways here just a little bit, let me try — I guess I'm assuming that what -- we're talking about a twenty -foot landscape strip is not that you're going to ask this developer to landscape, provide a buffer against the effects of the school, I expect you're going to require the school to provide it's own landscaping, right? Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 35 Freckleton: The way I read Shari's comment was that when Dakota was going through, this developer, Steiner, was requesting that they buffer for Steiner's property but now it's a flip flop and — Bradbury: No, no, no, no, we're still saying exactly the same thing, its exactly the same thing. The City Council, when this developer asked for a buffer strip to be provided in the Dakota Ridge Subdivision, the City Council concluded that they weren't going to require that so the Dakota Ridge Subdivision at that time wasn't, well now in the meantime this developer's acquired the Dakota Ridge Subdivision and has the ability to provide it. Freckleton: Okay, the way I read Shari's comment, she has requested a twenty -foot planting strip on the Wilkin's Ranch property, not the Dakota property. Bradbury: Yes, I understand that. Freckleton: And now in your written response you basically said that you didn't feel it was necessary. Bradbury: Well I guess at this point neither did the City Council apparently since the City Council didn't impose it last time but if it becomes an issue and the Council concludes — or this body concludes that there needs to be a landscape buffer there, well the ability to provide it is by this developer exists because this developer owns the Dakota Ridge Subdivision and will have the ability to provide that landscape buffer where this developer thought it should have been placed in the first place. Prior: Mr. Chairman, can 1 get a clarification, I'm a little confused on this, if I may. MacCoy: Go ahead. Prior: The City Council approved Dakota without the requirement of a buffer, is that correct? Bradbury: That's right. Prior: Okay, first. Second, Shari Stiles and the comments for this particular Wilkin's Ranch is requiring a twenty -foot buffer, is that correct? Bradbury: Well to the extent that — Prior: She is requiring a twenty -foot buffer, is that correct on this project? Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 36 Bradbury: To the extent that she has any ability to require anything. Prior: Well, she is recommending that the Commission require a twenty -foot — or make as a condition that there is a twenty -foot buffer, is that right? Bradbury: I understand the comments that she made recommended that a landscape buffer be provided. Prior: Okay. At this point, you are not required as a developer to put a twenty -foot buffer at Dakota Ridge, is that right? Bradbury: No. Prior: So if we approve this without a twenty -foot buffer, what guarantees do we have that you put a buffer in there? Bradbury: Well I guess the guarantee that you have is that you'll have the final plat at Dakota Ridge. Prior: But doesn't it make more sense to require the buffer on this project though? Bradbury: I don't think it does at all. Borup: Mr. Chairman, its my understanding that the whole idea on the buffer is because that's a collector street, isn't that correct? And so the purpose of the buffer is because — that's the same requirement the City of Boise has and collector streets in residential area, they have a little more leeway, you can go twenty -feet or you can go ten if some of it's — well anyway, they've got other options but I think the buffer because of the collector street not because of the other adjoining subdivision, so if the street and I don't know because we don't have a plat that shows that — is the street that she's referring to right up against the property line? Bradbury: Yes. Borup: So the only way to get that buffer is to either take it out of Wilkins Ranch or move the street over twenty -feet. Bradbury: That's right. Borup: And you're proposing which? Bradbury: Move the street over twenty -feet. Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 37 Borup: Okay, well I don't think you ever stated that and maybe that's why there's some confusion here. Bradbury: I apologize, I thought I did. MacCoy: No, he did, he said that John. Prior: Oh, did he? I'm sorry, then I didn't hear that. Borup: I didn't either. MacCoy: I did, because I had envisioned one way then I saw the other way. Bradbury: I apologize, I was perhaps — Prior: Now who owns the street? Bradbury: Well, eventually it will be dedicated to the Highway District. Prior: And the developer owns that street now? Bradbury: Right. Prior: But there's still no requirement that that twenty -foot buffer goes in there at this point. Bradbury: Perhaps we can do it this way by imposing a condition of approval on this project that there be a twenty -foot buffer provided wherever we can find the twenty -feet. Prior: That's off-site, you can't do that legally and you know we can't legally impose a — Bradbury: No, I'm suggesting that you require a twenty -foot buffer as a condition of approval for this subdivision wherever the twenty -feet can come from. Prior: What I'm saying is that — Bradbury: If we can't get it off-site, we get it on-site. Prior: You can't legally require a twenty -foot buffer off-site of a project like this, that is against the law. What's right, you cannot impose a twenty -foot buffer and require someone on another piece of property and you -know that it's off site, require them to put a twenty -foot buffer in. The only way I could do thisis to require that twenty -foot buffer Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 38 on-site on this particular property, otherwise you — I mean, case law says you can't do that, I mean I can go back to my office and pull it up if you'd like. MacCoy: I don't think you have to do that. Borup: No, question then, Bruce, Mr. Freckleton, the collector street that we're talking about is that approved to be constructed at this time? Is ACHD — I mean what's the status of that street? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I believe that the final plat has been approved on Dakota Ridge, I'm not sure what the status of the development plans are, know we did receive those, we reviewed them, the developer basically pulled the plug on that project and it set. Borup: But if they wanted to go ahead could they proceed ahead, put that road in and not put in a twenty -foot buffer as approved at this time? So there's no way to stop that from happening? Freckleton: I don't believe so. Not if that current developer was to move forward. Borup: It looks to me like the buffer should have come from the subdivision that puts in the road, not from an adjoining subdivision. Smith: Hypothetically, Mr. Bradbury could come back next month and say we are proposing to move our street over twenty -feet and here's the legal documentation, we're going through to amend out final plat to provide a twenty -foot buffer on the Dakota Ridge Subdivision so that we don't have to place conditions on this project and we can know that the twenty -foot buffer is being provided through another instrument somehow. It's the same developer, he wants to move this thing through, he knows our concerns, if that's — he can do it however he wants to do it, if he wants to take twenty -feet off this parcel which obviously it looks like he doesn't have the space to do it, bring in whatever documentation Mr. Prior feels is legally binding on the other project just as a point of reference, not anything that has any condition tied to this project, just as another piece of information supporting our plat. Hypothetically. MacCoy: Anything else? Are we ready to move on? Borup: I do have one and I'm sorry this is petty but I've got to ask Mr. Freckleton a question on I got real confused on the block numbering, is — lots don't have to be contiguous to be part of the same block? Freckleton: Commissioner Borup, are you specifically — Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 39 Borup: Well, block 1, block 2 are separated by streets, I just had never seen that before and I — Freckleton: Typically, or legally, when you have a private street, it has to be a separate lot, you'll notice that lot 16 — Borup: Oh, that's why the lots are — that's why the streets don't separate because it's a private street. Freckleton: Private street. Borup: Okay, that clarifies my question. MacCoy: Okay, Is that it? To go back to the question about did the Fire Department have a chance to see this and so on, I don't have anything of my documentation which shows that they have had the chance to review it, otherwise we would have had a sheet of paper which said what their view points were and I'm sure — Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I do have a copy but it was on the original plat. MacCoy: Oh, well, what I'm concerned about is the fact that's already been raised, is that — Bradbury: It was dated 03/20/98 with no comments but it was on the original plat, it is on the annexation but — never mind, that's true, it is on the annexation, it's not on the plat, I apologize. MacCoy: Because they always pick it up the fact whether they have a turning radius or being able as Commissioner Smith says to go forward, not backwards. Just a matter of clarification. Okay, what is the desire of the Commissioners here? Prior: Mr. Chairman, if I may before you proceed, I just want to make a point that I have a real concern about you folks closing the public hearing on a preliminary plat — MacCoy: That's what I do too, I was going to make the mention that we don't close — de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we continue the public hearing until our July 14th meeting on the request for preliminary plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes. Borup: Second. MacCoy: And we have a second, okay, all in favor? No opposed? Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 17, 1998 Page 40 MOTION CARRIED: All aye. MacCoy: Move on to item #4, before we start that I'd like to interject we've been at this thing two hours already this evening and if we continue the same pace we're never going to get out of here tonight, so I'd like that both the audience which has had part of this and the Commissioners have a lot a part of this, we need to start coming down with more concise statements and move on forward. ITEM #4: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: MacCoy: The applicant at this moment has the floor. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add, I'd simply ask — Prior: We need to hold it, unfortunately we need to go through the process all over again, he needs to be sworn in on item #4, if he'd state his name and address again. Bradbury: Steve Bradbury, 877 Main Street, Boise. STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Commission, I simply don't have anything to add, I think we went over everything we needed to talk about, I'd simply ask that the previous testimony be incorporated into this hearing. MacCoy: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience — this is an open public hearing — have anything to add to this or ask questions of? There's not — Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question, when do you anticipate having ACHD's commission approval of your modifications? Will that be in time for the July hearing? Bradbury: (Inaudible — away from mike) Freckleton: Do you anticipate then revising this preliminary plat to reflect all the changes that — Bradbury: (Inaudible) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JUNE 17, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3 , REQUEST: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUB. - EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK AND SOUTH OF USTICK RD. AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS v i4 GCfv)ff,1P-1-4 :I BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. PLANNING AND ZONING CON INUSSION JUNE 9, 1998 PAGE 5 MacCoy: It's been moved and seconded, do you have any discussion among the commissioners? de Weerd: I have none. Smith: Nope. Nelson: I have none. MacCoy: All in favor of the motion that was made by Commissioner Smith? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. MacCoy: Everything will be continued on Wednesday May 17th. John, we did this at 1, 2, & 3 as Commissioner Smith mentioned, can we leave it this way? Prior: Basically what's going to happen is we're going to consider the annexation and — as with any application, we're going to consider the annexation and zoning first and then after we consider the annexation and the conditional use we'll consider the preliminary plat at a following meeting, that's generally the policy that we go by. MacCoy: That's correct, I was wondering about a second and a third vote so to speak for items #2 and 3 or can we — Prior: Well I think you probably ought to go through items #2 and 3 and just kind of move it along, that would be appropriate. MacCoy: Okay, that would be legally correct, thank you. Okay, could I have a — ITEM #2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (260 LOTS ON 51.88 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue the public hearing for item #2, the request for preliminary plat for The Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes until — Smith: Second. Nelson: Thanks. MacCoy: Any discussion? r PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 9, 1998 PAGE 6 Nelson: I have none. de Weerd: None. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All aye ITEM #3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue public hearing for item #3 until our next scheduled meeting Wednesday the 17th. Smith: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion? de Weerd: I have none. Smith: None. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. MacCoy: We'll continue the public hearings on all three items on May 17tH ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C -G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: MacCoy: Is a representative here from Eagle Partners? Not yet we don't, okay. Commissioner's do you have any comments on what was written? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of comments. MacCoy: Alright, go ahead. Smith: My first question actually, clarification, Mr. Prior, there was some discussion earlier about the applicant's non-compliance in his existing facilities and there was some question as to whether or not those non -conforming uses were whether we had any kind of stick to hold over the applicant on this project 1e ,ditch. The litches will be ere user ditches are inn .�F'TMa RI1c,.Sd�.tiuc." is-requestec our expense. 7: The seas 11.. Final engineering Wi U provide necessary requirements for scope ai �n for future phases '- ld cover'as noted:. _ 0.9', -a reduction �d wall offsetsw�ll r locations; pathways ie submittal of he -final 3ity7so as to be :onstructed as in The _ .:. -.,- -- r �.. �..y or. �........� ,.....,. � •� �y yw qy�i. vuW •rvv ill . , front of he garage. I�x pS;�i S �i i � 14Q }1 � S • ' • �.. �• �' Vr .R _ — i ! n •, .'•.i 9 _ S. G M�:' to S i rj i F ,.1e � �. a '• � •� ...vaa..,r y ' ''1�'•�; ' ..-..L w..rra.. Q . z�j�( ��Ilit F �F �� �; ti :�.....' : ';I' E i s � � E! 'p :g .•'' r.� s s T .i #: F S � � r �is E •ate •� •:?::�•.:;ti' � i � •. ti �M Ei S � � ; �3 ��-- � s :rLu F n = � I i' N i:.•: i;c; • i s .... •�.: At _L t SvS •. T •.• •j 9 �vg�F FF °* i 6 t �ii F ;t � ."•' '�� � p N � p �j� � .y T E ' �i r4 � i F � t tF � ro �i � Y y i. �i !i F �t; T•'j a ,T i x T �n ! �.... �.. ..E' 'ii' .............. C Ai oo' 0 00 o-ro-- yW7 CD pz rr m—P�, maiNZ mm• R ( U O ' k ~ d OA m•�i�T Mao I I I I I S m00 s � ' W°�N � N� � � I I I •: � �m5^qin y Nm A Z I I i�, �f4 221 4 4 O � ��t�i�;�5�#i•��aY;�' F� 8 IF I J C. x Z co I z 0 2 i iiYi�iiliinntu�r I�x pS;�i S �i i � 14Q }1 � S • ' • �.. �• �' Vr .R _ — i ! n •, .'•.i 9 _ S. G M�:' to S i rj i F ,.1e � �. a '• � •� ...vaa..,r y ' ''1�'•�; ' ..-..L w..rra.. Q . z�j�( ��Ilit F �F �� �; ti :�.....' : ';I' E i s � � E! 'p :g .•'' r.� s s T .i #: F S � � r �is E •ate •� •:?::�•.:;ti' � i � •. ti �M Ei S � � ; �3 ��-- � s :rLu F n = � I i' N i:.•: i;c; • i s .... •�.: At _L t SvS •. T •.• •j 9 �vg�F FF °* i 6 t �ii F ;t � ."•' '�� � p N � p �j� � .y T E ' �i r4 � i F � t tF � ro �i � Y y i. �i !i F �t; T•'j a ,T i x T �n ! �.... �.. ..E' 'ii' .............. C Ai oo' 0 00 o-ro-- yW7 CD pz rr m—P�, maiNZ mm• R ( U O ' k ~ d OA m•�i�T Mao I I I I I S m00 s � ' W°�N � N� � � I I I •: � �m5^qin y Nm A Z I I i�, �f4 221 4 4 O � ��t�i�;�5�#i•��aY;�' F� 8 IF I J C. x Z co I z 0 2 i j 3 Y ii ! A � f1 T•T I�x pS;�i S �i i � 14Q }1 � S • ' • �.. �• �' Vr .R _ — i ! n •, .'•.i 9 _ S. G M�:' to S i rj i F ,.1e � �. a '• � •� ...vaa..,r y ' ''1�'•�; ' ..-..L w..rra.. Q . z�j�( ��Ilit F �F �� �; ti :�.....' : ';I' E i s � � E! 'p :g .•'' r.� s s T .i #: F S � � r �is E •ate •� •:?::�•.:;ti' � i � •. ti �M Ei S � � ; �3 ��-- � s :rLu F n = � I i' N i:.•: i;c; • i s .... •�.: At _L t SvS •. T •.• •j 9 �vg�F FF °* i 6 t �ii F ;t � ."