HomeMy WebLinkAboutShepherd Creek Subdivision PPSeptember 18, 2006 PP 06-040
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 21, 2006
APPLICANT Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd Creek LLC ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 17, 2006- Preliminary Plat approval of 55
residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd
Creek Subdivision - 2475 S. Meridian Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
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: Date: Phone. _
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
COMMENTS
See MI Packet
com rrc_e rti.
cic
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
Bear geek Homeowners Association
2640 S. Bear (;law Way
Meridian, 11D 83642
August 9, 2006
Subject: Application MI 06-004 — Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modification of the Development Agreement between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
This letter transmits a petition signed by 234 taxpayers, voters, and residents of Bear
Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek), located within the city limits of Meridian, Idaho who
oppose the above application. These individuals request that you and the City Council
give serious consideration to issues involving this development and vote in opposition to
the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (MI 06-004) between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the approval of the
application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1 additional lot on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infrastructure of Bear Creek
for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park; utilizing pedestrian walkways,
lighting, and green space which is maintained through fees paid by the Bear Creek Home
Owner's Association.
We implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
ISSUES:
1. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of this
traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more congestion on
Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and soon to be
taxed even more when Bear Creek West is completed.
• No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development provides no
outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the subdivision and to
the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve as outlets for Bear Creek.
The development needs to address traffic issues by providing direct access to
Victory Road which would offer an alternate route, easing traffic on Stoddard and
Overland. It was understood that a traffic light will be installed at Victory in the
near future (Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for Shepherd's Creek LLC advised
at the neighborhood meeting that a traffic light would be installed on Victory
Road) which is an even greater reason to provide a more direct alternate route. A
redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an outlet on the Church's access
Road to Alfani Way (more direct access to Victory) or to Mastera which fronts on
Meridian Road would be a suitable alternative solution. It would be an admirable
gesture on the Church's part to provide this access for alleviating additional
congestion that is being created by the proposed subdivision (land sold to
Shepherd's Creek LLC by the Church). In addition, Church traffic is typically at
its peak on Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts should not be at
issue.
« Construction Traffic — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a serious
concern. Construction access should be provided through an alternate route not
through Bear Creek subdivision. Access via the Church access road and off
Meridian Road should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in the
subdivision.
• Fire and Emergency Vehicles — A very serious issue is the lack of direct access
to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency purposes. This
requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander through Bear Creek or
Belimissa subdivisions to provide emergency services. A more direct route along
the Church access road directly to the proposed subdivision is a small request
when considering the loss of a life due to a poorly designed access for the gain of
a few additional dollars.
• Safety of Bear Creek Residents/Children — There are a significant number of
small children (approximately 100 under the age of 8) that live and play along
Bear Track, Bear Claw Way, Alaska Way, Grizzly, and Kodiak and for their
protection and safety traffic should be minimized
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Access Issues:
A. Reduce density to lower the number of vehicle trips per day
B. Provide direct access to a primary road for access out of the proposed
development
C. Require a separate construction access
D. Require direct access from primary roads for fire and emergency vehicles
2
w -
w�
2. Land Use & Density
Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes the land use for the Church property as
Public/Quasi Public (Page 97 of June 2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan). The
Comprehensive Plan guidance states: "Redevelopment of this type of area is to be
guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the
surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues
associated with the proposed development of the Property. "(Page 106 of June 2006,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan)
Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 homes per acre, doubling
the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is approximately 2.6 homes per acre (354
homes on 133 acres). Transportation/access is a key issue -- use of Bear Creek roads for
access and no proposed direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3 homes per
acre would lessen impacts on traffic and emergency services.
The present land use (as shown on page 97 of the Meridian Comprehensive Land Use
Plan) of this property is Public/Quasi Public, which would be considered one step lower
than the current land use surrounding the site, thus the redevelopment and rezoning
should only permit a rezone to low density (one step above public/quasi public
designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan). This would be consistent
with the lower land use and density of the adjacent Bear Creek neighborhood.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Land Use & Density:.
A. Judiciously apply City of Meridian Comprehensive Land Plan guidance
on redevelopment carefully considering the intensity of the existing use, the
underlying zoning, the surrounding land use, the location of the property,
and transportation issues in the decision making process on the land use for
this development. In consideration of this guidance and the adjacent land
use, lower the land use/density from 4.6 to 3 homes per acre, consistent with
the average overall land use of Sear Creek.
3. Lot/Home Values
The increased density, small lots, and patio homes negatively impact the values of the
residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have purchased homes in Bear Creek have
put forth a significant investment, thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian.
Homes in areas with lesser density, parks, and green space are valued higher than homes
with .high density, and minimal "useable" green space. To maintain property values in
Bear Creek the density and related amenities of Shepherds Creek should be consistent
and lots/home values should be equal to or more than those in Bear Creek.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Lot/Home Values:
A. Lower the density of Shepherd's Creek to be consistent with Bear Creek.
B. Reconfigure and add "usable" green space
3
4. Drainage
Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need assurances and site
drainage plans that address drainage contaimnent within the Shepherd's Creek
Development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Drainage:
A. Require a drainage plan that addresses containment and management
within the Shepherd's Creek Development
5. Open Space/Parks
The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are virtually
unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of one which is a minimally
usable narrow strip of land. If the space were one contiguous green space than value as
open space is added, however, as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely solely on the
amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, and green space, while not
contributing added value. The residents of Bear Creek pay annual association fees to
maintain the public spaces within the development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay
nothing to support or maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings, etc_,
that they will use to access Bear Creek Park through Bear Creek Subdivision.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value then the common lots or "green space" should
be located in the center of the development and offer amenities that are usable by the
public, e.g., a one acre play area for children or a usable small park, not just un -
developable leftovers.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Open Space Issues:
A. Require the redesign of open space/green space to a more central location
and offer amenities that are useable and offer added value to the public
B. Lower density of development to allow for more functional/usable open
space
6. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRS)
Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRS in place designed to protect investments
and the integrity of the development. These covenants include property maintenance and
improvements, association dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers,
campers, boats, etc., be stored behind fenced areas or garages. With the direct proximity
of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development should be required to have
similar association covenants and contribute to the association dues and maintenance of
the area, especially as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek
4
Park. Bear Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address CCRS:
A. Require CCRS for Shepherd's Creek that are equal to those for Bear
Creek.
B. Encourage Shepherd's Creek to establish an HOA or join the Bear Creek
HOA and pay annual fees for upkeep and maintenance.
7. Transitional and Street Tree Plantings
There are no transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek, nor are there street
tree plantings or landscaped medians such as exist in Bear Creek. If property values are
to be protected then at a minimum, these elements need to be required for the proposed
development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Street Tree Plantings:
A. Require street tree and median plantings throughout the Shepherd's
Creek subdivision.
B. At a minimum require transitional street tree plantings on all outlet roads
that reflect the adjacent character and quality of adjoining neighborhoods.
The undersigned residents of Bear Creek are very concerned about the Shepherd's Creek
development as currently proposed and request that you and the Council give careful and
informed consideration to the issues defined in this letter prior to application approval.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment and input on the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Application.
SincereI�,
,,y
Kimberly Newell-LeMaster
President, Bear Creek Homeowner's Association
Enclosure
KEM/kem/8/9/06
M
cc: Shaun Wardle
President, City Council
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Keith Bird
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Joe Borton
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Charlie Rountree
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
C
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
Petition to deny application to the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Subdivision Development until issues
and concerns that impact adjacent properties are
considered
We, the undersigned, call on Mayor Tammy de Weerd and the City Council of
Meridian, Idaho to address specific issues associated with the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Subdivision (Shepherd's Creek) that directly impacts the
public and homeowner's of Bear Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek), Meridian,
Idaho.
Whereas:
1. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will
add significantly more traffic to already congested roads_ The burden for
most of the traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more
congestion on Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already
taxed and soon to be taxed even more when Bear Creek West is
completed.
• No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development
provides no outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the
subdivision and to the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve
as outlets for Bear Creek. The development needs to address traffic
issues by providing direct access to Victory Road which would offer an
alternate route, easing traffic on Stoddard and Overland. It was
understood that a traffic light will be installed at Victory in the near future
(Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for Shepherd's Creek LLC advised at the
neighbor hood meeting that a light would be installed on Victory Road)
which is an even greater reason to provide a more direct alternate route.
A redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an outlet on the Church's
access road to Alfani Way would be a good solution and an admirable
gesture on the Church's part for alleviating additional congestion that is
being created by the proposed subdivision (land sold to Shepherd's Creek
LLC by the Church). In addition, Church traffic is typically at its peak on
Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts should not be at
issue.
• Construction Traffic — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a
serious concern. Construction access should be provided through an
alternate route not through Bear Creek. Access via the Church and off
Meridian Road should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in
the subdivision.
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
Fire and Emergency Vehicles — A very serious issue is the lack of direct
access to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency
purposes. This requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander
through Bear Creek or Belissima Subdivisions to provide emergency
services. A more direct route along the Church access road directly to the
proposed subdivision is a small request when considering the loss of a life
due to a poorly designed access for the gain of a few additional dollars.
• Safety of Bear Creek Residents/Children — There are a significant
number of small children (approximately 100 under the age of S) that live
and play along Bear Track, Bear Claw Way, Alaska Way, and Hibernation
and for their protection and safety, traffic should be minimized.
2. Land Use & Density
• The Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes the land use designation for
the Church property as Public/Quasi Public (Pg. 97 of the June 2006,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan). "Redeveloment of this type of area is
guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of
the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property,
and transportation issues associated with the proposed
development of the property," (Page 106 of June 2006, Meridian
Comprehensive Plan)_
• Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 homes
per acre, doubling the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is an average
of approximately 2.6 homes per acre (354 homes on 133 acres).
Transportation/access is a key issue -- use of Bear Creek roads for access
and no proposed direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3
homes per acre would lessen impacts on traffic and emergency services.
The present land use designation (as shown on page 97 of the Meridian
Comprehensive Land Use Plan) of this property is Public/Quasi Public,
which would be considered one step lower than the current land use
surrounding the site, thus the redevelopment and rezoning should only
permit a rezone to low density (one step above Public/Quasi Public
designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan). This would
be consistent with the lower land use and average density of the adjacent
Bear Creek neighborhood_
3. Lot/Home Values
• The increased density, small lots, and patio homes negatively impact the
values of the residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have
purchased homes in Bear Creek have put forth a significant investment,
thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian. Homes in areas with
lesser density, parks, and green space are valued higher than homes with
2
r
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
high density, and minimal "useable" green space. To maintain property
values in Bear Creek the density and related amenities of Shepherd's
Creek should be consistent and lots/home value should be equal to or
more than those in Bear Creek.
4. Drainage
• Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need
assurances and site drainage plans that address drainage containment
within the Shepherd's Creek Development.
5. Open Space/Parks
• The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are
virtually unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of
one which is a minimally usable narrow strip of land. If the space were
one contiguous green space than value as open space is added, however
as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely
solely on the amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, and
green space, while not contributing added value. The residents of Bear
Creek pay annual association fees to maintain the public spaces within the
development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay nothing to support or
maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings etc. that
they will use to access Bear Creek Park.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value than the common lots or "green
space" should be located in the center of the development and offer
amenities that are usable by the public, e.g., a one acre play area for
children or a usable small park, not just un -developable leftovers.
6. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs)
• Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRs in place designed to
protect investments and the integrity of the development. These
covenants include property maintenance and improvements, association
dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers, campers, boats,
etc. be stored behind fenced areas or garages, etc. With the direct
proximity of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development
should also be required to have similar association covenants and
contribute to the association dues and maintenance of the area, especially
as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek. Bear
Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
3
1
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
7. Transitional Plantings
• There are no transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek
Subdivision, nor are there street tree plantings or landscaped medians
such as exist in Bar Creek. If property values are to be protected then at a
minimum, these elements need to be required for the proposed
development.
4
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED CALL ON THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS IN RELATION TO
THE PROPOSED SHEPHERD'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT
i7t
Petition -- Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
Name
Address (Incl. City)
Signat re
All
40.
41.
\
42.
r,��
WWAXW
43.
v;12
44.
cr �. 2� Li (
'Z; J
45_
p
0 f-.
_
�
•
. -
47.s
w
i��j
48.
a r•
q ( 0 • Gave ►z.
_
t �
-
+.�%�
All
SraNT14
UAW �GIJ 1
r,��
WWAXW
WA
%1 'BTW ��' ,
*iI
FA• /` `rye
i / ��� f
�
•
i��� -�:I
i��j
•r
•
r
•
r
1/
All
WWAXW
WA
%1 'BTW ��' ,
i��j
•
r
•
r
1/
�" i
�_
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development
Name
174.
175.-
176.11,
75. 176. r
1177.'-
178.(
77.'v178.
179F:' : �-
180. A.
181.
182.
183.,
180,eC�:s
1877
188. e-
189.9aha
:
190. �
191.
192.
193.
194. I l�
195. arc 1
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
204.
236.
207.
2 8.
209.
2'10.
211.
212.
2 11 3.2''14.
5.
216.
217. _
213.
23 T ITAi-.
Address
July 31, 2006
nsti mm%
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
Name Address (Incl. City) Signature
219 :14 1 �Lz 'Z 139 5 (.d ;
220.
lu[
Ll ° i tom" n
221.
q
MerVO
222. 0
1
223.1
I-.
224.
IA 14, A V-"\
225.
-
r �✓ r�
226.' -,51
Ci- f?9 -t
444-11
227.
228.
229
23 .
40a
231.
232.
234.
235.
236.
237.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254,
255.
255.
2.57.----
25&
259.
250,
26) 1.
232.
I q --I t,h I
0
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
Name
Address (Incl. City) Signature
219.
-n3
220. An
I e-, JA
221.
222.
2Z7,-2,
223.
224.
225.
226,
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
234.
235,
236.
237.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.'
250.
251.
{`;2
2.53.-
2 4.
.3 5.
2.:.7.
2. ' T. -
J.
9 TN7\L-
rOj�L�r► MGb;
;
282.--
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
300.
307.
308.
,,CO.
310.
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
5 Ton{L
Petition -- Shepherd's Creek Development
Name Address (Incl.
311.
�-b Gtr aA-C„-
312.
313.
2 314.
ct?c--k-
315.Ajam
'd4o,a
Z 316.
3 c)
317.
C[1 3a s SJA
318
319.
320.-
321.
322.
323.
324.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
338.
339.
340. .
341.
342.
343.
344.
345,
346.
347.
348.
339.
351.
35
353-
3 ,, 4.
353,
13 -MrA-t___
July 31, 2006
Signature ;
►GulQA4 1-41 \1
(1�
IMMF-M&M
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
402.
403.
404.
405.
406.
407.
408.
409.
410
411.
412.
413.
414.
415.
416.
417.
418.
419.
420.
4214
422.
423.
424.
425.
435.
436.
437.
438.
439.
440.
441.
442.
443.
444.
445.
446.
1 7^o 1 �-
0321
n
CD
CD
RECEIVED
SEP 21 2006
Ci
x
•
r
T
ono
■ -b r. D CSD ■ 0- <
�
" N Q'(04
� � CD
'CD
OCD CD �(,P+ 0 S
Q- -nlp
CD ,DQON
CD
Ca '.'3
SD CD 0 CD
�' .''_-
W� a
CD
N
cn
0 cCD
= o
a
�10
oz��CD
0Ocz
�=O�
��
—3
cn 3
o 0-0.
O��
n �.
CD
CD
p N
cQ
,*
C-)
cn
(D
cn ¢1
cn �
z
Q
o '-''
Qo
K)
P*0�
p
�
0)
0
CD Cf)
W -%
m
N
C CD
n CD
m00
CD CD
0
CD
CD -0
CD
0-12)
-91
CD
0
CD
C1
m
N
O
W
CD
CCDD
CD CD
CCD
Bear
Creek Subdivision
ca
CD
D
CD
0
........
,
2
•
1
CD
CD
iD
-
CD
90
(1
tK M.,�:i''9'• ,gip+,}i: '; "'a5.
^" iipGi
`a �i. ,'i.,�
C
WCD'il.
QL
471
O.
cr
Q
v
LA
-
O
!/
C•
o z
Q^
¢
�•E 1i
q
!' 91'ii i !
� �
I g
X11. iY p U•
:;T All
•�!{�
� 1"E
�
yy
5g
p;
;
g
r
'y
��
i }
311+%Yfsil3l SC,i!!F
?Ce:41
!�!i! 1f
igoii
an -m[a
coAx At I
'�n nrrw
W
CD in •
CD m C
XCD
y o cn _n C7 � 2)z _
O ca (n o ID 0 0 p 0 O �.
Co CD Q° r -4.o � C
CD CL CD o o m COD N r
�� �cn
n C7 C7 CD a o 9 n a
(n CD
W X c � O O
(p `C CD 0p
O -% U)
X CD n �
=r`� O -n 0
(DCD 0
,..�
. C O
0
o o�
(D' -0
a
M 1MN0
®aa_-s
L�uso
�r?.'C;
r
.
T
1
/O
i.-
n�,.�
W
5-6
,��•• I 44 "hi�.L:��Lf��J f �'�I.."�1aV II
I
� Q �
�'`�"•
a n co
arra
c
C
(D =m
CD CD�
Cl)�rn
o z 0 C
ao
p do
CD
cn
ry
=Cl)
A)°
ICD . 0• O �
�
wow 0)
cep
m
"
m
-p
..,
C'
R
0 y y
m p
-�
C 0
"I
a
`�°
,�'
N
-
r
° Cl)�p -• jDj3
L CD
:3
m
CA
c-)
N CD CD � W
cam o � ° o
r
C
N 0
m a
0
(J1
C
a
CD 2
0
N a
o
x
�
`�
N
'
0 g
_,
rn
W
cr o
�'
mn
13)
a� CL
SD
°CA3
Q.
C`)
O N CD
••
o
�
0
" OT
C
0
0
Cf)
°
°
a°i o N =•
01
CL 0N
m
71- �1
p
(D
0 0 O
Q
CC) m �
w
cn
CL=.
0 �, "�
CL
oz
wn
r
O
°
°,
c�
�-
r
0
CD
Q.
Q
a
cn
�'
C
�.
y'
Ln
C
*fid
CD
CD :3
�
�
CD
a
�
o
�cn
_—
,�
%
��
o
Unl<
C0�
CD
—
,
_
�.
O
N.
N
C7�
O
3
(U
(D
n�
O
=
o
<
o
o
,�,
�
o
�
3
n
_
�3ob-(bN=
�
a
cn
'^
V
PL)
�
cn
/V0
r -P
0
cn
O
(p
�_
O
C:n
CD
:3CSD
�•CL
CD
g
x
O
0
O
SCC
C)�
�oCD
oo
=oma
WNL
%
o
C7
0
�
C�
(n
m
CD
o
-
cr77
1<
_
CD
2)
n'
V�
0
3
0
>
Vr
a
CD
o 10=r
CD
CD
q
cD
CD
CP X
-0 m
0
0 0�
0
Cl) Q-
C- cD
0 �
0
•-
ro M
o CD
t�n m
CD
Q.
■
■ C ow
T (D 0 m
% =r
W 0
C'
cD 9°
CD N X (D
a =7 U)
C'
=' 0
tD
co NO polo
-� Q
0
U)
00
CLCmom
CD (D D)
CIS
(D 0 C.
D)
CD on
C
cn �.
m Cr
0. �C
WA
................... i.
1J f✓'
JR
rt�
IIH
cn
CI),,rpplw
Cil
■ �■,■ ■ ■ cr
O
�
cnOC/) C :-+ a
� �
�c CCWQ 0�n0 57 (n p .+ O=Ncn= CD (D Q-
7 0 O Cd 1+ la)
CL
to ca (D � CL „-j
. @
CD cD CL D CD (an) '< �CD0X�
0 � Q �' � p =F � C � cn �
S cn 3 CSC �� =O
Q? C7 O CD N (D C7- � C O
(n (p 0 � � � � O a —
� 0 CD C) -- � X � I
0 70 0O CD �•r :3 (n
Qsn (D CD C N
o 3 aQ Mon �,'CD �D
CL
3CID :3 :3 Z � O W =7.
ch� cn Oo m�oaC O
,5 cnCID 0 5) o ( n
o c o O
Fn cn CD %0-0
Cv ° CS w 03 0
Q a w U7 N C Cb
0 CD O
0 po a
_..................................... - .................
i
I$
II if �
■
■ ♦ O
C�OC7-uCn0-0 a
n 0 CD N0 CD O (o . > n
CDn
-3 o cin cQ Q � m (n 0CD- Cn 0 CD a 2:0�
waOCDa =5Q� 0 C
0 W Cn O a 0 � to � �' CD
o m a O W �_ CD cn oc n O CD N•
o'er �' ^" w- CD W n o CL =
CL `� � Q n - Cr "O CD y cn 2. CD CD 0
a o c CD CD� CD �, n o 0) 0� O
0 CNDW CD0� OW -03 =g ,�O -e
p ¢1 D (COD n p -0 0O I
(n w N- N �+ Q CDD � O w o CD 3-a �
C W" ^� 0 1
Cn 0 M C C0 77 CD C) O0 0 Cn N CD CD M
_ ?
N Q° T. w = Co C � � CD C/� N �
CD Vj CD .-f Cn
Co
ca C C ,..� CA CD CC CD N
co ah 0 go CT r -r _ CD C � �•
CD
ZNCn(n C°O 3 ��
C Q- o ~ CD CD CD n CD PIP
c 07
I.=) CD
w O
CDS' m � CD 3- a a C
Q
CCD ('
--
rr
f /
sroner�ro
La
w,
•� f
411
:(1)L/`fY.`".ifi{�v�`
(D CD cn CD =3 cn
0 -0 (0) 0
o Rl -a o -
� � x0 (D Fn 70 U)
•03 r*
(/ n• (Q k
r+ �. � cr CD 0- � r+
CCD070
�CD ° W. 0. > 0 � Ca 0
rn
n
—
C = T IV IV = Q
cC cn� CD fn N N 0 0 0 n gin'
w cn
� C7 �
U) m � ! cD CD = I
CD ch cr Q 0o o� ""` —i CI)
O
CD CD �� o Co r
�.; cn � �' 0 0 0 (D
C) cam' > � W � a7 Q
Cn �O -� n A)
iW0- �•��
3
Q � `� 0
9
........ _. F _ .......
.��.. —_ ynxRrwo sr ✓
1
~ `
INI
vv
w.-
_... ... ...
