Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindingsWILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH MEMORANDUM: January 9, 1998 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor and City Council FROM: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Enginee Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator SUBJECT; Request for Preliminary Plat with a Conditional Use Permit for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision - 48 Lots on 8.53 Acres by Steiner Development We have reviewed this submittal and o~rer the following comments, as conditions of the application. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: This property was originally included in the overall development plan for Ashford Greens Subdivision. Since the original concept was approved, the original applicant chose not to exercise its option on the property, and the previous owner of the property sold it to Steiner Development. The overall development plan included this parcel as a "medium density development" which would be subject to future conditional use procedures as a planned development. Having not experienced a scenario such as this, staff was unable to determinF the legal consequences of the process to date. As is common in a planned development, exceptions can be made by Council to district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD. "9-607 E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use; density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD; rovided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section.." v,u~r.~~.cur Mayor, Council and P&Z January 9, 1998 Page 2 Variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this CUP in this R-4 zone as presented would be: 1. Minimum lot sizes 2. Frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives 4. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of roadway in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 5: Front and street side yard setbacks 6. Minimum house size GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells. may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 8. Respond, in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum prior to the January 13, 1998 hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Submit ten copies of the Preliminary Plat Map with any required revisions to the City Clerk's Office a minimum of one week prior to the hearing by the Meridian City Council. vu~~.cvr Mayor, Council and P&Z January 9, 1998 Page 3 SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via an extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary. sewage generated by this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. The profiles submitted for the preliminary sewer design indicate that a portion of the main in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to this site shall be via extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation system and a statement of whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O&M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system will need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, including fencing locations, pathways and types of construction, shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Non-combustible fencing is to be installed along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to ~~~.~ ~ ~ P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council January 9, 1998 Page 4 alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non- combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from properly lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. Similarly, the duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. Provide a letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments must include a minimum of ten percent common area. Common open space shall mean land area exclusive of street rights-of--way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The sewer easement area shall be platted as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. This will result in sq~:are footages for at least two adjacent lots of 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas shall be provided for the anticipated needs of boats, campers and trailers. For typical residential development, one (1) adequate space shall be provided every two (2) living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One (1) additional parking space beyond that which is required by the Zoning Ordinance may be required for every three (3) dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet (4') to any established street or alleyway. 14. A maintenance building or approved area shall be provided that is suitable for.the services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. Yillss®Lalces.CUP P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council January 9, 1998 Page 5 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access as well as gates proposed within the development. A condition of the previous proposal was that Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse.. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement at this time. 17. If the private road is approved for this development, a blanket easement for public utilities needs to be .included. The proposed covenants for this subdivision need to specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20-year period 18. Planned unit developments are required to contain a minimum ten percent open space. Although donations have ,been made to the City golf course, they were not a part of this development. 19. The contour lines on the blueline prints received are faint and difficult to read. Please darken up the contour lines with the revised plat map. As an informational note for the Commission and Council, four lots in Golf Vew Estates Subdivision abut this proposed development. The four lots have an average square footage of 19,491 square feet (including area to the center of the Safford Lateral) and are valued for tax purposes at an average of $215,300. The house sizes on these lots range from 2,130 square feet to 3,532 square feet. The applicant is proposing a minimum house size of 1,304 square feet for this subdivision. Three lots in Amended Cherry Lane Village No. 1 have an average square footage of 6,171 square feet with an average valuation of $94,800. Two additional lots in Cherry Lane Village No. 1 Subdivision that abut this site are 12,720 and 9,540 square feet, with valuations of $131,300 and $119,700, respectively. ~~.~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY WILLIAM G: BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENN15 J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 • Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 6. 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family, 3 dualexes. 1 trialex BY: Steiner Develoament LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Chenv Lane Village No 1 JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN S( ELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF R C ION(PRELIM I LAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE RE A R~CgI(~iiF: DEC 2 31997 ~-~ ~tLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., Clty Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Legal DepaRment (208) 8844252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor ant INCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 6, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family, 3 dualexes. 1 trialex BY: Steiner Develoament LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cheny Lane Village No. 1 JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) MARK NELSON, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT BYRON SMITH, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION KEITH BORUP, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) - -SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES ~a _ i~ ~ ~'~7 BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT _ CITY ATTORNEY L L ~D i ~ s ~ ~ ~_ CITY ENGINEER - CITY PLANNER ~2 ~= J,~'~ - 6 159$ X11' ~~ ~B~A~ ~. CENTRAL CE •~ DISTRICT P11'HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # Conditional Use # .~ 7 s~ DEC 2 9 1997 ;~~r~ .~ ,kRlala~ Preliminary /Final /Short Plat `" s~ Return to: ^ Boise ^ Eagle ^ Garden City Meridian ^ Kuna ^ Acz ^ I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on-this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ waste flow characteristics ^ or bedrock from original grade ^ other ^ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. ~. 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ~ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water ,~ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines central water 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ I I. 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. 14. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store ~~ sio~r~~x ~r~~i~i~ /~LQ,,/ ~S~~// d ~ Date: 1.2/ 2~3 / F 7 /' !~'1•vED ~~~s O ~• ~ /~~~~ Reviewed By: DISTRfCT HEALTH DEPAR~fENT Environmental Health Division 7~GE1VEn ~ 7'~JcS ~ ~cc . Review Sheet roxo ioroi ~. ~. iron JAN 0 2 1998 ;IT'S ~c~~ ~E~IDIa~ i~~~ ~t ~,l-t ~ . 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # ~$(~~$t1i1~XX 208-463-0183 23 December 1997 add Berg, City Clerk City Of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 X~EXXX~Xh~33>iX SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 XB~s14XXX~D6Xd~8~CX RE: Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family. 3 duplexes and 1 triple Steiner Development Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Eightmile Lateral courses along the west boundary of the project. The right-of-way of the Eightmile Lateral is SO feet; 25 feet from the center each way. See Idaho Code 42-1208--RIGHTS-OF-WAYNOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson at 466-0663 for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change/Site Development application 8e filed for review prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be .retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. Contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the 1Jampa « ivieridia~a Irrigation District. ~'ncerely, ~-~.~ Bil Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH.•dln cc: File -Shop File - O„~'ice Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 .BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 6 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 10 REQUEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM P & Z SEE ~rtiac ~~~ F IIJi~I TUGS CIF # ~~ ~~ ~t w~ ~Pp ~r,~~~ ~ ~r OTH All Ill~terials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i i MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: January 13. 