•' '�� � p N � p �j� � .y T E ' �i r4 � i F � t tF � ro �i � Y y i. �i !i F �t; T•'j a ,T i x T �n ! �.... �.. ..E' 'ii' .............. C Ai oo' 0 00 o-ro-- yW7 CD pz rr m—P�, maiNZ mm• R ( U O ' k ~ d OA m•�i�T Mao I I I I I S m00 s � ' W°�N � N� � � I I I •: � �m5^qin y Nm A Z I I i�, �f4 221 4 4 O � ��t�i�;�5�#i•��aY;�' F� 8 IF I J C. x Z co I z 0 2 June 17, 1998 Ms Shari Stiles Meridian Planning and Zoning VIA FACSIMILE Re: Willdns Reich The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the applicant proposed revisions to the Wilkins Ranch subdivision appear to meet current District policy and the Site Specific Requirements included in our recent staff report. The proposed stub street to the west provide the needed access to the adjacent parcel. The two walkways to the east provide the pedestrian connectivity to the school site «ithout linking two public streets via a private street. I trust that this information meets your needs for tonight's meeting. Please feel free to contact me if there are any other questions or concerns. David Saplett Planning and Development Engineer cc: Wilkins Ranch project file Doug Campbell, Steiner Development MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JUNE 9, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 2 REQUEST: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 5/12/98 vi nL-1. All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 2 ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD. Johnson: Is there anyone here who would like to testify on this public hearing? I'll reopen the hearing at this time. Is there anyone here that's interested in items 3, 4 or 5 that would like to testify? Seeing no one and hearing no one, then I'll close this public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry, we're continuing that. My fault. So we need a motion really to continue this if that's what we want to do until our next meeting. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we first table this to June 9th, our next meeting. Items 3, 4 and 5 for the Wilkins Ranch Property. Smith: Second. Johnson: I have a motion and a second to table items 3, 4 and 5 until our regular meeting on June 9, 1998. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER (CHELSEA SQUARE) BY TOM BEVAN — 2030 W. FAIRVIEW. Johnson: Any changes, additions, deletions to the Findings of Fact as prepared by our City Attorney? Any comments? Smith: I do have a comment, and it regarded my comment that I made on signage and I started thanking about it here over the past month, and basically what I'd asked is that the signage be put on the glass of the buildings, and it was really a stupid comment. I can't believe I said it. I think my concern on the signage on this project just has to do that we don't get into some large unattractive signage and I don't know how my fellow commissioners feel about this, and I don't want to drag this thing out, but I don't want to limit them to putting signage on the glass because again I think that was a stupid idea, but if there's some way that we can have some kind of a review process on this project for signage on the building or establish some kind of criteria as far as height, raised letters, or something along those lines. Probably something that would give the applicant the most flexibility and have an opportunity to be creative would be to not restrict them to a particular type of signage, but to ask them maybe to submit it for review whether it's for the City Council or Planning and Zoning. I don't know. X;,E7 I-, 0 'IRt 7`'7'll`E MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MAY 12, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 4/14/98 SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH BIRD REc-BwED MAY 0 6 1998 MEMORANDUM: CITY OF MERIDIAN To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City E ' ee�� Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208)884-4264 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-2211 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)884-5533 May 6, 1998 Re: WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISON by Steiner Development Request for Annexation & Zoning of 36.71 Acres to R-4 with 195 Lots; and Request for Preliminary Plat with a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with a Total of 282 Lots on 51.88 Acres We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the application. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: A portion of this property was originally included in the overall development plan for Ashford Greens Subdivision. Since the original concept was approved, the original applicant chose not to exercise its option on the property, and the owner of the property sold it to Steiner Development. As is common in a planned development, exceptions can be made by Council to district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD. "9-607 E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." Variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this CUP in this R-4 zone as presented would be: Wilkins Rench.PP Mayor, Council and P&Z May 6, 1998 Page 2 1. Minimum lot sizes 2. Minimum frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives 4. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 5. Front and street side yard setbacks 6. Minimum house size 7. Maximum block length 8. Maximum cul-de-sac length GENERAL COMMENTS of roadway in accordance with City 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney and approval by the City Council. 4. Provide 5' wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 5. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 6. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 7. Indicate on the final plat map any FEMA Flood Plains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary. 8. Respond in writing, to the each of the comments contained in this memorandum by 5:00 P.M. of the Friday prior to the scheduled hearing by the Meridian Planning and Zoning. Submit ten copies of the revised Preliminary Plat Map to the City Clerks Office a minimum of one week prior to the hearing by the Meridian City Council. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be via an extension from the existing main that is adjacent to the proposed development. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to Wilkins RanchPP Mayor, Council and P&Z May 6, 1998 Page 3 coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. 2. Water service to this site will be via extensions of existing mains installed in adjacent developments. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 3. The legal description for annexation included in the application doesn't include a portion of the W. Ustick Road right-of-way. Applicant shall submit a revised annexation perimeter description for the proposed site. The legal description shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the. provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. The legal description for annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the existing city limit boundary. 4. Identify all existing ditch easements on the preliminary plat map. Show their location, width, and proposal for relocation, vacation, and/or dedication. 5. No lots will be allowed to take direct access off of N. Wilkins Way. Please include a note to that effect, or indicate the front of house orientation by an arrow symbol on each of the applicable lots. 6. 250- and 100 -watt high pressure sodium street lights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All street lights shall be installed, at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 7. The soils report submitted with the application indicates that there are areas within this project that could have very high water tables during the peak irrigation season, as well as the possibility of a perched water table. Special attention should be given to the design of the storm drainage system within this property. The City has been experiencing problems with groundwater in drainage areas, particularly those without an outflow to an existing drainage system 8. Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, nor has the source been shown. If the system is being proposed as a private system (H.O.A.), plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek 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 shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. Wilkins RanchPP Mayor, Council and P&Z May 6, 1998 Page 4 9. Each lot within this project will be subject to the City of Meridian's lift station latecomers fee ($221.76 proposed, as well as the associated force main latecomers fee ($253.75 proposed. 10. Temporary turnarounds shall be required at the end of all streets, longer than one lot depth from an intersection, that will be continued in future phases. 