.....� III I
<' i
CD _
o n Ui q cn < N c = CSD
c cl) 0 CD o 0 7r o cn p Q
CD CD C o c o c� o v � p C/)
-% C CD (D
w C c0 s W> p CD CD (f)
m a cl
(Do cn
CD Q o CD n CD (Q cn
C CL CD o y CL
G) CD co cn Cb
=r0 m N —
N
z CD
CD
� m
0o w D
CD C On
U cn
o CD'
DNX 0CD ��a �-,o '3 I
0 0 0 n CL Cr cQ o O (D
Q. 0 a 0 � ca �
CL -k �: (D_ to 0 o m n cn
CL OO � (A
33 0 L Rol � O�.a m r 0-0
O 3 N m
f,Q O cp n C tb Q (D r-
0 r2 r x. rr
a -�
M.
°c_ cn� a n n o N
O
O 90
• - ..............r........... ............... ........ ............. ..... . L ................................ .�
tiLIT
v
INI
f Ike
OF
N �
F
�C ✓' �t�`�
■
2 A) CD
--
cn
0 C-) CD ()a M 0
cr o (A o o o
cn
3 N a c' 0 cn oto
m
`n ° cyo cnncLm w
3 ° — ca 3
Q 0.1 O N C � r -r ❑
n @ a Cl) O
_ CD (D -0
cn
=r
CD CCD
I
CD
�cn
owor_ 0 Cc o ��M
O C.O ^�
Cr
N yc cr
CD 0-0O
O
'� n O 5 SD 3 7 - n r« -_
•* Q nC)
O W �`C
j W=O M
CL Como
_►
C O
O 'spy ��
O Q sy -w Sy
sy
O
C) C
W y OC go
O M W = Qp
13)3._oM
N
N N V CD
=.
U2
r
fes• ; ✓�� J` J� ___��.___................................. __........,., ....................... ......... 4�_......, ��.,,.,.....
._1 _ ......- /
i 1
fr
LL
r,
• � '„ II II
ru •-
CD ?Mo a 0Cn n 2�0�
cam' o CD
n CD n O m
CD0 0 r , cn
�_ � 3 Q O > fD CD Q
O ?� p (D CD > n w N p CD
p'K,
-- _ CD (1)-0 CD cp < co
CD 0U)13)
Cl) 0) CD
0. 3U) oE� CD o
CD
3CD m
0 oov mo D SOD y � v
co ca o o CD -0 cn
n 3190 ON
N N QM O o
a0 3 F- o(D o. a �, — cn
03 90
O R. 7 O m to y ID
Cl) Q. as r O a n C
CD
CD
CL Q' 3 r*
o
O O
Q
2)
0
....................................... . ...............
........................ ......
f'
S
.
xv
j
r � y
(7
aCDcp
� CD
o 0-(n CCD
m m'
0w
w 3 Q.9 o� �^
p o
CD
CaD !
y0 (D n n
0 Ei-
cn
CS r '�"
<D C. m
(D f
�'!
V y a
y
U 0
(D N Al (A .C—.
X. 0? 3 (CD p 0
C. Z�
�. tin tin
°'
4
to -
O -0
(n o A: 4 Q .�* c
"�
3207
rt
boy
d
(D
(Dm,y.cD�'cbc
ci rtmcama,m
RC2
C/)
Nsu
OL
ago
a
in�o�'o'aw
'"RIO
vD
w
o w o y y
c
(n
rt
=
ID 0
C ;L3
CD
a-w
C w
cti
�
(6D
w
to
CL
�.
CD
0
_0
cnO
`C
0
Cl)
og
0
-40
-0
I
c pl(�
n 7
p1
C0 rL
�0SC61C
=3 Q.�
y f�n Of 7
0
(D
.
�CD
cpny7
7 n
�d rt
4 � = (D
D1
ca"NZ
7
CL 06
(MD (n fD
Sl p; (C1
N��
O , (n
Q''*�p�
C m
C.co (gyp
(n •fin C ?moi
" G �h� ;w
� m a_;
y Q
C. 7 (D (D
a"-a"
:* j � (n
�
N W
'owe
(� O
3 2.0
rr
O
:rm
U— d
'o(DO:
y Vi � �
'
(D ;
���
yQ.y
.fir ACL
-�
C
N y. 7C
of p,(o O
Q. �°
w
n
(n3m
2) c a
ID
Om (n
aw
0.
(n
O
�,
CD0
Q
23
3
Ro
..
.................
—I
g --
� r
h
v
f.ice C..
U)
n--c�nyr
cn
% 6 °CD -0 o>m rn
CD
- =� 0
U) cQ m -n -4 0 �C`�Q�O O
o � _ ao - 0 � 77 9011) m
go
C: 'D m W -0 U)
cn s CD * � C":E0c-a0
c�.
S. Q o Q Q° CCD PTI
cn �, CD n Z 3 C o � m 0) M I
0 co
Er o o r °
D N CD ON mo �-0 0
m 0 v c 7 0 C
Cl) CQ
O
9� SD
cn :r (n
+ -0C Cr
-n cD w cD o Co o
7 SD o
0
CD c ccnn =
CD
90 0
cf)
j
Ea
CrnCpw0�
O
=
o
C7 V
-1/�
>_
�
T.
C
Q
—
:•
CD_
CD
cD
Tn
O
T
`✓
�h �
�o�
:10
�•
o�
CD
�
VJ
0
�o�,��o
���
o=3
c�
o�
_o
��
�
CD
Z2)*cno�
:3 CD
��9
popPa
CD
c(n
o�cn,-*gip
��p
70p
p
--%
C:��co��0
= o
CD
0
oCDOD0
CD
3-0tp=—c°n
S.
c�a
o
�D cn In
CD
^ p
3 CD
CD
CO
00CC:0CD
n�
:3
CD
0�<-.-o
CD�
m
p
�
CD+CD
�
0
mN�o�
0o
LCD
Cl)
(n�n3�0CD
CO
�o
Q
Cl
CD
14 -CD
CD
-
((n
CD
rn
%
Q
cn
cn
N
C
m
cn
a�
CA)
+�� O
y
CD CD
CL
<b
con
CL
c, �
0)
o=3
c�
CD
CD�CD
:3 CD
n
popPa
W
0CD
W
E.
�D
��p
p
= o
CD
0
oCDOD0
(n U)-
�ou���
3 CD
0 Q
cn
N
C
m
cn
a�
CA)
07 CD a O (D _. 13
�C)@ a;
CL C0- CQ -0
o° U)� 0� " 0 (.0 0
0)= =3 On Oa 30 a)
=3 O CD C CL m
� 0 (D
cQ' � �D ZT Qo �
CD3�r-•= nm 0(D
0- CD (D�D 3 � Q =
CD* (D rm* CD n O 0) N ■�
� �+ CD C) * CO) Q
CD �D � CD
� � _ r
c r* -• CD O cn
0 0-0� cQOC C
%Cf) cr r* -h 0 m
-1 coo M 0
CD >< r* n -
=-0:�(D O 'aMC/)
� r* C/) MA
� � � c o 'N
o (7 t'D 3 O m (D � (D 0
(D
D 0�-1 0 CL 0) O
C)�05.-' O 0 �Z
3 _CL
r*
���0= r* O
0
cn Ln.=QO
Or* >
�0 CD
0>3 Z
0 O
EES"
a°�`•E�
a:r}y
yy t
E.
h.x«
Col
U)
. n• a
zo0z
m
�0
U)o
0C -�
' C
c� o�
=)7 =3 CDC7
o
CD
0
0 Z
0 % -
CD CD C
mn
o -n
ch
0
O
h
CD
CD
Col
CD
W
QL
U)
6
CL
CD
ka
mmmCl)cn
C
m
cn
00
TI
I
... ................ _........ .......
.-
-
O
`
........ ... _ _-....
OCZ3
r -r
-.,..
i
CDI
...
C)
r
v�
i L:'
1:.._ . L.._
i���
NCDFl
It
la)
0
7
Ijp'p
4 Ir
^
�.,....
i
f _ i
Q
J
.i
?:
El
m�
cn
=7
(D
Col
;r nC
-0 oma'
C
C7
�CD
CD
0
�'
%cn
3
�'
0
CD
I
C
CD
-
cn
CD
N
� �'
CD
1
c�
3 (nD
0 �
Q C7
�.*
Q�C:�
��
�
CD
3
cn m
a
70
CD
C CD
cn
i
`c
0
■
U
�F
0 •
0iw
a
CD
wo
rg)
CP
Q.CD
a
- • CD
CSD
00(a
3 -0
CD CD
Cho
..� O
C)B
0 00
5 w Ce
CD =5
CSD
s oCD I
(D Cal
rn
ill o p
CD-0�
o tp (D
�CD C
CD 0
C 00 o
cin N N N .
j N
O 0)
0 n
Co
tip) woo
cp
m.�
4 Q.
O
CQ —• .�
CDCD to
CD
0
00
CD
5 to
N
N N
? o
� 0
I_•
O
CD
-0
N
�
CD j
C% 0
CD
;K -U,)
Q
:3�
CPCD
CD
I
CD 0 10 CD CD
CD
U) r w. v o z
z3 o 0 � a
CD
N CD �
rn
�0
-� =3 �.
C �
m CD %Q"
CID 0
O � cry CD ca
am—
U
�.
� IT► �
p cu
m go
cn Z +.
� CD
CD �_ CIO)
0 :
"+" ;.Ib
C5)
0CL
W
a
CL
T.2 0
=5 U)
o cs�
CD
o 0
cjn 0 N
CD
CDi •
n
0 CD
C�
::3 C-)
C)
CD
CD
CP
CD
Ca
0
0
CD
■
0
0)
CL
CL
CD
cn.
16-Z
CP
0
n
CD
CD
77O
D
n
Wiwi0memo
Z
CP
N
N
03 C,
0 CD
N
�. a
� c
o�
000
rn-
U)
1
3
CD
0
a
3
CD
.j �-
CD
T,3
CD
CZ
(l)
a
�o
CD
CD
w
a
0
1003
.o
0
r
w
CD
cn
(f)
CD
1
0
D
n
0040NOON
Z
CP
0
aft
x
Ma
0
0
�• f 7 • � ! 7eenjM�I �i� s � •4
o
ca 0
cn
o C-3
z
CD
CDCCf)
�C0-0o3
=0
>3
co -0
-p cu
°
CD
b-,
N
����CD
CD
�'
3
:Q
cD
<0
r'
m
CL
,ocD=��
� �
C7
u
WcDc
QCD
�
CD
ET
�
CD
= Cl)
0-
CD 0
W
m
CD
(D
0)
�
w
cl)
CD
%
�
r- -
�
CD
=t 0
0
�
m
m
3
.
c,
�0
0
S•
CD
(0o0
CD
w
aft
x
Ma
0
0
�• f 7 • � ! 7eenjM�I �i� s � •4
his �s
irm lasts
XL
aft
x
Ma
0
0
�• f 7 • � ! 7eenjM�I �i� s � •4
his �s
irm lasts
aft
x
Ma
0
0
3
O
N
m
r
a
CD
CD
0.
CD
un.
0
R�
�
�
Ca
CD
CL
ECD
E3
CD CD
O _.
CD
acn
V
CD
CL
CD
CL CD
c a
cn -0
w
cy- 3
CD
O �-
CD a
CD C//
cn
■ CD
Y CD
■
3 r -
a°
��
CD W
0 O
C
=�
#-+a
.w cn
_CD
O—
oCD
r'. o
O C
=3 �
�v
0
CD
Q. -0
y
/\/D
cn
a
CD
0
CD
E
■
PIC
CD
.0
CD
CD
cD
C.
CD
(nWPM ■
:3
C�
O
a
CD
I'
Iwo
D)
0
CD
CD
CD
n
0
N
I
003
Q 0 CD C-) Q �N N a
-t
Q D U� O CD -S CD �' �. CD
CD
tt� CD CD CQ
�Q'3
00 .� Cl) �X �p
V
(D CD -0 CD �" C7 0 -0 CD � "G
C .. CL CL Cl) r* CD �
CA 0 (D �� L N Q
C
CD =k p N Q 0)0 CD �, �.
0 �� '
''. CSD �: tD
N Q NCl) `C C2.
KMM
CPswom
Cl)
C
m
Cl)
0
n
N
p
11
:1:
0
D
0
.-h
CD
CD
V+
U
0
0
.NW%
woo"
0
03
CD
"i
►4"
0
..WO
CD
CD
0
CD
0
�o
CD
CD CD o
0 C:
0 �
t�
5 CD
n ,
C-) �■
CD CD
CD 77 r-+■
s
0
D
w
a
CD
In
C7
OPWONO
CD
r
on
.-4ft
0
'%
V +
:37
CD
CD
3a
0 (i)
cn C-)
CD ---'%
CD CD
Cl) CD
cp
CD
0.
I
0
0
%
o
(D
0
50o
CD
o
3'
0
CD
o
D
°
CD
m
73
=3
CD
m
acy.3
0
CD
a°
0
_0
�-
C
cD
w
cD
m
c
co ca
E
o�•CD
cn
CO
m
3
0
0
°oCD
CD
o
0
�-cn
�
c
cy.
CD
CD
0
'3z
CD
���
o
C
CD
�
=3
CD
m
-0
CD
0
_0
�-
�
m
,..+
co ca
3
w
CO
m
o
�-cn
,-+
CD
cD
CD
X
CD�CD
�
C
�cn
o
CD
CD
C
rn
_.ii
'3z
CL
♦,woo ■
O
a
r-1.
:3r
cz
>
CD
CD
N
�
P
0
(Q #-+
rr� '
cr
0
0
0
a
V•
3
0000103
c
3
p
CL
0
w
♦L
V+
♦3
V+
EY.
0
A
CD
0
r�
CD
CD
0-40
0
.0
0
�o
CD
CD
5
CD
CD
CD
r -to
-0
\ V
CD
w
C'
00%
CL
cn
n
-z
CD
CD
77
�r
Cl)
I
� r
Limiting hmment liomain
ICS :F O` SECRETAR
Elections, Campaig Dis r a Lobbyist
Ben Ysursa, Secretary of State
2006 PROPOSED BALLOT INITIATIVES
Contact This House is MY Home
Person / Laird Maxwell
Organization 702 W Hays Suite 16
Boise ID 83702
208.426-0358
Status Required number of signatures filed 6/28/06 - will appear on
the November 7 2006 ballot as Proposition 2
Short Ballot INITIATIVE LIMITING EMINENT DOMAIN WHEN USED FOR
Title ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; DEFINING LAND USE LAW; AND
PERMITTING JUST COMPENSATION FOR REGULATORY
TAKINGS.
Long Ballot Title AN INITIATIVE RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN; AMENDING
SECTION 7 701, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON
EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE PARTIES, AND FOR URBAN
RENEWAL OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AND
PROVIDE FOR FURTHER JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS
INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN; ADDING A
NEW SECTION 7-701A TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS
RELATING TO HIGHEST AND BEST USE, FAIR MARKET VALUE,
JUST COMPENSATION, AND LAND USE LAW; AND AMENDING
CHAPTER 80, TITLE 67, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR JUST
COMPENSATION WHEN A REGULATORY ACTION REDUCES
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE JUST
COMPENSATION TO A CONDEMNEE.
Attorney Can be viewed by following this link to the Attorney General's
General web site. This document is provided in PDF file format, you
Certificate of must have Acrobat Reader to view the file.
Review
Full Text Whereas, Article I Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of
Idaho declares that the acquiring, possessing, and protecting
of property are inalienable rights of all men;
Whereas, Article I Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of
Idaho declares that no person shall be deprived of property
without due process of law;
Whereas, Article I Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of
Idaho declares that private property may be taken for public
use, but not until a just compensation, to be ascertained in the
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/INITS/06initO8.htm
■ age. L vi i v_
9/18/2006
J-UMImg r EELML iJoxridui
Y +r '8"
manner pres4ibed by law, shall be pai%there�r .
Wherd9s, Articles Section 2 of the Constitutlaln of the State of
Idaho declares that all political power, is inherent in the people;
1 y
Whereas, the people of Idaho find that, notwithstanding these
clear constitutional rights, the state and municipal
governments of Idaho consistently encroach on the property
rights of its private citizens to own and use their property,
especially as a result of the enactment and enforcement of
land use laws that have the effect, of reducing the fair market
value of their property;
Whereas, the people of Idaho find that such encroachment has
not been adequately redressed by our elected officials and in
the courts of law;
Whereas, the people of Idaho find that legislation is needed to
provide limitations on the use of eminent domain for the
benefit of private parties, or for economic development
purposes, or for tax revenue purposes and to provide for
effective judicial review of takings.
Therefore, be it enacted by the People of the State of
Idaho :
SECTION 1. That Section 7-701, Idaho Code, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
7-701. Uses for which eminent domain is authorized.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the right of eminent
domain may be exercised in behalf of the following public uses:
1. Public buildings and grounds for the use of the state, and all
other public uses authorized by the legislature, except as
provided in subsection (12) of this section.
2. Public buildings and grounds for the use of any county,
incorporated city or school district; canals, aqueducts, flumes,
ditches or pipes for conducting water for use on state property
or for the use of the inhabitants of any county or incorporated
city, or for draining state property for any county or
incorporated city, raising the banks of streams, removing
obstructions therefrom and widening, deepening or
straightening their channels, roads, streets, alleys, and all
other public uses for the benefit of the state or of any county,
incorporated city or the inhabitants thereof, except as provided
in subsection (12) of this section.
3. Wharves, docks, piers, chutes, booms, ferries, bridges, toll
roads, byroads, plank and turnpike roads, steam, electric and
horse railroads, reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, aqueducts
and pipes, for public transportation supplying mines and
farming neighborhoods with water, and draining and
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/IMTS/06initO8.htm
9/18/2006
reclaiming lands, and for storing and floating logs and lumber
on streams not navigable.
4. Roads, tunnels, ditches, flumes, pipes and dumping places
for working mines; also outlets, natural or otherwise, for the
flow, deposit or conduct of tailings or refuse matter from
mines; also, an occupancy in common by the owners or
possessors of different mines of any place for the flow, deposit
or conduct of tailings or refuse matter from their several
mines,
S. Byroads, leading from highways to residences and farms.
6. Telephones, telegraph and telephone lines.
7. Sewerage of any incorporated city.
8. Cemeteries for the burial of the dead, and enlarging and
adding to the same and the grounds thereof.
9. Pipe lines for the transmission, delivery, furnishing or
distribution of natural or manufactured gas for light, heat or
power, or for the transportation of crude petroleum or
petroleum products; also for tanks, reservoirs, storage,
terminal and pumping facilities, telephone, telegraph and
power lines necessarily incident to such pipe lines.
10. Snow fences or barriers for the protection of highways
from drifting snow.
11. Electric distribution and transmission lines for the delivery,
furnishing, distribution, and transmission of electric current for
power, lighting, heating or other purposes; and structures,
facilities and equipment for the production, generation, and
manufacture of electric current for power, lighting, heating or
other purposes.
12. Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire riv._ate
property.:.
(a) If at the time of the condemnation, the ,public
body condemnin the pronerW or its designee
intends to conveyfee,title to all -ora portion of the
real pro eon xrt ,_or a lesser interest._than fee title, to
another_.private a.._ , or
.(bbd For the_guroose„oLpromotin or effectuating.
economic development; provided,. however that
nothing..in this subsection 12 shall,.affect.,the
exercise of eminent domain under the__ .dowing.
circumstances:
lIJse.of eminent domairt for the
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/ MTS/06initO8.htm 9/18/2006
specific public and private -.uses
expressly
set forth in Article I Section
14 of the Constitution of the -,State of
Idaho .
W—Use of eminent domain for the
granting..,of non-possessorr interests in
thepropertyto be taken for the
purpose of financing acquisition of the,
pro,periv;
ta)-Use of„eminent domain -.pursuant to
chapter_15, title 70, Idaho Code;
14) Use of eminent domain pursuant to
Title 42 Idaho Code;
M Use of eminent domain pursuant to,
Chapters 19,2,0, or 29, Title 50,,_Idaho
Coda except that no private property_
shall be taken through exercise of
eminent domain with the area of
opera tion_of_a._housin� authority or
within an urban renewal area i r within
a deteriorated area or within a
competitively disadvantaged border
community area unless the specific
property to be condemned is proveo n by
Clear and convincing evidence that it
meets all of the following,
requirements:
(i) The property, because
of its eneral dilayidated
condition, compromised
structural integrity, and I
or failed mechanical
Systems, endangers life or
endangers property b fire
or other -perils that pose an
actual identifiable threat to
building occupants; and,
(ii) The property contains
specifically identifiable
conditions_ that pose an
actual risk to human
health _t.ransmission of
disease juvenile
delinquency; or criminal
content; and,
f ii The property presents
an actual risk of harm to
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/INITS/06initO8.htm 9/18/2006
1,M11L111g r-111111CILL VUl11c1111
rde''C J Ul 1V
the public health, safety,
morals, or general welfare.
13. This section shall not affect the authority of a
governmental entity to condemn a leasehold estate onDro.pert
y„„owned_b� a governmental entity.
14. The rationale for condemnation by the governmental entity.
proposingto,condemn _proopertt shall be freed reviewable in
the course of judicial proceedings involving.exercise,.,af_the
power of eminent domain.
SECTION 2 . That Chapter 7, Title 7, Idaho Code be, and the
same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a New
Section , to be known and designated as Section 7-701A,
Idaho Code to read as follows:
7-701A. Definitions.
(1) The following definitions shall apply for all purposes of
Chapter 7, Title 7, Idaho Code, unless the text otherwise
requires.
(2) "Public Body” means the state and its agencies, cities,
counties, and any other political subdivision of the state.
(3) "Owner” means the holder of fee title to the subject real
property.
(4) "Land Use Law" means:
(a) Any statute, rule or ordinance or any law that
regulates the use or division of land or any interest
in land or that regulates accepted farming and
forest practices, including comprehensive plans
and zoning ordinances that are enacted by this
state or a political subdivision of this state; and,
(b) Local government comprehensive plans,
zoning or subdivision ordinances, regulations,
restrictions and controls for the use or division of
land.
(5) "Public Use" means:
(a) The possession, occupation and enjoyment of
the land by the general public or by public
agencies.
(b) The use of land for the creation or functioning
of public utilities.
(c) The acquisition of property to cure a concrete
http://www.idsos-state.id.us/ELECTANITS/06initO8.htm 9/18/2006
Limiting .eminent 1Jomam
harmful effect of the current use of the land,
including the removal of structures that are beyond
repair or that are unfit for human habitation or
use.
(d) The acquisition of abandoned property.
(6) "Public Use" does not mean, or include within its meaning,
the public benefits of economic development, including an
increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment or general
economic health.