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 12 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT A ENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: "REVIEWED" SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~~ ~~ ~G ~/' ~~ ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US W EST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH 3,1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 13 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: COMMENTS FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~ ~~'~LL~ ~~~~~~ Caw] G~Gfi INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: PRESENTATION BOOK FROM STEINER DEVELOPMENT All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: APRIL21,1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: F F 8 C L FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE N0.1 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE MINUTES FROM 3/17/98 1,1 W.~ 5"n~' n.° J OTHER: FINDINGS IN 3/17/98 PACKET All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MAY 5.1998 APPLICANT: STEINER CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDNISION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 4/21/98 SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ti h~~ ~ ~~~ I~ ~~ ~~ P OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: ,JULY 14, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 15 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB. NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 5/12/98 ~ ~`~y ~~~i~ c~~^7 kI F BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: September 8, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES 08/11/98 ~I ~ ,~I~ ~ ~ J~' ~~ ~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. /~ ~~ ~ ,x'1,1`1 T ~ ° V 8k4~=2o'(b MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: February 10, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7 REQUEST: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS ~~ ~lA-~ S CJ~ 1`~C ~' O~- n ~ C~c'~l ~ I ~ S ~ ~l S ~ ~1 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~Q~ ~$ ~~~ ~ ~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. L~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING:- MARCH 17,1998 APPLICANT: STEINER CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 4 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 3/3/98 SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS Z ~ S~ ~~ ~' ~~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shalt become property of the City of Meridian. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on March 3, 1998 at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the City Council of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit and application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled on January i3, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; .and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. As required by law a second public hearing was held in front of the Meridian City FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Council on March 3, 1998. This second public hearing followed the same procedures for notice and hearing as set forth in the first public hearing. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, and 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application; the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single- . family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA4d - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 5. That the planned residential development of 37 single- family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an allowed conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property. and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 ~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two-unit townhouses and one 3-unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 ~ units per acre over the 8-~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty-two-foot-right-of-way with a five-foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20-foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of the various numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 1.4 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two-car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback is reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks are reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what are seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15-foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional use, and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20- foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision, which he desired to see the revision. Presently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than the 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) would be 5 ~ per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking forward to the completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section, which belongs to the ACHD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20-foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider, would bill additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that. is why the typical 50-foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, requested the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. The City Council for the City of Meridian conducted a second public hearing on March 3, 1998. The testimony from that hearing is incorporated in these findings as if set forth in full. Mr. Bradbury, the representative from Steiner Development testified as follows; The site is an eight and a half acre parcel of property that's east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • Cherry Lane. The piece of property near the current Cherry Lane golf course club house. The piece of property was originally brought to the Council by the developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision, Brighton Corporation and was part of the previously approved Ashford Greens planned unit development. The Brighton Corporation failed to exercise the option on the particular piece of property. Steiner Development picked up the option to the property to develop it. A copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law that were adopted by the Council back in September 1994 are in included in the packet provided. Those findings dealt with the overall concept approval for the Ashford Greens Subdivision, and what they did or what the members of the Council at that time did, with respect to that piece of property. Mr. Bradbury stated that the previous Council gave concept approval for what was described as medium density development, and that was further described as being for up to eight units per acre. The old Council required that the developer submit a more particular site plan for approval, and this application is that more particular site plan. The property is located on (81/2) eight and a half acres, the property is presently zoned R-4, but the application seeks approval for 46 total single family units. 37 of them would be single detached, three of them would be two unit attached structures. Mr. Bradbury stated "There is three two units or you might call them two unit townhouses that are described as duplexes but that's not really FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • true because these will on separate ownership's and .each of the unit will be on separate lots." There is also one three-unit townhouse proposed for a total of 46 dwelling units. The overall density comes out to about 5.6 units per acre, which is substantially less than the eight units per acre, which was conceptually, approved back in 1994. 17. The lot sizes range from 3909 square feet up to 8413 square feet. Mr. Bradbury noted there is a change from what was submitted earlier because this is where the temporary sewer easement exists. It's a twenty-foot wide sewer easement, and when the application was originally submitted, the lot calculations included the land within the sewer easement area. The proposal now is to take that out of these lots and make it a separate common lot which would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. He noted the numbers shown on the plans are not correct but the numbers provided to Council for this hearing are the correct numbers. The sizes of the homes are a minimum of 1304 square feet up to 1785 square feet. More .,than half of the units proposed would be in the 1700 or above range, "actually it's 1699 square feet." There will be 25 of those that are between 1699 and 1785 square. feet. The remainder of the units are equally distributed between the other sizes. The roadway system in the project is proposed as a private road that would be gated at the entry. He noted it would be on 42 feet of right-of-way. 37 feet of that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) would be improved. It would include a five-foot wide sidewalk on one side, which is similar to what was approved in Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. Mr. Bradbury noted that there are 7 different plans available and some of those would have two elevation choices. The homes are all single story and have two car garages. Each have either two or three bedrooms and two baths. Each space would be provided by a private driveway. The driveway would have space for a least two cars, so each unit would have a total parking availability of four cars. There are four color choices being offered in either stucco or a siding, and there's a brick accent on some of the units. He stated that the proposal is to provide a gated security entrance in front of the subdivision in order to keep the traffic circulation down to a minimum. The concept is to provide a pedestrian and cart path in through the subdivision over the top of the sewer easement. This would then go on to the canal right of way and up all the way along the perimeter of the subdivision and then it would come back out up at the golf course. That would give the people who want to walk to the golf course who live in the neighborhood or those people who own golf carts and want to drive their golf carts up the golf course. This is to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. He noted that the Planning and Zoning commission recommended approval of the project as presented. The developer is asking for certain exceptions under the provisions of the planned unit development FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) portion of the zoning ordinance. One of the exceptions is to have some of the setbacks reduced. The typical front yard setback in a residential subdivision is twenty feet. The plans call for a reduction of the setback to fifteen feet. Similarly the street side yard setbacks on the corner lots are typically a twenty-foot setback requirement, again the, developer is asking for a reduction to fifteen feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that "That's just exactly like what the Council approved in the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6." He also noted there is also a reduction being requested for lots one through four for a ten foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required fifteen feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that even though there will only be ten feet of lot setback, there will actually be thirty