The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackard Subdivision AZ PP~~ OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Cily Clerk JANICE L GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engir•eer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Wcrks SupP. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. ~~BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITE ~F MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-22)1 GRANT P. K[NGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMi RONALD R. 70L; MAX YERRINGT( ROBERT D. CORE WALT W. MORROI SHARI STILES Planner & Zoning Adminis JIM JOHNSON Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zon, TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DE WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN~LOPMENT PROJECTS To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridia Planrnng & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Merldlan City Hall, Attn: Wllf Berg, City Clerk b : A ril 1995 0 Y P__ 4__ TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/20/95 HEARING DATE: 4!11/95 REQUEST: Annexation/Zonin /Prelimina Plat for Packard Subdivision BY: PNE/Edmonds Construction LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: North of Dove Meadows ubdivision 50Uth Of C'_airnl~~ c..t,.~:__:_. .._ JIM JOHNSON, P!Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT -CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION -TIM HEPPER, P/Z CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH -GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ----RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT .-.BOB CORRIE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) .-WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ,-MAX YERRINGTON, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PREr IM & FINAL PLAT) -WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) -.SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY FILES FIRE DEPARTMENT OTHER: -POLICE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: -CITY ATTORNEY -CITY ENGINEER -CITY PLANNER ~~~~~~~~ M,a~ z o ~ss~ CITY OF MFR1DlAN TE~EY'S LAND 109 South 4"' Str~~ Boise, Idaho 83702 SURVEYING (208) 385-0636 Fax (208) 385-0696 March 17, 1995 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Street Meridian Idaho 83642 RE: Packard Subdivision Preliminary Plat Dear Members of the Commission: This application is a redesigned preliminary plat of Packard Subdivision. Following public hearing in October 1994, the Commission voted to table the preliminary plat request by Pacific Northwest Electric (PNE) and Edmond's Construction. The Commission recommended that the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision be redesigned. After considerable discl~ssion and design work, a new proposal is ready for the Commission's consideration. Packard Subdivision is located in the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. It is contiguous to the Meridian City limits along its southern and western boundaries. Developments in the area surrounding the site are primarily single-family residential subdivisions. Included in the surrounding developments are the Dove Meadows Subdivision (Zoned R-4), the Wingate Place Subdivision (Zoned R-8), the Kearney Place Subdivision (Zoned R-8), the Chateau Meadows Subdivision (Zoned R-8), and the Carol's Subdivision (Zoned R-1). The Capitol Christian Center (Zon.ed L-O) is located south of Packard Subdivision. A request for annexation accompanied the original subdivision application. Annexation is still part of this request. To comply with the city of Meridian requirements for annexation, a development agreement will be entered between the developer and the city of Meridian. The developer will extend city services to the site. Those services includi~ municipal sewer service and municipal water service. Of principal concern to the Commission in the earlier application was the transition from one-acre lots in Carol's Subdivision to smaller lots in Packard Subdivision. This new proposal includes larger lots near Carol's Subdivision. Depth was added to the lots next to Carol's Subdivision. The street plan within Packard Subdivision was also redesigned to reduce vehicle speed within the development. Packard Subdivision Project 1290 _ 1 Another significant change in design is the removal of 4.95 acres of open area. To provide larger lots for transition from Carol's Subdivision through Packard Subdivision, the park area was removed. Instead of one large park, linear landscape/pathway areas will be provided along the street frontages. The restrictive covenants for Packard Subdivision ~,vill include specific requirements for the maintenance of landscape strips and other streel-front details. Lot sizes in Packard Subdivision range from 8,000 square feet to ovf;r 18,000 square feet. All building .lots meet or. exceed the street frontage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Minimum house sizes will also meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Previously, the proposal was for one-hundred twenty-eight (128) building lots. Our current proposal contains one-hundred twenty-six (126) building lots. The new design has a density of 3.16 dwelling units per acre. Landscaped entries and pocket-parks are included with the linear landscape/pathway areas. Considerable effort undertaken by the developer addresses the concerns of the Commission. Larger lots with greater depth have been placed along the boundary between Carol's Subdivision and Packard Subdivision. Extra landscaping requirements are being placed in the restrictive covenants to make Packard Subdivision compatible with the surrounding developments and to make Packard Subdivision unique. Packard Subdivision will not be a series of small lots with "starter" homes. It is intended for mid-entry and higher, quality homes. Although the redesign resulted in the loss of a park, the redesign addresses the concerns of the Commission and those who testified at the public hearing. This new design complies with the provisions of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Meridian Zoning Ordinance. Packard Subdivision will be a quality addition to the city of Meridian. We ask: the Commission for a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Respectfully, Patrick A. Tealey Tealey's Land Surveying By~ ~ ~~~ ~ i,. Ted Hutchinson Packard Subdivision Project 1290 _ 2 _ e~ REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISS]`ON TIME TABLE FOR SUBMISSION: 1. 2. 3. 4. A request for preliminary plat approval must be in the City Clerk's possession no later than three days following the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hear the request at the monthly meeting following the month the request was made. After a proposal enters the process, it may be acted upon at subsequent monthly meetings provided the necessary procedures and documentation are received before 5:00 P. M., Thursday following the Planning and Zoning Commission action. GENERAL INFORMATION Name of Annexation ~i Subdivision: Packard Subdivision General Location: north of Dove Meadows Subdivision; south of Carol's Subdivision #2 Owners of record: PNE/Edmonds Construction Address: X131 Lanark Meridian ,Zip 83642. Telephone -72 Applicant: Same Address: 5. Engineer: 6. Firm: T Land Surv~ying_ Address: 109 S 4th St Boise ,Zip 83702 .Telephone X85-0636 Name and address to receive City billings: Name: PNE/Edmonds Construction Address 3131 Lanark Meridian Telephone 888-7255 PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST: Subdivision Features 1. 2 3 Acres 39.87 Number of lots 126 (buildable) Lots per acre _x.16 # a 4. Density per acre 5. Zoning Classification(s) R-4 6. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City Limits but within the jurisdictional mile, what is the existing zoning classification? An annexation request was part of the origin. al application. 