Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKeego Springs PP MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Todd Campbell P P 05-060 March 2, 2006 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 2,2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision - 5910 North Black Cat Road ITEM NO. 5 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See Previous Item Packet / Minutes in AZ Packet CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY Pc- ev m trlv1d A:p I J rD ¡/ aJ .-ID G/C J-'O CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS'IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. V-teso Spn (\~ RECEIVED f:Fn (j.. ': -'(In-' . -.>".' (. G)')~ I am s~eaking on behalf of~e h~meowners in the Rambo subdivision, some of whom were unablr8N~iJM~<but who dId attend the first meetlllg III December.lCe lO/l3-At our initial meeting with Mr. Howard, we expressed our concern as to the density of the proposed development. We have rather large lots, approximately 1.25 acres, and these appear to be extremely small lots. Mr. Howard said that they have some larger properties platted and he would speak to the developers about shifting these larger lots along our property lines on the North edge. We would ask that this be done to blend the properties together and not give the appearance of a subdivision crammed into a very small parcel. We are asking this to maintain our privacy and property values. At this meeting, we also discussed the fact that we have livestock on our properties and would like a buffer to separate the livestock from the new neighbors to minimize the potential complaints, maintain the safety of the adjacent property owners while maintaining our property rights. Following the meeting with Mr. Howard, we held a neighborhood meeting and discussed the potential development. In addition, we were told that the School district was interested in placing a school within the Keego Subdivision. We were all in agreement that there are certain enhancements that should be put in place to maintain our privacy and property rights: . The neighbors are all in agreement that a landscaped berm with a fence would be the ideal buffer accepted by all property owners. This would also be acceptable to those of us who keep large animals on our properties. . The addition of some larger trees to blend in with our mature landscape should be incorporated on the berm. A school or larger parcels and homes be placed upon the North border. . The addition of a berm, as stated above, would also separate our subdivisions and alleviate unnecessary traffic down our dead end street as we do have children, and a handicapped individual, that play in our cul-de-sac. There are no sidewalks along the street. Increased traffic in the area would create safety issues. Weare also very concerned about the increased traffic burden that this subdivision will place on our already overcrowded roads in the area. With the recent approval of the Volterra subdivision and their additional traffic estimated at 10,000 vehicle trips, what will the direct impact be at the intersection of Blackcat and Chinden? With this increased traffic directly impacting this intersection, and the speed at 55 on Chinden, both become very dangerous roads to travel. Widening the roads, lowering the speed limits and traffic lights are possible solutions. These recommendations should be made to ACHD. . 11122- We had expressed interest in having school placed on North end bordering our properties in the Rambo subdivision. This was expressed to both the School district and Mr. Howard. 12/15 and 1131- I received messages from Wendel Bigham concerning school placement in this subdivision. They are hoping to place school on the south side of the property. They are working with Volterra subdivision to utilize part of their property so the two pieces would share burden of the loss of development property. If this can't be worked out, we would still like the school being placed on the North end of the property because the school should be in place before any new construction begins. All schools in the area are already overcrowded or capped. This must be a strong consideration in your approval process. 2/2/06- I met with Mr. Howard concerning the latest plat of the subdivision. I again expressed my concern that the smaller lots butt against our properties. Mr. Howard told me that he did pass along our concerns to the developer, but the developer chose not to honor our request. We have yet to meet with the developer. I also learned that they plan to put up a 6 ft vinyl fence along the property line. This is not acceptable to the members of our subdivision. We are requesting a fenced, landscaped bem, as stated above. We are also requesting that the Keego developers make an attempt to blend our two subdivisions. This currently is not the case. We are asking that you respect our privacy and property rights while making your decision on this subdivision. ~ - ð- a if) ~ ~ ~ '..c;'. ¡: Q¡ cC~ c::; ....;::: c:;:, r....' "'CC+.< ,'~....¡ 'CO Ô I':;::) dJ,.!:I :as.. co .....,s ~ u": 00 u... ~~ "".... 00 r~ if. tf I~O' /,,)¡. -.2L. ", r, '1<" ~~ 13:1' .. ,.m......., ..--'"----'- . ,-,,-,"... .....",...., ."......-...., 1 "--...-.' ....-..-.... ' """"'-..-...- ' .. ........."", I' . "(¡'-." ¡i (Of is''' -..,' ,_:~:::~:::~:: ,-:: c:. :L: ..-.1_, ¡q .._,--_...... ............-..' ---. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 4 of 113 their right to testimony and so it's real important that we stick to that, because we could be here forever if we didn't. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell- 5910 North Black Cat Road: Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to start by opening up the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-057 -- excuse me. I'm going to make sure I have the right notes here. We had a revisal of our agenda. Okay. For AZ 05-058, PP 05-060 and -- that's it. These both pertain to Keego Springs Subdivision and start with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Keego Springs was originally on the December 15th, 2005, agenda and was continued to tonight's date to give the applicant some time to talk to the school district and work out some issues that the school district had. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat and annexation approval of 49.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 medium density residential zone for approval of -- as submitted 201 single-family homes and nine common lots. With some revised plans that you have in front of you tonight, that has been reduced by 22 build- able lots, to a total of I want to say 176, but that math doesn't sound right. I'm going to let the applicant address those exact numbers, but I do have here that they have reduced by 22 build-able lots from the initial plat submittal. The site is located just south of Chinden on Black Cat, adjacent to a couple of recent projects, one much more recent than the other. You will remember Volterra Subdivision recently came through on both the north side of Ustick and the south side of Ustick a little bit, a large subdivision. And, then, in 2000 -- either late 2004 or early 2005 Bainbridge Subdivision also came through, which is located in the northeast area of this section. The subdivision does have quite a bit of frontage along Black Cat Road. They have proposed one entrance to the subdivision from Black Cat Road and, then, some associated stubs to streets approved with Bainbridge Subdivision and I will also get into some other requirements there. Some of the conditions staff has placed on the subdivision in the staff report -- did have a concern about the -- and I will go to a blow up here. The design of the amenities for the neighborhood. They are centrally located within the subdivision. The submitted plat does have a gazebo and barbecue area, a tot lot, and a pool and clubhouse area. which are separated by the entrance road to the subdivision from Black Cat and, then, also another street within the subdivision. Under the preliminary plat analysis item one, we have -- actually, item two. I'm sorry. We have recommended that those amenities be assembled in one location, so the area -- so that neighborhood residents don't have to cross those local streets to use those amenities. I did speak with the applicant today and they have a little bit of concern with the way that my Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 5 of 113 condition there was worded and I do support their change. The idea being that equal square footage of land -- and staff's recommendation -- I will back up a bit. Sorry. Staff's recommendation was that those two areas to the north and south of that entrance road be moved to this area here to consolidate with the pool house and clubhouse. Their proposal is to move those areas as an equal area of land, you know, keep the square footages the same when they do move those lots there and replace them with build-able lots to here. The staff report mentions that eight lots would be moved. The applicant did indicate that it would only require the removing of seven lots that would actually be lost in this area here. And that would keep equal square footages from the initial submittal and staff is supportive of that. We just -- we would like to see those -- those assembled in that area where they don't have to cross those local streets to use them. In addition, the entrance road to the subdivision does create what we would label through lots, lots that have frontages on two parallel streets. We have also - - we have recommended a condition of approval that there be a landscape lot placed along Cascada Street I believe it's called. A ten-foot landscape strip which, essentially, prevents access to that street by the lots, which double front on these two streets here. That would maintain access from these lots to these internal loop roads and improve traffic circulation through here and also maintain the continuity of the landscaping through that area. The applicant has proposed -- I don't know if we have got a landscape plan here. It doesn't look like it. They have also proposed detached sidewalks and parkways with street trees. We are supportive of the design and the design does meet the standards set forth by ordinance in terms of width of the parkway and width of the sidewalk and was also approved by ACHD. The one comment there is that they will be limited to class two trees and I have included that as a condition of approval. The submitted plat -- and this came up in the ACHD report as well. The submitted plat does not show a stub street connection to an approved stub street within Volterra Subdivision. We would echo ACHD's comments and like to see that connection made. Some discussion we will get into about the school site it sounds like may move the location of that stub. So, I think the applicant will recommend that the wording of that condition be changed and be less so towards an exact location, as more to the idea that it will connect to that stub from Volterra where ever it does end up and we are supportive of that. I think that brings us to the school site, which is why the application was continued from its first hearing, so that the applicant could talk with the school district and address their concerns of having a school site located within the subdivision. The revised plat that is on the screen -- essentially what it does is it provides a portion of the school site that the school district would require. I see Mr. Bigham is here tonight and I will let him address that a little bit more and the talks going on there. The idea being that a portion of the desired elementary school would be located within the proposed Keego Springs Subdivision and a portion would be located within the approved Volterra Subdivision. Now, negotiations, as my understanding, are ongoing with Volterra in terms of configuration -- ultimate configuration of that school site and ultimate amounts of land of that school site. As a condition in the staff report, we did ask that that -- those negotiations be solidified prior to final plat approval. The idea being that it's not -- it doesn't accomplish what the school district needs to end up with half of a school site and I don't think it accomplishes what the city needs either. So, we need to find some sort of mechanism there to insure that that school site is -- is Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 6 of 113 sufficient for the school district. So, that was staff's way of handling that. I think with that I will end staff's comments and take any questions from the Commission. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Just clarification on some of your comments, so I can understand. First one on the landscape lot on Cassandra, the concern was vehicle access from those lots, is that what I understood? Wilson: It is. Yeah. Borup: Even though it's a divided, separated sidewalk with fence and landscaping along there already? Wilson: The divider certainly makes it an awkward area for vehicles to access, but as that is not -- ACHD did not classify that as a collector, so I believe there is nothing prohibiting a homeowner from accessing it without that landscape strip. Borup: That couldn't be a condition? Wilson: It could. Borup: Or maybe some extra landscaping in there -- you know, more trees or something? Wilson: Well, currently, any landscaping along there would be within the right of way. I don't know if we get any of that here from the blowup. There is not a common lot along that street. Borup: No. Right. I mean it does show landscaping on -- the landscape shows trees on the property line right now. Wilson: Yeah. It shows trees within the parkway, essentially, yeah. Borup: Right. Lined up with the -- I had some questions on -- probably never mind that. On the stub street. But Volterra and Bainbridge and the school site, how many acres was in Volterra Subdivision and Bainbridge both? Here we go. I see something from -- I'm not sure how many acres. Four hundred and twenty-nine lots in one and 728 in the other. So, maybe that partially answers that. Volterra was 728 lots. Bainbridge is 429. I mean -- right. But neither one of those -- either one of subdivisions have -- there is no school sites in there now and no city park or anything in either one of those -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 7 of 113 Wilson: There are no school sites proposed within those. I don't believe any city parks. And no city parks either. In terms of acreage, you can get kind of a rough figure if you go off of -- Borup: Well, yeah, I found a letter here that shows -- a letter to you that showed the lot count. Wilson: Okay. Borup: And it was 429 and 728, compared to, what, 176 here? So, then, as I understand it, you're talking about making the off-site -- the off-site negotiations between Volterra and the school district a condition on this subdivision? Is that what I understood? I wasn't -- I didn't know when we started requiring off-site performance condition on -- by others as a condition. Wilson: Conditioning it that way moves the application forward. You could not act on it until an agreement is reached. I mean it's -- Borup: Either way, that's requiring something by an off-site third party. Wilson: Correct. That's true. Borup: Okay. I just wanted to understand what -- what that was talking about. Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Baird: Before we move on, I wanted to correct the fact regarding the Bainbridge Subdivision. Although a park was not a condition of approval of that subdivision, the developer has been in negotiations with the parks department regarding the donation of a seven acre -- I believe it's seven acres. A neighborhood park site, essentially. So, it's highly likely that there will be a neighborhood park in the Bainbridge Sub. Public Neighborhood Park. Borup: Public. Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: I was just curious why a school site wasn't looked at earlier in this area. Rohm: I think we will probably -- Borup: Find out? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 8 of 113 Rohm: -- receive testimony to that effect later and it's a good question. Any other questions of staff before I ask the applicant to come forward? At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Campbell: In Boise they make you say your name and address, is that -- okay. I'm Todd Campbell. I reside at 2320 West Preston in Eagle, Idaho. I am the applicant, developer of the Keego Springs Subdivision, and we do have new site plans for you to review, showing the revision on the amenities being relocated. We are in agreement with that and we have had time to redraw those site plans. I'm going to take just a few minutes and just briefly introduce the project and, then, I'm going to defer all the technical questions to Jim Howard, our engineer, and any legal issues to Joann Butler, our legal representation. In developing the Keego Springs project, we believe that we are bringing a nice subdivision into the City of Meridian with amenities that are seen normally in more dense or higher acreage subdivisions. We are trying to include a pool for the neighborhood to use, some higher end landscaping in the entryway and throughout the subdivision, throughout the parkways with the detached sidewalks and the nice trees. Trying to create a -- kind of a boutique, if you will, style subdivision, an intimate feel than some of the -- like the grander projects that are going in around town, yet giving the homeowners within the subdivision a -- the same amenities that are in these bigger projects. We also feel that we are bringing various housing types to the project, alley loaded product, smaller lot product, as well as traditional Meridian size lots. We feel that we are compatible with the additional project that has been approved already, the Volterra and the Bainbridge Subdivisions, and we feel like this would be a good benefit to the City of Meridian. And if you have no questions, I'm going to defer now to Jim Howard and Joann Butler. Rohm: Before you step away, one of the things -- kind of -- a little bit off the subject, but to the point of your drawing that you have up there on the board. Campbell: Yes. Rohm: If you can provide that same rendition in either PDF format or a jpeg, so that we can incorporate that into our minutes, then, we don't need to retain that, but if you make that part of your presentation, then, we have to archive that as part of the testimony. So, it would be best if when you bring these projects forward if you could provide either a jpeg or a PDF format. Campbell: Okay. That is -- yeah. We can do that. You guys should have copies of the landscape plan already in your packages. This has just been slightly modified showing the school site. Nothing else has been changed on there other than that. But I will now defer to Jim Howard. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask Mr. Campbell two questions, if I may, and you may very well tell me that it's one of other people that needs to answer it, but -- okay, now we got a bunch of things. I can't tell from my drawing, but I thought one of the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 9 of 113 things that was up on the display indicated that from the school site -- is there a pathway going between those two properties? Campbell: On this side, no. There is a little connection over to the west. Zaremba: I see over there that it touches the road, but -- Campbell: Yes. No, there is not. Zaremba: Would you be amenable to the suggestion of putting one? And I will ask the same question to Mr. Bigham when he comes up here, whether the school district would even want one, but -- Campbell: We would do that. Zaremba: -- it would seem like some connectivity -- okay. Then, my other question is -- there is a letter from ITO, dated November 18th, asking you to provide them with a traffic impact study, I guess because of your proximity to Highway 20-26. That's probably the same study that you must have prepared for ACHO, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware that ITO has asked for that. Campbell: Okay. I was not aware of that. Zaremba: Okay. Campbell: We do have that already prepared. Dan Thompson, the engineer, did that traffic study. Zaremba: Okay. Just -- I can show you the letter if you need to know where to send it. Campbell: We will get her done. Zaremba: Okay. That was it. Campbell: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Howard: Good evening. My name is Jim Howard with J.J. Howard Engineering and our office is located here in Meridian, 1530 East Commercial, and I, again, will defer a lot of my time to perhaps legal counsel concerning the school site. I'm not very knowledgeable on that, so I think the follow up with be the best. But I do want to cover some areas that may come up during the hearing. We had a neighborhood meeting and I noticed that primarily the people that showed up were the people that live within Rambo Sub. I believe it's four or five lots to our north. They expressed concerns of the higher density lots abutting their -- I believe they are one to 1.3 acre tracts. I believe Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page10of113 there is at least one or two representatives that will be speaking this evening concerning that. And we looked at the -- we looked at that and we -- I talked to Todd a little bit about it. There will be a six foot vinyl fence that is placed there, a privacy fence, and as we look at -- perhaps a term they may use is maybe buffering or creating larger lots along the north here. I feel like that -- I'm not sure that that's needed, because there is some natural buffering going on. As I looked at aerial photos, their homes -- the full home sites, if you go from west to east along the northern boundary there is that natural buffering. The first home is set back 164 feet from our north boundary. The second one is 192 feet. The third one is 140. And the last one -- the most easterly one is 86. So, there is -- there is a bit of buffering for their home sites by virtue of the distance they placed their home from our north boundary. I appreciated their comments. I think we learned a lot from them. They are concerned about how that entire area is going to be developed. I have looked at that entire square mile and I have kind of a drawing or I have superimposed all the preliminary plats and it's going to be a busy area. Some of the things that I would like to point out that the staff has already talked about is we concur with the staff report a hundred percent. We don't have major issues. We recognize the need for a stub street to the south and we will work with ACHD and the city to determine where the best location of that is. It's going to be based on the outcome of the school situation and that sort of thing. So, we are prepared to place a stub street where it's most useful. We also concur that equal areas -- if we move those areas that are identified as the gazebo, tot lot, pool clubhouse area, if we move those and we agree -- or we are going to move them like the city has directed us, we will move those on the basis of area. Like to correct one thing. I, perhaps, when I prepared the drawing, I called it a clubhouse. It's more properly noted as really a dressing or changing room. So, it's not going to be a clubhouse per se. So, I want to make sure that's correct, that we don't mislead you. That covers the -- I think I covered the stub street to Volterra and I think that's primarily most of it. The changes that were noted by staff we agree with and I think they are reasonable. And that includes my presentation. So, I'll stand for questioning. Rohm: Thank you. Howard: Thank you. Butler: Good evening, Commissioners. Joanne Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant -- that's in Boise. Representing the applicant. And what I provided for you there -- and a copy to Josh Wilson, is a copy of Exhibit B, which are the. conditions of approval, with the few conditions that we have tabbed here for you, showing the changes that we would ask you to make in your conditions of approval. And very simply, I will go through those. The first one on page one, 1.2.6 just would be the change that represents the correct lot numbers due to the movement of the amenities from where the original plan shows them to where the staff had recommended they be. So, that's what 1.2.6 would represent. On the next page we deal with a couple of different things, the street stub and also the school district issue. And so I will address those just briefly. 1.2.11 or 11 deals with that stub street. We will deal with this in the appropriate way. However, the way it has been requested would Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 11 of 113 conflict with a couple of things. One would be the proposed school site and it would also conflict with the ACHD offset requirements. And I may have, from a technical perspective, maybe have Mr. Howard come back and explain that as well. But we see that that does conflict with ACHD's offset requirements. Also, somebody mentioned the idea of a pathway to the school. If this winds up being a school site, it was a condition of approval for Volterra that if a school site were placed in this area, that rather than a stub street, a path would be put in. So, it really -- I think that's one of those conditions that remains to be seen how it's handled in the future, if this will be a school site, maybe this becomes a pathway. 1.2.12 and .13 deals with the school site issues and you can see that we did a couple of things. We deleted the request that the staff had for three additional lots and we also deleted or made a change to the condition in connection with the school site. The proposal that we have had -- we have been meeting with the school district, one private developer with the school district, to discuss a proposed site and we have provided or shown a site, four acres. The school district is asking for a ten acre site in this vicinity. I appreciate the fact that somebody raised the issue of how large Volterra is, how large Bainbridge is, how large Keego is. We, in fact, have 15 percent of the residential lots in here, yet we are showing that we would assist the school district with a size of site of four acres or 40 percent of the site and we are willing to do this under a couple of different scenarios. Given that we are providing 40 percent of the site, then, an additional three lots we don't think is appropriate to ask of this particular developer in this particular site. So, we -- that's why we deleted 1.2.11. With regard to the other site -- and we do appreciate the fact that staff tried to find a way to address this issue, how do we get this addressed, and they were putting the burden on us to get the negotiation done with the private developer, although we want to ask that go back to the school district school. The district has been dealing with us and we have been willing to say we will put four acres up and we ask the school district to deal with the next door developer to try to gain those other six acres. And so we have changed this condition and we ask that you look at this. We have said that the condition would read as follows: That we will hold this site over the next 12 or 13 months, that we will hold this site until the school district is able to finalize its negotiations with the adjacent property owner. But if the school district is not able to obtain a reasonable amount of acreage from the person next door -- from the owner next door, then, we would come back to the city and ask for a re-plat along the lines of our original submittal. So, we are saying that we would hold this area for the school district for the next 12 months to the earlier date, either when utilities are available or 12 months from today's date. And we think that that's a reasonable position. It puts the negotiations back with the -- correctly with the school district and the developer next door. The other changes where you have tabs in here are also a repeat of the requirement for a stub street. Both the fire department and the ACHD had this issue of a location of a particular stub street, but that was before we started talking about this school site and the condition as it reads now would conflict with that school site and conflict with ACHD's offset requirements. So, I guess what we are saying is we would delete that for now, pending a determination as to whether or not a school site ever comes into -- into fruition with successful negotiations by the school district with the adjacent property owner. I would really appreciate any questions that the Commission has and I will try to explain more where we are headed with this. Also, let me just mention also with regard to the school Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 120f113 site, I think that the Commission is very much aware that there is a recent Supreme Court ruling that has directed the legislature to deal with the funding for schools and there are several bills that are pending in the legislature right now, possibly looking at impact fees for school districts, and we'd just like to get it on the record that if it should come to pass that -- for example, school districts are -- their capital improvements and their land are paid for, because due to impact fees, we would, obviously, not want to pay twice. If it comes to pass in the future that we have to pay -- in fact, we are more than happy to pay our fair share, but we would revisit that at the time of final plat. I think that's it. I think Mr. Howard's addressed the issue with the folks up to the north and the buffering that -- the automatic buffering by virtue of how far distant their homes are from this site. So, I think the school district is probably the biggest issue. Be happy to answer any questions. Rohm: My first question is -- I want to talk about that four acres just for a moment. If I understood you correctly, if the school district's not able to negotiate with the neighbors for the other six acres, then, is it your point that you wanted to have the opportunity to go ahead and develop those four acres into usable lots if, in fact, the other six acres couldn't be obtained by the district? Is that what your plan was? Butler: That's correct. If the district can't obtain a site large enough for a school in this area, then, we would want to -- it would just -- obviously, would be just sitting there and we would want the opportunity to come back to the city and along the lines of our original plan. Rohm: Okay. All right. I thought that that's what you said, but I wanted to just ask the question. That's alii had. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: In regards to the stub street to the south, as far as what you noted somewhat deleting it, are you requesting to delete the requirement for a stub street or just the location where you were anticipating it going? Butler: I think it's just location, really. It's really just the location and, then, also do we do a stub street or a pathway. Mae: I just want to make sure, because the other gentleman said they didn't have a problem with the stub street. Butler: Right. Right. Mae: As I read this, it's -- Butler: It's just the location. Correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page130f113 Moe: Okay. Butler: And maybe this is something that we need to workout with Ada County Highway District based on their offset requirements and the possible location of a school. Moe: I would anticipate that just as long as the wording within a motion reads that you were going to provide the stub street that's south into the Volterra Subdivision is what we would be looking for. That's it for me. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Butler: Thank you. Borup: I had the same question, so you took care of that. Butler: I will just reserve a few minutes for rebuttal if necessary. Thanks. Zaremba: I can't tell if Commissioner Borup is asking -- were you going to ask a question or -- Borup: No. I had the same-- Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Borup: I had the same question as -- Zaremba: I didn't hear that. I would just comment before we go on, on the impact fee, should it happen that there is a school district impact fee, my guess is that it would be crafted similar to the ACHD impact fee, where if a developer, in fact, builds a road and pays an impact fee, they can apply to get their impact fee back or some portion of it that goes along to what they spent or what they gave in right of way or something, and I would assume there would not be a double whammy somehow. Rohm: I suspect that would be the case. Moe: Mr. Chairman, could I just request -- would the applicant do me the favor and take your boards down from the ledge, so that we can kind of see the screen now? I'm getting confused every time I see it. Thank you very much. Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to have Wendell Bigham come up. Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho. Here representing Joint School District No.2. In no particular order, we appreciate the opportunity to work with Mr. Campbell to acquire a school site. This is by far the worst situation that I can think of for the school district to be in. I will explain how Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 14 of 113 we got to be where we are, as to why Bainbridge and Volterra arguably fell through the cracks. Where we stand today is Mr. Campbell representing Keego Springs has come forth with their architects and their engineers and we have worked on a site layout that's on approximately eight and a half to nine acres. Ten acres is our preferred site. We were trying to minimize the lot impact of both Volterra and to Bainbridge -- excuse me -- Keego Springs. Bainbridge really had nothing to contribute in a usable way. It was an odd piece of ground that really gave us difficult supervision area for the playground, so we terminated our discussions with them. We have a proposed layout. I have a little drawing here, but I don't see it. It just simply shows the school site. What's happening is the piece of property is none too wide given the size of our building, so I will speak to the first issue. The stub street. Right now in the absence of counsel, architect, or engineer, I'm all you have got for whatever your questions might be. The elementary school site, because it's on a small site, requires three curb cuts, primary parking lot area and, then, a bus loop in and out. So, our number of curb cuts and, then ACHD's distance limitation maybe make a pedestrian path more advantageous in terms of the number of curb cuts. As stated, we simply need to move forward with all due haste to bring Keego Springs, Volterra, and ACHD and the school district together to talk about that interconnection. The discussion as to whether or not there should be a pedestrian access into the school up in this area -- if you go back to the other drawing. This is a little out of scale. That building -- it's surrounded by parking lot and offset. We get a huge sea of parking around the front of it. The pedestrian -- can you flip back to the plat? Excellent. Pedestrian access here certainly works for these -- this area. We will be talking to Bainbridge to see if we can reinvent the wheel over here to get some pedestrian access in. If not, Bainbridge can access into here, whether or not pedestrian access should be in that vicinity or not. So, I'd like to talk to ACHD about the curb cuts, the offsets. Want me to finish up? Rohm: No. Borup: That's from the previous -- wasn't it? Rohm: Continue, please. Bigham: Thank you. We are in discussions with Volterra. We have -- we are not at the level that they have agreed to the indicated amount of property. Both parties we have not talked about price or purchase. However, the school district is desirous to proceed as soon as possible. If the condition went forward to City Council, that the school district needs to have the deal struck with Keego Springs on the acquisition of the site. We would agree to anything that brings the parties to the table quickly. We are working as fast as we can to bring Volterra to the table. We will find a way to get resolution of this. It ultimately will be a school site. In the absence of that, this square mile probably will be without an elementary school site, unless we move clear to the other side. So, to answer how things came to be the way they are, our last bond issue was in 2002. We ran out of bond money for site acquisition in early 2003. In early 2003 we started negotiations on this very piece of property with the previous land owner for the 50 acre parcel for a joint elementary and school site. We talked to them for over a year. We felt Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 15 of 113 we were in good stead to acquire that site. During that time period Bainbridge and Volterra came forward. In the name of cost effectiveness, the district is trying to look at consolidating schools into a campus so we get better utilization of the land that we have. After approval of Bainbridge and Volterra, our negotiations fell through and Mr. Campbell successfully purchased the property. Left us with a real dilemma. We still need an elementary school for this square mile. That's what triggered this whole thing was, hopefully, the ability to work with this development and Volterra. We are still left in a very large quandary for a middle school site in the area. We are rapidly approaching a severe overcapacity and we are looking like crazy for a middle school site in this area that's separate from this. We are also looking for a high school site. So, I think with that we are here through no fault of really anybody, but a series of circumstances. So, with that I would gladly stand and answer any questions that you have or -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm a little bit confused. This applicant, as I understand it, has four acres set aside for the school and you spoke earlier about eight and a half acres. Where is the other four and a half acres? Borup: Volterra. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, it's coming out of Volterra. Moe: Okay. Bigham: Do you want to put that magic little -- there is the southern boundary of Keego. This is the chunk from Volterra. This is my curb cut problem potentially there. A parking lot in here or a bus loop in here. So, there would arguably be four curb cuts in this vicinity and that's kind of the concern. And this is approximately four and a half -- 4.3 acres, something -- fourish acres out of Volterra. Moe: Thank you. Bigham: And this drawing was a planning drawing. The representation on the Keego Springs plat is much more accurate. Borup: Are you done? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any -- you said you're working on negotiation with Volterra. Is there an estimate on time frame? The applicant had mentioned one year. Is that more than reasonable from your view point or -- Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, the one year is more than we would want. We have multiple calls in and the individual representing Volterra as the negotiating contact has been out of town. We hope to meet with them immediately and, quite frankly, I'd like all this to be over in 30 days. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 160f113 Borup: Okay. Bigham: So, really don't need a year in the negotiation. Certainly hope -- well, we will know if it falls apart before then. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of this testimony? Zaremba: Thank you. Bigham: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. At this time I'd like to ask Don Brown if he would like to come forward, please. Brown: Don Brown. I live at 4595 West Rambling Court. Abut on the north end of the property that's to be discussed. And I am speaking on behalf of the homeowners of the Rambo Subdivision. We are missing a couple of us. Rohm: You're speaking for a group? Brown: Yes. Rohm: Could I see a show of hands for those to whom he is speaking? Okay. Brown: Yeah. We are a relatively small subdivision. There is only four properties that do abut. We have been there for a considerable amount of time and we do have rather large acreages, as Mr. Howard did explain. And we did have the initial meeting on 10/13, as you can see from my time line, and that was the topic of our concern, is that this is a very dense subdivision and we have rather large acreages and we would like to preserve our -- not only our property values, but our property rights. We have had very open spaces -- while he was discussing the setbacks we do have of our houses. We do also have animals and which we have got them on the back of the properties which would abut directly with this proposed subdivision. And at our initial meeting Mr. Howard recommended that we ask for the buffering. So, it's something that you did recommend early on. Excuse me. And, then, following the meeting we had with Howard, we had a neighborhood meeting, we discussed all these issues, and in the process of this as well, the topic of the school came up and from that I did go in and make my -- our wishes known from the property owners to Mr. Howard, that if the school was to go into the subdivision, that we would be more than open for the school to be on the north end of the property, so that we would actually butt up against the school property. And if that was not available to us, then, we would like things adjusted so that the larger properties were put adjacent to our properties to maintain a flow and not just give the appearance of a subdivision that's kind of crammed in there, which this is a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 17 of 113 very dense subdivision. So, what we came together as a neighborhood and discussed was that we would like a landscape berm in between the properties, possibly with a fence on top, just to allow us some safety wishes between the potential property owners of Keego and ourselves, just to create a little bit more of a buffer and just so we have some continuity. It seems like we have got a lot of subdivisions going in the area, which they are just utilizing the space that they have and putting as many houses as they possibly can cram into an individual parcel as they possibly can get. And in addition to the berm just landscape, we have got rather mature trees and whatnot in our area, so we are just trying to create a feel, so that the neighborhoods blend together rather than just something that's set apart. And since we have been a rural street, we are a dead end, it's a cul-de-sac, we have no sidewalks and we do have kids that play down at the end of this cul-de-sac and one of our concerns as well is you have got all these cuts going in there and what's to keep somebody from coming down to the end of our dead end street, finding it's a dead end street and, then, having to go back out the other end. It is marked now, which it hadn't been up until this year. So, we do have children playing down there. We also have a handicapped individual in a wheelchair that occasionally goes out into the cul-de-sac. So, we have got some safety issues that we are dealing with as well. And, then, the other concern, which the traffic counts were not addressed, but with Volterra they were -- they addressed a potential for 10,000 vehicle visits down the street. Black Cat has not been widened. There are no plans, to the best of my knowledge for Chinden to be widened. The speed along the road is 50 miles an hour on Black Cat. You're pulling onto 55 on Highway 20-26. You're putting in another entrance here, there is an entrance for Volterra, you have got a potential for a lot of accidents on the road. So, aside from us seeing any plans or -- I don't know if you're privy to information that hasn't been released -- I don't think there is anything coming that shows that these roads are going to be widened, so you have got a definite problem in that area. And, then, into November we did express this again to Mr. Howard about the school district. I, then, got on the phone and talked to Mr. Bigham about the issue and he informed me of the fact that they were trying to procure some extra property down to share with Volterra, just so there wouldn't be a burden on both property owners. So, today I did go in and I talked with Mr. Howard and he's kind of expressed what was going on with the subdivision and this is the first I had heard about the vinyl fence. That's not acceptable to us as property owners. It would esthetically not blend into the neighborhood out there. It would be just a nice vinyl fence. If we could work something out where we could landscape that buffer a little bit more and, as I said, maybe put the larger lots up on the north border, we would be perfectly amenable to that. As it stands right now, we are not opposed to the subdivision, but we are opposed to this current plat. And with the school situation as well, just backing up a little bit, if your passes are not able to get this through, I have two kids, one goes to Sawtooth, they are severely overcrowded, nearly capped. Hunter was capped the day it was open. If there is not a school in here, you have got 1,336 homes that will have been approved between the three subdivisions, you're going to have a real problem and so you need to hold off on this subdivision until something absolute is done with the school. And Volterra is not in any obligation, because they have already been approved through City Council, so they are off and running. So, this is the subdivision that's going to maybe take the burden of it and, if that's the case, we would be more than willing on Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 1 B of 113 putting a school on the north end. And so, essentially, what we are requesting is if that can be done, we would like a landscape berm with a fence and we would also like the opportunity to meet with the developer. Currently everything we have done has been proactively from our part meeting with the engineer. We have not yet met with the developer and he has not made an effort to meet with us individually. So, with that said, we hope you take this into consideration when you're making your decision. Is there any questions? Rohm: Any questions of this testimony? Thank you. Brown: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Margaret Pariko. And Joanne Bick? Oh, excuse me. It was Joanne Butler. Thank you. Let's see, is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application at this time? Okay. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward. Canning: Mrs. Butler, we can put the comp plan up larger and zoom in on the piece, if you'd like us to. You want that whole section? Butler: That would be great. Zaremba: The wonders of technology. While that's getting set up, Mr. Chairman, if I may? Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: I would ask the applicant one question that was left hanging in the staff report. It's on a staff report page eight and it's paragraph seven. Variance for block length and setbacks. The City Council, actually, is the one to which you have to apply for the variance, except that they asked us to clarify what you are requesting for front setbacks in your variance, so that staff has a heads up. Just include that in your discussion. Butler: I'm sorry, what was the -- for Mr. Howard, what section was that in the staff report? Zaremba: It's page eight, paragraph seven. Butler: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Variance for block length and setbacks and I guess the question from staff is can you be more specific? Butler: Okay. Thank you. Anna, thank you. Okay. Just wanted to focus in on this section and the school -- and I thank Mr. Bigham for addressing this issue and just to set a little bit of a stage for this particular location, as you can see close to the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 190f113 neighborhood commercial area you see the little symbol for the school, which is where the Comprehensive Plan promotes a school for this area and staff confirmed that the text for the Comprehensive Plan talks about probably the most appropriate place for a school is where you have mixed use, the neighborhood commercial areas, and so on. So, Keego Springs -- and if I might, because I don't have a pointer -- over in this area -- is a bit far from that neighborhood commercial area and from where the Comprehensive Plan would promote it with its text and with its symbol as a guidance, yet our particular property owner has stepped up to the plate and I was wrong when I said it was four acres, it's actually 4.9. So, that's about 60 percent of what the school district is saying it's looking for in about an 8.5 acre site. So, we have been more than happy to work with the school district and we are very glad to hear Mr. Bigham talk about the fact that they are working so diligently with Volterra for the remaining acreage, which, I guess, would underscore the change in the condition of approval that we have asked for to have the school district versus us as a private landowner next door to continue those negotiations. So, we are looking forward to that. I appreciate also that Mr. Bigham is saying that they would not need a year and so if I would -- although I have asked for January 2007, I would push that back to June 2006 as a little bit of incentive to get that finished, too. So, if the Commission would consider that. With regard to the area to the north -- I don't know if I can do this in a fashion that you can see the aerial photograph. I think if Mr. Howard can show this a little bit. What you had where the area -- this would be the area below, which would be the proposed Keego Springs and you can see in the Randall Acres we have some out buildings and so on. We have an equestrian area, and it looks like a corral along the area. It's -- obviously, there is -- if the neighbors truly did want to do a berm on their side of the ground for further berming or berm landscape, they could do that. I think that what you see here is a much great effect on Keego -- what will be Keego Springs than on Randall, that we have an equestrian area, out buildings, and so on right up close to -- close to the border on some of these boundaries and it probably is not appropriate to do more than the six foot privacy fence along that and I think that having just recently done that in another development, that has proven to be a very nice buffer for -- especially given what we see along the boundary. So, we would continue to suggest that that is the appropriate buffer for that area. Somebody mentioned -- and we are sorry that one of the neighbors was not able to meet with Mr. Campbell right at the neighbor meeting. There were neighborhood meetings held. I asked Mr. Campbell if he was there and he had had surgery the day before, which is why he couldn't attend. But I know that Mr. Howard has admirably carried through the details of the project with the neighbors. So, with that, unless there are other questions from the Commission, we would respectfully ask that you do recommend approval of this project with the minor changes to the conditions of approval that we have requested. Thank you. Rohm: Before you step away, they had also asked about the type of fencing that you propose here and I think your proposal calls for vinyl and -- Butler: Vinyl. Rohm: -- I'm not sure what alternative -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 20 of 113 Butler: Design? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Rohm: What your neighbors would have considered as an acceptable alternative, but -- Butler: From vinyl? Rohm: Yeah. From vinyl. Butler: I don't know and maybe they can speak to that. It sounded like they were saying berm plus fence and so I didn't get the impression that vinyl was unacceptable, I think they were asking for something greater than just -- Rohm: Just a berm in addition to the fence. Butler: Right. Rohm: Okay. Right. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Not a question of the applicant, but I thought I heard it a little differently. That's why I'm curious about -- I understood that they didn't want the vinyl fencing as well. They were looking for a different type of material. Butler: Well, possibly we need to clarify that, because I'm not sure. And also as I look at my notes, just so that the Commission is aware, a traffic analysis has been done showing the capacity of the roads is there, that was approved by ACHD. It originally was scheduled for staff level. They did it, actually, at the Commission level, so that occu rred . Rohm: Just so that we can get some clarity to this, I'd like to have the previous testimony -- would you come forward, please, and let's talk about that fence in a little bit more -- Brown: Just a point of clarification. Mr. Campbell never made an attempt to meet with us. Rohm: We are talking the fence -- Brown: Okay. The fence -- we didn't hear anything about the fence until I went in today. If I wouldn't have -- if I wouldn't have specifically asked about the fence, we would have not known anything until we got here tonight. Rohm: What my question is is what fence is acceptable? Brown: We would prefer a wood fence and we would prefer it to be landscaped better than -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 21 of 113 Rohm: Like a cedar fence? Brown: That would be fine. Rohm: Okay. I'm not obligating the applicant to that, but we need to know what alternative to a vinyl fence is acceptable. Brown: We hadn't been given any other options from the developer. Rohm: I think you have answered my question. Thank you. Borup: I think probably -- I mean the vinyl fence is usually -- not usually, it's a more expensive fence. It's the type of fence you usually have in the more expensive upscale subdivisions, so -- Rohm: Absolutely. And-- Borup: -- we assumed that that was -- Rohm: -- I'm not trying to obligate the applicant to anything, but for point of clarification, at least now there is some understanding of what the neighbors would view as more acceptable. Butler: Right. And I did talk with Mr. Campbell just briefly as you were discussing. Obviously, the vinyl is a much more expensive fence, it's -- we think it's a much better look in the area. Cedar -- I guess maintenance and so on, I don't know that that's -- I appreciate that they are asking for that. I don't know that they may appreciate the maintenance and whatnot that they will have to deal with because of that. So, I would suggest that the vinyl fence is a much better alternative for the neighbors. I do appreciate that they are asking for cedar, however. Rohm: Okay. Just -- thank you. Borup: How about color? That's an option. Rohm: Yeah. Maybe a vinyl fence with a beige, as opposed to the white, and, then, you get kind of a combination of the two. Something like that. Zaremba: For the record, the applicant is nodding his head -- Rohm: Thanks-- Zaremba: -- yes. Rohm: -- Commissioner Dave. Let's see. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 22 of 113 Mae: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just get a little bit more clarification, you know, in regard to the stub street. We talked about the walking path or a stub street to the south. I heard a little bit of conflicting information and I want to get clear in my mind just exactly - - I mean are we anticipating that we will require them to put a stub street to the south, we just don't know location as of yet, or are we looking to review that in light of the school district's testimony in regards to possibly just a walking path in lieu of the stub street? Borup: Good question. Mae: Is that kind of where this is? Borup: Well, that's what I understood -- Moe: Okay. Borup: -- that the applicant said, yes, they'd do a stub street. The school district is not saying -- I'm not sure of a stub street is called for-- Mae: Okay. That's-- Borup: -- because of the school located there. Moe: Okay. Borup: And I don't think they -- we didn't have any testimony on how the road connection is between Bainbridge and Volterra. Rohm: I think that the thing that's kind of unsettling to me is -- is this school site is a major issue associated with the development of this total square mile and it seems to me that it's in the best interest of the community as a whole to insure that we have a school site within this square mile and it sounds like the school district is making great strides to procure the offsite ground to end up with an acreage that's large enough to develop an elementary school that is beneficial to all parties concerned and so along those lines if the 30 days is something that the school district thinks that they can bring this to fruition, it seems to me that it might be in everybody's best interest to rather than approve this based upon an assumption that everything is going to come together in 30 days for the school district, it seems to me that maybe the right answer is to let's give the school district that 30 days to come up with the solution and, then, bring us back and continue it until the district has an opportunity to obtain it. That seems something that would be reasonable, but that's just my thoughts. And I'm more than willing to have the applicant come forward and speak to that. Borup: I have got a question, too, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 23 of 113 Rohm: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Borup. Borup: And she can still come forward while -- Rohm: Okay. Borup: If the school district does not reach an agreement, then, what would you foresee happening then? Rohm: I hadn't thought that far ahead. Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the existence of the school in this location has an impact on where a stub street's going to go to the neighboring properties, where pathways would go, so there are some issues that -- beyond just whether there is a school or not, that we continue to hang, and I support your idea of perhaps continuing this. I think we should get it all out now, as much as we can, but continuing it until there is a resolution or an apparent resolution, even if it's not all signed and finished, that we know what direction it's going to go. Rohm: That's kind of where I'm leaning, but I'm certainly more than willing to let the applicant speak -- Butler: Commissioners, we have deferred this a couple of times. I have to say that I pointed out the Comprehensive Plan and the location of the school and the guidance that the Comprehensive Plan provides you to show you that the Comprehensive Plan guides you away from this particular property. It guides you towards property that has not yet developed at the edge of where I think Bainbridge is still the owner or the owner of Bainbridge still has school -- or has property available. And I know that the school district has said -- or Mr. Bigham has said that they are working solely with Volterra, but I'm pointing that out only because I'm saying that our client has worked diligently to put up before the city -- to do more -- honestly, more than their fair share to get this accomplished and we are glad that the school district is working diligently towards getting this done, but I think that if we take this off the table and defer it more, it takes away the incentive to get that done. Although we are willing to work very diligently with the school district, we think we have really done a great deal towards getting this done by stepping up to the plate and we think if this is -- I guess if the pressure isn't on, then, maybe it doesn't happen. And since we don't think that it's really our client's -- totally our client's issue, especially when the pupil population is about 15 percent of all of the pupil population in this square mile, that we do look to the Commission to help guide the school district to make those negotiations happen as quickly as possible and I think with you recommending this up to the Commission, obviously -- or to the Council, obviously, the school district, by the time they get to the Council, may have already gotten this done and, hopefully, they will have and maybe the Commission could encourage the school district to work hard to make that happen before we do get to the Council. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 24 of 113 Zaremba: While you're still there, I need to ask a question of staff. The subject I raised, page eight, paragraph seven, about the variance and being more specific, do you need to know that information tonight? It appears you were asking for us to get that information. Butler: We would like to know that information, but it's really essential for the variance application when it reaches Council. It does affect the subdivision as a whole, so -- Zaremba: I guess the question, then, is will you be able to supply those details at some time? Howard: We'd like to withdraw that variance. Zaremba: Okay. Howard: I stand corrected. Zaremba: Belay that statement. Howard: Yes. Excuse me. The block length is what we'd like to withdraw and the rest of it can probably stand. Zaremba: Okay. So, the setbacks are off the table, then? Howard: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Howard: I'm sorry. Zaremba: Is staff comfortable with that answer? Wilson: Let me clarify a little bit. The block length header on that discussion point in the staff report is a little bit misleading. The applicant references a block length variance on the face of their plat. They do not need a block length variance and they did not pay for a block length variance. They paid for a single variance for -- to front setbacks. So, that is the variance that's the application they have submitted. So, if they are wishing to withdraw that, then, that's the only variance. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: I'm not sure where to go from there. 1-- Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that I sympathize with the applicant's desire to move this along and get it done, but I still kind of lean towards what Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2. 2006 Page 25 of 113 you expressed and what I commented on, that there are elements that need to be rethought, depending on whether the school property is there or not. If we were to continue it for one month and, then, promise that we will make the decision that night whether the school's settled or not, we at least would know how much closer the school is going to be. Rohm: That's the direction that I lean as well and, you know, just to emphasize that the school district needs to make every effort to get that resolved in the next 30 days, is in -- in the best interest of the community as a whole. That's as I see it as well. Commissioner Borup, do you have some concluding thoughts on this? Borup: Well, I definitely agree on the necessity of the school site. I mean after Mr. Bigham's testimony I understand why this happened. I was real confused why something wasn't done on some of the earlier ones. It appears that they were anticipating that they had that locked up. One of the things I was wondering is how much vacant land in the rest of this square mile. That I don't think we had any testimony on. But the real question I have is what do we gain by waiting? Is it the location of the stub street, location of the walking path, or is there something else we are concerned about? Rohm: Well, I think it's those things as well. Borup: What are the concerns, I guess is what all I'm trying to figure out. Rohm: From my perspective I think that the opportunity of procurement of additional acreage for the school site is enhanced by not acting tonight, rather than -- Borup: Additional from this application or from Volterra? Rohm: From Volterra. That's my personal opinion, but that's -- that's just my opinion. And, then, it may not be by anybody else. I think that if we were to put this off for the 30 days, it would, obviously, give the school district the 30 days that they thought that they could get this completed in and, then, we would be able to move this forward as a completed project to City Council without any hang -- anything hanging -- any hang-ups. So, that's just from my perspective. So, that's -- Borup: And that's probably the only concern I have is maybe not having a final detailed plat and so maybe the determination is how substantial of a change that would be with the stub street. From what I saw -- I didn't even see Volterra had a stub street to this property. Josh, is there -- the only thing I saw of Volterra was the one from the school district and I didn't see a stub street on that plat. Wilson: Volterra does have an approved stub street to this property and it lines up with the middle of that alley right now. Borup: Okay. It looked like that was open area or something. That wasn't -- all right. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 26 of 113 Wilson: It didn't show that stub street that -- Borup: That's going to -- Wilson: Right. On the approved Volterra plat there is -- Borup: Okay. Wilson: -- a stub street there. Borup: Okay. And at that location. All right. I don't think we heard that before, did we? Wilson: In the condition in our staff report and ACHD's staff report, the location that is specifically mentioned is 330 feet -- Borup: 330 feet. Wilson: -- that is right there at that alley. Rohm: Kind of changing the subject for just a moment, but the conditions of approval as amended by the applicant's submittal, has staff had a chance to take a look at their changes and do you have any comments on those? Wilson: I do. The 1.2.6 that refers to the amenities, staff does not have an issue with that. 1.2.11 in regards to the stub street, instead of deleting that, we would like to see some kind of reference to connecting to a stub street from Volterra. I think the location is what -- and if a stub street does, indeed, end up happening, if Volterra is reconfigured such that they do not stub to this property, then, we would support that. But if there is a stub street we would like to see it connected and I think that's, really, the important part of that. So, I wouldn't like to see it completely deleted, would like to see that just modified to reflect that. In regards to the school site and how that goes down, I think that's up to the Commission if you feel comfortable moving -- acting on it or not, with the reduced time frame that the applicant did agree to, if you feel like that is in the best interest of the city, in effect. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: I think the other part of that was -- or did you address 1.2.12 on the additional lots? Rohm: I guess that one's up for discussion. Why that was in there is that if that stub street remained at the center of that alley, you have one residential lot between a street and the school site, you end up with this guy right here, and that's pretty awkward, so that's what -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 27 of 113 Borup: Is that what that was based on -- Wilson: Yes. Borup: -- the stub street would go there? Well, that makes sense and I was just looking at the -- and the other were these two, it looks like you were talking about. Wilson: It seemed to make more sense to square off the school site, instead of having also these homes that kind of awkwardly set out within the school site. Borup: But it didn't appear to me that it really affected the siting of the building or affected anything that the school needed. Wilson: I don't think so. It-- Borup: At least -- I mean we don't have a fina/layout, but -- Wilson: Right. It's hard to say without a final school layout. Rohm: Thank you. Well, I think we have pretty well thoroughly discussed this and at this point I'd be interested in hearing a motion either to continue or to move this project forward. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Let's see if it flies. I move that we continue AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060 to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd for the purpose of revisiting the school site and the implications of it either being there or not being there. Rohm: We have a motion. Moe Well, I'll second that. Rohm: And a second. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed same sign. Borup: Aye. Rohm: And I voted with the affirmative, so this -- Zaremba: Three to one you're saying? Rohm: Three to one. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 28 of 113 Zaremba: Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And so this will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd, 2006, and for the sole purpose of discussion of the school site and the associated stub streets and pathway. Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, yeah, I think it would help if we -- and a preliminary plat showing the stub street and how that would affect the school site and such would be helpful. Rohm: Yes, it would. Thank you. Due to the length of that application discussion, we typically wait until 9:00 o'clock to take a break, but we are going to take a short break right now for about ten minutes. So, we are adjourned until 20 minutes until 9:00. (Recess.) Item 6: Item 7: Item 8: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: AZ.. 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi- family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from January 5, 2006: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Rohm: Okay. I'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February 2nd, 2006, and begin with opening the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-052. All of these relating to Bienville Square Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Bienville Square Subdivision is an annexation. This portion up here. The annexation is for this CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET March 2, 2006 ITEM # 4,5 DATE PROJECT NUMBER AZ 05-058, PP 05-060 PROJECT NAME Keego Springs Subdivision NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL P P 05-060 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Todd Campbell February 2, 2006 ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 15,2005 - Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision - 5910 North Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See Previous Item Packet / Minutes in AZ Packet CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Staff Comments in Al Packet CITY BUILDING DEPT: X\~~ tcf ~ ~ ~ '\ 1;-t CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Memo from Kurt Reliford and REVISED Plats Contacted: 5~d- C ~p:U ,. Date: ~ 1 _Phone: Jl11 ~ Emailed: ~taff Initials: ~.. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ':0<- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing Hearing Date: 2/2/2006 ,,-: ! ) ,~ ' I",,' ,\\)i:;-\~.{~ ct{(/17tiICrJl '" I; 1,>,t'I':' ,,' TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning & Zoning Commission Josh Wilson, Associate City Planner Keego Springs Subdivision RE C E IVED. :::~:: and Zoning of 4995 acres from RUT to R-8 zone JAN 2 7 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Todd Campbell, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 49.95 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 (MeØium-Density Residential) and Preliminary Plat approval of 201 single family residential lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres. The site is located east of N. Black Cat Road, and south of Chinden Road (SH 20/26). This site currently contains a rural residence. Note: The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat dated January 24, 2006 which eliminates 22 buildable lots and adds a future school site. Please see the letter from Kurt Reliford dated January 26, 2006 for a more detailed narrative of the changes to the plat. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION . PP-05-060 Preliminary Plat of 20 1 single family building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone Staff recommends approval of AZ-05-058 and PP-05-060 for Keego Springs Subdivision as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Recommend Approval (All Applications) I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Numbers AZ-O5-058 and PP-05-060 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006, and the preliminary plat dated January 24, 2006 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Recommend Denial (All Applications) I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Numbers AZ-05-058 and PP-05-060 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006, and the preliminary plat dated January 24, 2006 for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial). Continue (All Applications) I move to continue the public hearing for File Numbers AZ-05-058 and PP-05-060 to (date certain). 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: Keego Springs Subdivision AZ-OS-OS8, PP-OS.060 PAGE I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 East of Black Cat Road, and south of Chin den Road (SH 20/26)1 5910 N. Black Cat Rd Wl/2, Section 27, T4N Rl W b. Owners: Todd Campbell P.O. Box 140298 Boise, Idaho 83714 c. Applicant: Todd Campbell P.O. Box 140298 Boise, Idaho 83714 d. Representative: Kurt Reliford, JJ Howard Engineers e. Present Zoning: RUT f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date ofPrelinlinary Plat (attached as Exhibit AI): January 24,2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached as Exhibit AZ): September 6, 2005 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions ofUDC 11-5B-3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions ofUDC 11-6B-2, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: November 28 and December 12, 2005 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: November 18, 2005 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 5,2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant agricultural land and rural residences b. Description of Character of SUlTOunding Area: The area is presently mostly agricultural land with rural residences, however the recent approvals of Bainbridge Subdivision to the east and Volteaa Subdivision to the south will drastically change the character ofthe area to that of a residential neighborhood. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Existing rural residences in Rambo Subdivision, zoned RUT (Ada County). 2. East: Approved Bainbridge Subdivision, zoned R-8. 3. South: Approved Volterra Subdivision, zoned R-4. 4. West: Agricultural land and rural residences in Compton's Subdivision, zoned RUT Keego Springs Subdivision AZ.OS.OS8, PP-OS.060 PAGE 2 ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAPF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 (Ada County). d. History of Previous Actions: None. e. Existing Constraints and OppOliunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: The site is cUlTently not sewerable, it is in the "North Black Cat shed" design is cuaently undelWay but service will not be available until at least early 2008. Location of water: This site cutTently has no water service readily available. Public Works is cuaently in the decision making process to decide if water will be extended with the sewer or if it will be development driven. Issues or concerns: Public Works concerns revolve around the lack of services cuaently available, however there is a timeline for them and other developments in this section have been approved with the same conditions. 2. Vegetation: Existing mature trees 3. Flood plaiu: NA 4. CanalslDitches Irrigation: McMillan lateral 5. Hazards: None known. 6. Proposed Zoning: R-8 7. Size of Property: 49.95 acres f. Subdivision Plat Infonnation 1. Residential Lots: 176 2. Non-residential Lots: 1 3. Total Building Lots: 177 4. Common Lots: 9 5. Other Lots: NIA 6. Total Lots: 186 7. Open Lots: 9 8. Residential Area: 49.95 acres 9. Gross Density: 3.53 units per acre (4.69 net density) g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): 35 feet on Black Cat Road. Street buffers are 110t required on any internal, local streets. 2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: NIA 3. Percentage of site as open space: 3.03 acres/6.04% 4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micro-paths should comply with UDC 11-3B-12. Common open space lots should include at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (ODC 11-3G-3E2). Keego Springs Subdivision AZ-OS.058, PP.OS.060 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 h. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Setbacks: per the R-8 zone for detached single family R -8 Standard Front (Living area) Front (Garage) Side 15 feet 20 feet Rear 4 feet 12 feet Max. Building Height Min. Lot Size 35 feet 5,000 square feet 4,000 square feet 50 feet Min. Lot Size (Alleys) Min. Street Frontage Min. Street Frontage (Alleys) 40 feet i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the development will be from N. Black Cat Road to Cascada Street and from proposed extensions of Oceano Drive and Corazon Street. Staff recommends that the applicant should be required to connect to the approved stub from VolteITa Subdivision to the south. Please see ACHD report and analysis below for details. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 30, 2005 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain between three and eight dwellings per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The proposed Preliminary Plat includes 176 single-family lots on 49.95 acres for a gross density of 3.53 dwelling units/acre. Staff finds that the overall density is within the range of a medium density project. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): . Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 - Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: . Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. . The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. . The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Ojjìce. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). Keego Springs Subdivision AZ.05-058, PP-O5-060 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 . The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This senlice will not change. The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Lihrmy District. This service will not change and the Meridian Librmy District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. . . Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department; Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. . Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6 - Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The submitted preliminary plat proposes to extend two stub streetsfrom Bainbridge Subdivision (Oceano Drive and Corazon Street) and staff has recommended that the applicant be required to connect to the stub streetþ.om Volterra Subdivision to the south, which is in compliance with the conditions of approvalfrom ACHD. . Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj ective A, Action 13 - Review new development for appropliate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments. See analysis above. . Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The applicant has proposed one curb cut on N Black Cat Road for Cascada Street, which was approved by ACHD and is supported by staff. . Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 - Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. The applicant is proposing a residential zone. Staff finds that the proposed single-family residential properties to the south and east, and the existing residential properties to the north will be compatible with the proposed development. . Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 10 - Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, and high-density single family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. The subject application includes a request for the R-8 zone. Bainbridge Subdivision to the east obtained R-8 zoning and Volterra Subdivision to the south obtained R-4 zoning. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation contributes to the variety of residential zoning categories in this area and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site. Keego Springs Subdivision AZ.05-058, PP.05.060 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERlDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARlNG DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 Staff believes that the proposed density (3.53 d.u./acre) and zoning (R-8) for this property is appropriate. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2A-2 lists single family detached homes as a Permitted Use in the R-8 zone. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation ANNEXATION ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this. is a good location for the proposed single family development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (prepared on September 15, 2005 by James Howard, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill Nary, at 888-4433 to initiate this process within 18 months of City Council approval of the annexation request. The DA shall incorporate the following: . All future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. . All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. . The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. . Any existing domestic wells andlor septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. . Prior to issuance of any building pennit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. . Prior to submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall provide documentation that the negotiations with Volteaa Subdivision for the other portion of the school site have been finalized and that Joint School District No.2 approves of the configuration provided. Keego Springs Subdivision AZ-OS.OS8, PP.OS.060 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed townhouse residential products. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. 1. Landscape Lot along Cascada Street: The building lots along Cascada Street at the entrance to the subdivision in Blocks 1 and 10 are what the Unified Development Code defines as "through lots," meaning they have frontage on two parallel streets. While City Code does not specifically prohibit tbxough lots, staff does discourage their use to prevent traffic interference and control access to internal roadways. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat should be revised to place a 10-foot wide landscape lot, to be owned by the Homeowner's Association, along both sides of Cas cad a Street to the intersection of Invierno Avenue. This will prevent direct lot access to Cascada Street and ensure safe and efficient vehicular access on the subdivision access road. 2. Amenities: The applicant has pxoposed three separate community amenities near the center of the development: a barbeque area, a tot lot, and a swimming pool with a clubhouse. The proposed amenities are located at the terminus of Cascada Street and are all separated by public streets. While staff supports the central location of the amenities, we find that the potential danger from pedestrians crossing the entrance road into the subdivision that could carry over 1,000 vehicle trips per day outweighs the benefits. Staff recommends that the amenities should be consolidated in one location to prevent pedestrians crossing public streets as neighborhood residents use the facilities. The relocation would not result in a loss of buildable lots, as the tot lot and barbeque area could be moved adjacent to the pool area and the eight home sites that this would displace could be moved to the former location ofthe tot lot and barbeque area. 3. Parkways: The applicant has proposed a 34-foot street section with 5~foot detached sidewalks separated from the roadway by an 8-foot parkway strip which contains street trees. Staff is supportive of this design, with the restriction that the tree species are limited to Class II trees per UDC 11-3A-17 and that the portion ofthe detached sidewalk which lies outside of the right-of~way be contained in an easement to benefit the Ada County Highway District. Setbacks will be measured from the back edge of the sidewalk. 4. Stub Streets: Per the ACHD report, the preliminary plat shall be revised to show a public street connection to the stub street approved with VoltelTa Subdivision which lies approximately 330 feet east of Black Cat Road. Staff is supportive of the two other stub street connections shown, Corazon Avenue and Oceano Drive. 5. School Site: In response to concerns expressed by the Joint School District No.2, the applicant has revised their proposal to include a school site which wi11lie partly within the proposed subdivision, and partly within the previously approved Volterra Subdivision. Staff is supportive of this configuration with the following change: The preliminary plat should be modified to eliminate the building lots shown as Lots 19, 21, and 22, Block 10, and include the land in the proposed school site. Prior to submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall provide documentation that the negotiations with Volterra Subdivision for the other portion of the school site have been finalized and that Joint School District No.2 approves of the configuration provided. The school site will require conditional use approval prior to construction and is not approved with the subject applications. Keego Springs Subdivision AZ.05-058, PP.05.060 PAGE? CITY OF MERlDlAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 6. Alleys: The proposed subdivision has building lots with access to proposed alleys. Staff is suppOliive of the design and the proposed lots and alleys meet the dimensional requirements ofthe Unified Development Code, and the alleys were approved by ACHD. 7. Variance for Block Length and Setbacks: The applicant has submitted a Variance application for reductions to the front setbacks. The applicant has not stated what they are requesting for front setbacks; the applicant shall address the front setbacks at the public hearing and submit revised infonnation which clarifies the variance request prior to being scheduled for a City Council hearing. 8. Pressure IITÜ!ation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized inigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas plior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with DDC 11-3A~15 and MCC 9~1-28. 9. Fencing: The applicant has submitted a detailed fencing plan (on the landscape plan dated September 8, 2005) with the preliminary plat application for the subdivision. The applicant has proposed perimeter fencing along Black Cat Road and Cascada Street. Any perimeter fencing must be completed prior to issuance of building permits. All fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 10. Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Keego Springs Home Owners' Association. 11. Ditches. Laterals. and Canals: Per UDC 11- 3A-6 all iITigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural watelWays and watelWays being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of AZ-05-058 and PP-05-060 for Keego Springs Subdivision as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit D and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B as attached to this report. Staff has prepared findings consistent with this recommendation. 11. EXHffiITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 24,2006) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: September 8, 2005) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department Kecgo Springs Subdivision AZ-05.058, PP.05.060 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIUNG DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Keego Springs Subdivision AZ.OS~OS8, PP.OS.OGO PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 24, 2006) N. BLACK CAT ROAD ::~~'='~-;-J::::~=:;"';~'~' ,.,~-;-;:- ,.~?,Z~~,-~,::",',,='::;c"'::':""'""::~ ~ H ä L,_- ,...... .00"""0 ".'Nao.... "."'"...,,'" I: """"0. ."N..,DO. "."O,.ISION ! g -+--'" ~ J , "I I i I I I j I ' ,\ ",'" , í ! i T4tl{~III Q~liP ~Ð~1~j :i : +',::1 I'~+ r I,ifi Ii'! ,~ II II I II r Ii 'p q Jill' H P R PI &.11 ì ¡ S III I J IIi ~ 3 ~ ~ t .It ¡ f i r J!n~ i ig¡ !Im~ 1M n Ii ~I; i.~~ I: I .1.= -. "'. - æõ;i I: I~ I..I 'H. "I" 'f'; ;i ri r-rr;-r~~:::~~~ . ~ " , "III '" !- t -~--,-l;- , .: , ;,:" ': ',J .?H'f'p'j'l"J E ~Tš".1 ","~"': -, : : - :\":,:" ¡",' ~¡Ii i i I Ii I ¡~I ¡ I !I i'/ ¡¡¡¡ill ¡¡~j¡ i! / ¡ : : l ¡i;¡ II ,;¡;¡! ,lfrta.. 1 ---""'-",'-,:-'.."------_.,------ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT POR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated: September 8, 2005) 'q"""," .. ',,"',., --"-"'" .. '" ,."'0'," ,., ,~.... ,. ,...", ",.. --------""'-'-" -----,--~ ~------, ------"--'-- ...., ,. - 'IS N jlliilff! "! ' Ii 'hi ~¡ , ' () 'I 1t' f ¡ I:~ il ¡ ~ II , l--'i';~¡" "r~!~tf: :'; I.' ¡ ~-:: oL. oi/' , L ;0 , .1 m /,I.!I' ,,-,:1 ~I~Y! TI~{~ ;;jl"l'h A"I "U'j !'i 1'1' z III !.- t" I ¡ II G) I ;,'. Ii' ¡I': ill, Ii 1.1 n! f ¡i I ¡i~ I; Ii, ! " "¡ , !!II II I 'l "! 'I' I II: "1 J ',1 II .~ I ' E .. ì WI~1kWiIHiwm~i¡lm¡III~"~I~íl¡nffil ~ ! ! 111/lll/IIIII/:fi!!/¡!I!l {JI¡I/JiIJiil mlml"¡ ! ! 111111 !I'/'lllhl/i!! "hf:II;¡'!! î!1 ! !¡. 0 ':1 i II !II I ¡ ¡! ¡ !I/I,llr Jlll,ii ¡II!!! /I: j HI, , I ....!¡ ,II /IIi:!'!,! !" ;I b 1::1 II~ ¡ :1 ! 'I 'I j , j '¡ ¡" 0 - ,d" I t.o J ' '" .. i ¡! ; II ¡ ,¡!IIi;; ,j-; ¡ ,!llii J,i i Ij¡ i !¡HI ¡g/i/!W'lí+I¡JI¡I!II¡.rf'!!I '¡Iii !flltI,i!!¡d/;;¡!:¡¡:::,:~ mY \ ¥î 111!i I-i. ~~ wi I. J 1'.. " 'I ~ ~¡, " /,~~~- ~ W:, II ::¡ lIJii'!I}jt¡;li! 0< "If>;' J. .1 ., JG5 5 ", ,~ ij II ¡ n ;¡~ "', ii' " : ,':-' "",:,,'¡."'~';:' "':':,"':. ',.,i.;.,;:,:.,:.,: I:;:,¡ l ~{¡:i!ifi' j!'I:iIH('~\1 ,')',("..~Jli:",:(,J'i 11-,/;:;:I/il:<1 l=,',Lë',__""--,-,_,",L~";_:".',,II'J,,..1"""":i -"""-'-','"",'1,'11'" " ':;¡i\;::~~:i>!/ "-"""""[" """-"""'-"""'--""-------"""-"""""""'" ,]""", ' -,' .", " "'-""'--""---"--"'--"""""-"'--'""'----"':"""':"'-"'---"'-""""'-~ """,,_.._-_._-'::':~:,--,,- Exhibit A 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNJNG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 ANNEXATION COMMENTS 1.2 1.2.1 Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill Nary. at 888-4433 to initiate this process within 18 months of City Council apProval of the annexation request. The DA shall incOlþorate the following: . All future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. . All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. . The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. . Any existing domestic wells andlor septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City 'of Meridian. Wells may be used for non~domestic pUrposes such as landscape irrigation. . Prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. . Prior to submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall provide documentation that the negotiations with Volterra Subdivision for the other portion of the school site have been finalized and that Joint School District No.2 approves of the configuration provided. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat prepared by JJ Howard Engineering, dated January 24, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All commentslconditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ~05-058) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP- 05-060). Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Keego Springs Subdivision Homeowners' Association. The preliminary plat shall be modified to reflect the conditions contained in this report and 10 copies shall be submitted no later than 10 days prior to the City Council hearing on the applications. The landscape plan shall be modified to reflect the conditions contained in this report and the revised preliminary plat and shall be submitted with the final plat application. The preliminary plat shall be revised to place a lO-foot wide landscape lot, to be owned by the Homeowner's Association, along both sides of Cascada Street to the intersection of Invierno Avenue. The preliminary plat shall be revised to eliminate Lot 28, Block 10 and Lot 4, Block 4, and include the square footages of these lots in a revised Lot 14, Block 7. Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Block 7, shall be relocated in the location formerly occupied by Lot 28, Block 10 and Lot 4, Block 4. This will consolidate all neighborhood amenities (tot lot, barbeque area, and pool) in one location to prevent pedestrians crossing public streets as neighborhood residents use the facilities, and result in no loss of buildable lots. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 1.2.7 1.2.8 Per tIDC 11-3A-17, the 8-foot parkways shall be restricted to Class n tree species. That portion of the detached sidewalk which lies outside of the right-of-way shall be contained in an easement which dedicates pedestrian cross-acess and is in favor of the Ada County Highway District, and said easement shall be depicted on the final plat or an instrument munber referenced in a plat note. Street setbacks shaH be measured from the back edge of sidewalk per UDC 11-2A-6. There shall be a 20-foot by 20-foot parking pad provided on all alley loaded lots between the garage and the alley edge per UDC ll-3C-6. The preliminary plat shall be revised to show a public street connection to the stub street approved with Volterra Subdivision which lies approximately 330 feet east of Black Cat Road. The preliminary plat should be modified to eliminate the building lots shown as Lots 19,21, and 22, Block 10, and include the land in the proposed school site, shown as Lot 20, Block 10. Prior to submittal of the flllal plat, the applicant shall provide documentation that the negotiations with Volterra Subdivision for the other portion of the school site have been finalized and that Joint School District No.2 approves of the configuration provided. Fencing on all lots adjacent to interior common open space lots shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7. The applicant has submitted a detailed fencing plan (on the landscape plan dated September 8, 2005) with the preliminary plat application for the subdivision. The applicant has proposed perimeter fencing along Black Cat Road and Cascada Street. Any perimeter fencing must be completed prior to issuance of building permits. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11~3A-7. 1.2.9 1.2.10 1.2.11 1.2.12 1.2.13 1.2.14 1.2.15 1.2.16 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11- 3B. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by staff. Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 1.2.17 1.2.18 1.3 1.3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.2 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized ilTigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.3.3 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application. The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. If pem1anent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of-way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.6 All iaigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of the Ten Mile Stub Drain, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11- 3A-6, unless otherwise approved by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Plans will need to be approved by the. appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or tenus of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B- 7. 1.3.7 2.1 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1.3.8 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Exhibit B A majority of this development is not cun-ent1y serviceable by the City of Melidian' s sewer system. This area is master planned to drain to the yet to be built "North Black Cat Lift Station". The "North Black Lift Station" is under design at this time, however it will not be allowed to be activated until the upgrades to the treatment plant are completed, projected completion date is early 2008. If this development is approved, it shall be subject to the North Black Cat sewer system being available. At such time as the development is sewerable the applicant shall install mains to and through this proposed development; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub- grade is less than three feet than altemate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. No "interim" or "temporary" sewer lift stations shall be allowed. Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of future mains in Black Cat Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public waterlsewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard [onus. Submit an 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFP REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 2.6 executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. The applicant has not indicated who wilI own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part ofthe construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase ofthis project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre-construction meeting. 2.7 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized inigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (ODC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point cOlll1ection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Add a note that states which lots are to be common lots and addresses ownership and maintenance of said lots. Additional width to the public utilities, drainage and inigation easement along the right-of way shall be dedicated where the sidewalk is located past the right-of-way. The additional width needs to be sufficient to allow for 10 feet of "free and clear" easement past the sidewalk. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% wilI be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized inigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting -< 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIUNG DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 that may be required by the Anny Corps of Engineers. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Compaction test resuhs shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Depaliment for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations al'e set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above. One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are detennined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and pennit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. One and two family dwellings will require a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hour~ to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500 feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix C. 2. Acceptance of the water supply for fIfe protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing pennits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above firush grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements ofthe IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 5. All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of28' inside and 48' outside radius. 6. Provide a 20-foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section DI03.6 Signs. 7. Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 8. To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. The two entrances should be separated by no less than Y2 the diagonal measurement of the full development. The applicant shall provide a stub street to the property to the south. 9. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 10. The proposed 176-10t subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 51 0 residents at build out. 11. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient Exhibit B ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARJNG DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of tins installation is to be bome by the developer. 12. Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex plioI' to occupancy. 13. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fIre apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where requiTed by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R- 3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 ill). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 14. Emergency response routes and fIre lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps. 15. Pool chemicals shall be stored in compliance with the International Fire Code. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. The proposed plat and/or site design encourages high-speed, cut-through traffic. The applicant shall work with the Ada County Highway District to provide traffic calming design to decrease travel speeds on Inviemo Avenue. 2. The pedestrian access to the proposed cIubhouselcommunity entrance is not well-defined. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that uses walkway paving materials and landscaping to alert motorists to the pedestrian traffic. 3. Any interior fencing adjacent to common lots shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. No comments received. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 1. No comments received. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Site Specific Conditions of Apvroval 1. The applicant shall do one of the following: a. Dedicate by donation a total of 48-feet of right-of-way along Black Cat Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Black Cat Road, located a minimum of 41 ~feet from the centerline of the right-of-way. b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5~foot wide concrete sidewalk along Black Cat Road, located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the right-of- way, in an easement provided to the District. c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5~foot wide concrete sidewalk along Black Cat Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and utilities. Exhibit B 12. 13. 14. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 2. Construct Cascada Street to intersect Black Cat Road approximately 800-feet north of the south property line, as proposed. 3. Construct the internal streets as 34-foot street sections with rolled curb, gutter and 5-foot sidewalks that are detached by an 8-foot landscape strip within 50-feet of right-of-way. Provide the District with an easement for the sidewalk that is proposed to be located within an easement outside of the right-of-way. Provide the District with Fire Departmental approval to construct the reduced street section. 4. Extend Oceano Drive from the east property line approximately 630-feet north ofthe south property line, as proposed. 5. Construct Corazon Street as a stub street to the east property line approximately 100-feet south of the north property line, as proposed. Install a sign at the tenninus of the roadway that states, "this roadway will be extended in the future." 6. Shift the proposed stub street that is proposed to be located approximately 480-feet east of Black Cat Road approximately 140-feet to the west to match the stub street that was previously approved with Volterra Subdivision. 7. Construct two 20-foot wide alleys located between Corriente Street and Oceano Street and Azul Street and Corazon Street, as proposed. Dedicate 20.feet of right-of-way for the alley and pave the right-of-way its entire width. An access to an alley shall be located a minimum of 25~feet from the nearest public street. 8. Construct a center island within Cascada Street, as proposed. Construct the island to be a minimum of 4- feet wide with a minimum area of 100-square feet and maintain a minimum of a 21-foot street section on either side of the island. 9. Any proposed landscape islandslmedians within the public right.of-way dedicated by this plat are required to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this will be required on the final plat. 10. Comply with the District's Interim Tree Planting Policy. 11. Construct a left hand turn lane on Black Cat Road at the intersection of Cascada Street. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. Construct a right hand turn lane on Black Cat Road at the intersection of Cascada Street. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff. Other than the access point that has specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to Black Cat Road is prohibited. A note stating this access restriction will be required on the final plat. Standard Conditions of Almroval Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 1. Exhibit B Any existing inigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited :fÌ"om being located within any ACHD roadway or right-ofvway. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction ofthe proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 6. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7. 