five feet of separation from the lots. This is because there will be the ten foot of setback in the lot and the twenty feet of the sewer easement area which would be a common lot and have that path on it. He noted that in addition the lot sizes in the typical R-4 area are 8,000 square feet. They are asking for an exception down to the lot sizes that are shown on the plat. The minimum lot size is about 3900 square feet and the largest is over 8,000 square feet, but it comes out to an average of somewhere around 5700 square feet. The typical frontage requirement on an R-4 lot is 80 feet. That is frontage on the street. In this particular application the request is that number be reduced down to fifty feet because these are essentially fifty-foot lots. Mr. Bradbury FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • noted that because the lot sizes vary on this plat, his request is to approve the lot sizes on the plat rather than going over every lot exception. Mr. Bradbury stated that he is also looking for an exception in regards to the private street. This exception is for a 42 foot of right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. He noted that the house sizes range from 1300 up to over 1700 square feet. He noted that the typical R-4 requirement is 1400 square, and that for the ten or twelve on his plat that are less than that number he would need exceptions for them. Mr. Bradbury noted that as an offset to all those exceptions the. developer owns about a third of an acre, which is on the opposite side of the eight mile lateral from the subdivision. He noted that the developer is offering to donate a third of an acre to the city. He noted that they would convey it free of charge and the deed would be conveyed to the city at the time that the final plat was recorded. He noted that the intent of the project is to continue to try to provide a variety of housing types and .housing choices in the vicinity. Mr. Bradbury stated this is much like what Steiner Development has started to do up at the Lakes at Cherry Lane. He noted there are a number of different sizes of lots, and sizes of homes and types of housing arrangements at that development site. There are the typical 8000 square foot R-4 lots. There are some 6500 square foot R-8 lots. Mr. Bradbury noted that it conceptually the same idea as what is going into the Lakes at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Cherry Lane, with townhomes, and a variety of different lot sizes. Mr. Bradbury noted that it is the developers belief that this type of project is not only in line with what the City Council conceptually approved back in 1994 for Ashford Greens, but it's also compatible with the overall scheme for this mile section. 18. Councilman Anderson inquired about the security gate and specifically how would emergency vehicles get through that security gate, "is it keyed, is it activated by siren?" Mr. Bradbury stated he did not know the answer but that Mr. Campbell from Steiner Corporation indicated it would be activated by a strobe. Councilman Anderson noted they would need to coordinate that with the police and fire, because not all those vehicles are equipped with strobes. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Steiner Development would be more than willing to work with the fire department and it would not be a problem with them to make it a condition of approval. 19. Commissioner Anderson inquired why Interlachen did not tie into another street. Mr. Bradbury stated that the reason the plans don't call for that is the concern for excessive traffic. Mr. Bradbury referred to a traffic impact report. He noted the Ada County Highway District looked into it and they thought the road should go through as well. He noted that the reason that they are not showing it that way is for concern over the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) potential for cut through traffic. i Mr. Bradbury noted that there is going to be traffic trying to access the golf course, back and forth, and there would be traffic coming from the Ashford Greens Subdivision. He noted that traffic would be heading down through the street in order to get to the Albertson's. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Ada County Highway District originally thought that it should go through as well, but the developer has submitted a request to them to reconsider their position. He noted that part. of what was submitted to them was a traffic impact study and report that was done by Phil and Gary Funkhauser from Earth Tech. Mr. Bradbury submitted copies of the report to ,the City Councilman. He noted that the last page is a chart and it shows what the existing traffic is, and what the projected traffic would be both with and without the connection. He noted that North of Cherry on Interlachen the existing traffic that was counted by Earth Tech was 771 vehicles per day, and the traffic that would be produced by this site at that location would be 285 trips per day. He noted that would bring the total traffic to over a thousand vehicles a day. He noted that if the streets were connected it would add about 300 trips per day for the golf course according to the experts. He noted that it would add about 400 trips per .day for Ashford Greens. He noted that both of those would be cutting through and then add about 30 trips per day from Cherry Lane Village. He noted that what you end up with is over 700 additional trips per day with the connection. Mr. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Bradbury noted that not only would the residents in the proposed subdivision be unhappy with the 700 additional trips per day, but he feels the people that live on Interlachen would likely be unhappy with having those 700 additional trips per day. Mr. Bradbury noted that the reason for not connecting the street is to avoid the excess traffic and his initial contact with A.C.H.D. seems to indicate that they agree. They are not sure they want to have that connected there after all, because of the increased amount of traffic. 20. Councilman Anderson noted the residents already have the 297 trips of traffic because people are going to the clubhouse. Mr. Bradbury noted that A.C.H.D. tries to avoid what are called continuous connectors. He noted there would a continuous collector from Black Cat down to Cherry .Lane, and that is something that the Highway District typically tries to avoid. Mr. Bradbury noted A.C.H.D. tries to avoid connectors because they tend to become a route for people to use and to cut through in order to avoid intersections. He noted that ,the present day thinking is to have collector streets that go into the mile section but don't connect directly on to other collector streets. Mr. Bradbury stated that he believes the Highway District will agree that the street should not be connected. 21. Councilman Anderson inquired about the width of the road. Mr. Bradbury noted that it is a 42-foot wide right-of-way with 37 feet improved. Councilman Anderson inquired about the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • turning radius at the cul-de-sac down at the end of Interlachen. Mr. Bradbury stated that he did not know but that Mr. Campbell says that he thinks it's 80 feet. 22. Mayor Corrie inquired about the frontage on the lots and whether they were fifty feet. Mr. Bradbury noted that they were fifty feet. Mayor Corrie requested further clarification by asking fifty feet by what? Mr. Bradbury noted that each of the lots is a little bit different in size. He noted that if you looked at lots 7,8,9 and 10 respectively, lot 7 has 59 feet of frontage, lot 8 is 57 feet, lot 9 is 55 feet, and lot 10 is 51 feet. He noted that lots 42 through 45 range from 60-feet to 65 feet and there are a number of other. different numbers and different sizes. Mr. Bradbury noted there are also smaller lots. For example, he noted that the triplex, the three unit townhouse development are all smaller lots, but that it is going to be one building. He noted they are all going to take access off the same spot. Mr. Bradbury noted that if you took each one of those frontages separately, they are small, but add them up together and they are going to end up somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 35 feet of frontage on that one lot. Mr. Bradbury noted that with the varying sizes of lots it is difficult to pinpoint and say all lots are a certain size but that overall they will average about fifty feet of frontage. 23. Councilman Anderson inquired whether the parking would still work out for two cars on these smaller lots? Mr. Bradbury FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • noted that each one of them would have a minimum of 18 feet between the garage and the lot line. That they, would be able to get two cars side by side up on to the driveway. 24.Mayor Corrie inquired whether Steiner Development has ever thought of doing anything with the entrance to Interlachen. Mr. Bradbury noted that the subject has never come up but that he would raise the subject with the people at Steiner Development. 25. Councilman Bird wanted to know the difference between a triplex and a townhouse. Mr. Bradbury noted that his definition of the difference between a townhouse and a triplex is who owns it. He noted that a triplex or a duplex is on one lot noting one building on one lot. He noted that two units owned by the same person, and generally you live in one and rent one out. He noted that a townhouse, on the other hand is really like a zero lot line with a common wall. It's one building with three separately owned units with common walls on three separately owned lots. Councilman Bird noted that parking could be a problem in a townhouse or triplex. Mr. Bradbury noted that he has a concept drawing of how access might be handled. What they would do is create a common driveway at the entrance at the frontage of those lots. He noted that it would be included in convenants. He also noted that in the deeds supplied to these. people there would be a pr. access so that each owner would have a legal entirety of the common driveway as it enters FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the restrictive that would be vision for a cross right to the those three lots. Page 18 He noted that this has been done a number of times; and they have had reasonably good success with it. 26. Councilman Rountree noted that there are a list of amenities, but not a list of the potential disamenities that might be associated with this project. He noted the pedestrian way to the clubhouse, but that he saw no provision for vehicular uses. He noted that there was no discussion about the potential options for golf course out buildings that might be built in conjunction with the clubhouse and that might border these lots. He noted that in the list of exceptions there is no discussion about the tiling ditches. Councilman Rountree also noted that there is no discussion about the potential buffering of adjacent subdivisions. He noted the plan blocks out pedestrian access to the golf course from that part of the city. He noted that with