7. Does the plat border a potential green belt? No 8. Have recreational easements been provided for? No 9. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City? No Explain 10. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? No Explain The common areas will be landscaped areas that are owned by the Homeowners Association. 11. What school(s) service the area? .Chief Joseph Elementary Do you propose any agreements for future school sites? No Explain 12, 13. 14. 15. Other proposed amenities to the City Fire Department City of Meridian Other Explain Type of Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial or cc,mbination) Residential Type of dwelling(s) (Single Family, Duplexes, Multiplexes,, other) Single-family Proposed Development features: a. b. c. d. Water Supply City of Meridian Minimum square footage of lot(s): 8,000 Minimum square footage of structure(s): 1,400 Are garages provided for? Square footage: Are other coverings provided for? (2) ~~ e. Landscaping has been provided for? Yes Describe The entryways will be landscaped as well as an interior landscape vrogram by covenant for each lot. f. Trees will be provided for? Yes Trees will be maintained ~y Homeowners and the Home Owners Association. g. Sprinkler systems are provided for as required by City Ordinance h. Are there multiple units No Type Are there special set back requirements? No Explain j. Has off-street parking been provided for? Explain k. Value range of property 1. Type of financing for development m. Protective covenants were submitted? Date: 16. Does the proposal land-lock other property? No Dces it create enclaves? No STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: 1. Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be constructed to the standards as required by the Ada County Highway District and Meridian Ordinance. Dimensions will be determined by the City Engineer. All sidewalks will be five feet (5') in width. 2. Proposed use is in conformance with the city of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. Development will connect to City services. 4. Development will comply with City ordinances. 5. Preliminary plat will include all appropriate easements. 6. Street names must not conflict with City grid system. (3) ~~ ~ • 9-604 B PRE-APPLICATION MEETING The developer shall meet with the Administrator prior to the submission of the Preliminary Development Plan. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss early and informally the purpose and effect of this Ordinance and the criteria and standards contained herein, and to familiarise the developer with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and such other plans and ordinances as deemed appropriate. The developer may also meet with the Commission or Council prior to submitting an application. 9-604 G PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. Application - The applicant shall file with the Administrator a complete subdivision application form and preliminary plat data as required in this Ordinance, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the Commission's public hearing. The Commission will not schedule any hearing or workshops or put the application, on the agenda unless the above conditions have been met. 2. Public Hearing to be Held Prior to Subdivision Plat Approval - A public hearing shall be held at the time of presentation of the preliminary plat by the developer to the Commission for the purpose of allowing public input on the proposed subdivision. 3. Combining Preliminary and Final Plats - The applicant may request that the subdivision application be processed as Doty, a preliminary and final plat if all of tt,e following exists: a. The proposed subdivision does not exceed four (4) lots; b. No new street dedication or street widening is involved; c. No major special development considerations are involved, such as development in a flood plain, hillside development or the like; and d. All required information f or both preliminary and final plat is complete and in an acceptable f orm. A request to combine both preliminary plat and final plat into one application shall be acted upon by the Commission, upon recommendation by the Administrator. (4) 4. The Applicant • a. Tt,e applicant shall submit all required copies of plats, maps, application f orm, conceptual engineering forms, and any other appropriate supplementary information required by the Administrator, Commission, or Council. See 9- 604 C5. 5. Content of Preliminary Plat - The contents of the preliminary plat and related information sT,all be in sucY, form as stipulated by the Commission; however, additional maps ar,d supporting data deemed necessary by the Administrator or tt,e Commission or Council may also be required. The subdivider shall submit to the Administrator at least the following: a. TT,irty t30) copies of the preliminary plat of the proposed subdivision, drawn in accordance with the requirements hereinafter stated; each copy of the preliminary plat shall be on good quality paper. shall nave dimensions of not less than twenty-four t 24 ) inct,es by thirty six t 36 ) inches, sT,all be drawn to a scale suitable to insure clarity of ail lines, dimensions and other data. shall show the drafting date. and shall indicate thereon, by arrow, the general northerly direction; b. Thirty t30) copies of a one tl) inch equals three hundred (300) feet scale map on 8-1/2"x11" paper indicating thereon all adjacent development and/or lots of record within three hundred (300) feet of any boundary of the proposed development. and the layout of the proposed development in bold outline; c. TT,irty t30) copies of the completed and executed subdivision application form; d. Four t9) sets of conceptual engineering plans (not meant to be detailed designs) for streets, water, severs. sidewalks and other required public improvements. Such engineering plans shall contain sufficient information and detail to enable the Administrator to make a determination as to conformance of the proposed improvements to applicaLle regulations, ordinances ar,d standards. e. Appropriate supplementary inf ormation that sufficiently details tt,e proposed development within any special development area, such as hillside, planned unit development, floodplain, cemetery, mobile home, large-scale development, hazardous and unique areas of development. t 5 ) • 6. Requirement of Preliminary Plats - The following shall be shown or, the preliminary plat or shall be submitted separately: a. The name of the proposed subdivision and general location; b. The names. addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, the subdivider or subdividers and the engineer, surveyor or planner who prepared the preliminary plat; c. Name ar,d address of the party to receive City billings and/or correspondence; d. The legal description of the subdivision; e. A statement of the intended use of the proposed subdivision. such as: residential single-family, two t2) family ar,d multiple housing, commercial, industrial, recreational or multiple housing, commercial, industrial. recreational or agricultural ar,d a showing of any sites proposed for parks, playgrounds, schools, churches or other public uses; f. A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivisior, is a portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent development; g. A vicinity map showing the relationship of the proposed plat to the surrounding area (one-half (1/2) mile minimum radius, scale optional); T,. The land use ar,d existing zone of the proposed subdivision and the adjacent land; i. Streets, street names, right of way and roadway width, including adjoining streets or roadways; j. Lot lines and blocks stowing scaled dimensions and numbers of each; k. Contour lines, shown at five (5) foot intervals where land slope is greater than ten percent (10%) and at two (2) Soot intervals where land slip is ter, percent (10%) or less, referenced to an established benchmark, including location and elevation; 1. A site report as required by the appropriate health district where individual wells or septic tanY.s are proposed; (6) • . m. Ar,y p-ropo~ed or existing utilities, including. but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers. irrigation laterals, ditches, drainages, bridges, culverts. water mains, fire hydrants, ar,d their respective profiles; n. A copy of any proposed restrictive cavenants and/or deed restrictions; o. Ar,y dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location, dimensions ar,d purposes of such ; p. Any additional required information for special development a~ specified in this Ordinance; q. A statement as to whether or not a variance will be requested witt, respect to any provision of this Ordinance describing the particular provision, the variance requested, ar,d the reason therefor; r. A statement of development features. 