(7) "Highest and Best Use" means the highest estimated value
of the property based on use to which the property is
reasonably adaptable and capable, without consideration of
any future zoning or dedication requirements imposed by a
public body or land uses laws that would serve to diminish the
value of the property. Any property taken for use by any public
body shall be valued at the use to which the public body
intends to put the property, if such use results in the highest
value for the land taken.
(8) "Good Will" means the benefits that accrue to a business as
a result of its location, reputation, skill or quality and the
probable loss of patronage as a result of a taking.
(9) "Fair Market Value" means the highest price estimated in
terms of money that the real property would bring if exposed
for sale on the open market with reasonable time allowed in
which to find a purchaser, and the purchase is accompanied
with disclosure of all known uses to which the property is
reasonably adaptable and capable in order to establish the
highest and best use of said property.
(a) If private property consisting of an individual's
principal residence is taken for public use, the
amount of compensation made and determined for
that taking shall not be less than the sum of
money that is necessary to place the property
owner back in the same _position monetarily as if
the property had never been taken, in addition to
any other reimbursement allowed by law.
(b) The owner of a business conducted on the
subject property that is taken shall be
compensated for loss of goodwill in addition to all
relocation costs required by state and federal law.
(10) "Just Compensation" means:
(a) For the Purposes of a taking, the sum of money
that is necessary to place the property owner back
in the same position, monetarily and without any
governmental offsets, as if the property or
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/MTS/06initO8.htm
9/18/2006
Lunitmg Lmmem i)omaun
,(p)Any statute _ le 4r_ardinance_Qr,any law that
re�ulates.,the use or division of land or any -interest
in land or that regulates 6ccepted farm ng and
foresppa
es including com _rehensiveplans
and.,zoning ordinances that_are enacted by this
state_or_a_political subdivision of this. stateand
Cb)__Localgovernm,ent comprehensive-Plans,—z-oniOn.
or subdivision ordinances, ,regulations,restrictions
and controls for the use or division of land.,
C6The definitions setJorth in Section 7-701A shall be .and.
hereby,are applicable to this Cha tam er 80.
SECTION 4 Section 67-8003, Idaho Code, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(1) The attorney general shall establish, by October 1, 1994,
an orderly, consistent process, including a checklist, that better
enables a state agency or local government to evaluate
proposed regulatory or administrative actions to assure that
such actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of
private property. The attorney general shall review and update
the process at least on an annual basis to maintain consistency
with changes in law. All state agencies and local governments
shall follow the guidelines of the attorney general.
(2) Upon the written request of an owner of real property that
is the subject of such action, such request being filed with the
clerk or the agency or entity undertaking the regulatory or
administrative action not more than twenty-eight (28) days
after the final decision concerning the matter at issue, a state
agency or local governmental entity shall prepare a written
taking analysis concerning the action. Any regulatory taking
analysis prepared hereto shall comply with the process set
forth in this chapter, including use of the checklist developed
by the attorney general pursuant to subsection (1) of this
section and shall be provided to the real property owner no
longer than forty-two (42) days after the date of filing the
request with the clerk or secretary of the agency whose action
is questioned. A regulatory taking analysis prepared pursuant
to this section shall be considered public information.
(3) A governmental action is voidable if a written taking
analysis is not prepared after a request has been made
pursuant to this chapter. A private real property owner, whose
property is the subject of govermnental action, affected by a
governmental action without the preparation of a requested
taking analysis as required by this section may seek judicial
determination of the validity of the governmental action by
initiating a declaratory judgment action or other appropriate
legal procedure. A suit seeking to invalidate a governmental
action for noncompliance with subsection (2) of this section
must be filed in a district court in the county in which the
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/NITS/06init0g.htm
1 (ir,b V VL A V
9/18/2006
l.. it n ing zminvm IJUIIIaui
land use law as of the date of enactment of theJand use law.
($) The burden of demonstrating that a land use law - lis exemia
by_subsgction 6 of this section is on thepubl,ic,_body_ enacting.
or enforcing.the land use law.
9If a lan_duse,law continues to_apply toarivate real property_
more than 90 days after written demand for lust compensation
is made to the,..public body enactin�7c or_enforcing the land ,.use
law by__the.owner of the real property,- the owner shall_ have a
cause of action for iustcompensation, and shall be entitled to
attorney„ fees, costs, and expensesincurred in the prosecution
of the action. Such cause of action for compensation must be
brought within 120 days after the expiration of the 90 day
period following written demand for compensation.
(10) The remedy created by subsection (5),of this section is in
addition to any other remedy_under the Idaho or United States
Constitutions, and is not intended to modify or.replace any
other remedy.
SECTION 5 If any portion or portions of the foregoing
amendments are declared invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining portions of these amendments shall
remain in full force and effect.
Previous Page Tdaho_,Secretary,_of State's Main Page State of Ida,ho._Home Page
Comments, questions or suggestions can be emailed to: sosinfo.@sos.idaho.gov
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/IMTS/06initO8.htrn
MUM1111791
L11111L111f,' 1✓111111G11L L1U11121111
private property owner's affected real property is located. If
the affected property is located in more than one (1) county,
the private property owner may file suit in any county in which
the affected real property is located.
(4) During the preparation of the taking analysis, any time
limitation relevant to the regulatory or administrative actions
shall be tolled. Such tolling shall cease when the taking
analysis has been provided to the property owner. Both the
request for a taking analysis and the taking analysis shall be
part of the official record regarding the regulatory or
administrative action.
f, If an owner's ability_to use�possess�seil� or divide p rivate
real property is limited or prohibited by the enactment or
enforcement of,a_ny,.land - use law after the date of acquisition
alter the a
(6) Subsection (5) of this section shall not apply to.land use
laws:
(a) Limiting or prohibiting a use or division of real
property for the protection of public health and.
safgty,such as fire and building codes, heaith and
sanitation regulations, traffic control, liquor
controls solid or hazardous waste regulations,. and
pollution control regulations,
(b) Limiting or prohibiting a use or division of real
property common,i and historical
_y recognized as a
public nuisance under common law;
(c) Req_utm by federal law,
fd) Limiting -,or prohibiting the use or division of a
property for_the purpose of selling pornography or
performing nude Banc M—provided. such land use
laws are consistent with the Idaho and United
States Constitutions; or
Ce Were enacted before the effective date of.th.is
Section.
(f) That do not directly regulate an owner's land,.
(7)_]ust compensati—on pursuant.to_subsection 5 of this
section shall be eq Al to the reduction in the fair market value
of_the_propert resulting from enactment or enforcementof the
rugr, 7 Ul IV
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/NITS/06initO8.htm 9/18/2006
i,=T-ing r mment Domain
property interest had never been taken. Just
compensation includes all reasonable costs and
expenses actually incurred.
(b) For the purposes of an action for diminution in
value, the sum of money that is equal to the
reduction in fair market value of the property
resulting from the enactment or enforcement of
the land use law as of the date of enactment of the
land use law. Just compensation includes
"severance damages" (§ 7-711A(3)) and all
reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred,
except attorney fees and related costs are awarded
only pursuant to § 7-711A(8). Compensation for
the enactment or enforcement of any land use law
shall be measured as of the date a written demand
is made by the owner.
(11) "Regulated" means the enactment or enforcement of a
statue, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, regulation,
rule or policy by this state or a political subdivision of this state
or the unreasonable inaction by this state or a political
subdivision of this state that results in the direct denial, in
whole or in part, of the economic, beneficial or productive use
of private property by the owner.
(12) "Taken" and "Taking" means the transfer of ownership,
control or use from a private property owner to this state or a
political subdivision of this state or to any person other than
this state or a political subdivision of this state.
SECTION 3 That Section 67-8002, Idaho Code, be, and the
same is hereby amended to read as follows: As used in this
chapter:
(1) "Local government" means any city, county, taxing district
or other political subdivision of state government with a
governing body.
(2) "Private property" means all property protected by the
constitution of the United States or the constitution of the state
of Idaho .
(3) "State agency" means the state of Idaho and any officer,
agency, board, commission, department or similar body of the
executive branch of the state government.
(4) "Regulatory taking" means a regulatory or administrative
action resulting in deprivation of private property that is the
subject of such action, whether such deprivation is total or
partial, permanent or temporary, in violation of the state or
federal constitution.
"Land., use law" means:
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/MTS/06initO8.htm
9/18/2006
Sharon Smith
From: Troy Johnson [troyj@norco-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith
Subject: City Hall Meeting- Shepard's Creek Subdivision
September 21, 2006
Dear City Council Members,
Page 1 of 1
N, zcor�.w�.
CN -2-1-0(e
-----.+, s-- 4 4',5
RECEIVET)
,GITY OF MERIDIAN
ITV C I FRAC n!� I�r
I unfortunately will be unable to attend the City Hall meeting tonight to voice my opinion in person, therefore I am
e -mailing a concern I have for the proposed Shepard's Creek Subdivision. My residence is at 2476 S. Bear
Claw Way in the Bear Creek Subdivision; however I am currently building a house at 2807 S. Garibaldi Ave in the
Strada Bellissima Subdivision.
My primary concern is directed at the proposed connection road of S. Garibaldi Ave in Strada Bellissima to
Shepard's Creek subdivision. This road is currently designed, paved, and set back as a cul-de-sac and would be
better served to remain that way since there are other alternatives for traffic to be routed from Shepard's Creek
directly to Meridian Road. Making S. Garibaldi Ave a connection road between the two subdivisions might also
cause unnecessary safety concerns for children when there are other alternatives that have less impact on
residential areas. I would strongly encourage all parties to consider the possibility of not connecting the cul-de-sac
at S. Garibaldi Ave in Strada Bellissima to the proposed Shepard's Creek subdivision.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Troy .7ohnson
trqyj@.mybearcreek.com
---
�n='itia) _.i .._� ,=..i ..... .:- i�v. �,:,y c:cni;iir �-ir,'A''Jit_.-k+�C+ anci/nr CC1NF:LnErY'1TAL
n i ul ur Y
i
9/21/2006
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 2 of 52
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, would you care to mention the development on -- I think its
Items 12 and 13.
Rohm: Yeah. I could do that. Items 12 and 13, both related to Shepherd Creek
Subdivision will be continued, because Ada County has not rendered their decision as
far as the roadway. Originally, we were going to continue it to the September 7th
regularly scheduled meeting, but we just kind of took a straw poll up here and we will
not have a quorum that night and so there will be no P&Z meeting on September 7th
and so my guess is the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission is September 21st and that's when that project will be heard. And so we
will open it only to continue it to September 21 st, presuming that staff has no issues with
that. Caleb?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that agenda is very full and if you
double it up there is no way we are going to make it through everything. So, I don't
know if you can do another straw poll here and see if there is maybe a special meeting
that we could either have the 14th or the 28th.
Rohm: I am traveling both of those weeks. I will be out of town and Commissioner Moe
is going to be out the fourth -- the week of the 14th.
Zaremba: I couldn't make the 14th. I could make the 28th.
Moe: I could as well. What about you, Mr. Borup?
Borup: I'm going to be gone on the 28th. Other than that, I'm fine on the others.
Rohm: We are kind of running out of dates here, aren't we?
Zaremba: We are talking about September; right? September 28th?
Borup: Can we figure this out at the end of the meeting?
Rohm: Yeah. Well, other than there is people in the audience that are interested in
what date that would be continued to. I think --
Zaremba: The applicant said they will repost the property, so if they watch the posting,
he said they'd repost it with the correct date.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, I did talk to the president of the Bear Creek HOA yesterday and
told her I could call her if that date didn't fly, if for some reason we didn't have a quorum
or something like that happened. I do understand that they made new fliers and sent
them out to everyone already, so people weren't here tonight, and we could kind of
avoid that. The 21 st we could probably do Bear Creek on there, but we already have a
full agenda on the 7th, so we have got a bunch of other items that we have got to find a
home for here. So, a special meeting sometime. If you want to set the -- set this one
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 3 of 52
over to the 21 st, that's probably okay, but we probably maybe at the end of this meeting
tonight need to have another quick discussion about when we can put those other four
or five or six items that we have on that September 7th agenda -- and I believe the clerk
has already noticed everyone for that agenda, too. So, new notices are going to have
to be sent out and the whole deal, so -- and we need to find a date when we can,
obviously, have a quorum, so September the 21 st would probably be okay for Shepherd
Creek, but --
Rohm: Okay. Well, then, the 21st will be the date for Shepherd Creek and, then, we
will find new homes for the other items. But that's when that particular item will be
continued to, so that will be another adjustment to the agenda.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
Rohm: Okay. With that discussion complete, the Consent Agenda consists of approval
of minutes from the July 20th, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any
adjustments to that set of minutes? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent
Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Before we open up any public hearings, I'd like to just discuss a little bit
about the process we go through for our hearings here at the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The first portion of the process is we ask the staff to give their
presentation and what that is is they take a look at all the projects and they try to match
them up with the Comprehensive Plan and our ordinances for the city. They will give
their position based upon how they see that particular application fitting those two
documents. Once the staff has given their presentation, then, at that time we ask the
applicant to come forward and at that time they have got -- I believe it is 15 minutes to
make their presentation. That's basically their sales pitch to the Commission. They tell
us all the good things about the project and how it will enhance the city over time. Once
those two presentations have been made, then, it will be open to the public and anyone
that chooses to speak on any application has their option to speak at that time. The
applicant, then, has the final say. Once we ask the applicant to come back up and
respond to any quires from the audience, we will not take any additional testimony,
because it's not a -- it's not a debate, it's a presentation, respondents, and, then, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 47 of 52
it's noted that the building shall contain a minimum of two tenant spaces as proposed, in
lieu of six, and, then, I'd also like to add another point, one point -- or 2.0 1 guess I would
put it, under the planning department, that the applicant will work with staff to upgrade
the western elevation of Building B.
Zaremba: Second.
Moe: Along with -- furthermore, to direct staff to prepare appropriate Findings document
to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 31st,
2006. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-026 to include all staff
comments with aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9-A: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval:
CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a
52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H. Moore Company —
NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Subdivision):
Rohm: Thank you. Now, the last item in this bundle of three is -- I will now -- let's see --
open up the -- well, request approval of 9A, which is the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for approval of the CUP 06-027.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for CUP 06-027. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: And, again, Jonathan, thank you. You did a great job. At this time we are going
to take a short break and reconvene at 9:40.
(Recess.)
Item 12: Public Hearing: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development
Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 48 of 52
the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55
residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for
Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open up the Public Hearing on MI 06-004 and PP
06-040 for the sole purpose of continuing both of these items to the regularly scheduled
meeting of September 21 st.
Zaremba: August 21 st. No, September 21 st.
Rohm: September 21 st.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: And it has been moved and seconded to continue these items to the regularly
scheduled meeting of September 21st. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14: Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements
Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. This public
hearing regarding the Capital Improvements Plan is required by the Local
Land Use Planning Act before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommendations for parks, police and fire impact. fees can be forwarded
to the City Council:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open up the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and turn it over to our legal counsel Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I do have a handout
that was sent to you by e-mail. I don't know if the clerk's office has one, so I could pass
that down. If any of you also -- if you need a copy of that I have an additional one. This
is a fairly unique circumstance that's in front of you tonight. I don't think in the past you
have had an impact fee discussion on your regular agenda and a Public Hearing. What
is in front of you is there is a Comprehensive Plan amendment that is being proposed
by the city, the city has hired some consultants, they have an impact fee committee that
has worked through the consultant's work. What is in front of you is the reason the
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
A.
+J
I�Yt�
STAFF REPORT P & Z Commission Hearing _
Hearing Date: 9/21/2006
y,
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
(Continued from 8/17/2006 P & Z hearing)
Planning & Zoning Commission=
Caleb Hood
Meridian Planning Department
884-5533
Shepherd Creek Subdivision
• PP -06-040
Preliminary Plat of 55 single-family building lots, 7 common lots, and 1
church lot on 32.45 acres, in an existing R-8 zone.
• MI -06-004
Miscellaneous request to modify the recorded Development Agreement for
the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision
on church property.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, RMR Consulting, Inc., has applied for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 single-family
residential lots, 7 common lots, and 1 church lot on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision. Twenty
of the 32 acres are to be retained and used by the Nazarene Church, and 12 acres are proposed for
residential development. The Development Agreement (DA) in effect for this site restricts residential uses
on this site. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a concurrent Miscellaneous application to modify the
recorded DA to allow residential and church uses on the subject site. The site is located on the west side
of Meridian Road, approximately % mile south of Overland Road. The subject property is within the
Urban Service Planning Area and within the current city limits (zoned R-8). This area has not been
previously platted.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject applications (PP -06-040 and MI -06-004) were submitted to the Planning Department for
concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis regarding the requested Preliminary Plat and
Miscellaneous applications below. Generally, the Planning & Zoning Commission does not make a
recommendation to the Council on DA modifications. However, because the recorded DA must be
amended to allow a residential subdivision, both of the subject applications are being combined into one
staff report. The Commission should make recommendations to the Council on both of the subject
applications. Staff is recommending Lapproval of the proRosed DA modification and PreliminM Plat
subject to the plat being re -designed to comply with the R-4 (not R-8) dimensional standards and the
construction of a collector roadway out to Meridian Road. Please see Sections 8 and 9 of the Staff Renort
for detailed analysis.
3. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Approval
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I trove to recommend approval to the
City Council of File Numbers PP -06-040 and MI -06-004 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of September 21, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of
approval: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of Pile Numbers PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 as presented during the public hearing on
September 21, 2006, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the
development agreement modification and/or preliminary plat request.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers PP -
06 -040 & MI -06-004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
West side of Meridian Road, approximately %2 mile south of Overland Road / 2475 S.
Meridian Road; Section 24, T3N, Rl W
b. Owner:
Shepherd's Creek, LLC
10286 Ustick Road
Boise, ID 83704
Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
831 N. Main Street
Meridian, ID 83642
c. Applicant:
RMR Consulting, Inc.
2127 S. Alaska Way
Meridian, ID 83642
d. Representative: Matthew Schultz, RMR Consulting, Inc.
e. Present Zoning: R-8
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public
g. Description of Applicant's Request:
1. Date of Preliminary Plat (attached in Exhibit A): May 5, 2006
2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached in Exhibit A): May 2006 (residential portion) &
April 10, 2006 (church portion)
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Our proposed preliminary plat of 1 Church Lot, 55
residential lots, and 7 common lots on 32.45 acres is consistent with the R-8 zoning ordinance
and the existing zoning surrounding the subdivision (please see applicant's submittal letter).
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21.2006
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is
required before the City Council on this matter.
b. Miscellaneous applications are not currently addressed in Title 11 of the Meridian City Code.
It has been determined by the City's Legal Department that a miscellaneous application to
amend a recorded development agreement will in fact require a public hearing before the City
Council.
c. Newspaper notifications published on: July 31 and August 14, 2006
d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 21, 2006
e. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 7, 2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant land and a church.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: A mix of single-family residential and
proposed office buildings. This area is rapidly urbanizing.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Single-family residential in Bear Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8.
2. East: Meridian Road; Office/Commercial uses in the City and County, zoned L -O and
RUT (Ada County).
3. South: Single-family residential and future offices in Strada Bellissima, zoned R-4
and L -O.
4. West: Single-family residential in Bear Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4.
d. History of Previous Actions:
- On December 19, 2000 the City Council voted to annex this property into the City of
Meridian with an R-8 zoning designation (AZ -00-018).
- On February 22, 2001, a Development Agreement (DA) was recorded (Instrument #
101015259) for this property. Section 4, Uses Permitted by this Agreement, of said DA allows
the construction_ and development of a church and a multi-purpose facility. Section 4og es on
to state: "No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without
modification of this Agreement."
- On August 14, 2003, an addendum to the DA was recorded (Instrument # 103137111) that
slightly amended the Legal Description of the property subject to the DA.
- On February 16, 2006 the City approved a Conditional Use Permit for the Valley Shepherd
Church (CUP -05-058). Condition of Approval B1.8 of CUP -05-058 states: "If gny portion of
the original 32 acre parcel and approximately 1.7 acres contained in Bear Creek Subdivision is
further divided then the entire 34.8 acre site shall be contained in a future plat." In the
Analysis section of the Staff Report for CUP -05-058, a provision for a future collector
roadway connection to Meridian Road is discussed as a future condition of the subject
preliminary plat.
- On May 8, 2006, a Certificate of Zoning Compliance permit was issued for the construction
of a 45,575 square foot church on this site.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities:
1. Public Works
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
Location of sewer: There is sewer stubbed to this property from Sear Creek
Subdivision, however those mains flow to a lift station that is not eligible to take
any more sewage at this time.
Location of water: There are water stubs to this property from Bear Creek
Subdivision to the west and north, and a stub to the south in Strada Bellisima.
Issues or concerns: 1.) This property is proposing to sewer to mains in Bear
Creek which flow to the Bear Creek lift station. At this time the lift station is
ineligible to take any additional flows. 2.) The need to stub a sewer service to
parcel R8186120850 which is located along the southwest corner of the property.
2. Vegetation: Existing trees will be retained or relocated on site.
3. Flood plain: N/A
4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: The Hardin Drain courses through this site. All irrigation
ditches, laterals and canals should be covered.
5. Hazards: See Analysis below.
6. Size of Property: 32.45 acres (20.45 acres for church, 12 acres for single-family
homes)
f. Subdivision Plat Information:
1. Residential Lots: 55
2. Non-residential Lots: 1
3. Total Building Lots: 56
4. Common Lots: 7
5. Other Lots: 0
6. Total Lots: 63
7. Residential Area: 12.0 acres
8. Gross Density: 4.58 units per acre (5.63 net density)
9. Lot Sizes: Lot sizes range from 5,092 square feet to 14,866 square feet. 42% of the lots
range in size from 7,000 square feet to 14,866 square feet. 58% of the lots are smaller
than 6,600 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 6,694 square feet.
g. Landscaping:
1. Width of street buffer(s): The Future Land Use Map designates Meridian Road as an
"Entryway Corridor." The UDC (Table 11-3B-7) requires a 35 -foot wide street buffer
adjacent to Entryway Corridors. The landscape plan proposes a 35 -foot wide
landscape buffer easement along Meridian Road. UDC Table 11-2A-4 requires a 20 -
foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to collector roadways. Although not required by
the UDC, the applicant is proposing a 20 -foot wide landscape street buffer between
Kodiak Drive, a local street, and the existing homes in Bear Creek to the north. This
proposal will keep the existing lots in Bear Creek from being double -fronted on public
streets.
2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A
3. Percentage of site as open space: 0.78 acres (6.50 %
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MJ -06-004 PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
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 (UDC 11 -3G -3-E2).
h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to the residential portion of this
development is proposed from three existing stub streets in Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima.