a pedestrian gate on the pedestrian way, it restricts access to the golf course. Mr. Bradbury noted that the intention is to provide for access to the golf course. Councilman Rountree noted that there has to be access for the rest of the community. Councilman Rountree noted that one of the requirements of approval of the PUD is that they have an open space requirement and he did not see any open space other than space that is going to be there by way of an easement that already exists. He noted that Steiner Development is asking the city to make exceptions for lot setbacks to accommodate an easement that is already there so they can build a house on it, but he didn't see anything in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • subdivision that reflects the need for open space. Mr. Bradbury noted that the engineer calculated the area that would be included as open and common area in the area that the pedestrian pathway is included, and that is calculated out to be just over 8/10 of an acre. He also noted that a third of an acre would be donated to the city, which is about 15000 square feet. He noted that if you take into account all of that space, it far exceeds the ten- percent requirement in the ordinance. Mr. Bradbury also noted that when the Ashford Greens concept plan was approved, the city acquired a fair amount of land from the owner of the property. Somebody different now owns the piece of property but when originally approved the city accepted the property. He noted that based on the findings that were made back in 1994, the donated land was intended to and does in fact serve as the city's requirement for open space as part of the trade off. The trade off is that you could provide the ten percent open space in a privately owned property which would be owned and maintained and used by the residents of the subdivision or you make it public property. He noted that in this case, public property was provided to the city, and it is now public property and being used as such. Mr. Bradbury noted that if the council at this point in time is going to disregard what was previously required and previously provided, he thinks the city would be in essence reneging on an agreement already made. Councilman Rountree noted that he did not believe there was an agreement made with this FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) r ~ particular developer. Councilman Rountree also inquired as to whether these lots would be assessed a fee towards the pay off of the golf course improvement. Bradbury noted that he did not know the answer to that question. 27. The city attorney swore Doug Campbell. Mr. Campbell noted that the project would be included in the $640 fee that's currently being charged on every lot out in that general area. 28.The City Attorney swore in Larry Astley. Mr. Astley noted that he has two concerns in regards to this project. He felt that the density and the layout of this development could effect the aesthetic value of the golf course. He also felt in some ways it could affect property values. 29. The City Attorney swore Joe Stafford. Mr. Stafford noted that his concern is in regards to the ten-foot easement. He noted that the easement is on his property, property that he pays taxes on and that in essence ten feet that is being taken away from his back yard by developing this property. He noted that it is his property, so effectively he is losing ten feet of property. The other concern he had was that the lots are made to be conducive to the area, that it fits the area. He noted that nowhere in the immediate area of Golf View and Cherry Lane right next to this area are their small lots. He noted that there are duplex lots directly to the east of the property. He noted that those lots have much more than a ten-foot back yard. They have much more setback than is required by this, so he has concerns, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) with that. The other thing he noted is that the neighborhood is pretty conducive to families, the .golf course, using the golf course, and that type of area. He noted that if there is a 3909 square foot lot and you take a 1304 square foot home, and add a 400 square foot garage, you are at 1700 square foot on 3900 square foot lot. He noted that is a 44% use not counting any side yard, sidewalk, and driveway. He felt that the use was not conducive to that area. He felt that one reason the developer applied under a PUD was to get a higher density in an area zoned for less density. He felt that a developer should not be able to apply for a PUD just to get a greater density of homes on a piece of property. He noted that the 5.6 units per acre are not common in that area. He noted that his house is about 2700 square feet. The neighbors are 3300 square feet. His land use is 20% of the property. His home is about 20% of his property. That includes the garages. He thinks his neighbors are maybe 22%. He noted that is what is common in that area. Mr. Stafford noted that the developer is closing off the area that's presently an open area. They are asking for private streets. All the subdivisions that border this property all have two sidewalks and curbing gutter. He noted all the homeowners in the area have 20-foot setbacks on the front. He noted that the developer is asking for 15-foot setbacks. He also noted that all the neighbors have to go by the city requirements for our setbacks on the side yards, the developer should also be required to abide by the rules. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 22 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 30. The city attorney swore Jackie Stafford. Her biggest concern is the density of what they are going to be putting over on that property. Their family has four childr~=n, and trying to keep four children in a big huge yard is hard enough. They even have the common area where the kids go play and bike down on the path and stuff. Her concern with cutting down, chipping away their yards the way they want to, where are the kids going to be. She is concerned about apartments or anything like that having tennis courts or basketball courts or something for them to go and just kind of release some of their energy. The other concern that she has is the traffic flow on Interlachen. Not only does Cherry Lane use that, but Interlachen and Golf View do too. She noted A lot of her neighbors go up from the side, and go out Cherry Lane instead of going to Summer Tree where they are probably suppose to, but it's a short cut. 31. The City Attorney swore Wayne Crookston. Mr. Crookston noted that he lives right off the number one fairway. He lives within 300 feet of the proposed Steiner Development site. Mr. Crookston noted that when Brighton Corporation had rights to the property it was designated as medium density. Under Meridian's Comprehensive Plan section 1.13U of the housing section, the infilling of vacant lots in substantially developed single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Mr. Crookston noted that all the other adjacent lots FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • C~ in the area are not 50 x 85 square foot lots as is proposed by Steiner Development. Mr. Crookston noted that he has at least a 1/4 to 1/3 of an acre lot. All of his neighbors have similarly sized lots and that the proposed lots do not even come close to the size of lots in the adjoining properties. Mr. Crookston noted that at the time the City Council reviewed the application of Brighton Corporation there were specific requirements that needed to be addressed in order for the City Council to approve the project. He noted that in order for approval of a medium density designation the developer needed to address the issues of roadways, parking and open space. Mr. Crookston then went on to note that the proposed parcels are not even close to the R-4 designation. Mr. Crookston noted that at the time the City Council considered the Brighton Corporation development for this site there was a statement which said Prior to-any development of the medium density parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council." Mr. Crookston also noted that the City Council said "The City Council reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with ordinance requirements, including but not limited to streets, pedestrian walkways, planning and reserve strips public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike paths." Mr. Crookston also noted that the statement also mentions piping of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 24 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ditches, pressurized irrigation, access parking, landscaping and screening. Mr. Crookston noted that he did not see these items addressed in the application and do not think this application should be approved. 32. The City Attorney swore Gordon Margulieux. Mr. Margulieux wanted to congratulate or thank the developer because "he's very open". He noted that he testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Margulieux also noted that some of the things he had mentioned actually had been addressed. One of these issues was the sewer easement area behind the first through fourth lot, because at that time, it was still. on those lots, and they have addressed that. He stated that he is still concerned about the size of the lots. He noted that his lot, which is in Cherry Lane Village 1, Lot 3 is twenty eight feet from where this proposed path is, and is an irregular lot of 13000 square feet. The adjoining lots around there are roughly running about 8000 square feet. He noted the proposed lots are smaller but it looks really good considering that it will be developed sooner or later. He noted that it doesn't look too terribly bad but he does like the fact that it is closed, and he does live on Interlachen, and would not be happy to have a through street with more traffic over there. He noted that he sort of likes their concept to that extent. He has other concerns about the easement and that it goes through what is going to be a pathway. He is not sure how to address that. because it is a private section. Mr. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Margulieux noted that the area could cause potential problems with kids gathering there and would like to see a light in the area for better illumination. He also noted that when they talked about medium size density and they talked about eight houses per acre with Ashford Greens, they were talking about multi family dwellings. And these are single family dwellings. He noted they are not talking about the same thing even though they have cut it back to 5 ~ houses per acre. 33. Mr. Bradbury testified what Mr. Steiner is attempting to do is to provide an opportunity for a variety of different living alternatives within the Cherry Lane development. Mr. Bradbury also took issue with Mr. Crookston's statement about all abutting lots should also be 8000 square feet. He noted that not all lots abutting this development are of that size. He also noted that it would be impossible to have all lots contiguous to this development be of that 8000 square feet size. He noted that pretty soon, all you would have is a mile of 8000 square foot lots. He didn't think that is what the City envisioned. Mr. Bradbury noted that this development is something different and presents a little bit different living arrangement and lifestyle so you don't have this sea of 8000 square foot cookie cutter lots. He noted that he had .been coming out to Meridian for five or six years, talking to the city about subdivision developments, and he has heard the city talk about not having every subdivision look the same. FINDINGS OF FP~CT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~. 