7. Fee - At the time of submission of an application for a preliminary plat, the applicant shall pay the applicable fee as approved by the Council: 4 Lots = 5300.00 Over 4 Lots = 5300.00 * 510.00 per lot In addition to above fees applicant shall pay comet of certified mailings at rate of 5~~ per notice. i ~y Final Plats = 510.00 per lot 8. Administrator keview - a. Certification - Upor, receipt of the preliminary plat and all otter required data a~ provided for T,ereir,, tT,e Administrator shall affix the date of application acceptance thereon. The Administrator shall, thereafter. place the preliminary plat or, the agenda f or consideration at the neat regular meeting of the Commission if there is sufficient time prior to the date of certification, for the Commissior, to consider and review the application, and to give proper- notice of a public hearing as required in 9-604 C. 8b. b. Notice will be published in tt,e City's newspaper of record at the expense of the requesting party at least one (1) edition, fifteen, (15) days prior to the hearing of the Planning ar,d Zoning Commissior, meting, which notice shall also give a summary of the request ar,d the location. (7) • c, keview by Other Agencies - The Administrator stall refer the preliminary plat ar,d application to as many agencies as deemed necessary. Such agencies may include the following: 1. Other governing bodies having joint jurisdiction; 2. The appropriate utility companies. irrigation, companies or districts and drainage districts; 3. The Superintendent of the School District; and 9. Other- agencies having an interest in the proposed subdivision. 9. Commission Action a. Hearing by Commission - Following the receipt of application and after notice, the Commission shall conduct a public hearing. at which time they shall -review the preliminary plat and receive comments from concerned persons and agencies to arrive at a decision, on the preliminary plat. b. Commission's Finding - In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision. the Commission shall consider the objectives of this Ordinance and at least the following: 1. The conf ormance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Flan; 2. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development; ~. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program; 4. The public financial capability of supporting ser-vices for the proposed development; and 5. The other health, safety or environmental proLlems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. (8) • • c. Action on Preliminary Plat - The Commission may approve, approve conditior,ally~ deny or table the p-relimir,ary plat far additional information. Approved or conditionally approved preliminary plats are forwarded to the Council. If the plan is denied. it is not forwarded to the Council. If the plan is tabled, it may be reconsidered by the Commission within forty-five t45) days of the public hearing. The Administrator shall notify the applicant of the Commission's action within ter, t 10 ) days. d. Action on Combined Preliminary and Final Plat - If the Commission's conclusion is favorable to the subdivider's request for the subdivision to be considered as bath a preliminary plat and final subdivisian, then a recommendation shall be f orwarded to the Council in tT,e same manner as herein specified for a final plat. The Commission, may recommend that the combined application be approved, approved conditionally or disapproved. 11. Appeals - Any person or aggrieved party who appeared in person or writing before the Commission, or the subdivider may appeal in writing the decision of the Commission relative to the final action taken by the Commission. Such appeal must be submitted to the Council within fifteen t15) days from such Commission actian. 1~. A record of the public hea-rir,g, findings made and action taker, shall be made and maintained. 9-604 D ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING OF THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COUNCIL AND NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE Upon, receipt of the Commission's action concerning the Preliminary Development Plan or the receipt of an appeal of such action by tT,e applicant or other aggrieved party, the Administrator shall resF~ond as follows: 1. Set the public hearing date for the Preliminary Development Plan; and 2. Review public hearing comments by concerned persons, public agencies or City departments. 9-604 E COUNCIL HEARING, NEGOTIATIONS, AND ACTION 1. Pr-ion to taY.ing action concerning the Preliminary Development Plan. the Cauncil shall car,duct at least one (1) public hearing in which interested persans shall have an oppartunity to Le heard. (9) 2. No final subdivision plat shall be approved until one (1) public hearing before the Council has been held for the purpose of allowing public input on the proposed subdivision. This public hearing shall be held at the time of the presentation of the preliminary plat by the developer to the City Council. Notice of the public hearing shall be given by mailing, by certified mail, notice of the hearing to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the proposed boundaries of the subdivision, which mailing shall be completed by the developer and by publishing notice of said hearing in the City's newspaper of record at least one (i) time fifteen (15) days prior to the date of such hearing, which publication shall be handled by the Administrator. The notice to be mailed to the adjacent property owners sha 1 1 i nc 1 ude a copy of the notice of hearing and a vicinity map of the area, which map shall show the proposed subdivision and the property within three hundred (300) feet. 3. During the hearing, the Administrator shall report on the status of the application. 4. In considering the proposed development, the Council shall consider the requirements of this Ordinance and at least, but not limited to, the following; a. The conformance of the proposed development with the Comprehensive Plan; b. The availability of urban services to accommodate the proposed development; c. The continuity of the proposed development within the City's capital improvement program; d. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; and e. Health, safety, or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's attention. (10) 5. Prior to Council action, the Council, Administrator, applicant, ar,d interested persons may negotiate items of the Preliminary Ueveloprnent Plan which a-re of mutual interest. In order that the negotiations be an open process ar,d the rights of all parties ar,d persons shall Le protected (applicant, Council, Administrator, and the ger,Eral puLlic), the following guidelines stall be observed: a. The negotiations shall not occur ir, private Gr C1USed meetings; b. Negotiations shall take place ir, open ar,d informal meetings; c. Where there is a quorum of the Gouncil in attendance, appropriate records shall be Y.ept of the negotiating session or sessions, namely minutes which shall be submitted with the proposed development; d. The negotiation process shall be separate from the decision, making process of the Council. e. Results o{ the negotiations shall be a recommendation to the Council and be available for puY,lic scrutiny; f. The negotiation process shall be designed and carried out in a manner wT,ich a~~ure~ the general public that decisions have r,ot Leer, made ir, advance of the input ar,d scrutiny by the general puLlic; g. The general puLlic shall De informed of any negotiation that has occurred in a newspaper article ir, the official newspaper or paper of general circulation, within the City of Tleridian fifteen (15) days prior to Council action. 