Part of the previous discussions on this site revolved around a future collector roadway
connection through this site to Meridian Road. This site has frontage on Meridian Road, half
way between Overland Road and Victory Road. At the request of the Planning Department, a
"Disputed Collector Roadway" is conceptually shown on the submitted preliminary plat. The
applicant is not proposing to construct this roadway, but staff has requested that this topic be a
topic of discussion for the Commission and Council. NOTE: Staff has received comments
from ITD and ACHD regarding this project. The ACHD Commission acted on this application
on September 6, 2006 and required the applicant to provide a 4t' access road to this site. This
access road would directly connect the residential portion of Shepherd Creek to_Maestra Street
which intersects Meridian Road at 1/ miile north of Victory Road. The applicant has requested
that the ACRD Commission reconsider their action and the Commission has agreed to do so.
City Staff has also requested that ACRD reconsider their action of September 6th, and allow, if
not re uire the applicant to construct a public street to Meridian Road at the mid -mile
location. Shepherd Creek will again be heard by the ACHD Commission on September 20th,
one da before the PlanrIing & Zoning Commission hearing. Staff will bring an update of the
ACHD Commission's final action to the September 21" P&Z Commission public hearing The
comments staff has received from ITD state that they support the collector road connection at
the half mile location, and future signalization at the location, as warranted, and as funding
allows lease see letter from Sue Sullivan Senior Planner, dated Au st 31 2006. Staff is
recommending that the aroposed relimina lat be modified b extendingKodiak
Drive as a collector roadway out to Meridian Road. Please see below for further
analysis.
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On July 28, 2006, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and
departments present include: 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.
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as
"Public/Quasi-Public". Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan defines Public, Quasi -Public and
Open Space as areas designated to preserve and protect existing private, municipal, state, and
federal land for area residents and visitors. Theses areas include neighborhood, community, and
urban parks. Government facilities, public and private schools, health care facilities, churches,
utilities, park and recreational areas, and cemeteries are also considered public/quasi-public type
uses.
In 2004, the City approved Resolution No. 04-454, which amended Chapter VII, Section 1, of the
Comprehensive Plan to include the following language regarding Public/Quasi-Public areas
(underline added): "Upon redevelopment of such properties, a change in designation and use may_
be appropriate, the redevelopment of these areas should be guided by the intensity of the existing
use, the underlyingzoning of the property, the surrounding land uses the location of the property,
and trans ortation issues associated with the proposed development of the Rropegy. The
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
RRrogriate land use designation and accompanying zoning for these areas will be determined by
City Council on a case by case basis." Staff finds that if the church has deemed the 12 acres that
is proposed for residential uses as surplus property, then a change in designation from
Public/Quasi-Public is appropriate. However, based on the factors listed above, which are in the
Comprehensive Plan for recommending such a change (existing land uses in the area, location,
transportation issues), Staff finds that a development with R-4 densities is more appropriate than
the R-8 density and lot sizes proposed.
The 12 acres proposed for residential lots are currently vacant, but zoned R-8. The land uses
surrounding this property are R-4 to the south and west, with the church and 32 homes in Bear
Creek No. 6 to the north being zoned R-8. In December of 2000, when this property was
approved for annexation by the City, City Code prohibited churches in the R-4 zone. The R-8
zone conditionally allowed churches. That is why this property was zoned R-8. Staff believes that
it was not envisioned at the time of annexing this property that R-8 density and lot sizes would
occur on any portion of the property owned by the Nazarene Church. To support this belief, the
City required the church to enter into a Development Agreement stating that the annexation of the
35 acres was for a church and uses ancillary to the church only. Again, if the church now believes
that some of their property is surplus, staff believes that it is better to allow that surplus area to
develop than to just have the property sit vacant. However, staff recommends that if residential
uses are allowed on this property then the lots should be similar to how a maiopty_of this area has
developed, with R-4 densities.
Staff believes that a residential use on the subject property is appropriate as the request is
consistent with the intent of Resolution No. 04-454, if the Commission and Council finds
residential development is appropriate for this site.
Urban and Residential Collectors:
In Chapter VI of the Comprehensive Plan, under the Transportation section, the Plan states
(underline added): "The transportation system's second tier is the collector system. Collectors are
generally categorized as either urban or residential. Urban collectors are designed to carry higher
volumes of traffic and (often seamlessly) connect one arterial to another through a given mile.
They also may move at higher speeds than residential collectors. The latter are typically
constructed by private develoRss at the time of construction of a subdivision_ and have a more
residential character. They may or may not connect through an entire mile section." This section
goes on to state that the intersections of collector roads and arterial roads should be located at the
1/2 mile point within any given section, and that collectors should extend in an essentially straight
line for 200 feet to 400 feet from the intersection (of the arterial). Collectors serve as key
transportation routes and link local roads with other collectors or arterials. Typically they provide
direct service to residential areas, are two to three lanes, have right-of-way width between 60 and
66 feet, and may have parking (page 53, Chapter Vl, June 2006 Comprehensive Plan).
Based on the preceding Comprehensive Plan text and action items listed below, staff is
recommending that a collector roadwa be constructed to Meridian Road with the development of
Sh2pherd Creek lease also see Sections 9 and 10 of the Staff Rgport for UDC policies regarding
collector roadways alon State Hi was .
The following Comprehensive Plan policies apply to this application (staff analysis in italics):
Chapter VII, Goal Ill, Objective A, Action 1 - Require that development projects have
planned for the provision of all public services.
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21.2006
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 in the
following manner.-
0
anner:
• 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 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 Meridian Police Department
(MPD).
• The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the
Ada County Highway District (ACBD) and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).
This service 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 Library District. This service
will not change.
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 R, Objective A, Action 3 -Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and
Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and
Walking in all land -use decisions.
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new
construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient.
Staff believes that the subject applications comply with the policies listed in the literature noted
above.
Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5 - Require pedestrian access connectors in all new
development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a
community pathway system.
Staff is supportive of the proposed pedestrian connections to future adjacent subdivisions, via
stub streets, and the micro path from the church to the residential portion of the subdivision.
Chapter VII, Goal W, Objective C, Action 1 - Protect existing residential properties from
incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels.
The applicant is proposing a residential subdivision. Staff finds that the proposed developments
to the west, north and south, as well as the church that is under construction on this site are all
generally compatible with each other. However, the density of the proposed development is not
consistent with how the rest of this area has developed. Staff is recommending that the plat be
amended to show lots that are consistent with the R-8 zoning standards, and that a landscape
buffer be provided between Bear Creek No. 6 to the north and the subject development (between
the roadway and the existing homes.)
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
• Chapter VI1, Goal 1, Objective D, Action 9 - Require new residential development to provide
permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown
debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties.
Prior to house construction, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter of this site.
Further, the applicant should be required to construct a 6 -foot tall vinyl fence around the
perimeter of this site that is not currently fenced, as proposed.
• Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity
and better traffic flow (Chapter V1, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6)
There are three stub streets provided to this property, two from Bear Creek and one from Strada
Bellissima. The applicant is proposing to extend all three stub streets into this site. Staff is
supportive of this proposal. To further_enhance connectiyity and tra is flow in this section, staff
is recommending that a collector roadway (Kodiak Drive) be constructed out to Meridian Road
If Kodiak Drive is constructed to intersect Meridian Road, then a signal may be constructed in
the future between Victory Road and Overland Road. If Kodiak Drive is not constructed out to
Meridian Road, then Staff believes that signalization in this mile stretch will never occur, and the
City, ITD and ACBD will be left with access to Meridian Road that does not comply with LTD's
or the City's established standards. This impact will have a negative effect on traff c flows in the
area.
• Chapter VI, Goal 11, Objective A, Action 13 -Review new development for appropriate
opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments.
As noted above, the applicant is connecting to local roads in the adjacent developments. Staff
believes that there is a great opportunity for a collector roadway to be constructed through this
site, providing better traffic flows in this area. The potential of a collector roadway on this site
was previously discussed during the annexation and CUP approval for a church on this site. Staff
believes that the requirement for a collector roadway on this site was previously discussed and
with the proposed development of this property, it is now the appropriate time far its
construction.
• Chapter V11, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 - Restrict curb cuts and access points on
collectors and arterial streets.
Except for the extension of Kodiak Drive as a pubic collector roadway that intersects Meridian
Road, no access to Meridian Road should be approved with this development.
Staff believes that residential uses on this site are appropriate, and are generally consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (as amended by Resolution 04-454). However, staff further believes that the
proposed density is not appropriate and that a collector roadway to Meridian Road is necessary. 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 development request is appropriate for
this property.
9. ZONING ORDINANCE
a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2A-2 lists single-family, two-family (duplex), and
townhouse developments as a Permitted Uses in the R-8 zone. Single-family detached units,
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
parks and minor public utilities are the only Principally Permitted uses in the R-4 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.
c. Development along State and Federal Highways (UDC 11-31-14B2b): Public street
connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at; the section line road; and the half -
mile mark between section line roads. Theses half -mile connecting streets shall be collector
roads. See below for analysis regarding this standard.
d. General Standards: All of the proposed lots currently comply with the standard lot size and
street frontage requirements of the R-8 zone established in the UDC. No dimensional
modifications are being requested for the proposed development. However, staff is
recommending that all of the lots within this development comply with the standard lot size
and street frontage requirements of the R-4 zone.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
Miscellaneous Application Analysis: The applicant has submitted a Miscellaneous application
(MI -06-004) requesting that the recorded Development Agreement on this site be modified. UDC
11 -5B -3.D.2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a property
owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City that may require some written
commitment for all future uses. On January 19, 2001, the Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene, the current owner of a portion of the subject property, entered into a development
agreement with the City. This DA is in effect for all 35 acres that was annexed into the City, and
is currently requested for subdivision approval.
During the public hearings regarding annexation and CUP approval of the church, the need for a
collector roadway on this property was a topic of discussion. In fact, Staff believes that the ability
to get a collector roadway on this site, when the site developed, was a factor in the City agreeing
to annex this property. Further, in the Staff Report for CUP -05-058 (which allowed the
construction of the Nazarene Church), Staff's analysis includes: "The site will require preliminary
plat approval for any future uses contained on site. The original 34 acres of the site shall be
contained in this plat. The future collector street and commercial streets to the south shall be
dedicated to the public at such time. The required landscape buffers are to be planned with the
plat to be consistent with the UDC." Staff believes that the requirement for a collector roadway
on this site has always been disclosed and that if additional development occurs on this site it
should be constructed.
RMR Consulting, Inc. is requesting that certain sections of the recorded development agreement
be modified to reflect the proposal to construct additional residences on this site. The DA
currently limits uses on this site to a church and a multi-purpose facility for the church. This
restriction was placed on the property by the City Council at the December 19, 2000 public
hearing for annexing this property (file # AZ -00-018). As noted in the sections above, Staff
believes that residential uses on this property may be appropriate, but not at the density proposed
with the Shepherd Creek Subdivision. The density within Bear Creek Subdivision is just over 2
dwelling units per acre, and the density in Strada Bellissima is approximately 2.5 dwelling units
per acre. Further, the density in the recently approved Bear Creek West Subdivision, on the west
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
side of Stoddard Road, is approximately 2.5 dwellings per acre. Consistent with the other
residential proiocts that have been approved in this section the development requirements listed
in the UDC see below and the Com rehensive Plan volicies regarding the redevelopment of
Public/ uasi-Public areas see Section 8 above),staff is recommendin that the DA for this
property be amended to allow 12 acres of the site to be developed with R-4 sized lots provided a
collector roadwayis built to intersect Meridian Road ata roximatel the 1/2 mile location.
The development agreement for this property was record on February 22, 2001 as Instrument No.
101015259. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal
Department to draft modifications to the recorded development agreement for Valley Shepherd
Church of the Nazarene as follows:
Page 4, Item 4-1 — "The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses
allowed under "City"'s Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Section
11-7-2 (D) which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of a
church and a multi-purpose facility and development of sin le -family residences
on 12 acres that complies with the lot size, frontage and density standards of the
R-4 zone. Prior to occupancy of the first home within this development, a
collector roadway located at approximately % mile north of Victory Road shall
be constructed out to Meridian Road. Said roadway_ shall be dedicated and
accepted by ACHW'
.Prior to the final plat being submitted for City Council approval, a modification to the recorded
Development Agreement (Instrument No. 101015259) shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian, property owner (at the time), and the developer. Said modification to the DA shall
include the change listed above. The qpplicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill Npa, at 888-
4433 to initiate this process.
Preliminary Plat Analysis: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive
Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Unified Development
Code (UDC), staff believes that this is a good location for a single-family residential
development. However, also based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive
Plan and the UDC, staff is recommending that a development with R-4, not R-8, densities and lot
sizes be approved. Please see Exhibit C for detailed analysis of facts and findings for a
preliminary plat.
Access: Meridian Road is a state highway. UDC 11 -3H -4B prohibits access to state
highways at locations other than at section line roads, or at the %2 mile between sections. The
proposed access to this site is from three existing stub streets.
There are currently three public streets that intersect the west side of Meridian. Road in
Section 24: Davenport, Calderwood and Maestra. None of these street locations meet ITD's
or the City's current policies for location along a Type IV state highway. In the future Staff
envisions these accesses to Meridian Road in this section will be limited to right-in/right-out
turning movements. If this is the case then a signal between Victory Road and Overland Road
is never likely to get built. To facilitate efficient traffic movement for the general public and
emergency service _providers now and into the future, staff recommends that a public
collector roadwa be built from the intersection of Riptide Avenue out to Meridian Road.
This roadway should be designed and constructed to ACHD's standards. This roadway may
be signalized in the future, as warranted, and as funding allows. NOTE: There is currently an
alignment problem with an existing public street, Rosalyn Court, on the east side of Meridian
Road. The properties with frontage on Rosalyn Court and Meridian Road are currently within
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
unincorporated Ada County. When these properties request annexation and development to
the City, Staff will require that the existing Rosalyn Court be abandoned (vacated or
exchanged) and that a new public collector roadway be constructed in alignment with the
subject collector roadway, Kodiak Drive.
The applicant should dedicate right-of-way, in accordance with ZTD's requirements, to allow
for future highway expansion along Meridian Road. The applicant should construct a 10 -foot
wide pathway along Meridian Road per UDC 11 -3H -4C3.
2. Density: As mentioned in the sections above, this property is currently zoned R-8, but Staff is
recommending that it be developed in accordance with the R-4 standards. All lots within
Shepherd Creek Subdivision shall be designed in accordance with Table 11-2A-4 and the
Medium Low -Density Residential standards contained in the UDC.
3. Landscaping: The landscape plans prepared by Jensen Belts, on May 2006 and prepared by
Glancey Rockwell & Associates, on April 10, 2006, labeled Sheets L-2.61 and L-2.62 are
approved with the following modifications/notes:
• Provide a 35 -foot wide landscape street buffer along Meridian Road as
depicted. The landscape buffer along the street shall be designed in
accordance with UDC 11-3B-7 and UDC 11-3H-4C&D.
• Construct a 20 -foot wide landscape street buffer along both sides of the
"disputed" collector roadway out to Meridian Road. The landscape buffer
along the collector street shall be designed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7
and UDC Table 11-2A-4.
• Construct a 20 -foot wide landscape strip along the north side of the
development, from Riptide Avenue to the west property line, as proposed.
• Provide a micro -path connection on Lots 1 and 15, Block 1, that connects
Riptide Avenue to the parking lot for the church. Provide a micro-paht on Lot
7, Block 2, as proposed. Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-
12, adjacent to the micro -paths. Micro -path fencing shall comply with the
standards in the UDC.
• Construct 6 -foot tall vinyl fencing around the perimeter as shown on the plan.
* Construct all other landscaping as shown on the plans.
• A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape
architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan
and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards
of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14.
Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the
final plat application(s).
Landsca a Buffer along Meridian Road: Meridian Road, adjacent to the property, is
classified as an Entryway Corridor on the 2002 Future Land Use Map, and requires a 35 -
foot landscape buffer per UDC 11-2A-5. The applicant has proposed to construct a 35 -
foot wide landscape buffer along Meridian Road, located outside of the future right-of-
way for the highway.
4. Common Areas: All common lots which are approved as open space and/or will function as
drainage areas shall be vegetated and be usable by residents. Maintenance of all common
areas shall be the responsibility of the Shepherd Creek Homeowners Association.
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
5. Open Space/Amenities: The applicant is proposing to set aside 0.78 acres (6.5 % of the
property) for open space and staff is supportive of the design. Pedestrian pathways (micro -
paths) and a seating area with benches are a part of the open space design, as well.
6. Tree Mitigation: 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 those
removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those
that are removed. The applicant should coordinate a mitigation plan with Elroy Huff at the
Meridian Parks Department.
7. Common Driveways: A common driveway is proposed for Lots 19 and 20, Block 1. The
UDC allows the frontage for R-4 zoned lots sharing a common driveway to be reduced to 15
feet. UDC 11 -6C -3D7 requires setbacks, building envelopes, and orientation of the lots and
structures to be shown on the plat; building setbacks should be measured from the edge of the
common driveway easement or property lines, whichever is more restrictive. Further, UDC
11-3C-6 requires every single-family dwelling to have a two -car garage and a 20' x 20'
parking pad on the lot. The asphalt for the common driveway should not count towards the
required parking pad area. Comply with all common driveway provisions listed in UDC 11-
6C -3D.
Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be
supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not
available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -
point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments
for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An
underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the
approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28.
Fencing: Fencing adjacent to all micro -paths is required. The applicant should submit a
detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. If permanent fencing
is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the
perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All perimeter fencing must be completed
prior to issuance of building permits. All fencing should taper down to a 3 foot maximum
within 20 feet of all rights-of-way. Fencing shall be installed in accordance with UDC 11-
3A-7.
9. Ditches Laterals and Canals: As per UDC 11-3A-6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals,
exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, which intersect, cross
or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered.
b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the MI and PP applications
generally conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. As noted in the
Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B and the Development Agreement provisions in Section
10 of the Staff Re ortstaff recommends a roval of the subject a lications with the
limitations that residential construction be designed in accordance with the R-4 standards of
the UDCminimum, 8,000 square foot lots minimum 60 feet of street frontage, etc. and
density, and that a public collector roadway be constructed out to Meridian Road. Staff further
recommends that the Council direct the Legal Department to draft an addendum to the
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
Development AgKeement to allow residential uses on this property. Please see Exhibit B for all
of the conditionsprovisions and restrictions regarding the Sh herd Creek development.
11. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 5-5-06)
2. Landscape Plans (dated: May 2006 and April 10, 2006)(3 sheets)
B. Conditions of Approval
I. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
S. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Service Company
7. Ada County Highway District (forthcoming)
8. Central District Health Department
9. Idaho Transportation Department
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP -06-040 & MI -06-004 PAGE 13
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (Dated: May 5, 2006)
x2.=7_ '.,..k. .. e;':-,.. - 513
�' �-jy' � ,'^•i �� Oryx _ '�/ ]{r �.�+: aA. ��•' £ �x
�— fib. s
r
� 3;F. � , .F. : � 7 i } B ' f �� ° - i � •. : r ;Y1l�E#t, _.! - 'I:
�� c3.. sem; _ _-�`i c?fya .!" - ` : [ • e 1 .,i, ��..i ;.i'! i ' 3Ga..� �J,_ .
f?:7iih, e.�i �e 3A• 1''t..h� f 'y: �:r:S1� `: qg_.
a7,��yN y'E no.
a
�^.'^� ro+4"w'„• g`4 !!x� �3 !�� I_.�°,ya ice:. y5 Y ei �`.1��
.1 '1 `1I + �. l ��Y'.��:..�. y...x�,'4•'c��.�,. . [g yg Erf:��33Kj 1 n �r y r r s`��u� �.
4 F7
NIN
�..
.��... -=.... `_�• .��..r �- � :rte..
I�
it:I '.;• _ I ._ rn--�.'u ,��n ..-mow-• .�....� r .-,I-�� �i,
.I t ” o lrn"d., gbawo x
. I
Exhibit A
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
I Landscape Plans (dated: May 2006 and April 10, 2006)(3 sheets)
Exhibit A
Z.
0
. X
0
.z
>
cif
i
VT
se
LU
Lu
LAJ
4
CL
LU
A
Exhibit A
Z.
0
. X
0
.z
>
cif
i
V)
se
LU
Lu
LAJ
4
CL
LU
Exhibit A
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
Exhibit A
. iu:JyKTI
-
..
...,n
i-
r
-t -_
-... —,... ,ate •,-t----
—'
,_ J v
Exhibit A
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
i4 11r jr Cr V
4" IT, 4
q
!i! Fii , $4 ,1 I'l jjv:
4i
YA 6, .4
'j:;
- L d
Exhibit A
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21.2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
Prior to the final plat being submitted for City Council approval, a modification to the recorded
Development Agreement (Instrument No. 101015259) shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian, property owner (at the time), and the developer. Said modification to the DA shall
include the changes listed in bold and underline below. The applicant shall contact the City
Attorney, Bill Nary, at 888-4433 to initiate this process.
Page 4, Item 4-1 – "The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses
allowed under "City "'s Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Section
11-7-2 D which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of a
church and a multi-purpose facility and development of single-family residences
on 12 acres that complies with the lot size frontage and densily standards of the
R-4 zone. Prior to occupancy of the first_ home_ within this development, a
collector roadway located at approximately Vi mile north of Victory Road shall
be constructed out to Meridian Road. Said roadway shall be dedicated and
accepted by ACRD."
1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.1.1 The preliminary plat labeled Sheet 1 of 2, prepared by Stanley Consultants, Inc., dated May
5, 2006, is not approved as submitted. The applicant shall revise the plat so all lots comply
with the dimensional standards of an R-4 development as listed in Table 11-2A-4 of the
UDC, and comply with the requirements listed below. At least 10 days prior to the City
Council hearing, the applicant shall submit 10 full-size and one 8.5 " x 11 " copy of the
revised preliminary plat to the Planning Department. All comments and provisions of the
accompanying Miscellaneous application (MI -06-004) and the development agreement for
this property shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP -06-040).
1.1.2 The landscape plans prepared by Jensen Belts, on May 2006 and prepared by Glancey
Rockwell & Associates, on April 10, 2006, labeled Sheets L-2.61 and L-2.62 are approved
with the following modifications/notes:
• Provide a 35 -foot wide landscape street buffer along Meridian Road as
depicted. The landscape buffer along the street shall be designed in
accordance with UDC 11-38-7 and UDC 11 -3114C&D.
• Construct a 20 -foot wide landscape street buffer along both sides of the
"disputed" collector roadway out to Meridian Road. The landscape buffer
along the collector street shall be designed in accordance with UDC 11-313-7
and UDC Table 11-2A-4.