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 ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 8. 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. 9. Construction, use and property development shall be in confonnance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 10. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 11. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 12. No change in the tenns 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. 13. Any change by the applicant in the planned use ofthe 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 subj ect property unless a waiverlvariance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 C. Legal Description ,,>,,~'- , EXHIBIT A ,,1,""-,. PROPERTY DESCRiPTION FOR KEEGO SPRINGS A parcel orland lying in the W1/2 NWI!4 of Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 1 Wes1, Boise Meridian, Ada Collnty, Idaho, said parcel being morc particularly described as [01l0ws: Commencing at a point marking the WII4 Corner of said Section 27, said poillt also being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N,OO° 1.0 '43" W. 1649,32 feet along the west line of the said NWII4 of Section 27 to 11 point; Thence S.89°58'27"E. 1324,] 7 feet to a point lying on the cast line of the said W1I2 NWI/4 of Section 27; Thence S.OooI2'35"E. 1648.50 feet along the said east fine o[the W1I2 NWI/4 of Section '27 to II point marking the WI/ 16 Comer of said Section 27; Thence 8,89°59'25"W, J 325.06 feet along the south fine of the said NWJ/4 of Section 27 to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains 49.95 acres, more or less. and is subject to aU existing easements and right-or-ways of record or implied. ¡ ""~" ~\"'I'~" Ley;': >1""""rt,.,,-, "~;I'!):'h'"" d ": Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 --.-..------...,-.,.-.-,- I I "! I I .- I i i I RAMBO ! IW~RN,.,J~Û",~~~ _..~BDMSrON ---.." ---"""-'-"---.-.. -- -"', =~,,~J ,,' SUBJECT~ suæ~N :~ -- . .- :'",,'-'; N -'--""'--'---"----"'--'---"'" _.._---.__..,,_.~-~- POINT OF" BEGINNING W 1/4 CORNER SEC~ON 27 T 4- N, R 1 W. 8.M. ADA COUNTY ~ " -- ',~'h'- ~""~~;~~~::::::':;r.'~~._-_.~..~:.._~:~::.:~~~:~._~.'._.:=j.- ------~----_:_:::~: SCALE It, rEEl Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Annexation Findings: 5. Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation andlor rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone al1 of the subject property to R-8. Staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds that single family detached residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of R.8 as a Principally Pennitted Use. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land will be developed with lot sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that conform to the proposed zoning designation. The map amendment shall Dot be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; 3. 4. Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when detennining this finding. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E). The R-8 zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions in the near vicinity. Staff finds that al1 essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that Annexation and Zoninl! of this property to R-8 would be in the best interest of the City. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. Exhibit D The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Staff finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 Comprehensive Plan. Staff generally SUppOlis the proposed plat layout and proposed density as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; 3. Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings for more details.) The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; 4. Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; 4. Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., police, fire, ACIID, etc.) to detennine this finding. (See finding "Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail.) The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. 5. Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staffis unaware. Exhibit D Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 4 of 26 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I am working on putting the finishing touches on the staff report now, so we can put it on the 5th if you're comfortable with that. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Commissioners, I would entertain a motion to continue Items 18 and 19 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 5th, 2006. Rohm: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you second? Newton-Huckabay: I did. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. So, we will hear Ambercreek on January 5th, 2006. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, at what point will that come into the agenda? Zaremba: We have draft agendas for that and there will be a final one done. I don't know. We have, generally, been leaving it up to the clerk to when they provide a new agenda. Mae: Okay. Zaremba: I'm certain we will have it three or four days before. Mae: Okay. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Zaremba: All right. Next I would like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060, both relating to Keego Springs and, again, invite the applicant to discuss the continuation date. This is being continued because they need to settle some things with the school district and also ACHD. And if the applicant is not here, then, I would beg our professional staff's opinion of when they think the applicant might be ready. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 5 of 26 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I believe the applicant submitted a letter requesting continuance to the end of January, 26th or 28th or something like that. You do not have a meeting on that date, so seeings how January 5 and January 19 are pretty full, the first meeting in February -- I think it's the 4th -- is probably the best date to continue these items to. Zaremba: Any objection to that? Sounds good to me. Okay. Entertain a motion to move Items 20 and -- to continue Items 20 and 21 to our first meeting in February. I kind of thought that was the 2nd, but let me -- we don't have a calendar that goes into next year, but whatever the date is the first Thursday in February. Moe: So moved. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Item 5: Item 6: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 142.19 acres from RUT to R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 51O building lots and 26 other lots on 102.2 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs South Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 151 building lots and 14 other lots on 39.87 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs North Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: CUP 05-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 631 single-family detached and attached residential dwelling units and approximately 149,084 square feet of office / commercial buildings, with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF IDAHO I, DEC 2 2 ,2005 GITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFF,r:r= Mike Arnold. Premier Sions, Inc, 2100 E. FaÎIYiew Avenue. Sulte 7 855-0380 (name) (address) (phone) ) ) § . ) RECEIVED COUNTY OF ADA Meridian (city) Idaho (state) , being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and say: I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public hearing for the Annexation and Zoninç¡ of 49.95 acres from RUT to 13-8 zone anç! Prelimina Plat approval of 201 bUildi~nd 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in proposed R-Q zone for Keeao Sprinç¡s Subdivision. Dated this 20th. day of December , 2005 /~./ (. " ~-. " ~~J '---=:._~ . nature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to "re me the day and year first above written. /é' -- \\\1"""'", [/:' ,,"," ---"." i ,\"\" fll!o':"', h>-¿C:::' / ? I- ¿{A:.1 k.e ' .." ~... "V".L~ " " ...."..() """"11"'."" 7~_"~ Notary P"bl.'c for Idaho :::: -s:r"."~ 1Ah"',."'P ~ ~ a;2 II "J ~ as i"'O .... i\ ~ Residing at -f?/17 iC~/o ..-¿-<. -:~ ,...-;.... = ~~ = = ~ \ A ~ J § My Commission Expires: -?-. ¿g., {) 7 ~ \" 'lJB\,; "",- 0 .: ", " .~ , " ")0, '"""..""""", ~. ,,' " fA ny' , "" "'e Of ~v ",' '" ,\' """11""" Master\affid'posting 1 ,,-,,-_. '--""---""'-___m..'___",--_._~,-_._-~--,-_..__._.~~_.._~ . ----"--""---'-"--"',- RE C E ¡VET) q :'(: '1 ì ')0' Or, ~ 1:..,. l, -- I.. .:J GrrV OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK nr::p("'c JoAnn C. Butler Lauren Maiers Reynoldson MIchael T. Spink (208) 38&-3868 sga ø /va n@&b-altaI1l8YS.com r,¡~~ ..:"-""'~':..;:;...-..~'~~~"'12:22 ID:SPINK BUTLER, LLP FAX=208 388 100~o, 506, ,.. '. , 'I :(j:" City ûl McridÍ<n¡ Cify O...rJe OfficI" Peœmber 15, 2005 ViR FllCsimik Josh Wilson, Planner City of Meridùm PlamUng &: Zoning - 660 B. Watertower Lane, SmUt 202 Meridian.. ID 83642 HE: I<eego Springs Subdivision 58 Füe No. 21952.5 Dear Josh: As we ~ jn our telephone conversation on MOnday, December 12., it appears that the School District neglected to submit conunents on the impact of additional 5tudents from Bainbridge and Volterra 8ubdiVisiom to swrounding schools. Although we Wlderstand these conunenrs are not mandatory. it does appear that the failure of the School Dßtrict to COIlUI\1UÙQte the impacts of these large developments to the City is 'tU1usuaJ. Perhaps this was an oversight that should be corrected. As I<eego Springs gon lanYard into the entft1emen.t process. we ask that the Oty obtain letters frOnt the School DUtdct regarding the reJaUve impaets of Bainbridge SubdJv1sJon (an immediately adJacent development of 429lÔ11g1e-family residences wIUch was approved by tit< City on April 5, 2005), and Voltemo Subdivision (another immediately .djacont development of 728 residences, approved on November 9. 2005). so that the Oty may discern the relative iInpacts of each de\l'e1°pm£nt on the School Disbict's resourCe!. êS1 E. F1IIoNTS"tRE~ SUITe: .200 p.o. ao:.:: 6.39 ElQlzl:;. ~o S3?OI ~ .õ!O~-3e.a-1OOO 2oa-saa-'IaO1 CF1 -.se-A~CCt-I - ~ ----- DEC 15 '05 15:22 PAr,F VI? P. 2~E r-Hl.2 2/ 3 ~ r .....'- ..;,;.....,.;¡. :::"-2,.1..:;" "~"12:22 ID:SPINK BUTLER, LLP FAX:208 388 lOOpo. JO6? P. 3 I-'1-Il;;E 3/ 3 Josh W11soßt Planner City of Meridian Planning & Zotùng December 15, 2005 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call JIta. Thank you f~ YOlIf attention to this Ì8!Ue. Sincerely, Sho.ll. ð11 (JalL¡ " '- Sharon Gallivan ParaJagal c: Todd Campbell (via e--11Illil) DEe 15 '05 15:22 PClr.i= IT" --v~ ~.~"'" ~ No. 306~ P. 1 660 E. Watet1ower Lane, Suite 202 Meridian, 10 83642 Phone: (208)884-5533 Fax: (208)888-6854 CITY OF MERIDIAN Planning Department To: C £":IE p.. t::. J Fax: ßßIð - ~I e from: Josh Wilson Date: 1'2.-['$ .°5 Phone: ~~GS 0 Urgent 0 For Review Pages: 3 (mcJuding cover) Cc: 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please RecyçJe -Comments ~ A-T~ L~T~ :fÐ~ ~I LE-. ~ DEC 15 '05 15;22 PAr,¡:: 1/11 w J.J. Howard Engineers Janumy 26, 2006 Mr. Josh Wilson Meridian City Planning and Zoning 660 E. Watertower Way, Suite 202 Meridian. ID 83642 Re: Keego Springs Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Wilson, The following is a brief summary of the revisions made to the aforementioned preliminary plat: The plat was revised to acconunodate a portion ofan elementary school site at the request of the Meridian Joint School District. As a result this has modified the right-of-way, open space and residential areas to create a loss of 22 residential lots, thus the gross density has been reduced from 3.98 dwelling units per acre to 3.53 dwelling units per acre. The net density has been reduced from 6.08 dwelling units per acre to 4.69 dwelling units per acre and a slight increase in allowable open space from 6.00% to 6.04 percent. No change in zoning fÌ'Om the original application is requested or required. SNA'I KID1 Reliford, $ Manager Cc; Todd Campbell 1530 Co.Dlem.. Ave. Suite 109, Meridian, Idaho 83642. (208) 846-8937. Fax (208) 846-8822 Preplat Summary Notice.doc / ,-....., ~ /' un oelf .,~. '-./VL erldiãfi""-1; -\, V - IDAHO ~ -:;~ f ~"C\,,- .' . lil".III" Tf<E \SC;K"V \I-'-lC' !lNCE To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by 1903 the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your comments and recommendtions to the City of Meridian MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joseph W. Borton Charles M- Rountree Shaull. Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS City Attorney/HR 703 Main Street 898.5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HI\) Fax 884~8723 Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234/ fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888~3579 I fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533 / fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678/ fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500/ fax 895-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211 I fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2'L91 I fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.w. 8th Street 888-5242 I fax 884-1159 TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN Attn: Planning Department, by: ASAP Transmittal Date: January 30, 2006 Hearing Date: February 2, 2006 Request: REVISED Preliminary Plat for Keego Springs Subdivision FileNo.: PP 05.060 By: Todd Campbell location of Property or Project: 5910 North Black Cat Road Meridian School District (No FP) Meridian Post OffiCe(FP/Pp only) - Ada County Highway District - Ada County Development Services Central District Health - Nampa Meridian Irrig. District - Settlers Irrig. District Idaho Power CO. (FP,PP,GUP) - Qwest (FP/PP only) _Intermountain Gas (FP/PP only) Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PP only) _Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP) - Ada County Ass. land Records - Meridian Development Corp. Historical Preservation Comm. Your Concise Remarks: CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK- FAX 888-4218 fiNANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled p"per - David Zaremba (no FP) - David Moe (no FP) - Wendy Newton-Huckabay (No FP) - Michael Rohm (No FP) - Keith Borup (No FP) - Tammy de Weerd, Mayor - Charlie Rountree, CIC Christine Donnell, CIC Keith Bird, CIC Shaun Wardle, CIC - Water Department - Sewer Department - Sanitary Services (No VAR, VAG. FP) - Building Department - Fire Department - Police Department - City Attorney - City Engineer - City Planner - Parks Department Transmittal Josh Wi/son - Meridian City Planning and Zoning To: From: Kurt Reliford cc: File 1/2712006 Keego Springs Subdivision Date: Re: J.J. Howard Enaineers - lAve Suite 109 1530 E. CommerCia ., Meridian 1083642 Phone: 208.846-8937 Fax: 208.846-8822 . E.mail: k.urtr@fiberplpe.net Jœh. d . of the Preliminary Plat as you requeste . Attached are 30 caples . d additional infonnatlon. Please call if you have any questions or nee Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 4 of 26 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I am working on putting the finishing touches on the staff report now, so we can put it on the 5th if you're comfortable with that. . Zaremba: Okay. All right. Commissioners, I would entertain a motion to continue Items 18 and 19 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 5th, 2006. Rohm: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you second? Newton-Huckabay: I did. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. So, we will hear Ambercreek on January 5th, 2006. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, at what point will that come into the agenda? Zaremba: We have draft agendas for that and there will be a final one done. don't know. We have, generally, been leaving it up to the clerk to when they provide a new agenda. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I'm certain we will have it three or four days before. Mae: Okay. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Zaremba: All right. Next I would like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060, both relating to Keego Springs and, again, invite the applicant to discuss the continuation date. This is being continued because they need to settle some things with the school district and also ACHD. And if the applicant is not here, then, I would beg our professional staff's opinion of when they think the applicant might be ready. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 5 of 26 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I believe the applicant submitted a letter requesting continuance to the end of January, 26th or 28th or something like that. You do not have a meeting on that date, so seeings how January 5 and January 19 are pretty full, the first meeting in February -- I think it's the 4th -- is probably the best date to continue these items to. Zaremba: Any objection to that? Sounds good to me. Okay. Entertain a motion to move Items 20 and -- to continue Items 20 and 21 to our first meeting in February. I kind of thought that was the 2nd, but let me -- we don't have a calendar that goes into next year, but whatever the date is the first Thursday in February. Moe: So moved. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Item 5: Item 6: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05~044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 142.19 acres from RUT to R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 510 building lots and 26 other Jots on 102.2 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs South Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 151 building lots and 14 other lots on 39.87 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs North Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: CUP 05-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 631 single-family detached and attached residential dwelling units and approximately 149,084 square feet of office / commercîal buildings, with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF IDAHO ) ) § . ) RECEIVED COUNTY OF ADA I, Mike Arnold Premier Si ns Inc 2100 E. Fairview Avenue Suite 7 855-0380 (name) (address) (phone) Meridian Idaho , being first duly SWorn upon (city) (state) oath, depose and say: DEC 2 2 2005 GJTY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFr:/(~F I personally posted the subject property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public hearing for the Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to .B:§. zone and Prelimina Plat approval of 201 buildin,.. lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in proposed R..:§ zone fQr..Keego SprLngs Subdivis{Qß Dated this 20th. day of December ,2005 ~. /", ./ ( /, -~A;uI - - ature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to \\"....""" .;,.;,\\\\ .. Flti"", ".;,^~ """",..... ~"'" ..'.!!.v '1>" ,~,., -:. , ;s- .' ".. ::: os $" 0 . I"';'" -:. ::: f~ ,..~-:. ~ f: ( ) ~ ~ \. l.JB\.~./ 0 § -:;. ""'" """, ~~ ,,' , d'.. """"".." ..;.v, ", ,~ """y' " """ -'1'/: Of \V \\\' 'I, \ \ \ I¡¡lillill" re me the day and year first above written. /; .' --- l< . "~I-'" .' tt/¿c'-' z -- k--c.1 £. Notary P b'c for Idaho Residing at /J? -r:' /71 ch"rJ:' ....-l-( .J My Commission Expires: -?~ ;?(f/ () 7 / Master\affid-posting 1 ------"-'-~------~"- .._"._----------""---_." RECEIVED- Df::C: Z :22005 ~TY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK ()!=1=ï('-r r .L~~ ..:"'-'---':':~ ~t.' ~ ~:""'l2:22 ID:SPINK BUTLER, LLP FAX=208 388 lOO~o, 3065 P. 2'E r'M\;¡ 2/ 3 , ;' ,.:;¡, JaAnn C. Butler Lauren Maiers Reynoldson Mlotlael T. Spink (208) 388-3868 sgal M¡ n @ ~ Itomeys.com Clt¥ ûf Meridi.H. City Clerk Offin> December 151 2005 ViR FtlCfÍmik Josh Wilson, Planner aty of MeridWt Plannmg &£ Zoning 660 B. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 Meridian. ID 83642 BE: I<eego Springs Subdivision SB File No. 21952.5 Dear Josh: As we d:i.saassed in oW' telephone conversation on Monday, December 12, it appears that the School District neglected to submit c::oll'Ul\ents on the impact of additional students from Bainbridge and Volterra subdivisions to swrounding schooJs. Although we W1derstand these COmments are not D1andatDry, it does appear that the failure of the School District to communic:ïtte the impacts 01 these large developments to the at}' is ~usual. Perhaps this was an oversight that should be corrected. As J<eego Springs goes forward into the entitlement process, we ask that the Oty obtain letters from the School DJstrict regarding the relative impacts of Bainbridge SubdJv1aton (an immediately adjacent development of 429 Bing)e--family residenca w!ùcñ was approved by the City On April 51 2005), and Vo.1te¡n Subdivision (another immediately adjacent development of 728 residences, approved on November 9, 2005), so that the City may cUsce:m the relative impactS of each development on the School District's resources. a E:. FIfIoNTs:mE~ SUiTit ~oo p.o. aD": 63E1 eCII~C. '~Q S3?O1 ~ 20a~a.a~1OOO 2oa...sea-1OO1 (F) WWW.sa-A~CQo, ~ ----- DEC 15 '05 15:22 PArol=" IA::> '-""'" "".....,..:¡- :"2-...:;" "~"'12:22 ID:SPINK BUTLER, LLP FA><:20S 388 lOO! 0, 3065 P ~ , J r'HlìE 3/ 3 Josh WIlson, Planner City 01 Meridian P1aMing & ZoNng December 15, 2005 Page 2 If you have any questioN regarding this request. please do not hesitate to call IN!. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Sincerely, Shall (J11 (J,cJ.L¡ V ~ Sharon Gallivan Paral8ga1 c; Todd Campbell (via e--mIlil) DEe 15 '05 15:22 PQr..i= VI, . . -, ~ v v"' i. . "' , , '" No. 3065 P. 1 660 S. Watettower lane, Suite 202 Meridian. 10 83642 Phone: (208)884-5533 Fax: (208)888-6854 CITY OF MERIDIAN Planning Department To: C ~& ¡¿~ 5 Fax: ßøe - 4'z,1 fS From: Josh Wilson Phone: Date: (2 . l4$ . °5 ~~,s Pages: 3 (Including cover) Cc: 0 Urgl!nt 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recyde -Comments ~ A-T~ L~(~ ~'- ~f LE-. ~ DEC 15 '05 15:22 PClr..1= Dl1 PP 05-060 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 15, 2005 APPLICANT Todd Campbell ITEM NO. 21 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision - 5910 North Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See attached Memo for Continuance CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: Gnf¡I7~ PIP 'iö ¿)-d. - 06 5--0 CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: No comment MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: See attached comments ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached comments No comment SETTLERS'IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: See attached comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter by Todd Campbell/Letter by ITD/Letter by Roger Williams Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commission ..1,,_; From: Josh WIlson, Associate City Planne~../"'~- CC: Kurt Reliford, JJ Howard Engineers;- file Date; December 6, 2005 , , -", ", - í: "1, "', ",! "~'" "I -.1 ;1 Rec Keego Springs SubdMsÎon !, i'~': I,~: j i "j ,¡ - " ,"',' - "" - , Planning and Zoning Commission Members, In a letter dated November 15, 2005, Wendell Bigham, the Building and Construction Manager for Joint School District No.2, stated that the District is desirous to site an elementary school on the property being considered. In the letter, Mr. Bigham requested that the City of Meridian table the public hearing for Keego Springs Subdivision until such time that the applicant makes an effort to review and address the District's concerns. In addition, the Ada County Highway District has not completed their review of the application due to a delay in receiving the Traffic Impact Study for the development. Staff recommends that the Keeao Sprinas Subdivision (AZ-05-058 and PP-05-060) hearinas on the December 15. 2005 Plannina and Zonina Commission aaenda should be continued to the next available public hearina which the applicant feels will aive them sufficient time to address the concerns of Joint School District No.2 and complete the ACHD review process. Thank you, Josh Wilson Associate City Planner Joint School District No.2 911 Meridian Road. Meridian, Idaho 83642 . (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888-6700 SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Linda Clark November 15, 2005 City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower Lane Meridian, ill 83642 Dear Planners: The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district are operating over capacity. Approval of the Keego Springs Subdivision will have an impact on school enrolhnents at Ponderosa Elementary. Sawtooth Middle and Eagle High School. We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house sixty-two (62) elementary aged children, fifty-six (56) middle school aged children, and forty-three (43) senior high aged students. Additional students will further compound the current overcrowded situation. Residents cannot be assured of attending the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary to bus students to other schools across the district. The school district is desirous to site an elementary school in this location. To date we have not been contacted by either the developer of their engineer regarding the associated school district concerns. At this time we request that Meridian City table this application until such time that we have had the opportunity to review our concerns with the developer. School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500. Sincerely, ~~ W endel Bigh~.....c----- Building & Construction Manager æ CENTRAL CENTRAL D I STR I CT HEALTH DE PARTM E NT ~B~ðLI~ Environmental Health Division tP () ç-~- C) <=.0 l< ('-) P'~-3 t'J 'ðf'll' f-(L~ ~ (;;u L Return to: 0 Boise 0 Eagle 0 Garden City )8J:Meridian 0 Kuna DACZ 0 Star Rezone # Conditional Use # Preliminary / Final/Short Plat AI Z () ç-=- () \.ç ~. 0 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal. 0 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. 0 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. 0 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. 05. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: 0 high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics 0 or bedrock from original grade 0 other 0 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters andlor surface waters. 0 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. ~ After wrì;':~;oval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for ral sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well 0 interim sewage ~tral water 0 individual sewage 0 individual water ~ The following plants) must be submitted fo and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & We ifa,e , ~ Division of Environmental Quality: ~tral sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water 0 sewage dry lines ~ral water þ: Run.off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 0 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. 0 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. 0 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: 0 food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas 0 beverage establishment - 0 grocery store 0 child care center 0 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations 015. Date: ILl / J7 ð-. ç - Reviewed By: ~ -- ¿¿~ ,,'?'" 15726-001EHO904 Review Sheet SETTLERS' IRRI.GATION DISTRICT ..COpy' PO BOX 757 PHONE 344-247] BOISE. IDAHO 83707-157 FAX 343-1642 .' , , ., " November 16, 2005 Kurt Reliford J.J. Howard Engineers 1530 E. Commercial Avenue, Suite 109 Meridian, ID 83642 - -c---'-~-=-~'--'---Re:---P-P-e-5~ûúû--fu:ego~ngs'<Subdtvisìon. -----'--=------"----'------- - -- -~- ------ ------- ---- --------"---~ Dear Mr, Reliford: After review ofthe Final Plat of the above-mentioned applications Settlers Irrigation District requests the following: 1. All irrigation/drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facilities involved are: (1) The McMullen Lateral that requires a total 30' easement and access road. (3) The Rambo Lateral that requires a 20' easement. Contact SID for additional requirements. 2. A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 3. A license agreelllent MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any SID facilities, or within its easements. 4. . Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, water delivery"tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District's Board of Directors. 5. . All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 6. The development must supply pressure irrigation access to all lots within the above- mentioned subdivision from the current delivery point. If the developer wishes to have SID own, operate, and maintain the pressure irrigation system an agreement must be in place prior to the pre-construction meeting. If you have any questions please call 343-5271. Enclosures Cc: City of Meridian Planning Department (w/o enclosures) Scott Campbell (w/o enclosures) Todd Campbell Construction Inc. P.O. Box 140298 Boise, Idaho 83714 Ph: (208)-941-8607 Fax: (208)-336-0783 December 8, 2005 City of Meridian Development Services Josh Wilson 660 E Watertower, Suite 150 Meridian, Idaho 83642 ~ ,t ¡;-; ,~: , ' ':':liJ"~,'" ¡ ,~,;~ -; I;; ;. i\;:' ! ;,,!,,: Re: Application number AZO5-058/PPO5-060 : ç,- -"" '," (', 'c"""' '-"',-- Dear Josh After discussions with Andrea at Ada County Highway District she suggested that we may want to ask for a deferral on the above referenced application. Andrea stated that ACHD is backlogged on their review of traffic studies and that she would not be able to send the application onto the ACHD commission until the review was done. She said this would be done in January. Also, because of ongoing negotiations with the Joint School District #2 for a potential school site in the proposed Keego Springs neighborhood we will be slightly modifying the plat of the subdivision. We kindly request that our hearing with the Planning and Zoning commission be deferred from December 15, 2005 until January 26,2006. Please respond at your earliest convenience, so that we can make adjustments to our sign that was posted for the hearing. Sincerely, Todd Campbell TRANSPORTATION BOARD Charles Winder Chaliman John X. Combo I1ce Chairman District 6 John McHugh District 1 Bruce Sweeney District 2 Monte McClure District 3 Gary Blick District 4 Neil Miller District 5 David Ekern, P.E. Director Sue Higgins 8oard Secretary IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 8028 Boise, 10 83714.8028 (208) 334-8300 itd.idaho.gov November 18, 2005 City of Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 Meridian, 1083642 Re: ANNEX I REZONE I PRE PLAT Location: 5910 N. Black Cat Road Route: US Highway 20/26 Name: Todd Campbell (Applicant) Case: AZ 05-058; PP 05-060 d ,,';, -, Dear Zoning Administrator: The Idaho Transportation Department (lTD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above referenced application. Per the city's December 15 notice (dated November 10, 2005) regarding the applicant's request for the annexation and zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to R-8 and preliminary plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots for Keego Springs Subdivision, located at 5910 N. Black Cat Road; ITD asks the City of Meridian to consider the following as conditions of approval: General Comments: a ITD and COMPASS have begun a corridor preservation project on US-20/26 to be prepared for future widening needs on this corridor. a ITD would have recommended a parallel collector route to connect this residential neighborhood to the commercial development to the East, but the site design of Bainbridge Subdivision appears to preclude that. a Please note that,while the higher densities are appropriate along the proposed transit corridor, the higher densities will also amplify the need for the parallel collector. a ITD is unsure of how Oceano Dr. connects to Bainbridge Subdivision since Bainbridge design does not appear to have a street stub near the proposed Oceano Dr. We ask the City of Meridian to consider the following as conditions of approval: Traffic Impact Study. The applicant should complete a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to determine development impacts to the State Highway. ITD may require improvements to the State Highway to mitigate for these impacts. Typical improvements may include: acceleration and deceleration lanes, center turn bays and/or intersection signalization. The TIS should be submitted to Kevin Sablan at the ITD letterhead address. Contacts Sue Sullivan Kevin Sablan Senior Planner Traffic Engineer 334-8955 334-8340 Sincerely, . ~ ~I//~ Sue Sullivan Sr. Transportation Planner ss:ah - _.v~ """"1' -.- , No, 2949 P. 1 MR. ROGER M WILLIAMS WILLIAMS TREE ~ARM 4915 LARRY LANE MERIDIAN ID S3642 . """"'" . , ..' J , '-., ..2..!2.EJ:..o ~ ,... .. Tð ( /V.( e J ¿O{ '2 ~"- ,.- : ""; ""'. -.... ""..,..-..... '",.... J.ta~ . c:l.""'I.."'Il.:;.-., ....Þ. QIA.I.~-.. ~.",~.NSÇLcJ'....r;:,."J'.ÆC'.;~, " - ,":/,"'.." ...) \)_::/"è"'\"""---<".,.:~i - .. S~t31 t'l:.-T\ IT Z. o_.Ç:Q,5:«.....f- PP QS" -01& 6 . . .. - ----- .. ' , , . -",. """"""-""""'-"-""'" .. -, ',', ()e..Q.¡- ,ç(\J~"~;'~: "... '.' r'>~>./ "\"""':'J'I< """""."-'_.n.....__-.-.., I' ".... ......................".......... ,. . 1:, t<. (c¡../o."""eJ I J!. /,;'c c/¡~H? ¿¡: a-/()~ NJs/u-dz.Çqf .. -- -. -- '.. IÇ¿. ~ - f-&. -f ~{U IëcP K -é¿r" S ¡If' J"J' $.-".1,.â 1_'M:w"., 1_'-:-,.. . C(, - .n.____n._f2-I/'£."no..>dp e.r ¡..;, b/'tM.i ..Jbd¡vtÚ;'urCQ7-f",& !:..u.(, -.ft;. 2, - - --. - Tl.. < '¡ H « >¡,C ~{,P.J.b.Jlw .ft-A&.¡¡. s d~ 6J2-" '\-~_. -------- -~'<:e-f-'-J{¡¿t- Ac, Zo'-'! ~ uT. .. ~~-oL:"o- _4.~ .. -u- .. u n__!J,-';,dv: £2 - 1#2', h~ ~ v ~ -S I .....,( qd dp"-$ , f, ;"s._t:!I/.V j--. .. 'n.! ~"Ùkf<VA).- - 7'4- ¡o~ f> r.W. "Z-o".e c t...", ';?¡ f. £". "'- ...., ~ ~ ~ Uc "'-( d? I ..--....... ............_~.~ Vf?:.f..rj-r"':S I~c..~~~ I.""f -rÝþÆ~ o~. Nt" I3I~c;~f. VI'!) -_tÆc-/uevs".l? ;"<t~r ðù.r II\J.ra) <?-.'~-r~"'" O:¡;"'<Å r,'" ~""Ç- - . . . hot-fu ~(.A.J'iD- ~ ~fvu&~o..... ~ v..-..ól/€ !Je.;hl-<.. fa.~. .. . . . .- C a~, --. ... - ...-.. .. ]!..a..... cd, 0-- C (}V-Ct:v.~ .fhf ~ /v"is tt. &;,..,... . wd4c{Jr v-€~{.. - __m n --- - -- h~ Hi e"c: 'Ett-- J' r; «J.-u "'- E2LJ..bt:~t-~ g.,,( .t¥:. ~,",:¡f -e "-- ~ . - - ' . . :Çy.;;Þ..';:j k.c.~ rff/'ow-:k&/, ... . r: c> '-- c "'7 ........';-1? , z: t, e"""l cJ/ c.f-- .J,.; ~ f'roL.d ke i£f cJ If rT .:: ~ç 5 '--' b Q",^-- 1K:z. Ð" i () d ""- Iv f't.¡, ,.... df¿!"d'c "" <>" s. . e-~ 0-.... ,,~~t:.b o.r"<J ""r'~ "","~, ('ßo f.i-",-:- t ('to ::? U1UUJ-ft..AT7iJ';' dJ¿"'l7 ~ at ocf 'U""";:'~I.'rv--c-:-<. /~\ÎC//:/~Çc¿J( A...'2 /IC-CÇ-Ç /,u-, IJ?c(..--('I,ç,¿\ C?'I>!..Ç-"( , - ... r ~'."".n- -'oJ 0,/ U ..',.". ,/ -I;'- H <4'-. f(ø/ ~fr ~ c~.... iyS) bacK /ð' * ctv'r? "n~ Þ Oc<" J. £, Cl Í1.1- ó V'e.. Go "L S c.. Jp v Q. ,J I't Cl '1. ' 7l1 a~ ¿> 17,.) < /"Î . '.'",,--, """"" ..-..--~",:.:~i;):. .... DEC 06 '05 09:36 I. A , PAr,~ 1/11