6. The Council shall approve, approve with conditions, deny, or table the Preliminary Levelopment Plan. If the Preliminary Development Plan is taLled, it may be reconsidered by the Council within, forty five (45) days of the puLlic hearing. The Administrator shall r,otily the applicant of the Council's action within ter, (10) days of the Council's action. 7. A record of tT,e hearing, findings made, ar,d actor, taker, shall be mair,tair,ed. 'll: i ~ '3-604 F AFPROVAL PERIOD 1. Council approval of the Preliminary Development F'lar, shall become null and void if the applicant fails to submit the Fir,al Development Plan within one (1) year of Council approval of the Preliminary Development Plan. 2. Upon written, request to the Council and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the said one (1) year period as stated in Section 9-604 F.1 of this Ordinance, the Council may authorize a single extension, of the approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for- a period not to exceed one (1) year from the end of the said one (1) year period. 3. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive contiguous segments in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat. such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of one (1) year, may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. 5-6D4 G AF'F'EAL OF COUNCIL ACTION Appeals of tt~e action, of the Council concerning the adrninistratior, of this Ordinance may be taker, by any aggrieved person. Within sixty (60) days of the Council action (ar,d after all remedies have beer, e::hau~ted under this Ordinance), ar, aggrieved person may see}: JUliICIAL REVIEW of the Council's action under provision .provided by Sections 67-5115(b) through (g) ar,d 67-216, Idaho Code. 5-604 H FINAL PLAT 1. AX~plication - After the approval or conditional approval of the preliminary plat, the subdivider may cause the total parcel, or any part thereof. to be surveyed and a final plat prepared in accordance with the approved preliminary plat. The subdivider shall submit to the Administrator the following: a. T1,irty (30) folded copies of the final plat; (1^) C~ • b. Four t4) copies of the final engineering construction, drawings for streets, water, sewers, sidewalks and other public improvements; and c. Ten t10) prints of the final plat at a scale of one ( 1 ) inch equals three hundred ( 3fo0 ) feet. 2. Contents of Final Plat - The final plat shall include and be in compliance with all item required under Title 50, Chapter 13 of the Idaho Code. The final plat submittal shall include at least. a. A written, application for approval of such final plat as stipulated by the Commission; b. Proof of current ownership of the real property included ir, the proposed final plat and consent of recorded owners of the plat; c. Such other information as the Administrator or Commission may deem necessary to establish whether or not all proper parties have signed and/or approved said final plat; d. A statement of conformance with t?,e approved preliminary plat and meeting all requirements or conditions thereof; e. A statement of conformance with all requirements and provisions of this Ordinance; and f. A statement of conformance witt, acceptable er,gir,eering, architectural ar,d surveying practices and local standards. 3. Fee - At the time of submission of an application for a final plat, t1,e applicant shall pay the applicable fee which has been approved by the Council to cover the cost of processing. 4. Administrator Review - a. Acceptance - Upon receipt of the final plat, and compliance with all other requirements as provided for herein, the Administrator shall certify the application as complete ar,d shall affil: tT,e date of acceptance thereon. (13) • b. Resubmittal of Final Plat - The Administrator shall review the final plat for compliance with the approved or conditionally approved preliminary plat. If the Administrator determines that there is substantial difference in the final plat than that which was approved as a preliminary plat or conditions which have not yet been met, the Administrator may require that the final plat be submitted to the Commission in the same manner as required in the preliminary plat process, including a public hearing and notice thereof. c. Submission to the Council - Upon the determination that the final plat is in compliance with the preliminary plat and all conditional requirements have been met, the Administrator shall place the final plat on the Council agenda within forty-five (45) days from the date that an acceptable final plat application was received and acknowledged by the Administrator. 5. Agency Review - The Administrator may transmit one (~) copy of the final plat, or other documents submitted, for review and recommendation to the departments and agencies as he deems necessary to insure compliance with the preliminary approval and/or conditions of preliminary approval. Such agency review shall also include the construction standards of improvements, compliance with health standards, the cost estimate for all improvements and the legal review of the performance bond. 6. Council Action - Within forty-five (45) days following receipt of the application, the Council shall consider the requirements of the preliminary plat and comments from concerned persons and agencies to arrive at a decision on the final plat. The Council shall approve, approve conditionally, disapprove, or table the final plat. If the final plat is tabled, it may be reconsidered by the Council within forty five (45) days of the date of initial consideration. A copy of the approved plat shall be filed with the Administrator. 7. The Administrator shall notify the applicant of the Councils action within ten (10) days of such action. (14) ,~ , ~ ~z 0o z _ ~- ~ ~ ° `u ~ ~ Wwo ~ ~ ~ g~ ~~„ ~, ~ a ~~w ~ a Y~ 1 ~ O wLL' L ~ ~w ~t~ (Y ~~ i = ~ ~ a a o° W ~ °oz~ ~ 6 w U -~ m Z ~ ~ ~~ 1vgl ~ ~ '~ ~NQm p W ~ ZKW ~ m' V Y U ~ ~y Uri m w L~W~ - tc~u ~iaa a w~~W~ z °~ u~.o (>u~nUs u' - ~i W r' W ~ Z~ ~ Z' ~ ~ 3 l Z ~ j W ? C1' ~ m m N ^1~ t ~ N u (WL' J ~D _ C~1 0~ 3 Z- •v m r_ ?~ v 'K~ iF 1~ u v :~ ~ °' .F° a.~ Y~- fi: °`IlQ~GSG THIS FORM FURNISHED COURTESY OF; STEWART TITLE READ 8 APPROVED RY GRANTEE(S): ~_r,,,;;,ii;:R " ~ - ~ ~: /ll~~ ,. e,Y?'t~lAF{T YID t_C '~'J I~iliJ Zr lil i 3! i~l~..;,....... ...._ _ ~ ; r c~ ACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA QUITCLAIM DEED 3`~U:~UUiUtI`~ FOR VALUE RECEIVEL, EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION, INC. , AN IDAHO CORPI)RATI017 AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC, INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION GRANTOR(S) do(es) hereby CONVEY, RELEASE, REMISE and FOREVER QUIT CLAIM unto EI)MONDS CONSTRUCTION, INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION, PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC, INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION AND ALLEN LEE CENTERS, A MARRIED MAN GRANTEE(S) whose current mailing address is: 1966 STONEVIEW PLACE, BOISE, ID 82702 the following described property located in ADA County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows, to wit: As set forth on the attached EXIiIBIT "A", which by reference becomes a part hereof. together with their appurtenances. Dated: November 18, 199G EDMO\DS CO'~STi~L'CT]OK, ISC. ~ ~" ~~ ~' ~~ girt Eurlor.ds, Preside^: Pr1CT/FTC/~XOFTH;iF.ST li ;.. .,- - alter T Si ant, }~t ~~~Et•:/ Secretary/Trha~urer li?~ STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF ADA On this 18th day of November , in the year of Public in and (or said State, personally appeared 1994 ,before me, the undersigned, a Notary known or identified to me to be the personlsl whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he.'she!they executed the same. Signature: See attached nMarv just Name: PAMELA J. BIGEL_OW -- (tYPe or print) Residing at: AOISF.1 IDA}i(1 Commission Expires: 0 • s __ i • ~ R-4 _ RT ~T -~ RT ~r ~ ;~ . ,, :~ RT -' _ I •: .: ~ ~ ` \ cap -f - . , ..,~ RT • ~•;•;•: •.:•flEil~i.oP~ctNT --'' ~'~ ~~ 3.-ea.~s`~~~. ~~-, r--- • • ~ . - ~ ~- -_ - ir-r-nom'-'U- I .~^, • , ~ y ---- t ~~~'~rY Bpi, J'~~ I 1 S l.•. ~~ Ei...f,._ .r.~ _-__ --1-- 1- -1 ~-' J = _ ~! ~ ,~ - R-4 -~-- ~ U1 -~---- R' ~ ao~I L-4 ~._. ~1~s RT '~ ~~ RT P RT ~~ G-2 - - --- ~ - - - - - ---- _ __ v~_F ~ ~i !- r r'. ~ i I R T . - ~ ~; s _~ - l-L I-L ,. '..~`~ r. T ~ . ~ f-~ . , , u NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on July 18, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of PNE/Edmonds Construction, for Preliminary Plat of approximately 39.87 acres of land located in the NW 1/4, SE 1/4 of Section 5, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located North of Dove Meadows Subdivision and South of Carol's Subdivision No. 2. Applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 128 single family dwelling lots for Packard Subdivision. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 26th day of June, 1995. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK ~~ ~ ~' R-4 - ~ 'RT ,~ '~ ~ RT w . _... ro -- - - - ~ i. ~NN~~~ A~~' R1 ~ ART ~.R1 _ ~--~iT • RT r --- ,~~ ~~ RT RT -ART R-8 ~ -\~~ ~ ~~ - ---- -- -- ' -'l~; ~-~ ~ - - - ~ - ~}'~ F ~-~5 -'yl~f~ci ~ ~-Y{{' 1~{- ~ y - l..e _ !~ D1rNe.^•i .~.~'. f-~Ty ~~ltGt?}` ' ~ J1.+f!W.,~~r ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~_.--.F 'TTTT~'r`W ^ I~~~ _ ,~~~r~~.. ~ ~_- ~~~--- - - SITE 4 -~. - - - rR ~~~ ---'------- ---- `~'~. ~~ -- - J - ~ - c R-4 --- --- RT ~ L-O --- RT '~,~r - RT R. RT ' _C=2 - - - - - - ~ -- C-3 R8 RT ~- ._.. __ ' TAE~uAEJ''---- ' - --~ ---- ! ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ B::SmE55 ~> -&T -- _ Y~4L:E ~ i I ~_. _~_ 1 _ - i ~ - - RT • ~,' ~ ,_, ' I ; „e~wsror. ~ ~ . - -- RT ------ ---y - -- - ------ - , ' ~1 ___ . - - 1-L ~ I-L ~= -~ ~T - ~,, T 1-L --. ; ~_~ ;~ ~ ~ - ,LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS S WITHIN 300 FEET OF PACKARD SUBDIVISION FCE ~ 8 51105449000 84846540120 84846540130 Walter & Eugene Kleiner Stephen & Celia Willmore Timothy & Sherri Bacharach P.O. Box 4003 2286 N. Wingate Pl 2304 N. Wingate PI Bellevue WA 98004 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 S1105315226 S1105346802 ?~ S1105438525 & S1105438512 Norman & Donna Barker David Leader Capitol Christian Center Inc. 19405 Deerwood Dr 1110 Parkway Dr , 306 N. 14th St Volcano CA 95689-9771 Boise Id 83706 Boise Id 83702 51105244350 & 51105244300 51105315110 Floyd Reichert Albert & Maxine Monroe 2575 N. Wingate Ln 2170 Dixie Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 S1105131690 51105244550 & S1105244700 Wilbur & Carol Vincent Fred & Ane Sharp 5918 Sterling Dr 2445 N. Wingate Ln Boise Id 83703 Meridian Id 83642 89467170170 89467170180 89467170190 Joseph & Jo Ann Ward Steve & Lynna Bolton Gene & Lorraine Maynard 2352 E Meadow Wood Dr. 2128 N. Devlin Ave 2150 N. Devlin Ave Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 89467170130 89467170140 89467170150 C. Jack & Sabin Coon Corinne Hetmer James & Ruth Naaf 2355 E. Meadow Wood Dr 2092 N. Devlin Ave 2187 N. Wingate Ave Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 89467170100 81914250100 89467170120 Darin & Angela Lindig Donald & Debbie Steinke Brent & Kristin Hadley 2029 N. Wingate Pl 2558 E. Apricot Dr. 2069 N. Wingate Pl Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 89467170070 89467160080 89467170090 Richard & Paulette Meyer Leroy Youngquist Michael & Mary Markley 2038 N. Wingate Pl. 2022 N. Wingate Pl 2015 N. Wingate Pl Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 89467170040 89467170050 89467170060 Vladimir & Galina Novak David & Lori Middleton Genoveva Miyasato 2098 N. Wingate Ave. 2076 N. Wingate Ave. 2054 N. Wingate PI Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 89467170010 89467170020 89467170030 Alexander & Elena Biskupets Robert & Betty Golse Susanne Barry 2190 N. Wingate Ave. 2166 N. Wingate Ave 2390 E. Meadow Vl~'ood St Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 84846540240 846540250 R48~0220 Christopher & Lisa Peters Lloyd Porter Steven Dirschl 2358 N. Devlin Ave 2376 N. Devlin Ave 2202 N. Wingate Pl Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 84846540210 84846540220 84846540230 Amy & Jon Johnson Jeffrey & Jill Feeler Janine Bailey 2288 N. Devlin Ave 2312 W. Devlin Ave 2334 N. Devlin Ave. Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 84846540150;0160; & 0170 84846540190 84846540200 D.W. Inc Paul Jeran James & Sandra Miller 2119 Chateau Dr 2311 N. Wingate Pl 2287 N. Wingate Pl Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 84846530230 84846530240 84846530250 Douglas & Jacquelyne Kaltenecker Jacquelilne Chambers Steven & Lynn Shigeno 2224 N. Wingate Pl 2250 N. Wingate Pl 2268 N. Wingate Pl Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 84846530210 84846530160 84846530170 James Rice Michael & Heidi Kempel Betina J. Wolf 2262 N. Devlin Ave 2337 E. Chateau Dr & Jed T. Yore Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 2359 E. Chateau Dr Meridian Id 83642 84846530180 84846530190 84846530200 Darren & Vicki Peterson Kevin Wood Richard & Natalie Martin 2279 N. Wingate Pl & Tonia Williams-Wood 2248 N. Devlin Ave Meridian Id 83642 2255 N. Wingate Pl Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 81914250540 81914250560 S1105346730 & 81914250000 Marvin & Nancy Amyx Tom Smith, Sr. John R. Ewing. 3964 Fairday Pl. 2458 E. Apricot Dr. 2230 E. Fairview Ave. Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 81914250090; & 0550 89467170110 89467170160 David & Mary Leader ' Todd 8: Leisa McClintick Dale & Gayle Olpin l 10 Parkway Dr ~ `~., 2047 N. Wingate Pl. 2 ] 73 N. Wingate Ave. Boise Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 81294550095 81294550100 51105142224 Douglas & Ranae Mellor Dennis & Mary Brockway Properties West, Inc. 1035 Justin Pl 1059 Justin Pl P.O. Box 2797 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Boise Id 83701 81294550080 81294550085 81294550090 Richard & Diana Berry William & Mary Ball Jon & Marilyn Barnes 1082 Justin PI 2058 Justin Pl 1034 Justin Pl Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 Meridian Id 83642 TOTAL NUMBER OF NAMES FOR MAILING 58 • NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on April 11, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of PNE/Edmonds Construction, for annexation and zoning of approximately 39.87 acres of land located in the NW 1/4, SE 1/4 of Section 5, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located North of Dove Meadows Subdivision and South of Carol's Subdivision No. 2. The Application requests annexation with zoning of R-4. Further Applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 126 single family dwelling lots for Packard Subdivision. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 20th day of March, 1995. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK t * J f ~ x..r .rte :`-a 4 ' :~ J J 'J - ~t !