11. The applicant has indicated in his narrative that the slope on a portion of the sewer will be less than the minimum 0.40% required; however the preliminary engineering shows all the sewer meeting the minimum requirements of cover and slope. 12. The proposal for 33 lots shown along N. Greenbelt Place more than doubles the original proposal by Brighton Corporation for this area. Development adjacent to the Cherry Lane Golf Course should enhance the feeling of openness, not lead to a feeling of congestion. A plethora of duplex units in this location appears undesirable. 13. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, including fencing locations, pathways and types of construction, shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 14. Permanent non-combustible fencing is to be installed along the common area lot line for the Eight Mile Lateral. Construct six -foot -high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. 15. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments must include a minimum of ten percent of the gross land area as common area. Common open space shall mean land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. This proposal does not meet that requirement. Additionally, the Eight Mile Lateral is being included in the calculation of common area. The availability of use for this area is questionable. 16. Ada County Highway District requires that W. Corral Lane be extended to the east to Niemann Drive; this is particularly important to allow public vehicular access and interneighborhood connectivity to the school site. A public stub street is also needed to connect to the undeveloped property to the west. ACHD also requires that the private streets shown be constructed as public streets. 17. Dakota Ridge Subdivision, to the east of this property, requires minimum 8,000 -square foot lots and minimum 1,500 -square -foot house sizes. Many lots proposed within this subdivision do not even meet the requirements for an R-8 zone. As a collector street will Wilkins Ranch.PP Mayor, Council and P&Z May 6, 1998 Page 5 abut lots on the east, a 20 -foot planting strip should be provided along these areas, as was requested by this Applicant of the Dakota Ridge development during public hearings. 18. Landscaping setbacks should also be required along each side of N. Wilkins Way which are exclusive of lots. 19. Storage areas shall be provided for the anticipated needs of boats, campers and trailers. For typical residential development, one (1) adequate space shall be provided every two (2) living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. (City Ordinance 11-9-607.H.1) 20. One (1) additional parking space beyond that which is required by the Zoning Ordinance may be required for every three (3) dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet (4) to any established street or alleyway. (City Ordinance 11-9-607.H.2) 21. A maintenance building or approved area shall be provided that is suitable for the services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. (City Ordinance 11-9-607.H.3) 22. Does Applicant intend to pay golf course fees of $600/lot for all units within this development? 23. Staff is concerned about the proposed gated areas. These areas do not lend themselves to a sense of community, are hindrances to public safety vehicles, and alienate those who may wish to visit residents within the development. 24. Due to the numerous issues involved, including non-compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements and non-compliance with Ada County Highway District requirements, significant redesign of this project is required. Staff has no objection to annexation of the property with a zoning of R-4 provided the development is compatible with adjacent development and previously approved preliminary plats. Staff does not recommend approval of the conditional use permit or the preliminary plat. Applicant should get input from the Planning & Zoning Commission, withdraw this application, and submit a new application complying with staff and agency recommendations. Wilkins Rench.PP MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 91 thing, but having a gas station right across the street you, you got all the gas fumes. You can't sit out in your backyard and enjoy it in the summer time and barbecue because people over there pumping gas. And I just don't think this would be good for the citizens around that location. Thank you. . Johnson: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else? Any comments, discussion? I'll close the public hearing. This is an application for a conditional use permit by Albertson's. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we direct the city attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this application. MacCoy: Second it. Johnson: Motion and second to have the city attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at number 12. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: Johnson: I want to open the public hearing on item no. 13. 1 will now ask the applicant's representative to come forward and address the commission. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: I'm representing Steiner Development here tonight and I guess there's three items on your agenda, I am maybe going to suggest that to make it go a little bit faster, perhaps we could consolidate all the hearings and just do it all at one time, because I can just talk about — Johnson: Well, its a good suggestion, but I don't want to do it. Bradbury: All right. You're the boss. You all have I think one of these booklets in front of you. Okay. What I'd like to do is just start with page one and read the whole thing to you if you don't mind. Johnson: I've read it. Bradbury: I'm kidding. It's late and I'm just going to try and ori through this thing as quickly as possible. I think just about all the. information you need is MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING APREL 14, 1998 _ . PAGE 92 somewhere in the booklet, and as we go through if you have any questions about anything, please feel free to stop me. The project in its entirety encompasses just a little bit under 52 acres, and includes 260 building lots,'l53 of those are single family detached buildings, and then there would be 107 would be single family attached. Most of those would be two unit townhouses. A couple of three unit townhouses and a couple of four unit townhouses in there. It equates out to an overall density of about 5 units per acre. The concept that Steiner Development is proposing is to provide a variety of housing types and living choices all in a single community, and what we attempted to do is segregate each different living type or housing type into different portions of the project, and so what you'll see is that to make it kind of easy to talk about the project — I'm going to get you clear back to tab four. The project map has been divided into five different what we are calling section, and given each one of them a different name so that it's primarily so it's easy to talk about it. And then behind tab seven through eleven are the specific details of each one of the various sections telling you about what is planned to go there. So as, I talk about this, if you want to go through this tab by tab you can do it that way. All right in the northwest comer of the project on just over 11 acres is the section that we are calling The Meadows and information on that portion of the project is behind tab seven. In there is. proposed for 59 single family detached living units. They are all single story. The minimum square footage for the housing units would be 1300 feet. May I should back and I did skip over something, and I don't want to forget to talk about it. So that it's clear to you the northwesterly 36 acres is what is being proposed for annexation. The northeasterly 36 acres is what's proposed for annexation. The southwesterly 15 acres is already in the city. The property that is proposed for annexation is presently zoned RT in the county zone, and the application is for it to be R-4 zone designation which is consistent with the R-4 zone designation which presently exists on the property which is essentially which is southwesterly of the Eight Mile Lateral, and is already in the city and is also consistent with the adjoining properties which are all zoned R-4. Anyway, back to the meadows, there's 1300 square foot minimum houses. There's actually six different plans proposed in that area. They range from 1304 square feet up to 1872 square feet. Of those six different plans, there are ten different elevations, so for five of the plans, there's two elevation choices. Each of the units would have two car garages. The lots sizes in there vary between 4250 square feet and 10,435 square feet. The access to that part of the subdivision is proposed for private streets with a 42 foot right-of-way. Five foot sidewalk one side and there would be a security gate installed to provide security for the other residents in there. You'll see that there is some park area that is set aside in that portion of the project and behind tab seven, you can also see a list of the proposed setbacks. In the northeasterly part of the project, by the way if you want to stop and talk about each one of these sections as we go, I'm happy to do that. Otherwise I'll just press on. In the northeasterly portion of the project, just a little over 10'/ acre portion called The Plains. That is proposed for 74 single family attached units. Townhouse type units. 