• Construct a 20 -foot wide landscape strip along the north side of the
development, from Riptide Avenue to the west property line, as proposed.
• Provide a micro -path connection on Lots 1 and 15, Block 1, which connects
Riptide Avenue to the parking lot for the church. Provide a micro -path on Lot
7, Block 2, as proposed. Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-
12, adjacent to the micro -paths. Micro -path fencing shall comply with the
standards listed in the UDC.
• Construct 6 -foot tall vinyl fencing around the perimeter as shown on the plan.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
Construct all other internal landscaping as shown on the plans.
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
those removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as
replacement trees for those that are removed. The applicant shall coordinate a
mitigation plan with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Parks Department.
A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape
architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan
and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards
of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14.
Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the
final plat application(s).
1.1.3 Prior to the final plat being submitted for City Council approval, a modification to the recorded
Development Agreement (Instrument No. 101015259) shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian, property owner (at the time), and the developer.
1.1.4 Construct a public collector roadway from the intersection of Riptide Avenue, out to Meridian
Road. This roadway shall be located approximately 1/2 mile north of Victory Road and shall be
designed and constructed to ACHD's standards. This roadway shall be constructed and approved
by ACHD prior to the City's issuance of any residential occupancies in this development. Place a
note on the face of the final plat prohibiting direct lot access to Meridian Road.
1.1.5 The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way, in accordance with ITD's requirements, to allow for
future highway expansion along Meridian Road.
1.1.6 Any two lots sharing a common driveway shall maintain at least 15 feet of public street frontage
(flag) and the common driveway easement should be depicted and explained on the face of the
final plat. Place the building setbacks/envelopes and orientation of the lots and structures that use
the common driveway on the face of the final plat. Building setbacks shall be measured from the
edge of the common driveway easement or property lines, whichever is more restrictive. Provide
a two -car garage and a 20' x 20' parking pad on each lot. The asphalt for the common driveway
shall not count towards the required parking pad area. Comply with all common driveway
provisions listed in UDC 11 -6C -3D.
1.1.7 Set aside at least 0.78 acres (6.5 % of the property) for open space, as proposed. Construct
pedestrian pathways (micro -paths) and a seating area with benches as part of the open space
design.
1.1.8 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Shepherd Creek Subdivision
Homeowners' Association.
1.1.9 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. 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.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
1.1.10 Underground, pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.2.1 Sidewalks/walkways shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the
subdivision (where applicable) pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17.
1.2.2 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11.
1.2.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for
the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the
culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will
be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the
final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed
to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and
MCC 9-1-28.
1.2.4 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. 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.
1.2.5 The applicant shall submit a fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. If
permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be
installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fences shall 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.
1.2.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals, or canals intersecting, crossing, or lying adjacent and contiguous to
the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6, unless otherwise approved by the
appropriate Irrigation District. Plans will need to be approved by said 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.
1.2.7 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved
annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
1.2.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in Bear
Creek Subdivision that flow to the Bear Creek Lift Station. The Bear Creek Lift Station
discharges to an eight -inch line in Overland Road. It is the determination of the City Engineer
and Public Works Director, using information derived from the City's sewer model and flow
metering, that the Bear Creek Lift Station is ineligible to take any more flow than is currently
approved in Bear Creek Subdivision.
2.2 This property shall not be allowed to sewer to the mains in Bear Creek until the lift station is
decommissioned, and the mains are then gravity flowing to the Black Cat Trunk. In order to
ensure this, the City Engineer will not sign the plat until the Bear Creek Lift Station is taken off-
line.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
2.3 This property is currently not serviceable by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer system and the
City of Meridian does not guarantee sewer service in the timelines outlined in the UDC.
2.4 The applicant shall install sewer and water mains to and through this 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 alternate
materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2.5 The applicant shall be required to extend a sewer service down the lot line common to lots 7-8
block 4, to parcel R 8186120850 which is located in the southwest corner of this development.
On the face of the final plat graphically dedicate a sewer service easement to protect this service
2.6 Any potential reimbursement agreements must comply with all requirements of City Code 9-1-13
and 9-4-19, which includes the preliminary agreement (which includes footage, size, and depth of
reimbursable pipe) being finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement
with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature.
2.7 The applicant shall provide a 20 -foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way (include all water services and hydrants).
2.8 The applicant has not indicated who will 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 of the 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 of this project.
If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then evidence of a license agreement
shall be submitted prior to scheduling of a pre -construction meeting.
2.9 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water (UDC 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 connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
2.10 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius
of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation
requirement and comply with all landscape requirements.
2.11 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.
2.12 The preliminary plat indicates that the Harden Drain will be tiled on the "church side" of this
property. Prior to construction plan approval the applicant shall provide documentation that the
owners of the church lot approve of the tiling of the drain on their property.
2.13 The remainder of the drain on the "church lot" shall be tiled with any new improvement or
division of the remainder of the "church property".
2.14 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that
intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 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 prior
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21.2006
to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
2.15 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final
Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits.
2.16 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
2.17 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.
2.18 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.
2.19 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.21 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.22 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Where mailboxes
are located on or near sidewalk the applicant shall comply with all American with Disabilities Act
requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access.
2.23 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.24 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3 -feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1 -foot above.
2.25 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights, on 25' pole shall be required on all public
residential streets. Two -hundred and fifty watt high pressure sodium streetlights, on 30' pole
shall be required on subdivision entrances and collector roadways. Design of the streetlights shall
be approved by the Public Works Department. Decorative lights require a streetlight agreement
on file with Public Works prior to activation. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's
expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants, and no further than
400' distance in between locations. Final design locations and quantity are determined after
power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain
approval from the Public Works Department, and permit from Building 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 hours 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 fire 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.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 '/2" 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 corners when spacing permits.
e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the 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 of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
6. All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and
shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide.
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. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction.
9. The proposed 55 -lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total
estimated population of 160 residents at build out.
10. The applicant shall work with the Public Works Addressing staff to provide an address identification
plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance for the church.
11. The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible
from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please chane the name of Alaska Way to
Garibaldi Avenue as it aligLis with Garibaldi Avenue in Strada Bellissima Subdivision. Please
contact Tricia Biernen at 898-5500 to address this concern.
12. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as
measured around the perimeter of the building.
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 mauls shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout
with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
14. An emergency access to meridian Rod is helpful here but offset is a concern.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if
solid fencing is used.
4.2 Adequate lighting shall be provided along pathways.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
4.3 Rename Alaska Way, Garabaldi Avenue,
5. PARKS DEPARTMENT
5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance (UDC 11-35-10) will be followed.
5.2 Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (UDC 11-313-10) will be followed.
6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
6.1 SSC will not provide trash pick-up services utilizing the common driveway. The developer shall
install a concrete pad at the end of the common drive no more than five (5) feet behind the
sidewalk. The pad shall be of sufficient area to accommodate the receptacles of the residences
that take access from the common driveway.
7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
7.1. Forthcoming.
8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for
central sewage and central water.
8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water.
8.3 Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
9. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
9.1 This site is located adjacent to the State Highway 69
9.2 ITD supports the City's proposal for a collector road connection at the half mile location, and
future signalization at the location, as warranted, and as funding allows.
9.3 This proposal should be contingent upon the City's commitment to require the realignment of
Roslyn Court as redevelopment occurs at that site.
9.4 We would also like agreement, if informal, between ITD, ACHD and the City of Meridian that no
other signals between Victory and Overland roads would be proposed.
9.5 Should an accident history develop at the intermediate intersections, a median to restrict
movements would be constructed (as funding allows) to resolve safety problems.
9.6 Good connectivity should be required to allow good access to the potential signal location from
properties in the sub -area.
Exhibit B
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 20, 2006
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report.
B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development. (See Exhibit B for more information.)
C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the
City's capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their
own cost, staff finds that allowing a subdivision on this site will not require the
expenditure of capital improvement funds.
D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public
service providers (i.e., police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B,
for more detail.)
E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare; and
Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the
development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention. ACHD and 1TD consider 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.
F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site. Therefore, staff
finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. 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 staff is unaware.
Exhibit C
Dep. 13. LUVo IU.LLHIvi
CITY OF .
IDAHO
H�IIiRCA9�l({CVr�IGY
0W
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
Christine Donnell
CITY DEPARTMENTS
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234 / fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Bower Street
888-3579 / fax 888.6854
Planning & Zoning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884.5533 / fax 888-6854
Police
1401 E. Watertower Lane
888-6678 / fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 L. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500 / fax 895-9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
887.2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2191 / fax 884-0744
- Water
2235 N. W. 8th Street
888-5242 / fax 884-1159
September 12, 2006
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
C/O Susan Slaughter
3775 N. Adams Street
Garden City, ID 83714
RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision
Request for Reconsideration
Dear Commissioners:
ivo.7oj4 r. I
It has come to the City's attention that the applicant of Shepherd Creek
Subdivision has submitted an appeal letter regarding ACHD's requirement for a
4`s' access road to/from the proposed development. In the last paragraph of the
applicant's appeal letter dated September 8, 2006, he specifically requests that the
Commission delete the requirement for the "disputed" collector road. The City
requests that the ACRD Board of Commissioners not grant the applicant's
request, and instead modify Site Specific Condition of Approval #2 by allowing,
if not requiring, a public (collector) roadway to be constructed as part of the
Shepherd Creek Subdivision. The City's request is not only based on the
applicant's request to remove said condition, but new information that was not
available to the Commission during the September 6, 2006 hearing.
Prior to the September 6a' hearing, ITD submitted a letter to the City stating that
ITD supports the City's proposal for a collector road connection at the half mile
location for this project, and future signalization at the location, as warranted, and
as funding allows (please see attached letter). This letter was forwarded to ACID
staff by City staff, but apparently Lori Den Hartog was on vacation and the letter
did not make it to the Commissioners.
Both IM's and the City of Meridian's policies regarding access to Type IV state
highways state that access to highways are to be located at the 1/2 mile between
sections. If a collector roadway can be constructed at the 1/2 mile location between
Overland Road and Victory Road, then future signalization is possible. If ACRD
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433
CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY/HR -FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & UTILM BILLING -FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX 884.8119
SEP 13 '06 11:51 PAGE.01
. yep. IJ. ZHO IU:ZJAM
No. )bJ4 r. 1
does not allow the "disputed" collector roadway then the opportunity for a signal
between Victory Road and Overland Road will bo lost, Therefore, the City
respectfully requests that ACHD reconsider their action regarding this project and
allow a public (collector) roadway to be constructed within the subject
development to Meridian Road (SH -69),
As it is my understanding that the request for reconsideration is not open for
public input, City Staff will not be present during the September 131' ACi D
Commission hearing. However, once a hearing date is established, City staff will
be present to formally present the basis for this request and answer any questions
that may arise,
Sincerely,
Anna Borchers Canning, CP
Planning Director
Attachments: Letter from the Idaho Transportation Department
Cc: Matt Schultz, RUR Consulting, Inc,
Gary Inselman, ACRD ROW/DS Manager
Bruce Mills, AC1 D Deputy Director of Technical Services
Shepherd Creek Subdivision File
SEP 13 '06 11:51 ParF a�
Jep. IJ. IM IU:iJANI
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Frank Brunel
Cha/rman
John X. Combo
V/o® Choftan
Dletrict e
John McHugh
District t
Bruce sweeney
District 2
Monte McClure
District 3
Gary Blick
District 4
Nell Miller
Dlstriot 5
David Ekern, RE,
D11voW
Sue Higgins
Board Secretary
No, 6634 N. 3
IDAHO TRANSPORUTION 1111SPARTMSNT
R0, Box 8028
Boise, ID 83707-2026 r, (206) 334-6300
Itd.idaho.gov
August 31, 2006
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Attn: Will Berg
Fax: (208) 884-8119
Re: Preliminary Plat
State Highway 69 (Meridian Rd)
Location: 2475 S. Meridian Rd
Applicant # MI 06-004 & PP 06-040 Valley Shepherd Church and Shepherd Creek
Dear Mr. Berg:
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the above referenced application.
Comments:
o This site is located adjacent to the State Highway 69.
o ITD supports the City's proposal for a collector road connection at the half mile
location, and future signalization at the location, as warranted, and as funding
allows.
o This proposal should be contingent upon the City's commitment to require the
realignment of Roslyn Court as redevelopment occurs at that site.
o We would also like agreement, if Informal, between ITD, ACHD and the City of
Meridian that no other signals between Victory and Overland roads would be
proposed.
o Should an accident history develop at the intermediate intersections, a median to
restrict movements would be constructed (as funding allows) to resolve safety
problems.
o Good connectivity should be required to allow good access to the potential signal
location from properties in the sub -area.
Contacts
Sue Sullivan Senior Planner 334-8955
Kevin Sablan Traffic Engineer 334-8340
Matt Ward Permits Coordinator 334-8341
Sincerely,
Sue Sullivan
Senior Planner
SEP 13 '06 11:51 vora= a7
IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 8028
Boise, ID 83707-2028
August 31, 2006
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Attn: Will Berg
Fax: (208) 884-8119
(208) 334-8300
itd.idaho.gov
SEP - 7 2006
Re: Preliminary Plat
State Highway 69 (Meridian Rd)
Location: 2475 S. Meridian Rd
Applicant # MI 06-004 & PP 06-040 Valley Shepherd Church and Shepherd Creek
Hearing: September 12, 2006
Dear Mr. Berg:
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above
referenced application. I am unsure if the our previous letter was mailed, so apologies if this is a duplicate.
Comments:
o This site is located adjacent to the State Highway 69.
o ITD supports the City's proposal for a collector road connection at the half mile location, and future
signalization at the location, as warranted, and as funding allows.
o This proposal should be contingent upon the City's commitment to require the realignment of Roslyn
Court as redevelopment occurs at that site.
o We would also like agreement, if informal, between ITD, ACHD and the City of Meridian that no
other signals between Victory and Overland roads would be proposed.
o Should an accident history develop at the intermediate intersections, a median to restrict
movements would be constructed (as funding allows) to resolve safety problems.
o Good connectivity should be required to allow good access to the potential signal location from
properties in the sub -area.
Contacts
Sue Sullivan Senior Planner 334-8955
Kevin Sablan Traffic Engineer 334-8340
Matt Ward Permits Coordinator 334-8341
Sincerely,
51111 d7v---
Sue Sullivan
Senior Planner
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Frank Bruneel
Chairman
John X. Combo
trice 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.D.
Director
Sue Higgins
Board Secretary
IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 8028
Boise, ID 83707-2028 (2 itd Idaho. 00
itd.idaho.gov
August 31, 2006
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Attn: Will Berg
Fax: (208) 884-8119
TETW
�,-
fjUb
CitSr of
Meridian
cit. Clerk Offiee
Re: Preliminary Plat
State Highway 69 (Meridian Rd)
Location: 2475 S. Meridian Rd
Applicant # MI 06-004 & PP 06-040 Valley Shepherd Church and Shepherd Creek
Dear Mr. Berg:
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the above referenced application.
Comments:
o This site is located adjacent to the State Highway 69.
o ITD supports the City's proposal for a collector road connection at the half mile
location, and future signalization at the location, as warranted, and as funding
allows.
o This proposal should be contingent upon the City's commitment to require the
realignment of Roslyn Court as redevelopment occurs at that site.
o We would also like agreement, if informal, between ITD, ACHD and the City of
Meridian that no other signals between Victory and Overland roads would be
proposed.
o Should an accident history develop at the intermediate intersections, a median to
restrict movements would be constructed (as funding allows) to resolve safety
problems.
o Good connectivity should be required to allow good access to the potential signal
location from properties in the sub -area.
Contacts
Sue Sullivan Senior Planner 334-8955
Kevin Sablan Traffic Engineer 334-8340
Matt Ward Permits Coordinator 334-8341
Sincerely,
Sue Sullivan
Senior Planner
its ,� � kN�41U
DAVID ZAREMBA
2540 N. CROOKED CREEK WAY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83646-3968
August 18, 2006
Honorable Commissioners
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Re: Meridian ApplicationMI 06-004 and PP 06-040
Shepherd Creek Subdivision, 2 . en ian Road
Scheduled for ACHD Hearing on September 6, 2006
Dear Commissioners,
These applications were scheduled for Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission Public Hearing on August 17, 2006, and have been continued to
September 21, 2006, pending your action at your hearing.
During an earlier P$Z Public Hearing for voluntary Annexation of the subject
property into the City of Meridian, the provision of a Collector roadway,
intersecting Meridian Road at the half -mile, was a topic of thorough discussion.
While roadways are decided by ACRD, the proposed existence of this Collector
was an important element in considering the Annexation.
It is unclear why the current application shows this Collector as "disputed". I do
not recall any doubt that the roadway was offered and accepted as a required
part of any future land use.
I urge you not to give ACHD approval to the current application unless the
Collector road is required. Based on the Annexation discussion, I believe the
land use is unlikely to gain Meridian PSZ Commission approval without the
Collector.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
David Zaremba
Planning and Zoning Commissioner
City of Meridian
cc: Caleb Hood
Will Berg
Sharon Smith
From: Will Berg
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2OO6 8:52 AM
To: Sharon Smith; Tara Green
Subject: FW: Bear Creek subdivision
-----Original Message ------
From: Peggy Gardner
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:50 AM
To: Tammy de Weerd
Cc: Clerks
Subject: FW: Bear Creek subdivision
Addressed to Mayor. I also forwarded to the Clerks' Office.
Peggy
Administrative Secretary to
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City of Meridian
Phone 884-2468 ext. 204
-----Original Message -----
From: Tracy and Sara Tatom[mailto:tstatom@mybearcreek.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:52 PM
To: Peggy Gardner
Cc: Shaun Wardle; Keith Bird; Joe Borton; rountree@merdiancity.org
Subject: Bear Creek subdivision
Mayor de Weerd,
Thank you very much for your service to our beautiful city.
Meridian is truly a fantastic place to live.
I know you are a very busy person but I hope you can take a short time to read my e-
mail regarding the new "Shepherd's Creek Subdivision" that is going in just East of the
"Bear Creek Subdivision". As you know, the Bear Creek subdivision was one of the first
"high end" subdivisions in the immediate Meridian area. It continues to maintain high
property values and from my perspective, is a great subdivision to live in. I am
concerned about the proposal to route traffic through our subdivision to the Shepard's
Creek Subdivision. This will bring a lot of traffic through our streets that have many
children playing that could get injured. With the quantity and price of lots, in my
opinion, there is no way it won't drive our property values down. My main concern is the
traffic routing. I am concerned that a subdivision is being approved directly next to us
with very small lower end lots. The folks in this subdivision will not have the same
level of amenities that we have and therefore, they will spill over into our subdivision
and provide increased foot traffic.
I am planned to attend the rescheduled meeting on the 7th of September to voice my
concerns in person but I know the agenda will probably be quite full so I wanted you to be
aware, ahead of time.
Thank you all for your consideration in advance.
Tracy Tatom
573 W. Kodiak Drive
Meridian, Idaho 83642
tstatom@mybearcreek.com
1
August 14, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd Creek LLC ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots &
1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision -
2475 S. Meridian Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT: 1
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: See Attached Affidavit of Posting / Numerous Citizens Comments
Contacte . SDate:I(Lt Phone:
Emailed: 6ch Ld-t%?-d,,evdo a�Ugltyitaff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings ll become property
s aof the City of Meridian.
%7 --W
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
RECEIVEJ)
GITY OF MERIDIANI
I -
CITY fI,--,.I--F,RK (,cl Irl-
pld, Pr=leo Signa- Inc- 2100 E- Faj0j*gW &MDUO, Suk 7 855-0380
(nanle) (address) (phone)
Id2ha being first duly sworn upon
(city) (state) path, depose and say:
I personally, posted the su" property with the hearing notice sign 10 days prior to the public
hearing for; tie Pralsminoty Plat I Raymand DWIapMaj)t Agroamant fhr Shilphard Gtailk
i 'Y 1201 A& ---- S..
Dated this 31st day July 12006
'--'Oignatur'e)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
N'btaryYubl'7���
Residing at
01
A. My Commission Expires: lz-:::�.2
MasteAaffid-posting
1
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
July 31, 2006
Joint school District No. 2
911 Meridian Road • Meridian, Idaho 83642 • (208) 855-4500 • Fax (208) 888-6700
City of Meridian
b .. E. ivatertowe�r Lane _ ------:--.-.- _- -• -- — -----�.._-- - --_ -- --
Suite 202
Meridian, ID 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 Shepard Creek Subdivision will have a significant impact on school
enrollments at Mga McPherson Elementga, Lake Hazel Middle and Mountain View
High School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house sixteen (16) elementary
aged children, fifteen (15) middle school aged children, and thirteen (13) 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.
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
Wendel Bigham
Building & Construction Manager
CENTRAL STRICT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
•• DIReturn to:
WPEALTH � Environmental Health Division L1 Boise
DEPARTMENT
GAS ❑ Eagle
Rezone # TO L)Garden City
Conditional Use •�I 1� t 0 & —00 M eridian
❑
.� Kuna
Preliminary / F4� rt Plat PP 06 –0YI) ❑ACZ
SG�e�er-� d;-.s� o I,.
LJ1. We have No Objections to this Proposal. JUL ? 7 2006
❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal '" ( `lerk ,Dmc.e
❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics
❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other
❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
1291/8-. After written al3proval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
central sewage ❑ community sewage system L)community water well
LJinterim sewage 45central water
❑ individual sewage ❑ individual water
Y9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of E ronmental Quality:
central sewage ❑ community sewage system ❑ community water
❑ sewage dry lines ural water
10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas
❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store
❑ 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations
❑ 15.
❑ child care center
Reviewed
V r_
Review Sheet
15726-001EH0904
Al
8- 8-06; 7:57AM; :46466 u 2/ C
2715 S Hibernation Place
Meridian, ID 83642
August 7, 2006 RECOWDr
City Clerk's Office AUG 0 Z[lp�i
33 E Idaho Ave City of Meridian
Meridian, ID 83642 City Clerk Office
CC: Mayor Tammy de Weerd & the Meridian City Council
Dear Commission:
When I was in the process of buying my home in Bear Creek, less than one year ago, I was informed that
only a church was going to be built on that land. I was concerned that my view was going to be
Protected, but more importantly, I was concemed that my property value would be protected. Now, I'm
facing losing my view and my property value as town homes do not fit in with the standard of both Bear
Creek and Bella Vista. f=urthermore, now I have just learned that my child's safety is at stake since these
new homes will be driving through where she plays. All of the homeowners in this area are used to using
extreme caution when coming through this area. At times there are as many as 35 children playing at
the end of Bear Track, where the road currently stops (near Hibernation Place). These children have
grown to be comfortable playing in this safe street, as most of them are too young to go to the park by
themselves. The parents in this area cannot watch their kids constantly (as they will need to if you allow
traffic through this area) as many of us work from our homes. Now there may be as many as 550 more
vehicle trips weaving through our children!? The odds are against our children. One of them is going to
get hurt if you allow traffic through this area.