~~a Robert L. Aldridge, Chartered Attorney st Law 1209 North Eighth Street Boise, Idaho 83702-4297 Telephone: (208) 336-9880 Fax: (208) 336-9882 Attorney for PNE/Edmonds AMENDED GRANT OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT David Leader and Mary Leader, husband and wife, and Capital Christian Center, Inc., an Idaho corporation (formerly known as Capitol Christian Center, Inc.), for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant unto Edmonds Construction, Inc., and Pacific Northwest Electric, Inc., a temporary easement for ingress and egress upon any portion of the road described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto lying in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. Said easement is granted by each party as to their respective portions of ownership in the road described on Exhibit "A". This temporary easement shall terminate automatically without further action by any party, upon the dedication of the public road more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto subscribed their names to this Amended Grant of Temporary Easement. DATED April 12, 1996. ~~ David Leader ~~ ~~ Mary Lea CAPITAL CHRISTIAN CENTER, INC. Kenne h G. Wilde, President AMENDED GRANT OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT Page 1 • ~ STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) On the day of June, 1996, before-me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared David Leader and Mary Leader, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I gave hereunto affixed my official seal the day and year first above wr~jfen_ q l * Z .~.~ ,* '~ AUBLZG ~i °~9... c o r I~~..•• STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF ADA rvotary~ubl~f'6r%(daho Residing at I~jf,C~~~~ , ~aJ9 Commission expires ~~,~~~ ~~ ss. On this June 1996, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Kenneth G. Wilde, known or identified to me to be the President of Capital Christian Center, Inc., and to be the person whose name is attached to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto placed my official hand and seal the day and year in this Certificate first above written. ' 1,~~- ~o,~~y *':: Notary Public f r d ho ~ = Residing at tip' O ' Commission expires ~/1(/~Doo * PUB ~ r~ .': AMENDED GRANT OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT Page 2 rf'1N~~-=~1-1'?'~+r. ~_T-a: t_'-! I tr~LCi - '_,~_~F-'~J~Y :f~U_~ ~.~-'~ T LEY'S LAND 109 south 4L^ Str~ ~ Boise, Idaho 83702 RVEYING (2a~5-0636 Fax (208) 385-0696 Project No. 1165-2 Date: December 6, 1995 DESCRYPTION_FOR DOVE MEADOWS HICKORY AVENUE EI{TENSION TO PROPOSED PACKARD SUBDIvZBZON 60 FOOT WIDE ACCE88 EASEMENT A 60 foot wide ingress-egress easement situated in the sw 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5, T. 3N. , R.lE., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the boundaries of which are located 30 feet right of and 30 feet left of the following described centerline: Commencing at an iron pin marking the Northwest corner of Lot 10 of Block 1 of Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1, as on file in Book 65 of Plats at Pages 6662 through 6664 in the Off ice of the Ada County Recorder, Boise, Ydaho, which point is also on the Easterly right-of-way boundary of North Hickory Avenue; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Dave Meadows subdivision No. 1 South 83°10'57" west 33.50 feet to an iron pin on a curve on the centerline of said North Hickory Avenue which point is the PoiNT OF BEC~INxING; thence leaving the said Northerly boundary and running Northeasterly 7.53 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1'75.00 feet, a central angle of 2°27'54" and a long chord which bears North 18°58'31" East 7.53 feet to a point of tangent; thence North 20°12'28" East 280.66 feet to a point on the North boundary of the. said. Sw 1/4 of the SE 1/4, which point bears South 89°44'46" East 31.92 feet from the Northwest corner of the said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, said point also being the POINT OF ENDING of the said 60 foot wide ingress-egress easement. *~p.L ~~,~'.;n ~ - ~~ 1 c ~~1~ w v~ ``~ ~~ ~o ~ ~ d 9~ '9 a F S~~A to . ~~ICiE cl. ~t~~~~~~ 05/31/96 08:05 ~rxiRx ~vo. o7zs Poz ORIGINAL • STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT This Street Light Agreement is made and entered into between the CITY OF MERIDIAN and EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION, INC., pertaining to the street lights in PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 a residential development in Meridian, Idaho. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION INC., will provide two (2) street light poles, concrete pole bases, fixtures, bulbs, and components to the residential development known as PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 in Meridian, Idaho. The parties acknowledge that the two (2) street light poles and appurtenances were specially ordered items, not customarily used in residential developments in Meridian, Idaho. 2. EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION INC., or it's assigns, agree to replace, repair and provide any required maintenance of any of the above mentioned street lights, and/or appurtenances thereof, that may hereafter be broken, damaged, or deteriorated, or require maintenance, at its own expense; and it is further agreed that EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION INC., or its heirs, successors and assigns, shall keep the lights operational at all times, it being understood by the City that bulbs, and/or ballasts, do burn out and that the City will allow reasonable time to replace them. 3. It is agreed that the City of Meridian authorize and pay for the electrical service to be supplied to the two (2) street lights located in PACKARD SUBDIVSION NO. 1 in the usual and customary manner. 4. It is agreed that the City of Meridian, because Idaho Power Company will not maintain the bulbs and ballasts or provide any maintenance, will enter into a Schedule 40 Agreement with Idaho Power Company, and not a Schedule 41 Agreement, which in proper cases provide that Idaho Power Company would provide maintenance, bulbs, and ballasts. It is also agreed that lighting served under the Schedule 40 Agreement must be controlled by a photo electric device of the "fail off' type. 5. It is understood and agreed that EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION INC., will assign its rights and obligations hereunder to the PACKARD HOMEOWI~TERS ASSOCIATION when said Homeowners Association is formed and operational. ~ $ 0 1 `~ 5 S 9 ~ -- ~ , ~; ,~CJRCtP r~Ul-+ ~• v~ ~.+1 ~ / .r~ i~ r~i .R v. ~ ;lam ~ 'SC ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 98 FEB 10~ rEE._1. ~ ~'` ~~~ op~~ 3 ST OF ~ ~ This AGREEMENT shall be binding on EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION INC., its heirs, successors and assigns, and the CITY OF MERIDIAN. -~p_ /~ Dated this -~ ~ day of __ ~-~ -~ ~ u G ~ `'1 19 ~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipality and Po ' is subdivision of the State of Idaho ATTEST: 1 William G. Berg, Jr., City erk B `,1`,~ti~u~rmrr ~~~ ., ` G ~~ S~~L :~'9~~ T1`3~. ~`,~~~ Robert D. Corrie, Mayor by City Council 2-3-98 EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION INC. B r ~~~ President STATE OF IDAHO,) • • :ss. County of Ada ) )~ On this "'t day of ~ . -~~~1.~~Gt, , 19 ! J ,before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally a eared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the CITY OF MERIDIAN, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ,~~NNUH~ e°0 ~~""~ti j~P ~~i NOTA PUBL FOR IDAH •~ 2 * ~ RESIDING AT >rSC. ~I-Ci~p~; , `~ ;e 1°Ug Ll~' ~ ~~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES L .~ac~oL z,~~.9~~ OF Ip ~~,,~ STATE OF IDAHO,) County of Ada ) :ss. On this day of , 19 ~~ ,before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, p onally appeared WIRT EDMONDS, known to me to be the President of EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION INC., and who executed the within instrument, on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that said corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and,,year-first above written. .. - , /~ '~Q~` ~..