24 two unit townhouses, 6 three unity MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING APRIL, l4, 1998 PAGE 93 townhouses and 2 four unit townhouses. The minimum house size there is proposed for 1200 square feet, and again the sizes will vary between 1250 up to 1500 square feet. All single story again, all two car garages. ' The lots sizes are about 3100 square feet up to over 5700 square feet. Again that portion of the project would be served by a private street with a 42 foot right-of-way. Five foot sidewalk on one side. Essentially the same as across the street and in the Meadows. That too would have a security gate, and again the setbacks you can see both setbacks in a list behind tab number eight which is where you can find information on. that. And again that section is also serviced with a park area, and there would also be a pedestrian access to the school site, which located immediately adjacent to this portion of the project. Adjacent to and I guess easterly of. In the central portion of the project is what's called The Villages, and there's about 14 and a half acres included in that portion of the project. There would 59 single family detached dwellings. The minimum house size there would be 1385 square feet. There's five sizes, ranging from 1385 to about 1746. Again, they are all single story, and these would have either two or three car garages. The lot sizes in there are 5400 square feet up to about 13,500 square feet. That portion of the project would be served by public streets which would be built to ACHD standards and dedicated to the highway district and the setbacks again there's a list of proposed setbacks which would be the same as what are proposed for in The Meadows and in the Plains. And once again you can see there's some park area set aside in that portion of the project as well. And in addition there's also a proposed access to the school site which is adjacent to that portion of the project. I guess the fourth section is what's called Moon Lake Park and I guess you can find that one behind tab ten. The acreage in that one is about 10 and a half acres in there of the proposal is for 35 standard.R-4 lots. These would be for custom built homes. Minimum house size would be 1500 square feet there. Lot sizes range from 8,000 up to 16,000 square feet. That portion of the project would be served by public streets built to ACHD standards and dedicated to the highway district and the setbacks there would be the standard city setbacks. You'll note that in the list of setbacks, proposed setbacks for that section, you'll see that there's a section for. garage setback of 18 feet. You should eliminate that, that's a mistake. The setbacks in that section would be all city standard which would be a 20 foot front setback including the garage. As part of that project proposal is to use the Eight Mile Lateral and create a pedestrian path that could be used and go through that portion of the project across the street to the south and attached to an access way to the golf course, which is located south of the project. So there's a golf course access that comes out of that project heading south. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 94 In the most southerly portion of the project and what I described as the finger that points down toward the south, towards the golf course, they are calling the Green Brier portion of the project. There's about 5 and a'quarter acres in there. The proposal is for 33 -single family attached units. These would 15 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse. The minimum square footage for those homes would 1250 square feet, and they vary up to 1500 square feet depending on the unit that is selected. Again they are all single story, and would include two car garages. The lot sizes in this portion of the project range from 3850 square up to 7350 square feet. The proposal is for a private street on a 50 foot right-of-way here. And also have a security gate, and again the setbacks are shown in the list in the booklet. That's really all that I kind of wanted to just try to hit the highlights and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. What I would like to try to impress upon you is that the project that you*see before you here is very similar in nature to the project that Steiner Development has under development over at the Lakes at Cherry Lane. - Same basic type of a concept of providing a variety of houses fora variety of different types of users, and for any of you who haven't seen that project, I certainly encourage you to take a drive over there and take a look at what's under construction there and what has been built there because it's very similar to hat you will see in this project if it were approved. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Johnson: Well, Steve, you say it's similar, but with respect to the other than the single family structures, isn't: it somewhat different? Bradbury: I guess — maybe t need to be more specific by what I mean by similar. In the Lake at Cherry Lane, as you go in off of Ten Mile, immediately to the right you have some townhouse, you have a townhouse project which is gated or will be gated and immediately to the left, you have some single family detached units that are also behind a gated subdivision. As you go into the project more, there is an R-8 section which I guess would be northerly of the main collector. Peter Boulevard that comes through there, and those are on lots that are 6500 square feet. So that would be similar to what you see in the villages portion of this project, and then as you go further into that project, you get into the standard R-4 type of 8,000 square foot units. So what we have here is in the Meadows and the Plains, you have the same kinds of dwellings as you come into the Lake at Cherry and then the villages -would be similar to what you have in the central portion of the Lake at Cherry Lane and then this Moon Lake Park which is proposed for Wilkins Ranch. If would be similar to the R-4 sections of the Lake at Cherry Lane which is probably mostly found in subdivisions #3,and 4 and part of 5 in the Lake at Cherry Lane. Now the difference. And you are right, there is a difference. The main difference is that in the Lake at Cherry Lane, those first two portions that you see immediately when you come into the subdivision are set aside for senior citizens only. Whereas in this project, that is not the case. There's no attempt to create a age restricted community here. DA I come close to answer ing your question? MERIDIAN PLANNrNG AND ZONING APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 95 Johnson: Oh, sure. Any questions from the commissioners? Borup: I've got a couple I think. And the fact that this is very similar to the others, I think raises the question, several (inaudible) have done some of the same thing with the decreased density and the private roads and reduced setbacks, etc. It looks like there's probably hopefully a need in Meridian. The question I have is how what's the status of those previous projects? Have they been as successful as you had hoped? Are you filling those up and needing more of the same or are — it didn't look to me like they are at that stage yet.. Bradbury: Well, Mr. Campbell who is here and represents Steiner Development can probably answer the question, somewhat more authoritatively than I can, but what I'm understanding is that it's:been very successful. The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6 was essentially sold out to a builder who thought enough of it to take the whole thing and has taken about half of number 7 which is