I am also quite concerned about the density of this "block" from Meridian to Stoddard, and Victory to
Overland. Bella Vista residents haven't even moved in yet and already the traffic at Overland and
Meridian is maxed out. Just imagine how crazy and congested it's going to be when you allow these
additional new homes for Shepherd's Creek Subdivision to be built. Our infrastructure can't support it.
Meridian road and especially the intersections at Overland & Meridian and at Vktory and Meridian need to
be expanded. For instance, now well need a light at Victory and Meridian. As it is right now, without the
presence of the Bella Vista residents, cars back up there, waiting and waiting to be able to make a safe
tum.
Not only will our safety be jeopardized if you allow this new subdivision, but our peace of mind. I
personally moved here to get away from traffic. Traffic in Meridian has been increasing drastically, and
already I'm starting to get agitated just doing errands. This agitation times nearly 100,000 residents
spells trouble. Let us continue to enjoy living in Meridian. Please don't tum Meridian into Califomial
Development is good, but too much is disaster. Please, please dont allow this subdivision to be built, at
least not until our infrastructure can support it around all of Meridian, not just at this already dense block.
And please, please do not allow tars to drive through our children's playground.
Thank you.
I will not be able to be at the meeting as I will be out of town, recovering from surgery. Please let this
letter be my voice.
Best wishes,
Carolyn Smith
Mother and Resident of Bear Creek Subdivision
R66-680 6 06:52 46466 PAGE. 02
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF AUG 10 '06 14:17 PAGE -01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
2631 S. Hibernation Pl.
Meridian, Idaho $3642
August 9, 2006
^1- RECEIVED
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ; `3 2006
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue City of Meridian
Meridian, Idaho 83642 City Clerk Office
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
Subject: Application MI 06-004 — Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modificatiou of the Development Agreement between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
As taxpayers, voters, and residents of Bear Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek) which is
located immediately adjacent to the proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision we oppose
the above application for approval. We request that you and the City Council give
serious consideration to issues involving this proposed development and vote in
opposition to the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (MI 06-
004) between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the
approval of the application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1
additional lot on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian
Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infiastruchm of Bear Creek
for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park, utilizing pedestrian walkways,
lighting, and green space which is maintained through fees paid by the Bear Creek Home
Owner's Association. Unfortunately, our residence is located on one of the primary
access routes to Stoddard Road and will be directly impacted by the traffic from this
development.
We implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
I. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of the
traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more congestion on
Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and soon to be
taxed even more when, Bear Creek West is completed.
DATE
TIME
TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC
PGS
CMD#
STATUS
10
08/10
14:08
PUBLIC WORKS
EC --S
01'40"
005
169
OK
OK
11
08/10
14=10
8848723
EC --S
01'43"
005
169
12
08/10
14:13
P -AND -Z
EC --S
01'39"
01'39"
005
005
169
169
OK
OK
QU� n v,
1�
13
--------------------------------..___.----,-----------------------------------
08/10
14:15
208 387 6393
EC --S
2631 S. Hibernation Pl.
Meridian, Idaho $3642
August 9, 2006
^1- RECEIVED
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ; `3 2006
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue City of Meridian
Meridian, Idaho 83642 City Clerk Office
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
Subject: Application MI 06-004 — Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modificatiou of the Development Agreement between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
As taxpayers, voters, and residents of Bear Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek) which is
located immediately adjacent to the proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision we oppose
the above application for approval. We request that you and the City Council give
serious consideration to issues involving this proposed development and vote in
opposition to the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (MI 06-
004) between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the
approval of the application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1
additional lot on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian
Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infiastruchm of Bear Creek
for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park, utilizing pedestrian walkways,
lighting, and green space which is maintained through fees paid by the Bear Creek Home
Owner's Association. Unfortunately, our residence is located on one of the primary
access routes to Stoddard Road and will be directly impacted by the traffic from this
development.
We implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
I. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of the
traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more congestion on
Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and soon to be
taxed even more when, Bear Creek West is completed.
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
2631 S. Hibernation Pl.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
August 9, 2006
RECEIVED
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Subject: Application MI 06-004 — Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modification of the Development Agreement between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
As taxpayers, voters, and residents of Bear Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek) which is
located immediately adjacent to the proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision we oppose
the above application for approval. We request that you and the City Council give
serious consideration to issues involving this proposed development and vote in
opposition to the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (MI 06-
004) between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the
approval of the application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1
additional Iot on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian
Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infrastructure of Bear Creek
for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park, utilizing pedestrian walkways,
lighting, and green space which is maintained through fees paid by the Bear Creek Home
Owner's Association. Unfortunately, our residence is located on one of the primary
access routes to Stoddard Road and will be directly impacted by the traffic from this
development.
We implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues,/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
1. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of the
traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more congestion on
Stoddard. and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and soon to be
taxed even more when Bear Creek West is completed.
• No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development provides no
outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the subdivision and to
the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve as outlets for Bear Creek.
The development needs to address traffic issues by providing direct access to
Victory Road which would offer an alternate route, easing traffic on Stoddard and
Overland. It was our understanding that a traffic light will be installed at Victory
in the near future (Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for Shepherd's Creek LLC
advised at the neighbor hood meeting that a traffic light would be installed on
Victory Road) which is an even greater reason to provide a more direct alternate
route. A redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an outlet on the Church's
access road to Alfani Way (access to Victory) or to Mastera which fronts on
Meridian Road would be a good alternative solution. It would be an admirable
gesture on the Church's part to provide this access for alleviating additional
congestion that is being created by the proposed subdivision (land sold to
Shepherd's Creek LLC by the Church). In addition, Church traffic is typically at
its peak on Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts should not be at
issue.
• Construction Traffic — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a serious
concern. Construction access should be provided through an alternate route not
through Bear Creek subdivision. Access via the Church and off Meridian Road
should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in the subdivision.
• Fire and Emergency Vehicles — A very serious issue is the lack of direct access
to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency purposes. This
requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander through Bear Creek or
Belimissa subdivisions to provide emergency services. A more direct route along
the Church access road directly to the proposed subdivision is a small request
when considering the loss of a life due to a poorly designed access for the gain of
a few additional dollars.
• Safety of Bear Creek Residents/Children - There are a significant number of
small children (approximately 100 under the age of 8) that live along Bear Track,
Bear Claw Way, Alaska Way, and Hibernation Pl., and for their protection and
safety, traffic should be minimized.
2. Land Use & Density
Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes the land use for the Church property as
Public/Quasi Public (Page 97 of June 2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan) — The
Comprehensive Plan guidance states: "Redevelopment of this type of area is to be
guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the
surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues
associated with theproposed development of the property. "(Page 106 of June 2006,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan)
2
Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 homes per acre, doubling
the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is approximately 2.6 homes per acre (354
homes on 133 acres). Transportation/access is a key issue — use of Bear Creek roads for
access and no proposed direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3 homes per
acre would lessen impacts on traffic and emergency services.
The present land use of this property is Public/Quasi public, which would be considered
one step lower than the current land use surrounding the site, thus the redevelopment
and rezoning should only permit a rezone to low density (one step above
public/quasi public designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan).
This would be consistent with the low density of the adjacent Bear Creek neighborhood.
3. Lot/Home Values
The increased density, small lots, and patio homes negatively impact the values of the
residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have purchased homes in Bear Creek have
put forth a significant investment, thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian.
Homes in areas with low density, parks, and green space are valued higher than homes
with high density, and minimal "useable" green space. To maintain property values in
Bear Creek the density and related amenities of Shepherds Creek should be consistent
and lots/home values should be equal to or more than those in Bear Creek.
4. Drainage
Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need assurances and site
drainage plans that address drainage containment within the Shepherd's Creek
Development.
5. Open Space/Parks
The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are virtually
unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of one which is a minimually
usable narrow strip of land. If the space were one contiguous green space than value as
open space is added, however, as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely solely on the
amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, green space, roads, etc., while not
contributing added value. The residents of Bear Creek pay annual association fees to
maintain the public spaces within the development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay
nothing to support or maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings, etc.,
that they will use to access Bear Creek Park through Bear Creek Subdivision.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value then the common lots or "green space" needs
to be located in the center of the development and offer amenities that are usable by the
public, e.g., a one acre play area for children or a small usable park, not just un -
developable leftovers.
3
6. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRS)
Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRS in place designed to protect investments
and the integrity of the development. These covenants include property maintenance and
improvements, association dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers,
campers, boats, etc., be stored behind fenced areas or garages. With the direct proximity
of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development should be required to have
similar association covenants and contribute to the association dues and maintenance of
the area, especially as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek
Park. Bear Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
7. Transitional and Street Tree Plantings
Where are no apparent transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek, nor are there
street tree plantings or landscaped medians such as exist in Bear Creek. If property
values are to be protected then at a minimum, these elements need to be required for the
proposed development.
We are very concerned about the Shepherd's Creek development as currently proposed
and request that you and the Council give careful and informed consideration to the
issues defined in this letter and do not approve the application until these issues have
been addressed.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment and input on the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Application.
President, City Council
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Keith Bird
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
4
Joe Borton
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Charlie Rountree
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
67
Page 1 of 1
Sharon Smith
From:
Peggy Gardner
Sent:
Monday, August 14, 2006 8:41 AM
To:
Tammy de Weerd
Cc:
Clerks
Subject:
FW: Shepherd's Creek Subdivision
Importance: High
Received Sunday night.
PEGGY
RECEIVER
AUG I ;" 2M'
City of Meridian
Administrative Secretary to City Clerk Office
Mayor Tanamy de Weerd
City of Meridian
Phone 884-2468 ext. 204
From: Michael Steege [mailto:michael_steege@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:59 PM
To: Peggy Gardner
Cc: Shaun Wardle; Keith Bird; Joe Borton; rountree@meridiancity.org
Subject: Shepherd's Creek Subdivision
Dear Mayor Tammy de Weerd,
I recently learned Shepherd's Creek Subdivision will not exit onto Meridian road but will go through
Bear Creek Subdivision instead. The subdivision currently has no planning for the same covenants or
open space requirements Bear Creek has and therefore it will not maintain the look or feel of a
homogeneous neighborhood. I am most upset that the traffic will funnel through Bear Creek causing
even more traffic density, hazards and construction traffic in a neighborhood fna� seeing the cnd of
the construction traffic and higher traffic volume.
Please do everything in your power to prevent this situation with particular attention to the traffic exit
and mandating financial support for similar ground's maintenance standards.
Thank you for your valuable time. I am copying the other members of the City Council to enlist their
help/attention also.
Sincerely,
Michael and Shannon Steege (Bear Creek Subdivision homeowners)
8/14/2006
Sharon Smith
From: Tara Green
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:36 PM
To: Anna Canning (can ninga@meridian city. org); Craig Hood (E-mail); Justin Lucas
(lucasj@meridiancity.org); Amanda Hess (hessa@meridian city. org); Jennifer Veatch; Ted
Baird; Bill Nary
Cc: Sharon Smith; Machelle Hill
Subject: FW: SHEPHERD'S CREEK SUBDIVISION
-----Original Message -----
From: Peggy Gardner
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:35 PM
To: Tammy de Weerd
Cc: Clerks
Subject: FW: SHEPHERD'S CREEK SUBDIVISION
FYI I printed this for the Mayor.
Peggy
Administrative Secretary to
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City of Meridian
Phone 884-2468 ext. 204
i -CEI D
AUG 10 2006
City of Meridia3m
City Clerk .Offiee
-----Original Message -----
From: PatrickRobinson@BC.com [mailto:PatrickRobinson@BC.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:00 AM
To: Peggy Gardner; Shaun Wardle; Keith Bird; Joe Borton; rountree@meridiancity.org
Subject: SHEPHERD'S CREEK SUBDIVISION
I am a resident of Bear Creek Subdivision and am concerned with what I'm hearing in
regards to the new development planned next to Bear Creek.
This higher density development will greatly impact the traffic through Bear Creek
Subdivision. Bear Creek allowed for less than 3 homes per acre. The information I have
received. shows Shepherds Creek at approximately 6 homes per acre. Since I will be out of
town for business during the scheduled August 17th meeting, I wanted to express my
concerns. Lower property values, increased traffic and increased use of Bear Creak
amenities are a great concern for myself and many of my fellow neighbors. Please consider
this when you decide how many houses you will allow per acre.
Regards,
Patrick Robinson, CTP*
Marketing and Customer Service Coordinator Boise Cascade Trucking
800--641-6995 EXT#1
PATRICKROBINSON@BC.COM
I
Will Berg
From:
Peggy Gardner
Sent:
Monday, August 14, 2006 8:41 AM
To:
Tammy de Weerd
Cc:
Clerks
Subject: FW: Shepherd's Creek Subdivision
Importance: High
Received Sunday night.
PEGGY
Administrative secretary to
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City of Meridian
Phone 884-2468 ext 204
From: Michael Steege[mailto:michael_steege@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:59 PM
To: Peggy Gardner
Cc: Shaun Wardle; Keith Bird; Joe Borton; rountree@meridiancity.org
Subject: Shepherd's Creek Subdivision
Dear Mayor Tammy de Weerd,
RECEIVE])
AUG 14 xo,
CitCity Clerk 0 Ian
Page 1 of 1
I recently learned Shepherd's Creek Subdivision will not exit onto Meridian road but will go through Bear
Creek Subdivision instead. The subdivision currently has no planning for the same covenants or open space
requirements Bear Creek has and therefore it will not maintain the look or feel of a homogeneous
neighborhood. I am most upset that the traffic will funnel through Bear Creek causing even more traffic
density, hazards and construction traffic in a neighborhood finally seeing the end of the construction traffic
and higher traffic volume.
Please do everything in your power to prevent this situation with particular attention to the traffic exit and
mandating financial support for similar ground's maintenance standards.
Thank you for your valuable time. I am copying the other members of the City Council to enlist their
help/attention also.
Sincerely,
Michael and Shannon Steege (Bear Creek Subdivision homeowners)
8/14/2006
Page 1 of 1
Sharon Smith
From: Sharon Smith
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:02 PM
To: Barbara Shiffer; C. Caleb Hood; Will Berg; Tara Green; Machelle Hill; Laura Masonholder;
Michelle Albertson; Ted Baird; Bill Nary; Mike Cale; Karie Glenn
Subject: Shepherd Creek Subdivision comments / petition
Attachments: Shepherd Creek Subdivision.pdf
This is on Aug 17th P & Z Comm. Thanks!
Shamri Smith
Sr. Deputy City Clerk
Meridian City Clerks Office
]'hone 208.888.4433
8/10/2006
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
Bear Creek Homeowners Association
2640 S. Bear Claw Way
Meridian, ED 83642
August 9, 2006
ECEWED
AUG i �, '100."
City of Meridian
C14 Clerk Office
Subject: Application MI 06-004 —Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modification of the Development Agreement between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
This letter transmits a petition signed by 234 taxpayers, voters, and residents of Bear
Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek), located within the city limits of Meridian, Idaho who
oppose the above application. These individuals request that you and the City Council
give serious consideration to issues involving this development and vote in opposition to
the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (MI 06-004) between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the approval of the
application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1 additional lot on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infrastructure of Bear Creek
for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park; utilizing pedestrian walkways,
lighting, and green space which is maintained through fees paid by the Bear Creek Home
Owner's Association.
We implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
ISSUES:
1. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of this
traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more congestion on
Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and soon to be
taxed even more when Bear Creek West is completed.
No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development provides no
outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the subdivision and to
1
V
the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve as outlets for Bear Creek.
The development needs to address traffic issues by providing direct access to
Victory Road which would offer an alternate route, easing traffic on Stoddard and
Overland. It was understood that a traffic light will be installed at Victory in the
near future (Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for Shepherd's Creek LLC advised
at the neighborhood meeting that a traffic light would be installed on Victory
Road) which is an even greater reason to provide a more direct alternate route. A
redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an outlet on the Church's access
Road to Alfani Way (more direct access to Victory) or to Masters which fronts on
Meridian Road would be a suitable alternative solution. It would be an admirable
gesture on the Church's part to provide this access for alleviating additional
congestion that is being created by the proposed subdivision (land sold to
Shepherd's Creek LLC by the Church). In addition, Church traffic is typically at
its peak on Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts should not be at
issue.
• Construction Traffic — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a serious
concern. Construction access should be provided through an alternate route not
through Bear Creek subdivision. Access via the Church access road and off
Meridian Road should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in the
subdivision.
Fire and Emergency Vehicles — A very serious issue is the lack of direct access
to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency purposes. This
requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander through Bear Creek or
Belimissa subdivisions to provide emergency services. A more direct route along
the Church access road directly to the proposed subdivision is a small request
when considering the loss of a life due to a poorly designed access for the gain of
a few additional dollars.
• Safety of Bear Creek Residents/Children — There are a significant number of
small children (approximately 100 under the age of S) that live and play along
Bear Track, Bear Claw Way, Alaska Way, Grizzly, and Kodiak and for their
protection and safety traffic should be minimized
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Access Issues:
A. Reduce density to lower the number of vehicle trips per day
B. Provide direct access to a primary road for access out of the proposed
development
C. Require a separate construction access
D. Require direct access from primary roads for fire and emergency vehicles
2
2. Land Use & Density
Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes the land use for the Church property as
Public/Quasi Public (Page 97 of June 2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan). The
Comprehensive Plan guidance states: "Redevelopment of this type of area is to be
guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the
surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues
associated with the aroposed development of the property. "(Page 106 of June 2006,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan)
Proposed density is 55. homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 homes per acre, doubling
the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is approximately 2.6 homes per acre (3 54
homes on 133 acres). Transportation/access is a key issue — use of Bear Creek roads for
access and no proposed direct access to a primary road.. A lower density of 3 homes per
acre would lessen impacts on traffic and emergency services.
The present land use (as shown on page 97 of the Meridian Comprehensive Land Use
Plan) of this property is Public/Quasi Public, which would be considered one step lower
than the current land use surrounding the site, thus the redevelopment and rezoning
should only permit a rezone to low density (one step above public/quasi public
designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan). This would be consistent
with the lower land use and density of the adjacent Bear Creek neighborhood.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Land Use & Density:.
A. Judiciously apply City of Meridian Comprehensive Land Plan guidance
on redevelopment carefully considering the intensity of the existing use, the
underlying zoning, the surrounding land use, the location of the property,
and transportation issues in the decision making process on the land use for
this development. In consideration of this guidance and the adjacent land
use, lower the land use/density from 4.6 to 3 homes per acre, consistent with
the average overall land use of Bear Creek.
3. Lot/Home Values
The increased density, small lots, and patio homes negatively impact the values of the
residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have purchased homes in Bear Creek have
put forth a significant investment, thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian.
Homes in areas with lesser density, parks, and green space are valued higher than homes
with high density, and minimal "useable" green space. To maintain property values in
Bear Creek the density and related amenities of Shepherds Creek should be consistent
and lots/home values should be equal to or more than those in Bear Creek.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Lot(Home Values:
A. Lower the density of Shepherd's Creek to be consistent with Bear Creek.
B. Reconfigure and add "usable" green space
3
4. Drainage
Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need assurances and site
drainage plans that address drainage containment within the Shepherd's Creek
Development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Drainage:
A. Require a drainage plan that addresses containment and management
within the Shepherd's Creek Development
S. Open Space/Parks
The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are virtually
unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of one which is a minimally
usable narrow strip of land. If the space were one contiguous green space than value as
open space is added, however, as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely solely on the
amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, and green space, while not
contributing added value. The residents of Bear Creek pay annual association fees to
maintain the public spaces within the development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay
nothing to support or maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings, etc.,
that they will use to access Bear Creek Park through Bear Creek Subdivision.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value then the common lots or "green space" should
be located in the center of the development and offer amenities that are usable by the
public, e.g., a one acre play area for children or a usable small park, not just un -
developable leftovers.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Open Space Issues:
A. Require the redesign of open space/green space to a more central location
and offer amenities that are useable and offer added value to the public
B. Lower density of development to allow for more functional/usable open
space
6. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CORS)
Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRS in place designed to protect investments
and the integrity of the development. These covenants include property maintenance and
improvements, association dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers,
campers, boats, etc., be stored behind fenced areas or garages. With the direct proximity
of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development should be required to have
similar association covenants and contribute to the association dues and maintenance of
the area, especially as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek
4
Park. Bear Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address CCRS:
A. Require CCRS for Shepherd's Creek that are equal to those for Sear
Creek.
B. Encourage Shepherd's Creek to establish an HOA or join the Bear Creek
HOA and pay annual fees for upkeep and maintenance.
7. Transitional and Street Tree Plantings
There are no transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek, nor are there street
tree plantings or landscaped medians such as exist in Bear Creek. If property values are
to be protected then at a minimum, these elements need to be required for the proposed
development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Street Tree Plantings:
A. Require street tree and median plantings throughout the Shepherd's
Creek subdivision.
B. At a minimum require transitional street tree plantings on all outlet roads
that reflect the adjacent character and quality of adjoining neighborhoods.
The undersigned residents of Bear Creek are very concerned about the Shepherd's Creek
development as currently proposed and request that you and the Council give careful and
informed consideration to the issues defined in this letter prior to application approval.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment and input on the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Application.
Sinc;i,4
�1qa4toyKimberl Newell-LeMaster
President, Bear Creek Homeowner's Association
Enclosure
KEM/kem/8/9/06
5
cc: Shaun Wardle
President, City Council
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Keith Bird
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Joe Borton
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Charlie Rountree
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
G
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
Petition to deny application to the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Subdivision Development until issues
and concerns that impact adjacent properties are
considered
We, the undersigned, call on Mayor Tammy de Weerd and the City Council of
Meridian, Idaho to address specific issues associated with the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Subdivision (Shepherd's Creek) that directly impacts the
public and homeowner's of Bear Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek), Meridian,
Idaho.
Whereas:
Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will
add significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for
most of the traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more
congestion on Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already
taxed and soon to be taxed even more when Bear Creek West is
completed.
• No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development
provides no outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the
subdivision and to the two primary roads (Stoddard/Ovedand) that serve
as outlets for Bear Creek. The development needs to address traffic
issues by providing direct access to Victory Road which would offer an
alternate route, easing traffic on Stoddard and Overland. It was
understood that a traffic light will be installed at Victory in the near future
(Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for Shepherd's Creek LLC advised at the
neighbor hood meeting that a light would be installed on Victory Road)
which is an even greater reason to provide a more direct alternate route.
A redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an outlet on the Church's
access road to Alfani Way would be a good solution and an admirable
gesture on the Church's part for alleviating additional congestion that is
being created by the proposed subdivision (land sold to Shepherd's Creek
LLC by the Church). In addition, Church traffic is typically at its peak on
Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts should not be at
issue.
• Construction Traffic — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a
serious concern. Construction access should be provided through an
alternate route not through Bear Creek. Access via the Church and off
Meridian Road should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in
the subdivision.
1
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
Fire and Emergency Vehicles — A very serious issue is the lack of direct
access to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency
purposes. This requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander
through Bear Creek or Belissima Subdivisions to provide emergency
services. A more direct route along the Church access road directly to the
proposed subdivision is a small request when considering the loss of a life
due to a poorly designed access for the gain of a few additional dollars.
• Safety of Bear Creek Residents/Children — There are a significant
number of small children (approximately 100 under the age of 8) that live
and play along Bear Track, Bear Claw Way, Alaska Way, and Hibernation
and for their protection and safety, traffic should be minimized.
2. Land Use & Density
• The Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes the land use designation for
the Church property as Public/Quasi Public (Pg. 97 of the June 2006,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan). "Redeveloment of this type of area is
guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of
the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property,
and transportation issues associated with the proposed
development of the property." (Page 106 of June 2006, Meridian
Comprehensive Plan).
• Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 homes
per acre, doubling the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is an average
of approximately 2.6 homes per acre (354 homes on 133 acres).
Transportation/access is a key issue — use of Bear Creek roads for access
and no proposed direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3
homes per acre would lessen impacts on traffic and emergency services.
• The present land use designation (as shown on page 97 of the Meridian
Comprehensive Land Use Plan) of this property is Public/Quasi Public,
which would be considered one step lower than the current land use
surrounding the site, thus the redevelopment and rezoning should only
permit a rezone to low density (one step above Public/Quasi Public
designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan). This would
be consistent with the lower land use and average density of the adjacent
Bear Creek neighborhood.
3. LotlHome Values
• The increased density, small lots, and patio homes negatively impact the
values of the residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have
purchased homes in Bear Creek have put forth a significant investment,
thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian. Homes in areas with
lesser density, parks, and green space are valued higher than homes with
2
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
high density, and minimal "useable" green space. To maintain property
values in Bear Creek the density and related amenities of Shepherd's
Creek should be consistent and lots/home value should be equal to or
more than those in Bear Creek.
4. Drainage
• Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need
assurances and site drainage plans that address drainage containment
within the Shepherd's Creek Development.
5. Open Space/Parks
• The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are
virtually unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of
one which is a minimally usable narrow strip of land. If the space were
one contiguous green space than value as open space is added, however
as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely
solely on the amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, and
green space, while not contributing added value. The residents of Bear
Creek pay annual association fees to maintain the public spaces within the
development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay nothing to support or
maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings etc. that
they will use to access Bear Creek Park.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value than the common lots or green
space" should be located in the center of the development and offer
amenities that are usable by the public, e.g., a one acre play area for
children or a usable small park, not just un -developable leftovers.
6. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs)
• Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRs in place designed to
protect investments and the integrity of the development. These
covenants include property maintenance and improvements, association
dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers, campers, boats,
etc. be stored behind fenced areas or garages, etc. With the direct
proximity of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development
should also be required to have similar association covenants and
contribute to the association dues and maintenance of the area, especially
as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek. Bear
Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
3
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
7. Transitional Plantings
• There are no transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek
Subdivision, nor are there street tree plantings or landscaped medians
such as exist in Bar Creek. If property values are to be protected then at a
minimum, these elements need to be required for the proposed
development.
4
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
THEREFORE, WE THE UNDERSIGNED CALL ON THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS IN RELATION TO
THE PROPOSED SHEPHERD'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT
".,e rc
17t
Petition -- Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
Name
Address
41
174. ''S.JQ&4
�,
ct
OX
175. ��
176.D'haL
-.1�
189.
l'
177.'
cla-vJ
190.
178. � , . � ��a
s ._ � ��r�-
►-t , - � • . s � �_ `"��
_
179-
180.
; s
�! ', : iL =c
�0 L' ;•�. ^ rr,,- $, �.-
�.`:
181.
182.
1
CL/ oZ�7
S • rJ � %
�" �f2
883.
184.5
Qen
A
185.�.r
lva .0 3vy_3
.S. ;tc2l; c
rte.
18 „�r,,, &) a 3 --�.
187.
188.
�,
ct
-.1�
189.
i^att.a
I _
cla-vJ
190.
5
1(92.?�
<S �'
nq Lli
,j
3.
A
195. L vrt, Avv
`L`i1. c�3e� c.2a. ��
i'Yl� . �� t---
196 196
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
204.
-
206.
207.
M.
209.
2.10.
211.
212. -
-
2'3.
214.
2'' 5.
216.
213.
23,-YVIL
6ZF 2-
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
Name
Address
219.
220.
221. f'
me' c
222. C L ciup c, i
223. '
(- 5 .
"'�
�:..,. a
224.
225.
0
-e '
L2.L
226. m
227.
228.
229
23
231.
5 •
jd.1Inl
232.
234.
235.
236.
237.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.-
251.
252.
253.
2554.
255.
256.
257.
2:53.
2559.
260.
261.
26.2.
L'aJ ♦� .
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2005
Name Address (Incl. City) Signature
219. 110 2,Z.3
220. 3 r n z�
221. _ . -
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
234.
235.
236.
237.
239.
240.
241.
242,
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249. -
250. -
251.
452-
253. 22.53. -
2,"3.
rob numr►DMcb,'
U
e
e
2
2
2
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294,
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development Qi
July 31, 2006
295.
298.
297.
298.
299._
300._
301._
302.
303.
304.r
305.
F_=o.
3u�7.-
:?08.
339.
ai0.~
15 1�77tL
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
Name Address (Incl, i ) Signature
2 311. aA 0.,,,c-., i y
312.
313.
Z 314. mc -E c,� E; -L z S, _b C -j-1 A -N
315. e,ti; 3D S I f► Ln
Z 316. .�o3a
317.
-
319. 1. 7
320.
321.
322.
323.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
340.
350.
35-1.
3u3
T74. ,,qq
3 i'J.
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
•r .
ame Address (Incl. City) Sig ature
402. '1 C S
403. ` s( W. _Z&..0 fw1 M.c.ri
il-
M
• .
�! - ... , '
►rte! �;
LT
giiik
OW,
r '1r
��� '•I'7=
Wit
435.
436.
437.
438.
•
440.
441.
442.
443.
444.
445.
'
---
il-
M
August 2, 2006
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
-Kk ICTIVEJ-)
C;i T Y OF MERIDIAN
Subject: Application MI 06-004 — Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modification of the Devclopment Agreement between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
As a taxpayer, voter, and resident of Bear Creek Subdivision which is located
immediately adjacent to the proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision I oppose the above
application for approval. I request that you and the City Council give serious
consideration to issues involving this proposed development and vote in opposition to
the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (Ml 06-004) between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the approval of the
application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1 additional lot on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infrastructure of Bear Creek
Subdivision for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park, utilizing pedestrian
walkways, lighting, and green space which is maintained through fees paid by the Bear
Creek Home Owner's Association.
I implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
L Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of the
traffic will be on Bear Creek Subdivision roads and will create even more
congestion on Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and
soon to be taxed even more when Bear Creek West is completed.
No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development provides no
outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the subdivision and to
the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve as outlets for Bear Creek
Subdivision.
• Traffic Issues -The development needs to address traffic issues by providing
direct access to Victory Road which would offer an alternate route, easing traffic
on Stoddard and Overland. It was our understanding that a traffic light will be
installed at Victory in the near future (Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for
Shepherd's Creek LLC: advised at the ileighbul hood iilc;`tiiig [6i. a Lrail_ic fight
would be installed on Victory Road) which is an rvcn givatcr if) provi& n
pf-ol IUQ all
f3t:`ti!'!: '.... }2, , f'?., •r,F-' `�+S+l y'S) A 1l . z1T.r
11Y
1v usicia W hiulidu-dL6 oil I'vicl.ldWi.t
would be a ::i,l?Ci?'l_i?? • L :.-fr7*':: (tr; 'f }a�. �i': ..r,b.� p1.av,f l.1 Fir. .j,�, el;. . r'.
lllll�yiiitldii l i. Ctil,lii;l:.ii7. (✓l.i l:iii(%l7 {it%il 1;: i;°l:il;g vii aO..;ll. URy uiL' )d1,Ci G° �Li iiiF7{3iW"lS1.U11
(land `ol l 1,, `~t i�Y ..rel'.. (" r •t. T T f' , • >}, (~hiarf',h), T.7 `Sticli,tin*a Ci ?IrCI, trciff
typicai_i-y at its peak on SulllJay wilyc;i) IS Q. i'1011--wcirk. day, i ell:, is �;i i :, c;oni i is
should noL he at issue.
Z i9ylsii'idl:dtt� t 9.!%tliir - Cun:iistic,-1Ui1 U-Uliiti, (Ills[, Uiri, Lrash, cic., IS U ;i;211:10116
>;;olic.c:rli.
UJrUUga fivaC C.LAXY, suDUivisiilll. Iziu:"5:i Vid chu 0.:hut( li iinu 0.k i i %.kis-w't.�:it%�"t e. 4.➢c%.i6
should be provided to .rninirni e .,rSl7'.!',-. @;) l"E.-Ync",(.T v.nrr% in.fill'
are ii sl (Si„i id i1.id.i illti.i.11; i 7;:id.iiiii
�If.at liv t'�n ,( ar Tr°rl(A 3:t',t:T"l,l '117"_i'v, -.-n.d I-Ti-h€ir%lc%t.1or PL, tini to p o &
their safety all *�, Me,'n.C'llidi�'Eg c :1Ftn—tisnr ti'Fi.f is slta,, I l?;' iT2t7Tt?"7:?:^.:..
A"ire t9iilll. d' fliii d"fidH¢by' LTi lUA41Ls iy W"uxy :icnous lssltt°- is LIFO iu k UI (Hies(. a c:Css
to tho, subdivi-,ion from. ,l fri.mar,T rnarl for fir:; and corer-.1LICicy pu7:^ses. ' :,lis
requlrus iiia[ salluty alitd llldvailucl, ailuuLi li _C'•viu
Belimism subdivisions to p?rovi.do c31 cgflMc y !A F .nr^ dircv;t. F'giwi ainn- UIti
iil;,i ill'a.iu. iiii-v✓,;tiy LU di.0 prupust:tl siubdivl;il.011 ii it iillitil ri:t UCSi
wbon considering the loss, of a. l.ifo due, to -,i, poorly dmi.gncd access foto the gain of
a few additional dollars.
2. Density
Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes density for the Church property as Public/Quasi
Public (Page 97 of June 2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan) — "Redevelopment of this
type of area is to be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlyin zoning oning of
the properly, the surround land uses, the location gf the BEpgrgy., and =§pottation
issues associated with the mmsed development of the pEopert . "(page 106 of June
2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan)
Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 -S homes per acre,
doubling the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is approximately 2.6-3 homes per acre.
Transportation/acccss is a key issue -- use of Sear Creek roads for access and no proposed
direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3 homes per acre would lessen
impacts on traffic and emergency services.
The present zoning of this property is public/quasi public, which would be considered
one step lower than the current zoning of the land surrounding the site, thus the
redevelopment and rezoning should only permit a rezone to low density (one; step above
public/quasi public designation as stated in the Meridian C:omprehensivc PIR11). nis
would be consistent with the low density of the existing neighborhoods.
3. Lot/Home Values
The increased density, small lots, and zero lot, line horrlcs negatively impact 1be. values of
the residences in Bear Creek. The; residents who have purchased homes in Bear Creek
have, Mat forth ,.a SigtliRcant invc,sttnQnt, thin p<ayins; sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian.
Homes in areas with parks and green space are valued higher than honwe ; with high
density, and minimal green space., To mainlain property values in .fie-�a �'a'i:c:i: tlr►r cdensily
and rebated anlenitic s of Shepherds Creek should be consistent and lots/home values
should be equal to or more than those in Bear Creek.
4. Drainage
Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adja.ccnt property. Necd w salra.+.nc:es and site
drainage pians that address drainage containment within the Shepherd's Creek
Development.
5. Open Space/Parks
The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that arc proposcd are, vita►ally
unusable spa c(,, that cannot he developed with the execptiotl of one which is just barely
usal+lc, na+`1c�tiv st++,� r+f hand. if tau, spaicu w-om one contiguous green space than value as
open space is added, however, as proposed there is limited. to no added value•,
it wouid Alii opt. that rice i5 ll0allc4re;sideni<s cat this development will rely solely on the
aryl<.nities oi' lleaa iric;lutiinLx r, aikwaly.,, lighting, grccn space, roads, etc., while not
contributing added vaiue. i he resiticnis cai: "c.aar i xcck l►aa.y aanraua aas.:cacrl alit+rR is c.: acs
maintain the pubiie spaces within the devciopmeni. tilacr;hc.rri's i. ;1C.t'+ rrsiCi:t:ict4 ��iii j�aay
norilint to "ali)1ma or maintain tilt: access routcs, green spaces, street lace piantings, etc.,
that tilc,y wi+i +.1-,(; it) aacet"ss boar i;mQk Ilark ihrOLIgh Bear Creek Subdivision.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value then the common lots or "green space" needs
to be centralized in the center of the development and offer amenities that are usable by
the public, e.g., a one acre play area for children or a usable functional park, not just
undevelopable leftovers.
b. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRS)
Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRS in place designed to protect investments
and the integrity of the development. These covenants include property maintenance and
improvements, association dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers,
campers, boats, etc., be stored behind fenced areas or garages. With the direct proximity
of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development should be required to have
similar association covenants and contribute to the association dues and maintenance of
the area, especially as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek
Park. Bear Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
7. Transitional and Street Tree Plantings
There are no apparent transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek, nor are there
street tree plantings or landscaped medians such as exist in Bear Creek. If property
values are to be protected then at a minimum, these elements need to be required for the
proposed development.
I am very concerned about the Shepherd's Creek development as currently proposed and
request that you and the Council give careful and informed consideration to the issues
defined in this letter and do not approve the application until these issues have been
addressed.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment and input on the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Application.
Sincerely,
06�
C, l
2631 S. Hibernation Pl.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
August 9, 2006
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
Subject: Application MI 06-004 — Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modification of the Development Agreement between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
As taxpayers, voters, and residents of Bear Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek) which is
located immediately adjacent to the proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision we oppose
the above application for approval. We request that you and the City Council give
serious consideration to issues involving this proposed development and vote in
opposition to the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (MI 06-
004) between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the
approval of the application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1
additional lot on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian
Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infrastructure of Bear Creek
for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park, utilizing pedestrian walkways,
lighting, and green space which is maintaincd through fees paid by the Bear Creek Home
Owner's Association. Unfortunately, our residence is located on one of the primary
access mutes to Stoddard Road and will be directly impacted by the traffic from this
development.
We implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
1. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of the
traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more congestion on
Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and soon to be
taxed even more when Bear Creek West is completed.
1
• No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development provides no
outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the subdivision and to
the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve as outlets for Bear Creek.
The development needs to address traffic issues by providing direct access to
Victory Road which would offer an alternate route, easing traffic on Stoddard and
Overland. It was our understanding that a traffic light will be installed at Victory
in the near future (Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for Shepherd's Creek LLC
advised at the neighbor hood meeting that a traffic light would be installed on
Victory Road) which is an even greater reason to provide a more direct alternate
route. A redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an outlet on the Church's
access road to Alfani Way (access to Victory) or to Masters which fronts on
Meridian Road would be a good alternative solution. It would be an admirable
gesture on the Church's part to provide this access for alleviating additional
congestion that is being created by the proposed subdivision (land sold to
Shepherd's Creek LLC by the Church). In addition, Church traffic is typically at
its peak on Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts should not be at
issue.
• Construction Traffic — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a serious
concern. Construction access should be provided through an alternate route not
through Bear Creek subdivision. Access via the Church and off Meridian Road
should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in the subdivision.
Fire and Emergency Vehicles -- A very serious issue is the lack of direct access
to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency purposes. This
requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander through Bear Creek or
Belimissa subdivisions to provide emergency services. A more direct route along
the Church access road directly to the proposed subdivision is a small request
when considering the loss of a life due to a poorly designed access for the gain of
a few additional dollars.
• Safety of Bear Creek Residents/Children -- There are a significant number of
small children (approximately 100 under the age of 8) that live along Bear Track,
Bear Claw Way, Alaska Way, and Hibernation Pl., and for their protection and
safety, traffic should be minimized.
2. Land Use & Density
Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes the land use for the Church property as
Public/Quasi Public (Page 97 of June 2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan) — The
Comprehensive Plan guidance states: "Redevelopment of this type of area is to be
aided -by the intensity of the existing use the underl-viDe zoniA2 of the PrOlDertY, the
surrounding land uses the location of the proRgrty, and trans ortation issues
associated with the 1!rolaosed development of the PXoe . "(Page 106 of June 2006,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan)
2
Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 homes per acre, doubling
the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is approximately 2.6 homes per acre (354
homes on 133 acres). Transportation/access is a key issue — use of Bear Creek roads for
access and no proposed direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3 homes per
acre would lessen impacts on traffic and emergency services.
The present land use of this property is Public/Quasi public, which would be considered
one step lower than the current land use surrounding the site, thus the redevelopment
and rezoning should only permit a rezone to low density (one step above
public/quasi public designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan).
This would be consistent with the low density of the adjacent Bear Creek neighborhood.
3. Lot/Home Values
The increased density, small lots, and patio homes negatively impact the values of the
residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have purchased homes in Bear Creek have
put forth a significant investment, thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian.
Homes in areas with low density, parks, and green space are valued higher than homes
with high density, and minimal "useable" green space. To maintain property values in
Bear Creek the density and related amenities of Shepherds Creek should be consistent
and lots/home values should be equal to or more than those in Bear Creek.
4. Drainage
Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need assurances and site
drainage plans that address drainage containment within the Shepherd's Creek
Development.
S. Open Space/Parks
The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are virtually
unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of one which is a minimually
usable narrow strip of land. If the space were one contiguous green space thanvalue as
open space is added, however, as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely solely on the
amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, green space, roads, etc., while not
contributing added value. The residents of Bear Creek pay annual association fees to
maintain the public spaces within the development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay
nothing to support or maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings, etc.,
that they will use to access Bear Creek Park through Bear Creek Subdivision.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value then the common lots or "green space" needs
to be located in the center of the development and offer amenities that are usable by the
public, e.g., a one acre play area for children or a small usable park, not just un -
developable leftovers.
k]
6. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CORS)
Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRS in place designed to protect investments
and the integrity of the development. These covenants include property maintenance and
improvements, association dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers,
campers, boats, etc., be stored behind fenced areas or garages. With the direct proximity
of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development should be required to have
similar association covenants and contribute to the association dues and maintenance of
the area, especially as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek
Park. Bear Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
7. Transitional and Street Tree Plantings
There are no apparent transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek, nor are there
street tree plantings or landscaped medians such as exist in Bear Creek. If property
values are to be protected then at a minimum, these elements need to be required for the
proposed development.
We are very concerned about the Shepherd's Creek development as currently proposed
and request that you and the Council give careful and informed consideration to the
issues defined in this letter and do not approve the application until these issues have
been addressed.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment and input on the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Application.
Si
R. and
cc: Shaun V
President, City Council
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Keith Bird
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
!!
Joe Borton
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Charlie Rountree
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian., ID 83642
wi
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
Bear Creek Homeowners Association
2640 S. Bear Claw Way
Meridian, ID 83642
August 9, 2006
Subject: Application MI 06-004 — Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modification of the Development Agreement between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
This letter transmits a petition signed by 234 taxpayers, voters, and residents of Bear
Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek), located within the city limits of Meridian, Idaho who
oppose the above application. These individuals request that you and the City Council
give serious consideration to issues involving this development and vote in opposition to
the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (MI 06-004) between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the approval of the
application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1 additional lot on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infrastructure of Bear Creek
for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park; utilizing pedestrian walkways,
lighting, and green space which is maintained through fees paid by the Bear Creek Horne
Owner's Association.
We implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
ISSUES:
1. Access Issues
Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of this
traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more congestion on
Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and soon to be
taxed even more when Bear Creek West is completed.
• No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development provides no
outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the subdivision and to
the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve as outlets for Bear Creek.
The development needs to address traffic issues by providing direct access to
Victory Road which would offer an. alternate route, easing traffic on Stoddard and
Overland. It was understood that a traffic light will be installed at Victory in the
near future (Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for Shepherd's Creek LLC advised
at the neighborhood meeting that a traffic light would be installed on Victory
Road) which is an even greater reason to provide a more direct alternate route. A
redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an outlet on the Church's access
Road to Alfani Way (more direct access to Victory) or to Mastera which fronts on
Meridian Road would be a suitable alternative solution. It would be an admirable
gesture on the Church's part to provide this access for alleviating additional
congestion that is being created by the proposed subdivision (land sold to
Shepherd's Creek LLC by the Church)_ In addition, Church traffic is typically at
its peak on Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts should not be at
issue.
• Construction Trak — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a serious
concern. Construction access should be provided through an alternate route not
through Bear Creek subdivision. Access via the Church access road and off
Meridian Road should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in the
subdivision.
• Fire and Emergency Vehicles — A very serious issue is the lack of direct access
to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency purposes. This
requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander through Bear Creek or
Belimissa subdivisions to provide emergency services. A more direct route along
the Church access road directly to the proposed subdivision is a small request
when considering the loss of a life due to a poorly designed access for the gain of
a few additional dollars.
• Safety of Bear Creek Residents/Children — There are a significant number of
small children (approximately 100 under the age of 8) that live and play along
Bear Track, Bear Claw Way, Alaska Way, Grizzly, and Kodiak and for their
protection and safety traffic should be minimized
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Access Issues:
A. Reduce density to lower the number of vehicle trips per day
B. Provide direct access to a primary road for access out of the proposed
development
C. Require a separate construction access
D. Require direct access from primary roads for fire and emergency vehicles
2
2. Land Use & Density
Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes the land use for the Church property as
Public/Quasi Public (Page 97 of June 2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan). The
Comprehensive Plan guidance states: "Redevelopment of this type of area is to be
guided by the intensi of the the
surrounding land uses the location of the property, and transportation issues
associated with the Proposed development of the Property. "(Page 106 of June 2006,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan)
Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 homes per acre, doubling
the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is approximately 2.6 homes per acre (354
homes on 133 acres). Transportation/access is a key issue -- use of Bear Creek roads for
access and no proposed direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3 homes per
acre would lessen impacts on traffic and emergency services.