34. Councilman Rountree noted that the issue is compatibility and it seem to him that there was not a whole lot of consideration to either to the type of home or the design of the homes that are adjacent to the subdivision. He noted that this happened in Meridian Greens. He noted that the city had a subdivision with large lots, specific architectural types, and specific kinds of roofs. The people in that subdivision objected to a R-4 subdivision adjacent to them that had a lesser standard, smaller lots, and asphalt singled roofs, those kinds of things. The remedy is the remedy that we have in our ordinance language and our comprehensive plan as a buffer. There was a portion of that subdivision that had to have cedar shake shingles. They had to meet a certain size lot, and they had to meet a certain square footage. The rest of the subdivision as it progressed out, became what the developers originally proposed. Councilman Rountree noted that he would like to see some consideration given to that concept in this development. He noted that he is not opposed to the medium density but wants specifics to make sure that the neighborhood considerations and the existing features out there were considered. 35. Councilman Bentley noted that "it was one of my concerns when I viewed this project" and he agrees with Mr. Bradbury on the fact that we do not want all subdivisions to mirror each other and look the same, but the same token, we've got open ground butting up to these people's property. He also FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 27 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) noted that consideration has to be given to the surrounding area. The public hearing was then closed. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 28 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred watt, high-pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District grants an encroachment agreement. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. The duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments will include a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 29 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) minimum of ten percent common area, which means land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. 14. A maintenance building or approved area will be provided for suitable services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 30 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) c: • 18. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have been made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 19. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 17. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 18. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 19. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 31 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 20. There was no further testimony given. at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted .except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by .prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) i • 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning and Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 33 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use ,Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would not be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; Meridians Comprehensive Plan section 1.13U of the housing section states: "Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed, single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development." Section 6.5U states that the policy of the city should be to establish land use designations, which reflect the existing character of the neighborhoods. Under community design the goal statement provides that All neighborhoods and special areas in Meridian should be encouraged to develop in a manner which expresses concerns and appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of the physical environment while maintaining the unique characteristics which allow each neighborhood and special area to be recognized as an individual entity." The Meridian Comprehensive Plan provides that the use should be harmonious in regards to the above sections. The use would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The use would not be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 34 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; the approval of a private road could have an affect on the ability of neighboring areas to have access to the golf course. This golf course is essentially the whole reason the area is developed as it is. e. The use will not be served adequately. by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; The approval of a private gated access could have the potential for serious consequences in regards to fire, police and safety issues. f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit not be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 35 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) i Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. However if the conditional use permit is granted, the above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit not be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 36 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN BYRD VOTED COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby denies the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 37 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearings on January 13, 1998, February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearings scheduled on January 13, 1yy~, February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearings; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998, February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, hearings; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) i ~ the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the planned residential development of 37 single family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an allowed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 '~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 '~ units per acre over the 8 ~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty- two-foot-right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20 foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of the various FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what is seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15 foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional use, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20 foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision which he desired to see the revision. ~'resently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than the 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which would be 5 '~ per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking forward to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) i ~- completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section which belongs to the ACRD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20 foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation would be billed by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider. 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr, Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens FINDINGS OE' FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50 foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury requested that the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. At the February 10, 1998, Planning and Zoning meeting the Commission made a motion and voted to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 17. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, addressed the Commission with the following testimony at the July 14, 1998, public hearing. Steve Bradbury noted this item originally came to the Commission in January of this year, and that it was recommended for approval to the City Council. The project, at that time, was contemplating a total of 46 living units, 37 of them being single family detached 3 two unit townhouses for a total of six more units. As well, there would be a three unit townhouse for three more for a total of 36. When it reached City Council in March the testimony brought before the Council expressed opposition to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) project. Primarily residents of Golfview Subdivision and the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision responding to the lot sizes. City Council took that testimony under advisement and asked that the plat be revised to enlarge the lots in those areas and it was agreed by Steiner Development to prepare a revised plat. The plat has since been revised. The developer has eliminated a total of three living units so there are a total of 43 units. This change resulted in 33 single family detached dwellings and then two 10 townhouse units. The townhouse units would be moved to the southerly part of the project. The townhouses at Cherry Lane Village were taken out all together and replaced with single family detached lots. The townhouses next to Golfview were also eliminated except for two that are immediately adjacent to the entry way where there's a whole line of townhouses that come along Interlachen. The townhouses are now clustered on the westerly side of the project so they are away from the existing developments of Golfview and Cherry Lane Village. The third thing that was done was that the lot sizes were increased in two locations. Along Golfview there are now four lots with a minimum of not less than 8000 square feet in size, and this will be reflected on the final plat. The lots that are closest to Cherry Lane Village area were also increased in size, with lot sizes ranging from 6, 375 up to 9, 350. The issue that is still unresolved at the time Planning and Zoning reviewed this application was whether or not Interlachen would be required by the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Ada County Highway District to connect through to the road that is the collector road that serves Ashford Greens. At that time the ACHD's official position was that they wanted it connected. The ACHD has since agreed and have abandoned the notion that there should be connection through, so that matter should be behind them. The ACHD gave staff findings on or about June 3, 1998, and those findings indicated they liked the cul-de-sac idea. Commissioner Smith inquired of the ten townhouse lots. Mr. Bradbury clarified that the townhouses took up lots 20 and 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and also 36 and 37, to make a total of ten. The last revision of the map is July 10th and Mr. Bradbury is to get the Commission the new map dated July 10th. Clarification was also made that these are two ten unit townhouses and not duplexes or triplexes. Commissioner De Weerd questioned if there were any open spaces. Mr. Bradbury pointed out that one piece of property, which is remote from the building lots across the canal, and another piece of property over by the golf course side will be open space. The developer has proposed to donate this third of an acre to the City for use as part of its golf course, without charge. The path that goes along the southerly boundary works its way up along the canal which would be used to access pedestrians and golf carts to access the golf course. This would be next to the relocated clubhouse. The total open square footage space is about an acre including the donated ground. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • Commissioner De Weerd brought up the comment of Councilman Anderson concerning the gate and how it would be responded to by emergency vehicles. Mr. Bradbury addressed the issue by saying, "The intention is to work it out with the Fire Department and whatever other emergency services are involved. Find out what they prefer and install that type of system." Commissioner De Weerd addressed the question as to the total number of lots per acre. Mr. Bradbury commented that it was 5. Because the Ashford Greens Subdivision did not exercise its option on a piece of property, Steiner Development picked it up and is presenting the plat, attempting to follow the conceptual approval that was granted to Ashford Greens. Mr. Bradbury thought Golfview was in existence prior to Ashford Greens. Commissioner De Weerd questioned the landscaping. Mr. Bradbury noted there would be landscape treatment at the entry, as well as the area over the cart path. Mr. Bradbury could not be precise as to how it would be landscaped but there would be a walkway, grass, bushes and trees. There has not been a landscape plan drawn up, He noted that he would prepare this for the final plat. Bruce Freckleton from the Public Works/Building Department addressed a couple of questions. The first pertained to the original comments from January of this year regarding a pressure sewer main that crosses portions of the property. His original comment from January was that those should not be easements but a commpn lot. If there should be a break on a forced main they need FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) to get in right now. Mr. Freckleton stated, "I don't know - it's looks like we've got one of them on this revised plat as a common lot but it looks like the other one is still within an easement and I'm just kind of wondering - okay you still show it on your plat as an easement though." Mr. Bradbury responded that the plat as drawn shows a common lot on the part Mr, Freckleton was talking about, and he thought this was a temporary easement that would be abandoned at some time. Mr. Freckleton acknowledged that it was true and it would be when Golfview develops out tb Black Cat, then that lift station would be abandoned. Mr. Freckleton noted that his original comment was that it would be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. "The written response from PLS, the applicant's engineer, was that the sewer easement area will be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowner' s association. The area landscape plan will be submitted to the city for review and approval." Mr. Freckleton noted he was a little confused as to why this project was not there now. Mr. Bradbury stated, "It sounds like we need to make that a common lot, and if that needs to be a condition of approval, that's certainly appropriate." Commissioner De Weerd brought up the issues about the tiling of the ditches and the potential buffering to adjacent subdivisions. Mr. Bradbury responded that there were no plans to the either of the two ditches because they exceed the size limits the City generally requires for tiling. Also, the ditch between FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ the project and Golfview sits on a 50 foot easement. The ditch itself provides a fair amount o~ separation between the two. subdivisions. His understanding is that the ditch between their project and Golfview is entirely within the Golfview lots. The ditch is not a centerline. The property line from Golfview actually goes all the way over. The other side between this project and the golf course have the lots and another 50 foot ditch easement, plus the fairway. Beyond the fairway is another couple hundred feet before you get to houses. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the public would have access to the pathway, to which Mr. Bradbury responded with a yes. Commissioner Borup inquired about when the conceptual review was done for Ashford Greens if that was a public hearing. Mr. Bradbury thought it was because it was a PUD and preliminary plat. Mr. Bradbury testifed that they didn't have a design for this parcel at that time. The preliminary plat came about because one was done for the R-4 portions of Ashford Greens. Mr. Bradbury's recollection was that the City was taking an overall view and moving densities around and taking into account the fact that Ashford Greens property owners were donating property for the City golf course, kind of one big package. The City was getting a golf course and in exchange Ashford Greens was getting a little bit higher density in a couple of locations. Since Ashford Greens developers did not have a specific development proposal, for what they called medium density areas, the council gave it a conceptual approval for a density of up to 8 units per FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ acre. 18. Wayne Crookston was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. His lot is zoned R-4 and the golf course, by one fairway, is between his lot and this development. His greatest concern is over the compatibility with his lot. Mr. Crookston has close to 15,000 square feet, a little over a quarter of an acre. He thought the Comprehensive Plan stated things have to be compatible. He feels that the smaller ,lots are not compatible with the size of his lot or those of Golfview. The lots were somewhat enlarged along Golfview, and somewhat larger right across from his property. Going west, after his property, they gradually go down hill. He feels that is not a compatible situation, unless they put lots at least R-4 of 8000 square feet. He doesn't feel they are going to be compatible, and that they should be larger than 8000 square feet. The lots that abut them are larger than 8000 square feet. He also commented that when it was dealt with the property was under Ashford Greens, it was placed definitely in an R-8 situation, PUD, but not platted out. He apologized for not appearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but he didn't find out about it until it went to City Council.' He does appreciate what they have done. 19. Joe Stafford was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He noted that he lives on Plum Rose which is in Golfview Subdivision. His lot is approximately 16 to 17,000 square feet in size. He appreciates the lot size increases, but there is nothing FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • that high a density on either side of Golfview and/or Cherry Lane in that immediate area. Another area of concern is about being conceptually approved. The key issue, he thinks, is that it was conceptually approved for Ashford Greens, and it had high density property. Apparently they were giving quite a bit of property for the golf course, thus allowing them to cluster high density. This present project is not giving or adding more golf course. The talk is donating three quarters of an acre to that area. Another concern is as many times as the project has been presented before Planning and Zoning and City Council there is still not a correct map sent to the public. No landscaping to be able to review or discuss. Mr. Stafford also brought up concern over the setbacks, and that he understood they were requesting a variance for setbacks to the rear yards. He wondered if they were going to have a 20 foot setback from the rear yard. Commissioner Smith noted that it stated a 15 foot setback on the map and this is normal city ordinance. Bruce Freckleton commented on the discussion about setbacks that they looked standard, and that the townhouse lots would be a zero lot line. Additionally, noting 20 feet on the front, 15 in the rear and the side yard with a street is 20 feet. Mr. Freckleton did clarify that the side yard setback is five foot per story. Continued discussion by Mr. Stafford questioned the street widths and sidewalk issues. Bruce Freckleton addressed his concerns by stating they are private streets, and therefore are FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ narrower. There will only be a sidewalk on one side of the street, and this is alright as long as the City Council does not require sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Stafford brought out the fact that there are 8000 square foot homes along Golfview, but when you go down 30 to 40 feet they drop down to 5000 to 4000 square feet. He noted that this does effect the immediate area. 20. Gordon Margulieux was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He noted that his concern was over the lighting and safety of the path. Teenagers within the neighborhood with an unlit path could be a problem. The developer has expressed a willingness to maybe light it to a certain extent. The solution changes from lighting or locking it. Comments were also noted about landscaping and Mr. Margulieux has not seen anything on it. Earlier in the day they had talked about the 20 foot area would be paved and maintained by the homeowner's association. Maintenance is an issue if the homeowner's association chooses not to maintain that area. He additionally commented to the R-8 platting. Apparently Planning and Zoning were to go to them and talk about it which has not been done. He felt that wasn't conceptual approval. He noted he has been at all the meetings he received a notice on. He brought up that there were some requests for changes to the setback, and that the developer has been straight forward with them. Mr. Margulieux also brought up that at the original meeting that setbacks were discussed. The front was a change from 20 to 15 and the side to the street, whatever side is adjacent to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • street, and also a change from 20 to 15. The rear also was to change from 15 to 10 on some lots. Also, these changes did not pertain to all of the lots. In response to Commissioner Borup's questions, Mr. Margulieux's final comments were addressed to Commissioner Borup. They would like to see the clubhouse developed and get it over with. He has called 9-1-1 when he has seen people peering around the area, and sometimes when they've had parties at the clubhouse there have been problems, but this is usually once a year. From his point of view he feels the subdivision in general is not a bad subdivision, and he feels they have tried to do a lot of things to satisfy or try to satisfy the people in his subdivision. 