the higher density areas. And I don't know, I can't tell you — Borup: That's the lots. How about the buildings? How's the sales on those? Bradbury: Well, my understanding is that there 8 under construction and all sold? Ten. Right. Of course we haven't built number seven yet, so don't know how that one is, but in the — well maybe I ought to let you talk to Doug about it, because he can give you numbers and do a lot better than I can. Borup: That probably answered both my questions. The other thing I had, do you have any idea what the total density for Lakes at Cherry Lane, all phases would average out? Bradbury: I couldn't tell you. I don't know. I'm looking at the engineer and he's shaking his head. We could probably figure it out for you. Borup: Well, I know you could figure it out. Bradbury: But I don't know it. Smith: I guess my only concern is just the density and we're looking at more instead of less out here as opposed to what's kind of to the southeast, but I mean I guess I was just you know I'd just kind of like to see something out there more along the.density more tuned to the Ashford Greens as opposed to what's kind of oozed out that way from the east. So I really, nothing specific. I guess I'm just concerned about the number of attached homes and so forth. MERIDIAN PLANNINIG AND ZONING APRIL. 14, 1998 k PAGE 96 Bradbury: Sure and I understand because I kind of had — when I look at it, I probably get the same impression that you get, but the when I take a look at that entire mile section and look at what is there and approved,.well I.should say what is constructed what's in existence and what is approved but not yet there. I find that entire section is being built with this type of a mix of uses. I mean you find even in the Ashford Greens, although what you see there now are the primarily the standard R-4 lots. What has previously been approved and has just simply not yet built is some higher density areas that I expect that you will probably see before too awful long, and of course immediately adjacent to this in the Lake at Cherry Lane that Steiner has developed it has a density that I think that you are going to find is going to be fairly similar to, this. I guess then you get to the question of how dense is too dense, and) am not sure I can answer the question at 12:05 either. Smith: I'm not sure I want to hear*it at 12:05 either. Johnson: Speaking of dense, did you have a question John? Any other questions of Steve? Bradbury: There's no gas station on this site though. Prior: I feel very strongly about gas stations. I want you to know that. FRANK JOHNSON 4010 W. USTICK ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. F. Johnson: First question is why didn't I get a notice? Johnson: Where do you live? How far? Right across the road. We got a list somewhere. F. Johnson: Is this the legal hearing, if I didn't get a notice? Johnson: Well, I'm not an attorney, but we've got one here. Let me look for this list. F. Johnson: Well, I know you've got my name. Johnson: I'm looking at the list, and you're the first guy on the list. We've got the right address on there? F. Johnson: Yep, I've only lived there for 61 years, so it ought to be. Johnson: 4040 W. Ustick Road. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 97 F. Johnson: Yeah. We've got a copy of all the notices that went out because those go out certified and you should look in his box. F. Johnson: Well, I'm sure you paid the post office to deliver, but -I never got it. Johnson: Oh, okay, I don't doubt that. I think the point I'm trying to make is, obviously there's no intent here to circumvent anybody within the area. F. Johnson: Yeah, but is it a legal hearing if you don't notify all the land owners? Johnson: If we did our part, it's probably legal. If the post office didn't do their part, then it probably doesn't affect the City. of Meridian, or somebody stole it out of your mail box, but we do have certification here. March 26th. That's all we can do. (End of Tape) Johnson: And you really are first right? F. Johnson: Well, 1 thought I was. 1 don't think that makes any difference any more. Johnson: I don't know. I don't anything about that. Did you have any questions on the development at all? F. Johnson: Well, I think it's pretty high density for out there when you figure Dakota Ridge will have 90. Angel Creek will have 49, and you got the school, and you got 260 there, and you add up all that extra traffic on Ustick Road, that's going to be quite a bit of traffic. The legal notice in the paper said 260 units on 35 acres, and I'd like for you to also make note that I've got my water delivery system goes through that place. Johnson: Right. That would be taken care of. There's nothing they can do to disrupt your water flow. F. Johnson: Well, they can't disrupt but make it damned miserable. Johnson: Well, I'm just talking legally here. They can't shut your water off. So, you don't think it's a good idea. Is that what you are trying to tell us? F. Johnson: Well, I'm sure that it's going to go in the city, _but with that kind of density, I don't know and see I was at one meeting here when you mentioned like my own place, the reason that you zoned it the way it is zoned was to protect the sewer plant and leave room for future expansions. So where does that leave me? MERIDIAN PLANNTx'G AND ZONING APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 98 Johnson: That leaves you with manure on one side and the sewer plant on the other is what it leaves you. F. Johnson: And I know my cows don't stink anywhere near the sewer plant. Johnson: You may not have to worry about the prevailing wind. You're going to get it anyway. F. Johnson: Well, I guess that's all I have to say.- Johnson: ay: Johnson: Okay, Frank. Sorry you didn't get the message, but we sure tried to send it out; the notice I mean. Anybody else? GUY GAGE 2596 N. CROOKED CREEK WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Gage: We live right straight across the fairway from the finger as he called it. I think that's what they are giving us. Prior. They're giving you the finger, aren't they? Johnson: Could we get that back up on the — do we have a drawing or just what's in here? You didn't bring anything for an easel. We'll work with that. Gage: When we purchased our property approximately a year ago, we were the first family to move in to the Ashford Greens. Of course our first question was what was going to be developed across the fairway from us. And the answer from the realtor and the representative of Ashford Greens was that the development that was started coming in off of Ten Mile on the moon light streets would the similar type of development that would be around the golf course. I see on the plot that we got in the mail here, that some of that is probably true. But this finger to me looks like it's going to be something maybe like an Arkansas chicken bam or something. These size of these lots about 30 feet wide approximately. I don't know what kind of — it'd be just a solid wall of houses across there. No break in them at all, if these are attached buildings. The density is just — I don't think it could get more dense than this. I'm having a problem with the townhouses and what he's got laid out on the upper part here, but Cherry Lane Golf Course is suppose to be a jewel to the City of Meridian. What kind of Aesthetics are they going to have around this solid wall of townhouses? Has there been any drawings or conception there of anything that they are going to build or what it looks like? Johnson: Veah, I don't know if you looked at these packets. but they are pretty specific. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING APRIL 14, 1998 ° PAGE 99 Gage: No, we haven't had access to one. Are those the ones that goes down on the finger? What does the back side that faces the golf course, is that becoming to the golf course or -- Well, anyway, I'm opposed at the present density that they have down on this finger and possibly the density of the project here. They've got out on the Ten Mile side they have a lot of these. smaller homes being built in there. The whole area out on the Ustick clear into Meridian has got a lot of these small homes, and I'm just getting concerned that we are going to be blessed with a lot of unwarranted type people that would be coming out into, these areas. They call them townhouses. I still kind of call them apartments myself because when they are attached like this, there's just one wall separating the other building and whoever thought up the word townhouse is I don't know. To me it's still an apartment. But I, am opposed to this type of density. I'd like to see single unattached homes all the way around the perimeter of this golf course. Thank you. Johnson: Okay, thank you, Mr. Gage. Any questions? Anyone else would like to come forward? Any response from Mr. Bradbury? Bradbury: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. For Mr. Johnson, perhaps we can help with his concern. Obviously -all we can do tonight is say any water that is delivered or needs to be delivered to your property will continue to be delivered to your property. Both as a legal matter and as a practical matter. Anything that is coming across this site by law has got to keep coming to you as designed. It will. Number two with respect to the fact that there's this dairy operation across the street, I can make a couple of suggestions. One suggestion that maybe is dealt with in two locations. Either in the restrictive covenants which will be filed as a part of this project and/or on the face of the plat a note could be included which calls out the fact that there is a dairy operation immediately across the street so.that any buyer will have notice of the fact and second, we could even put a provision on to the face of the plat as the county requires indicating that the project is subject to the right -to -farm act under Idaho Code. In that fashion any buyer gets notice of the fact that they take what they get, and if there's dairy across the street, well, that's what they are getting. And we don't have a problem with that. With respect to the questions that Mr. Gage is asking, it's unfortunate that he didn't have an opportunity to see the materials that you all had, but what I'd like to point out is that in this section that we are calling the finger and boy, 1 wish I hadn't said that now, but it's too late. You can't unring the bell. There will be 16 buildings and they are 16 separate buildings that go around that area, and combined when you look at them, they each are going to be at least 2400 square feet and some more depending on the combinations that are built on each one of these lots. There are a number of different styles and elevations and so that you don't see a solid wall. What you. folks have in your packet behind tab 11, is a proposed building footprint plan for that portion of tha project, and if you don't mind I'd like to show Mr. Gage so that he can see it too. So what you get when MERIDIAN PLANKPITG' AND ZONING APRIL, 14, 1998 PAGE 100 you look at that, is that you get a variety of elevations and you get. some contours and it's not all one flat wall. I mean you get some, I don't know that Mr. Smith can tell me the word I'm looking for when I'm talking about the fact that it's not all one line, but there's a variety: What's the word I'm looking for? ,It's too late. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that you are not going to get, it's not going to look like an apartment complex with one solid wall going across there. There's 16 separate buildings. Those buildings will have the outward appearance of single family dwellings.. It just so happens that each of them will be housing two families, and so from where I'm understanding Mr. Gage to be living when he's looking across the fairway, I think what he's going to be looking at are for outward appearances, single family dwellings. And by the way, I know he was concerned about the fact that these are apartments.. They are all going to be separately sold and theoretically owner occupied. I mean you can't— I guess you can't'guarantee that some owner might not want to rent out, buy a unit and not live in it and rent it out, but these are all separately owned and sold. They are not duplexes where it's all on one- lot and you. buy — well, you live in one and rent the other. With that I'll respond to any questions that you all may have. Johnson: Did you have a question. over there? Bradbury: By the way and I realize that staff have previously indicated that they hadn't had an opportunity to prepare all the comments they wanted prepared and were asking for a continuance of the public hearing, and we certainly have no objection to that. We'd like to work with staff and get them as comfortable as we possibly can. Johnson: Right. Thanks for pointing that out. We do have a letter from them requesting a deferral to keep the public hearing open. Anyone else would like to come forward on this? Further discussion? I'll keep the public hearing open. Is there any motion? Smith: Just quickly I don't know exactly what all staff is concerned about. I still have some real concerns about the density on this thing. I'm glad we're looking to continue the public hearing because I think I'm just not comfortable with this right now as it sit, so I'll go ahead and be the one who makes the motion that we continue the public hearing on this item until our next meeting on May 12th. MacCoy: Second it. Johnson: Any further discussion? Borup: I would like -to add a request to the applicant that I would interested to help me, that is I would like to know what the density is of the Lakes at Cherry Lane as a whole, and also probably the status of the build out. I mean you have a nice variety in there, and I would be curious to know which projects are selling, MERIDIAN PLANK? -TG AND ZONING APRIL. 14, 1998 PAGE 101 which ones aren't. Which to me would indicate what the public wants and where the demand is, and I don't know. If it's going that way. I guess I envisioned that would be built out and if that's successful you go on with more of.the same. I don't know at this point if those results are in yet. Johnson: Probably have that by next meeting. That's not what I meant. Any other discussion? We have a motion and a second. All in favor. Opposed? MOTION CARRIES: All ayes. ITEM NO. 14: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC -EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: Johnson: I will now open that public hearing, and we would incorporate testimony from the prior public hearing. Are there further comments? Anything you would like to address the commission with regarding that? You have to be sworn again. Bradbury: Do I have to be sworn to say nothing more? Johnson: Yeah. STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: I have nothing more to add to that. Johnson: Anybody have anything to add on the preliminary plat? We will keep this public hearing open as well. Is there a motion? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing until our next meeting on May 12th. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: Further discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC — EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD: MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING APRIL 14, 1998 PAGE 102 Johnson: Again we would incorporate prior testimony on items 13 and 14. Anybody have anything they would like to address the commission with? I'll open the public at this time. Entertain a motion: Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing until our next meeting on May 12th. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to continue the public hearing until May 12th. Any further discussion? All in favor?. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: And now we get to move into a workshop. on item no. 16. ITEM NO. 16: PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: Johnson: I'll open the public hearing and -ask the City Planning and Zoning Administrator to address the commission. SHARI STILES WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Stiles: Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Commissioners, the items that I have presented and put in your packet, the first item has to deal with the ordinance we currently called piping of irrigation ditches. This is not something that the commissioners deal with normally because when the variances come in on the ditches, they go directly to the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't ever hear those problems that come up because of the ditches. We were instructed, Gary Smith and I were instructed to look at what Boise City had, and as a result we came up with this three page proposed ordinance. City Council has reviewed this and made comments and we've made revisions to comply with their comments. The biggest problem we have is that no where in the ordinance does it say anything about the size. It's always been a policy that. if it required 60 inch pipe or greater, that they wouldn't require tiling of the ditch. They have since changed that policy to 48 inches. If it was 48 inches or higher, than they would grant the variance. But another problem we had was not allowing any leniency as far creating an amenity with some of these existing irrigation ditches and canals, and maybe giving them some relief from some of Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District's requirements. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at this. I know you didn't get it until Friday. I would appreciate any comments you have on that. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: APRIL 14, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 14 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUB. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: REVIEWED SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENT SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 25 March 1998 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian,ID 83642 RE: Preliminary Plat for Dear Commissioners: r 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 2Q"fC0NXX 208-463-0183 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 x5'(*xXXWX1AAAx SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 xD(*xxx)()04Aicx Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Sub. NW 114, Section 3, T3N, R1W. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Eightmile Lateral courses through the middle of the project. The right-of-way of the Eightmile Lateral is 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. See Idaho Code 42 -1208 --RIGHTS-OF-WAY NOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson at 466-0663 for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. Contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Sincerely, bzelW Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: dln cc: File - Shop File - Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS 40,000 26 March 1998 F, 11 0, lo , 11 11 11 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651.4395 FAX # XA)eA)()6AXXX 208-463-0092 Keith Jacobs, Jr. Pacific Land Surveyors w; 1295 S. Eagle Flight Way Boise, ID 83709 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 xxx)?(xxx )004X SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 X;99&(XXX;K%X4G(X RE: Land Use Change Application for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Sub. Dear Keith: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above - referenced development. Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District concerning the installation of the pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between you and the Irrigation District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call on me at the Districts office telephone number listed above, or John Anderson, Water Superintendent, at the District's shop. S/i�ncerely, k4 / Donna N. Moore, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer cc: File Water Superintendent Steiner Development, Inc. John and Ruth Wilkins City of Meridian enc. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY k A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 7, 1998 . TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 18, 1998 HEARING DATE: April 14, 1998 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision NW 1/4 Section 3, T.3N.,R IW., BY: Steiner Development LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick Intersection, south of Ustick Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z _BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT F UILDING DEPARTMENT _ IRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER PARKS DEPARTMENT CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT G WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. 'BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M, ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 7, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 18, 1998 HEARING DATE: April 14, 1998 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision NW Section 3 T.3N. R.1 W. BY: Steiner Development LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick Intersection south of Ustick Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, PIZ . _BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR _RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER PARKS DEPARTMENT CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(Pr FINAL PLAT) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION D T ENT YOUR CONCISE CCCENTRAL 00 DISTRICT q9__1_' TEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # CEN I RAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPART MENT Environmental Health Division jCond­onal Use # A U. relimina Final / Short Plat/G�i✓�S /�%� �`9% T���.5 tO/S%a„/ Return to: ❑ Boise ❑ Eagle ❑ Garden City Meridian ❑ Kuna ❑ ACz ❑ I . We have No Objections to this Proposal. ❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics ❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other ❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. is 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well ❑ interim sewage central water ❑ individual sewage ❑ individual water 169. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage F1 community sewage system ❑ community water ❑ sewage dry lines Jiiecentral water 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ child care center ❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store Q j� 14.�� l�� !`� /� hal ��J"1 ��.il'2fi��c SSS a2 Date: Reviewed By: �0A ley (DHD 10/91 rcb, rev. 7/97 Review Sheet re CENTRAL CEN I RAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPART MENT DISTRICT Environmental Health Division Return to: DEPARTMENT El Boise F] Rezone ## ❑ Garden City Meridian Co ' ' nal Use # ❑ Kuna relimina Final / Short Plat k NS, NC -T­TAE �'3 `$'U� 1clisco.J ❑ ACz ❑ I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. MAR 2 6 1998 ❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics ❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other ❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well ❑ interim sewage IN central water ❑ individual sewage ❑ individual water 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: 0 -central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water ❑ sewage dry lines V central water 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas ❑ child care center / / El beverage establishment 171 grocery store [L`I' 14. U� Date: 3 '3 WXY;k �'1 +/i i`��/✓T— �oJ Reviewed By: �^ COHb 10191 «D, rcr. 1/91 Review Sheet WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt, SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. 'BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE' GLENN R. BENTLEY P_& Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 7, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 18, 1998 HEARING DATE: April 14, 1998 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision NW 1/4 Section 3 T.3N. RAW. BY: Steiner Development LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick Intersection south of Ustick Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) MARK NELSON, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT _BYRON SMITH, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION _KEITH BORUP, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT —RON ANDERSON, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) _,KEITH BIRD, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) _WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) _,SEWER DEPARTMENT IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT (�"FIRE YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: 19- ! d _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER ��rdte ' /i nr.2 .57!a /U-55 r,,; t C iv a, r_. -Zo _CITY PLANNER 134o, -,a /3u I�; vF i s' W,. 4-. % �j.w txy i i.L 1,c PARKS DEPARTMENT CITY FILES - /-} �e �y,tr _ r•�,t.c�- gr,,c ;1 .� e,� �h ji'�2 b f WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 7, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 18, 1998 HEARING DATE: April 14. 1998 REQUEST:_ Preliminary Plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivision NW Section 3 T.3N. RAW. BY: Steiner Development LLC LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of Blackcat/Ustick Intersection south of Ustick Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z _BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR _RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT ��`''SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT —CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER PARKS DEPARTMENT CITY FILES Y MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT / YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: sy'rVZ) �,. f