The present land use (as shown on page 97 of the Meridian Comprehensive Land Use
Plan) of this property is Public/Quasi Public, which would be considered one step lower
than the current land use surrounding the site, thus the redevelopment and rezoning
should only permit a rezone to low density (one step above public/quasi public
designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan). This would be consistent
with the lower land use and density of the adjacent Bear Creek neighborhood.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Land Use & Density:
A. Judiciously apply City of Meridian Comprehensive Land Plan guidance
on redevelopment carefully considering the intensity of the existing use, the
underlying zoning, the surrounding land use, the location of the property,
and transportation issues in the decision making process on the land use for
this development. In consideration of this guidance and the adjacent land
use, lower the land use/density from 4.6 to 3 homes per acre, consistent with
the average overall land use of Bear Creek.
3. Lot/Home Values
The increased density, small lots, and patio homes negatively impact the values of the
residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have purchased homes in Bear Creek have
put forth a significant investment, thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian.
Homes in areas with lesser density, parks, and green space are valued higher than homes
with high density, and minimal "useable" green space. To maintain property values in
Bear Creek the density and related amenities of Shepherds Creek should be consistent
and lots/home values should be equal to or more than those in Bear Creek.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Lot/Home Values:
A. Lower the density of Shepherd's Creek to be consistent with Bear Creek.
B. Reconfigure and add "usable" green space
3
4. Drainage
Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need assurances and site
drainage plans that address drainage containment within the Shepherd's Creek
Development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Drainage:
A. Require a drainage plan that addresses containment and management
within the Shepherd's Creek Development
5. Open Space/Parks
The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are virtually
unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of one which is a minimally
usable narrow strip of land. If the space were one contiguous green space than value as
open space is added, however, as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely solely on the
amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, and green space, while not
contributing added value. The residents of Bear Creek pay annual association fees to
maintain the public spaces within the development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay
nothing to support or maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings, etc.,
that they will use to access Bear Creek Park through Bear Creek Subdivision.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value then the common lots or "green space" should
be located in the center of the development and offer amenities that are usable by the
public, e.g., a one acre play area for children or a usable small park, not just un -
developable leftovers.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Open Space Issues:
A. Require the redesign of open space/green space to a more central location
and offer amenities that are useable and offer added value to the public
B. Lower density of development to allow for more functional/usable open
space
6. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CORS)
Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRS in place designed to protect investments
and the integrity of the development. These covenants include property maintenance and
improvements, association dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers,
campers, boats, etc., be stored behind fenced areas or garages. With the direct proximity
of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development should be required to have
similar association covenants and contribute to the association dues and maintenance of
the area, especially as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek
4
Park. Bear Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address CCRS:
A. Require CCRS for Shepherd's Creek that are equal to those for Bear
Creek.
B. Encourage Shepherd's Creek to establish an HOA or join the Bear Creek
HOA and pay annual fees for upkeep and maintenance.
7. Transitional and Street Tree Plantings
There are no transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek, nor are there street
tree plantings or landscaped medians such as exist in Bear Creek. If property values are
to be protected then at a minimum, these elements need to be required for the proposed
development.
PROPOSED ACTIONS to address Street Tree Plantings:
A. Require street tree and median plantings throughout the Shepherd's
Creek subdivision.
B. At a minimum require transitional street tree plantings on all outlet roads
that reflect the adjacent character and quality of adjoining neighborhoods.
The undersigned residents of Bear Creek are very concerned about the Shepherd's Creek
development as currently proposed and request that you and the Council give careful and
informed consideration to the issues defined in this letter prior to application approval.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment and input on the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Application.
Sincerel ,
Kimberly Newell-LeMaster
President, Bear Creek Homeowner's Association
Enclosure
KEM/kem/8/9/06
5
cc: Shaun Wardle
President, City Council
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Keith Bird
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Joe Borton
City Council Member
City Hall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Charlie Rountree
City Council Member
City Mall
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, IIS 83642
6
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
Petition to deny application to the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Subdivision Development until issues
and concerns that impact adjacent properties are
considered
We, the undersigned, call on Mayor Tammy de Weerd and the City Council of
Meridian, Idaho to address specific issues associated with the proposed
Shepherd's Creek Subdivision (Shepherd's Creek) that directly impacts the
public and homeowner's of Bear Creek Subdivision (Bear Creek), Meridian,
Idaho.
Whereas:
1. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The traffic, estimated at 550 vehicle trips per day will
add significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for
most of the traffic will be on Bear Creek roads and will create even more
congestion on Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already
taxed and soon to be taxed even more when Bear Creek West is
completed.
• No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development
provides no outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the
subdivision and to the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve
as outlets for Bear Creek. The development needs to address traffic
issues by providing direct access to Victory Road which would offer an
alternate route, easing traffic on Stoddard and Overland_ It was
understood that a traffic light will be installed at Victory in the near future
(Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for Shepherd's Creek LLC advised at the
neighbor hood meeting that a light would be installed on Victory Road)
which is an even greater reason to provide a more direct alternate route.
A redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an outlet on the Church's
access road to Alfani Way would be a good solution and an admirable
gesture on the Church's part for alleviating additional congestion that is
being created by the proposed subdivision (land sold to Shepherd's Creek
LLC by the Church). In addition, Church traffic is typically at its peak on
Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts should not be at
issue.
• Construction Traffic — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a
serious concern_ Construction access should be provided through an
alternate route not through Bear Creek. Access via the Church and off
Meridian Road should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in
the subdivision.
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
Fire and Emergency Vehicles -- A very serious issue is the lack of direct
access to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency
purposes. This requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander
through Bear Creek or Belissima Subdivisions to provide emergency
services. A more direct route along the Church access road directly to the
proposed subdivision is a small request when considering the loss of a life
due to a poorly designed access for the gain of a few additional dollars.
• Safety of Bear Creek Residents/Children — There are a significant
number of small children (approximately 100 under the age of 8) that live
and play along Bear Track, Bear Claw Way, Alaska Way, and Hibernation
and for their protection and safety, traffic should be minimized.
2. Land Use & Density
• The Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes the land use designation for
the Church property as Public/Quasi Public (Pg. 97 of the June 2006,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan). "Redeveloment of this type of area is
guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of
the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property,
and transportation issues associated with the proposed
development of the property." (Page 106 of June 2006, Meridian
Comprehensive Plan)_
• Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 homes
per acre, doubling the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is an average
of approximately 2.6 homes per acre (354 homes on 133 acres).
Transportation/access is a key issue — use of Bear Creek roads for access
and no proposed direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3
homes per acre would lessen impacts on traffic and emergency services.
• The present land use designation (as shown on page 97 of the Meridian
Comprehensive Land Use Plan) of this property is Public/Quasi Public,
which would be considered one step lower than the current land use
surrounding the site, thus the redevelopment and rezoning should only
permit a rezone to low density (one step above Public/Quasi Public
designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan). This would
be consistent with the lower land use and average density of the adjacent
Bear Creek neighborhood.
3. Lot/Home Values
• The increased density, small lots, and patio homes negatively impact the
values of the residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have
purchased homes in Bear Creek have put forth a significant investment,
thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian. Homes in areas with
lesser density, parks, and green space are valued higher than homes with
2
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
r
July 31, 2006
high density, and minimal "useable" green space. To maintain property
values in Bear Creek the density and related amenities of Shepherd's
Creek should be consistent and lots/home value should be equal to or
more than those in Bear Creek.
4. Drainage
• Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need
assurances and site drainage plans that address drainage containment
within the Shepherd's Creek Development.
5. Open Space/Parks
• The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are
virtually unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of
one which is a minimally usable narrow strip of land. If the space were
one contiguous green space than value as open space is added, however
as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely
solely on the amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, and
green space, while not contributing added value. The residents of Bear
Creek pay annual association fees to maintain the public spaces within the
development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay nothing to support or
maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings etc. that
they will use to access Bear Creek Park.
If Shepherd's Creek is to add usable value than the common lots or "green
space" should be located in the center of the development and offer
amenities that are usable by the public, e.g., a one acre play area for
children or a usable small park, not just un -developable leftovers.
6. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs)
• Bear Creek is a planned community with CCRs in place designed to
protect investments and the integrity of the development. These
covenants include property maintenance and improvements, association
dues, on -street parking restrictions, and that cars, trailers, campers, boats,
etc. be stored behind fenced areas or garages, etc. With the direct
proximity of Shepherd's Creek to Bear Creek the proposed development
should also be required to have similar association covenants and
contribute to the association dues and maintenance of the area, especially
as they will use Bear Creek amenities to gain access to Bear Creek. Bear
Creek Residents should not be expected to bear the burden of providing
amenities for the Shepherd's Creek development.
K3
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
7. Transitional Plantings
• There are no transitional plantings on streets that tie to Bear Creek
Subdivision, nor are there street tree plantings or landscaped medians
such as exist in Bar Creek. If property values are to be protected then at a
minimum, these elements need to be required for the proposed
development.
4
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
'I r
Name Address Incl. City) Signature
174.
175.
176.
r
177.fV6
.�" SZ.. S, �v�«li ua 4���ti� _'T'D
178. ate- S _ 1 h
179 W2 _.
1$0. S nz -'da
181.
182.
183. ai a9 S • �v��i.e yz
_ -
185. e� ' IW&D 3OV3 S, _u"
187. F
18$.
-33
33-
189.a 1�- a I O p�i-i -
190. >U `w°' 3/,�+z S�3E�r2 cG/w � i�tit
191.. ° � ;
192. i Zz- til.-a-t d5` A3� z-,
193. �S a�G s
-zq Ed
194. i ll DiukS Ufa P
1915. oovr
196.bAyP i L
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
204.
206.
207.
20'8.
209.
2,10.
211.
212.
2^3.
214.
2'5,
216.
217.
213.
23 -rVY L-
0vprer
14 apa
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
Name Address (Incl. City) Signature
219. t �z •
134 ,L?.
220. s
221. w(
222. c �
I
223. (.X 3 -S PC a� ��
225.
227. .410
234.
235.
236.
237.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
255,
256.
257.
258.
260.
261
262.
233.
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
Name Address (Incl. City) Signature
219. LZ3 S. /
220. 1 r 3
221. - ^
222. - ' 2 3 'f3c� ✓
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
234.
235.
236.
237.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248,
249.
250.
251.
253.
2:5`5
G SIJ.
9 T(�T7\L-
w
rb jnnLO-rI MGb
Petition — Shepherd's Creek Development
July 31, 2006
GV 1.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287,
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
30.5.
n:+
30p7.
�3j08.
Ji9,
310. A0.
5 TOT%tiL
M
L'
Petition - Shepherd's Creek Development July 31, 2006
x
Name Address (Incl. PRO Signature
311.
�- 0,A aA-C-,
�P2
312.
-�
313.
GU
Z 314.
ct-&'Z- 4ci 5. 0 A -N
315.
eMi a. 3D S I L-rti
Z 316.
C o3c1 4 a`
317.
30 s . S;
318 ,
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
324.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
W4.
355.
13 -If-ko/ T;nv L-
Peggy Gardner
To: Tammy de Weerd
Subject: FW: Proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision
I will print for the clerk's office.
PEGGY
Administrative Secretary to
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Otv of Meridian
Phone 984_2468 ext. 204
From: B.G. Shriver [mailtu:bgshriver@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:23 PM
To: Peggy Gardner; Shaun Wardle; Keith Bird; Joe Borton; roundtree@@meridiancity.org
Subject: Proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision
Dear Mayor & city council members,
REC Y D
AUG 0 :' 2006
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Page 1 of �
As a resident of our good city, I must tell you that the new Proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision is way out of line
for the area it is trying to get approval for.
This land is bordered by the Strada Bellissima and Bear Creek Subdivisions, both of which have a density of 2 or 3
homes per acre. Shepherd's Creek will have 6 houses per acre. plus, they have very limited open space, no park, no
street trees, and access is thru the two family subdivisions of Sear Creek & Strada Bellissima. this will generate almost
600 vehicle trips a day, thru our neighborhood streets that our children play in.
Do you want to be responsible? Vote NO! to this high density plan
Thank you for your time,
Bruce G. Shriver
8/9/2006
2715 S Hibemation Place
Meridian, ID 83642
August 7, 2006
City Clerk's Office
33 E Idaho Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
CC: Mayor Tammy de Weerd & the Meridian City Council
Dear Commission:
E E.R
�
QTY OF MERIDIAN
CITY r -FRK
When I was in the process of buying my home in Bear Creek, less than one year ago, I was informed that
only a church was going to be built on that land. I was concerned that my view was going to be
protected, but more importantly, I was concemed that my property value would be protected. Now, I'm
facing losing my view and my property value as town homes do not fit in with the standard of both Bear
Creek and Bella Vista. Furthermore, now I have just leamed that my child's safety is at stake since these
new homes will be driving through where she plays. All of the homeowners in this area are used to using
extreme caution when coming through this area. At times there are as many as 35 children playing at
the end of Bear Track, where the road currently stops (near Hibernation Place). These children have
grown to be comfortable playing in this safe street, as most of them are too young to go to the park by
themselves. The parents in this area cannot watch their kids constantly (as they will need to if you allow
traffic through this area) as many of us work from our homes. Now there may be as many as 550 more
vehicle trips weaving through our children!? The odds are against our children. One of them is going to
get hurt if you allow traffic through this area.
I am also quite concerned about the density of this "block" from Meridian to Stoddard, and Victory to
Overland. Bella Vista residents haven't even moved in yet and already the traffic at Overiand and
Meridian is maxed out. Just imagine how crazy and congested its going to be when you allow these
additional new homes for Shepherd's Creek Subdivision to be built. Our infrastructure can't support it.
Meridian road and especially the intersections at Overiand & Meridian and at Victory and Meridian need to
be expanded. For instance, now well need a light at Victory and Meridian. As it is right now, without the
presence of the Bella Vista residents, cars back up there, waiting and waiting to be able to make a safe
tum.
Not only will our safety be jeopardized if you allow this new subdivision, but our peace of mind. I
Personally moved here to get away from traffic. Traffic in Meridian has been increasing drastically, and
already I'm starting to get agitated just doing errands. This agitation times nearly 100,000 residents
spells trouble. Let us continue to enjoy living in Meridian. Please don't turn Meridian into California!
Development is good, but too much is disaster. Please, please don't allow this subdivision to be built, at
least not until our infrastructure can support it around all of Meridian, not just at this already dense block.
And please, please do not allow cars to drive through our children's playground.
Thank you.
I will not be able to be at the meeting as I will be out of town, recovering from surgery. Please let this
letter be my voice.
Best wishes,
Carolyn Smith
Mother and Resident of Bear Creek Subdivision
August 2, 2006.
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Mayor de Weerd,
RECEIVED
AUG 17 Zw
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Subject: Application MI 06-004 — Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene &
Shepherd's Creek, LLC for a Modification of the Development Agreement between the
City -of Meridian -and Valley Shepherd -Church of the Nazarene
As a taxpayer, voter, and resident of Bear Creek Subdivision which is located
immediately adjacent to the proposed Shepherd's Creek Subdivision I oppose the above
application for approval. I request that you and the City Council give serious
consideration to issues involving this proposed development and vote in opposition to
the application for Modification of the Development Agreement (MI 06-004) between the
City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene for the approval of the
application (PP 06-040) for 55 residential, 7 common lots, and 1 additional lot on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision located at 2475 S. Meridian Road.
The proposed development will rely for the most part on the infrastructure of Bear Creek
Subdivision for access to primary roads and to Bear Creek Park, utilizing pedestrian
walkways, lighting, and green space which is maintained through fees paid by the Bear
Creek Home Owner's Association.
I implore you and the Council as our elected officials to consider the following issues/
impacts and address each issue prior to application approval:
1. Access Issues
• Vehicular Traffic — The.traffic, estimated.at 55( -vehicle trips per day will add
significantly more traffic to already congested roads. The burden for most of the
traffic will be on Bear Creek Subdivision roads and will create even more
congestion on Stoddard and Overland Roads. These roads are already taxed and
soon to be taxed even more when Bear Creek West }s completed.
• No alternate routes/outlets to primary roads - The development provides no
outlet to alternate routes to aid in alleviating congestion in the subdivision and to
the two primary roads (Stoddard/Overland) that serve as outlets for Bear Creek
Subdivision.
? C� z- C")Ivtbv
C� n a
• Traffic Issues - The development needs to address traffic issues by providing
direct access to Victory Road which would offer an alternate route, easing traffic
on Stoddard and Overland. It was our understanding that a traffic light will be
installed at Victory in the near future (Matt Shultz, Project Coordinator for
Shepherd's Creek LLC advised at the neighbor hood meeting that a traffic light
would be installed on Victory Road) which is an even greater reason to provide a
more direct alternate route. A redesign of the subdivision roads to provide an
outlet on the Church's access road to Alfani Way (access to Victory) or to
Mastera which fronts on Meridian Road would be a good alternative solution. It
would be an admirable gesture on the Church's part to provide this access for
alleviating additional congestion that is being created by the proposed subdivision
(land sold to Shepherd's Creek LLC by the Church). In addition, Church traffic is
typically at its peak on Sunday which is a non -work day, thus traffic conflicts
should not be at issue.
• Construction Traffic — Construction traffic, dust, dirt, trash, etc., is a serious
concern. Construction access should be provided through an alternate route not
through Bear Creek subdivision. Access via the Church and off Meridian Road
should be provided to minimize impacts to homeowners in the subdivision. There
are a significant number of small children (approximately 75 under the age of 8)
that live along Bear Track, Bear Claw Way, and Hibernation Pl., and to protect
their safety all traffic, including construction traffic should be minimized.
• Fire and Emergency Vehicles — A very serious issue is the lack of direct access
to the subdivision from a primary road for fire and emergency purposes. This
requires that safety and emergency vehicles meander through Bear Creek or
Belimissa subdivisions to provide emergency services. A more direct route along
the Church access road directly to the proposed subdivision is a small request
when considering the loss of a life due to a poorly designed access for the gain of
a few additional dollars.
2. Density
Meridian Comprehensive Plan denotes density for the Church property as Public/Quasi
Public (Page 97 of June 2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan) - "Redevelopment of this
We of area is to be guided by the intensity of the existing use the underlyiRg zoning of
theroe the surroun ' land uses the location of the roe and trans rtation
issues associated with the pnMsed develo went of the proRgfty. "(page 106 of June
2006, Meridian Comprehensive Plan)
Proposed density is 55 homes on 12 acres or approximately 4.6 -5 homes per acre,
doubling the adjacent density of Bear Creek which is approximately 2.6-3 homes per acre.
Transportation/access is a key issue — use of Bear Creek roads for access and no proposed
direct access to a primary road. A lower density of 3 homes per acre would lessen
impacts on traffic and emergency services.
The present zoning of this property is public/quasi public, which would be considered
one step lower than the current zoning of the land surrounding the site, thus the
redevelopment and rezoning should only permit a rezone to low density (one step above
public/quasi public designation as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan). This
would be consistent with the low density of the existing neighborhoods.
3. Lot/Home Values
The increased density, small lots, and zero lot line homes negatively impact the values of
the residences in Bear Creek. The residents who have purchased homes in Bear Creek
have put forth a significant investment, thus paying sizeable taxes to the City of Meridian.
Homes. in areas with parks and green space are valued higher than homes with high
density, and minimal green space. To maintain property values in Bear Creek the density
and related amenities of Shepherds Creek should be consistent and lots/home values
should be equal to or more than those in Bear Creek.
4. Drainage
Bear Creek is lower in elevation than the adjacent property. Need assurances and site
drainage plans that address drainage containment within the Shepherd's Creek
Development.
5. Opeii17Pa�
The proposed open space is minimal and the areas that are proposed are virtually
unusable space that cannot be developed with the exception of one which is just barely
usable narrow strip of land. If the space were one contiguous green space than value as
open space is added, however, as proposed there is limited to no added value.
It would appear that the 55 homes/residents of this development will rely solely on the
amenities of Bear Creek, including walkways, lighting, green space, roads, etc., while not
contributing added value. The residents of Bear Creek pay annual association fees to
maintain the public spaces within the development. Shepherd's Creek residents will pay
nothing to support or maintain the access routes, green spaces, street tree plantings, etc.,
that they will use to access Bear Creek Park through Bear Creek Subdivision.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE September 21, 2006 ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
MI 06-004 and PP 06-040
PROJECT NAME Shepherd Creek Subdivision
ural Tryli4k r/ Vl--"'
.�u
i
J E�Vl �.
ural Tryli4k r/ Vl--"'
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE August 17, 2006 ITEM # 12 & 13
PROJECT NUMBER
MI 06-004 and PP 06-040
PROJECT NAME Shepherd Creek Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
RECEIVED
AUG 1 12006
Cty c�dkof
11 August 2006
Anna Canning
Planning & Zoning Commission
Citv of Meridian.
..560 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-4630092
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
RE: MI 06-004 & PP 06-040/Shepherd Creek Subdivision
Vear Anna:
MI 06-004: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on annexation & zoning.
PP 06-040: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District reserves comment until review of the Land Use
Change Application is completed.
Sincerely,
ill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
KMKC0N,5ULTING,INC-
ii
2is:.zll j w;y...................................................................................................................
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) $80-1695 Office/Cell
(208) 8'93-5325 Fax
August 15, 2006 ((��
City of Meridian RECENED
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
c/o City of Meridian Planning Department AUG�Ub
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
-_ Meridian, ID 83642 City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
RE: Request for Continuance
Shepherd Creek Subdivision
PP-06-440/Mi-06404
Dear Commissioners and City Council Members:
We are requesting a continuance of the above -referenced hearing for the Shepherd Creek
Subdivision due to a Ada. County Highway District request to hear the application at their
Commission on September 6, 2006 at 12:00 PM. As such, we request the Meridian
Planning Commission hearing be rescheduled for September 7, 2006 at 7:00 PM. We
will update the sign postings onsite and submit an affidavit for the postings at least 10
days prior to the hearing. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter_
Sincerely,
Matthew Schultz, P.E.
RMR Consulting, Inc. 'vvl,' 1z l
Cc:
Peter Rockwell, AW Glancey Rockwell
Todd Massey, Shepherd's Creek LLC
Ray Schild, Shepherd's Creek LLC
George Ziekefoose, Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
Kimberly Newell-LeMaster, Bear Creep HOA