21. Robert Patchin was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He's at a disadvantage since the map he has is small and apparently different than the large one that's displayed. He feels the density is a little too much for the surrounding area and is not compatible. He's not sure what could be done if they reach their limit as far as the number of lots to their investment on no return. He thinks the traffic will increase, and if it's not restricted it will be a lower cost of housing, and more children. He thought originally it looked like a request for six variances. He brought up the fact he had sent a letter to the City addressing concerns on moving the townhouses away from the edge next to the larger lots in the other subdivisions. He'd also like more time to study the real map. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 22. Mr. Bradbury re-addressed the Commission by stating, "In this case there's a proposal to provide the city with some additional property for the golf course and provide some additional open space, and as a result the developer is asking for consideration as a PUD." This means there are no variances, and this term is used in the ordinance or in general rules of law. There have been a number of exceptions asked for under the PUD process. One is the project be served by a private street because it is a dead end cul-de-sac. The intention is to construct a security gate for the gated community. The streets are less than ACHD's standards, but the ACHD will not own and maintain them. TY~ey will be maintained and owned by the homeowner's association. Sidewalk will be placed on one side of the street only. A request for front yard setbacks to be reduced from 20 to 15 feet, and 18 for the garage units has been requested. Also the street side yard setbacks be reduced from the standard 20 to 15 feet. He noted the map is the same but the numbers have been modified for logical sequence. He sees compatibility as uses, such as residential next to residential and not a hog farm against residential. He doesn't feel that the lot square footage has to stay consistent, or else every lot in Meridian should be the same square footage. Mr. Bradbury also noted there is some distance between Golfview and Cherry Lane Village with the golf course and canal. In regards to the gated path, he stated, "The path is going to be open at both ends. It's gated so that people from outside of the subdivision FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) cannot come into the subdivision, but people from outside the subdivision can access the path and go all the way along the path without having to negotiate or open or close the gate, so it is open, and I'm not sure maybe we didn't - in our conversations with Gordon maybe we didn' t make that very clear . But it' s open . The proposal is not to pave 20 feet side to side. It would be a walkway with landscaping with I don't know ten feet of pavement and the balance being landscape treatment." Mr. Bradbury then addressed the density issue by stating from the motion by City Council in the Ashford Greens project, "The concept of `medium density' parcels is approved conceptually only." The lighted path will probably be included as part of the landscaping treatment, and would be addressed in the final plat. Commissioner Borup inquired on the percentage of open space, and Mr. Bradbury noted that there is a total of 8 1/2 acres, and there is about an acre of open space, so about 120. Bruce Freckelton brought up the setback issue again. He inquired of the June 9, 1998, packet if the revised plan was incorrect or not. Mr. Bradbury noted the only thing that is incorrect were the lot number sequences. Discussion over the setbacks between Commissioner Borup and Mr. Bradbury noted that the application did not have specific lots mentioned on the reduction. Commissioner Borup stated, "Or is it a blanket on all of them?" Mr. Bradbury responded by stating, `The way I was approaching it rather than trying to figure out which FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ones were going to need it and which ones were not, just simply make it a blanket." This would be fine. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the setbacks were along any existing subdivisions that they are asking for the variance or the exception. Mr. Bradbury commented that there are no rear yard setbacks, and that the existing subdivisions abut the rear yards. They are not going to ask for reductions of rear yard setbacks. He also noted that maybe the front yard setbacks would be reduced. Commissioner Borup asked if the reduction was the same as what the original application was of last January, or if it was a blanket request at that time. Mr. Bradbury's added comments were that there was some confusion over the matter because the map showed some of the lots that would need setback reductions. Commissioner Borup noted that the map did not have the lot and blocks on it and were specified other than the map, to which Mr. Bradbury agreed. Commissioner Borup also noted that in the application there was a request for reduction of the setback. Mr. Bradbury agreed. Commissioner De Weerd questioned the pathway area again and who would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep on it. Again, Mr. Bradbury noted it would be the homeowner association's responsibility. Commissioner De Weerd then addressed a question about the landscaping issue to Bruce Freckleton. Mr. Freckleton noted that they typically are submitted to Shari for review, and he didn't think they come before Planning and Zoning unless it is requested. Commissioner MacCoy noted that Shari does most of them, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) and they see them once in a while. He's not sure if it is just because, they have requested some, and sometimes they get them without requesting them. Mr. Bradbury added comment that the submittal of the drawing that went before City Council was a real rough outline. Commissioner De Weerd then addressed the area of the circle if that was by the gate, and if the area was all asphalt. Mr. Bradbury noted that the public side of the gate would be the access. It would then work its way through, around, and up and then there would be a gate. Commissioner MacCoy wanted to clarify about the homeowners association taking care of the pathway, and additionally there are the private street and sidewalk that go along with it. He stated, "In other words it's going to be costly for them." Mr. Bradbury responded that it will not be a cheap subdivision, and that most of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1600 to 1700 square feet. The object is to find people who want to have nice homes in a secure environment without having yard work and maintenance. He did agree that they would have a fair amount of homeowners dues in order to maintain not only the private road but the pathway system. Commissioner De Weerd addressed the issue if there were going to be specific designs marketed for uniformity or if there could be built whatever the person wanted. Mr. Bradbury responded that there were specific floor plans and elevations presented to the City originally and those are included in the book. He also noted this is part of the PUD and that they're proposing specific floor FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ! ~ plans and elevations that would be built in the project. He isn't saying that every single one is going to be exactly like that, and there may be someone wanting to build something a little different, but conceptually these are the floor plans they feel will work with the proposed project, including the materials expected to be used and the standards they will need to be met or exceed the standards. Commissioner De Weerd addressed the landscaping and if there would be minimums on them. Mr. Bradbury noted it was addressed in the restrictive covenants and that there will be a minimum requirement for the landscaping. The restrictive covenants will be created and recorded and the buyers will be given a copy of the them before a lot is sold. Also, as part of the .final plat process he expects the City will review them. Commissioner Smith wanted clarification as to the lots which met or were in excess of 8000 square feet and those which did not meet the square footage. He noted there is no calculation on a number and they do not know which ones are going to require the variances on the setbacks. Mr. Bradbury noted he could tell them lot by lot what the sizes are, and that it could provide that information. He did not figure out on a lot to lot basis which lots were going to need a 15 foot setback, which ones deal with a 20 foot setback, nor what might need a 19 foot setback. In addressing the issue back to Mr. Bradbury, Commissioner Smith noted he thought it would be helpful to have the sizes of the lots. Commissioner De Weerd addressed her last question pertaining FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 22 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • to the security and about the police responding or patrolling the pathway. Mr. Bradbury's testimony in response was that it was not gated or locked; that an officer could stop his car and go down the pathway, or even drive down through the pathway, as it was not closed. Commissioner Smith responded that with the landscaping that will be done it wouldn't be wide enough, and from the sketch the gate is right on the property line. It would stick out down to the southeast a little, which would be off the property. Mr. Bradbury believed it would be in the ACHD right-of-way. 23. Joe Stafford re-addressed the Commission with testimony pertaining to the compatibility that every lot has to be 10,000 square feet in size, as well as all of Meridian. He-noted that 20% of the lots that were raised to 8000 square feet meet the minimum standard. He noted there wasn't an 8000 square foot lot abutting the property. He also noted that 80% of the lots do not meet the minimum square footage for an R-4 zoning, of a PUD. He stated, "But that certainly is not compatibility." He feels that the 80% that do not meet the 8000 square foot requirement are not compatible with his 18,000 or some who have 12,000 square feet. 24. Gordon Margulieu~ approached the Commission again with his final testimony of the evening. He wanted to clarify about the locked gate. He noted that it is a gated community, there will be a gate on the street that crosses the street that people have to open in order to get through. In regards to security, there may be a gate across the path and at some point in time in the evening it FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) would be locked. He wanted clarification as to what will happen to the gate, open 24 hours a day but locked at certain times, and that the existing road does not line up with the proposed road that is there. Between the existing curb and the new curb there is ten and one half feet. Since the old road is owned and maintained by the ACRD he wondered if the ten and one half feet would be moved out now. He is just not sure how the area will get controlled. Also, maybe with the lot changes it could be brought back in to line. He also noted there were four houses along that section before and now there are only two. He just wanted to know what the plans were actually going to be. Mr. Bradbury addressed Mr. Margulieux's concerns making sure it was over the ten feet which the highway district owns. He noted they have had discussions with the ACRD and that they were going to buy it from them so that it all lines up . He stated, "I mean it' s an engineering thing between Mr . PLS and the ACHD people and if there's extra right-of-way that's not going to be needed, the notion is that Steiner Development would buy it." 25. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the subdivision would be fenced or open. Mr. Bradbury was not sure, but stated, "Mr. Campbell says that it's likely to be fenced everywhere but along the golf course." 26. Jackie Stafford addressed the Commission with her public testimony pertaining to the landscaping and that as many times as this has been presented there should be plans on landscaping by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 24 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • now. 27. Commissioner Borup noted that they have more concerns and questions now than they did six months ago, and these were the items that came up at City Council. He didn't know if the Commission could address the changes to satisfy the City Council's concerns. Commissioner De Weerd added that was her question also. She noted the issue about compatibility was high on the list and it had not been met, but feels it has been improved upon. She also believes that multi-land use is a good idea, but she doesn't know what their definition of compatibility was for the perimeters that would be shared with existing subdivisions. Commissioner MacCoy noted that since they didn't get any guidelines on this because of the change from what he had reviewed, and what they received, they felt it should go back to Planning and Zoning and again opened up for public hearing. Planning and Zoning would then hear it again and make a new decision. Commissioner Borup noted that one of the criteria they use regarding compatibility between residential and commercial is buffering. On one side is a 50 foot canal as a buffer and the other side they have a golf course fairway, and the smallest buffer is the pathway. He doesn't have too much concern over the compatibility as some of the other concerns. The discrepancy on the plat is the numbering and the lot sizes and that they should all stay the same, with the exceptions of those that need to be changed. Commissioner Borup FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • also noted the lot that was 7900 square feet needed to be changed to 8000. Commissioner De Weerd commented to the fact that since it has gone to P & Z and City Council, and at this point in time there is still no clear idea as to what is going on, this is a little confusing. Commissioner Borup brought up that 'the corrections still need to be made, whether to Planning and Zoning or City Council. Findings would need to be done and then go from there, and they would eventually end up with the City Council. 28. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the 0 & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one- hundred watt, high pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACRD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 8. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 27 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • 9. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a `common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 10. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 11. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. 12. Provide a master street drainage plan. showing method of collection and disposal. 13. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Provide an ACHD approved turnaround at the terminus of Interlachen Way. Coordinate the design of the turnaround with District Staff. Construct a private road into the site at the terminus of Interlachen Way. The applicant shall be required to pave the roadway its full width (24-feet minimum) to at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Interlachen Way and install pavement tapers with 15- foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. The applicant shall provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach speed of 20 MPH and a maximum intersection approach grade of 2% for at least 4-feet. 14. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance pf the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. ACHD does not make any assurances that the private road which is a part of this application will be accepted as a public road if such a request is made in the future. Substantial redesign and reconstruction FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 28 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) costs may be necessary in order to qualify this road for public ownership and maintenance. 15. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have been made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 16. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 29. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 30. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory dorm needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 31. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 29 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) District must review drainage plans. with Idaho Code 31-3805. The developer must comply 32. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 30 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 31 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; c. The use would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 33 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be granted. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER De WEERD COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER NELSON CHAIRMAN MAC COY(TIE BREAKER) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED .Page 34 i DECISION AND REC0I~~NDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. The Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: 08-04-98 - Final 09-21-98- Changes per P & Z requests FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 35 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNEp UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • APPROVAL .OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN BIRD COUNCILMAN BENTLEY COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE COUNCILMAN ANDERSON MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) APPROVED day of , 1998. VOTED_~~ VOTED VOTED VOTED_~ VOTED DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on January 13, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit and application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled on January 13, 1998, the first .publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT• Only single- family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the planned residential development of 37 single family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) allowed conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 ~ acres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury. further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 % units per acre over the 8 ~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty-two-foot-right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20 foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the various numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what is seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15 foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • use, and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20 foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision which he desired to see the revision. Presently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than the 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which would be 5 ~ per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) forward to the completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section which belongs to the ACRD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20 foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation would be billed by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider. 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the home owners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50 foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, requested the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west-sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred watt, high pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of .the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. The duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 9. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. 10. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments will include a minimum of ten percent common area, which means land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less . Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • 14. A maintenance building or approved area will be provided for suitable services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. 18. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have been made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 19. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 17. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 18. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 19. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 20. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met , including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT• Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; c. The use would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of. proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP VOTED I~ COMMISSIONER MACCOY VOTED ~~C~- _ COMMISSIONER SMITH VOTED COMMISSIONER NELSON VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECONIIKENDATION Cj ~~ v~ The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. The Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION : ~ !,~ /B (/ APPROVED '( (Cd DISAPPROVED: 2-05-98 - Ch ge a Draft FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4)