~.72F~;.r% . ~- ` ~j ~ ~ ~ ' t. 'S~AL~ , NO'T'ARY PUBLI RESIDING AT MY COMMISSION IDAHO S '-~ to-~g CENTRAL •• DISTRICT ~11"HEALTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE ~ 701 N. ARMSTRONG PL. ~ BOISE, ID 83104-0825 ~ (208) 375-5211 ~ FAX 327-35i:C To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our environment. 98-001 ~~~E~~En January 2, 1998 iAH 0 6 1998 David Navarro Ada County Recorder 650 Main Street Boise, ID 83702 RE: Packard Subdivision. Dear Mr. Navarro: Central District Health Department, Environmental Health Division has reviewed and do approve the final plat on this subdivision for central water and central sewer facilities. Final approval was given on December 30, 1997. No lot size may be reduced without prior approval of the health authority. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, ~~~~~ A Thomas E. Schmalz, .H.S. Senior Environmental Health Specialist cc: Tom Turco, Environmental Health Director Martin 0. Jones, Environmental Health Supervisor HUD Ted Sigmont Wirt Edmonds Tealeys Land Surveying City of Meridian Serving Valley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties Ada /Boise County Office 707 N. Armsrong PI. Boise, ID 83704 Enviro. Health: 327-7499 Family Planning: 327-7400 Immunizations: 327-7450 Senior Nutrition: 327-7460 WIC: 327-7488 FAX: 327-8500 Ada-WIC Satellite Office 1606 Roberts Boise, ID 83705 Ph. 334-3355 FAX: 334-3355 Elmore County Office 520 E. 8th Street N. Mountain Home, ID 83647 Enviro. Health: 587-3521 Family Health: 587-4407 WIC: 587-4409 FAX: 587-3521 Valley County Office 703 N. 1st Street P.O. Box 1448 McCail, ID. 83638 Ph. 634-7194 FAX: 634-2174 ! ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 24 again that will be coming to you. That takes us up to the South Slough, now the South Slough is where the trunk line will be for the gravity flow sewer. We hold the majority of the property that lies between the north boundary of Packard Subdivision No. 1 and the South Slough. We also have been working negotiating with Mr. Alleman concerning that easement so that we could cross his property with the South Slough and that would come from Chamberlain Estates which is proposed on the south side of the Slough on the east side of Locust Grove between Locust Grove and Mr. Alleman's property. So we are able to provide the property for the access for sewer services for this particular area including the Packard development which will as stated be served by a temporary lift station. Again the traffic issues, we have had a traffic study that was done for the original Packard Subdivision property, the Highway District looked at this and they agreed that it would just take a minor amendment to that traffic study to include the Brown/Borup piece. The developers have been talking to Mr. Reichert, he is looking at coming on board with this particular development. The layout includes Mr. Reichert's property so that would account for the 3 houses that exist on that number 2 property. So we are able to provide a means for providing the sewer. Wingate lane will not be affected by this development, the only ones that are living on Wingate that will be affected will be the Sharp's and they are going to have complete and full access to their easement which gets them to Wingate Lane. A portion of that which crosses the Reichert and Borup property and the Brown property some of that will be dedicated to public streets. However, the street will no connect to Wingate lane as an access point for this development. After all of the discussions that happened when we originally brought this in and the discussions with the Brown application for the annexation we knew that Wingate was going to be a major problem. We talked to the property owners and made an attempt to purchase the property so that we could if necessary go out Wingate. That fell through and didn't work appropriately and therefore we are not going to utilize Wingate Lane with the small exception of dedicating a public street which will run where the easement is now but will be fully developed and still provide the Sharp's with an access to Wingate Lane from their house through Wingate Lane to Ustick Road. We are not going to interrupt that particular easement. At this time I would like Mr. Pavelic to come up and go through the landscape proposals, the easements that we are going to propose and the street treatment. I think it is something different that in the development that I have seen in and around Meridian I don't think we have seen anything that is quite like it. I think you will be quite pleased with what you see. Richard Pavelic, 5737 Gekler Way, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney. Pavelic: We have 2 exhibits to try and give some indication of how this development will not only fit in with the existing neighborhood but also what we intend to do to ensure the quality of this development is maintained. The first exhibit is the one that in fact Mr. Hutchinson has been referring to. What we intend to do is besides having the lot (inaudible) in this diagram to control basically the street frontage along the entire project ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 25 (inaudible) and what we hope to do there is to create more or less neighborhood wide quality of landscaping. We want to try and pair up the driveways (inaudible) we know that there will be instances we will not be able to accomplish this, but what it does do where we will be successful is to provide longer, broader strips of landscaping that would have the division of street trees that would control the type of fencing and other elements that could be placed within that strip. It would also be the developer's desire to provide the street trees for the entire development. The second exhibit l would like to point out to you is the concept for the entrance way to the project. This basically indicates the type of detail that the developer feels is compatible with this type of development and is not a matter of leaving it up to every individual come along. What we would propose to do would be in the entrance areas and those areas immediately adjacent to the open space the developer would in fact be installing the landscaping as indicated here. The other areas as I mentioned earlier he would be looking at the provision or the planting of the trees, but within the covenants of the overall neighborhood subdivision there would be clear and definite controls over the quality and the types of materials that individual homeowners could in fact place in there. We feel that this would eliminate some of the conflicts that tend to come up with typical subdivisions and we think that this is a prudent move on the developers standpoint to leave an overall comprehensive view. What we would have is a landscape plan that would set what would be desirable to have within that easement and there would also be indications of what type of driveway treatment we would be looking at possibly some (inaudible) of concrete in the street itself. We would be looking at some possibly looking at some stone or other elements to give base to the signage. And basically look at the detail of the project that we would have more uniform quality control over the mail box locations and those sorts of items. We feel that this is the right direction to do and the developers had indicated a willingness to take this concept and make it an attractive development here. Are there any questions? Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Pavelic? Rountree: Yes, the second drawing there, I know it is conceptual but you show the smaller solid green circular plantings at the corner, up towards the corner of the intersection right in there, what is that material? Pavelic: That would basically a low shrub plant, it would be conscious of views and safety issues, but we would be looking at low shrub plantings and that would give some color and definition to those intersections. Shearer: Have you selected a (inaudible) species? Pavelic: (think we are looking at a Red Oak in terms of a sizable tree that would mature. We would also be looking at flowering trees on the sides of the houses where you have ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 26 circumstances where you probably would need some privacy and those areas we would be looking at conifers of mixed types. Rountree: Going back to the drawing, (inaudible) you have considerable effort in layout of the landscaping, but the upper most lot there we run into situations where somebody is going to want to build a fence on that lot at some point in time in the future. If you would incorporate that into your concept it would be helpful for the City so we don't have to look at variances and safety situations and that sort of thing. Pavelic: I thought I had mentioned it, and maybe I didn't, in the package that would go as part of the provision of the covenants and restrictive covenants would be a community or neighborhood wide fence (inaudible) cover those issues. Hepper: Did you say that the developer would provide the trees for the Pavelic: We are looking at the developer taking the responsibility for the street trees and they would be a random planting more or less and try to group them along the street. Hepper: That type of configuration, would that be throughout the subdivision not just in the entry way? Pavelic: Yes (End of Tape) Sharp: I would like them to show those drawings so that those in the audience know just exactly where they are talking about this development. Johnson: This is a separate public hearing Wayne, doesn't she have to be sworn again? Crookston: I'm sorry she does. Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I would like to see that these, I think some of us are a little confused as to just exactly where this is. I couldn't help but think of the little anecdote if you show a child a shiny penny he will overlook that dull quarter and that is what I think we are looking at now. You can put all the beautiful trees and all that you like we still have a subdivision and we don't really need it. What it amounts to he is saying we don't jeopardize Wingate Lane or the access for the Sharp's, that is me at the end of the lane. They have easements along the lane (inaudible) when they approached us about buying some of the property, • i ORDINANCE NO. 709 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND BEING THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.3N., R.lE., B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: A parcel of land being the NW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 5, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the South 1/4 corner of said Section 5, a point marked by a brass cap; thence along the North-South center of section line of said Section 5 North 0°27'15" East 1312.52 feet to the Southwest corner of the said NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, THE POINT OF BEGINNING;_ thence continuing North 0°27'15" East 1312.52 feet to the Northwest corner of said NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 South 89°40'20" East 1324.78 feet to the Northeast corner of said NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the East line of said NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 South 0°30'47" West 1310.88 feet to the Southeast corner of said NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the South line of said NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 North 89°44'36" West 1323.43 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoned R-4 Residential; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD Page 1 Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de- annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant is required to connect to the Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L, and M of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. The requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the above conditions the property shall be subject to de-annexation, which conditions subsequent shall run with land and also be personal to the owner and Applicant. Section 4 . That the City Clerk shall cause one ( 1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD Page 2 • i within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Amended Ordinance. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 1st day of August, 1995. ~~~~~~tt U u ur~~,~~ ~i, FO - ~~ 9 = - ``~ APPROVED: OR -- GRANT P. G ORD ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, J}~i: -~= CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM BERG, City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND BEING THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.3N., R.lE., B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.", passed as Ordinance No. 709 , by the City Council\~,,ah~'~(~z,, of the City of Meridian, on the 1st day of August~y`~,~~,~°5^,...,,1 ;~.~ same appears in my office. .~ 1~ D phis 7th day of August, 1995. `~'.G '~ ~ ' ` ~~' ~ .`' C ty Clerk, City of M riTdian '%~,,f ~'z~,~~l~~-~.~ , ~t~~~,.``~ Ada County, Idaho ~~1j~I~h it fiii`.,1 A ANNE%ATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD Page 3 ~ ~ STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) On this 7 th day of August, 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (~ ~ L . ~_ ~. ~ n; :, ; SEAL ~ °. '~ `: '' e 4' 'f - Ads •-~ '..~: ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD ~ y Public or Idaho _ding at Meridian, Idaho Page 4 Meridian City Council August 1, 1995 Page 8 • do it now than after the fact. So we should encourage them to do that from our stand point. Thank you. Kingsford: Any other comments or questions? Thank you Ali. ITEM #6: ORDINANCE #708 - LEEANN LONGSON ANNEXATION/ C-G: Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE N. 300 FEET OF THE E. 95 FEET OF LOT 5 OF PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION NO. 2 SECTION 8, T.3N, R.1 E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance #708 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move for the adoption of Ordinance #708 with the suspension of the rules. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve of Ordinance #708 with the suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM # 7: ORDINANCE #709 - PACKARD SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION: Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND BEING THE NW 1/4, SE 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.3N, R.1 E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like Ordinance #709 read in its entirety? Counselor do you have a copy? Crooks#on: (Ordinance Read Aloud See Tape for Discussion) Kingsford: Is there a motion on the ordinance Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Meridian City Council August 1, 1995 Page 9 • Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of Ordinance #709 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Currie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION (TABLED JULY 18, 1995): Kingsford: Does the Council have questions of the developer or his engineer? Morrow: I have some questions of staff, at our last meeting the proposal was made by the development team and their representative to talk with reference to the cost of maintenance for a temporary lift station. The number was bantered about that in Boise that cost was $4000 approximately per year. Were we able to come up with any approximate numbers here in terms of what it would cost to maintain a lift station? Smith: Councilman Morrow, I don't believe that I received any information from the Waste Water Department on that subject. Morrow: Okay Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, just for my own edification, I believe that was stated by the developer that would be paid for by them until it is changed to the other subdivision? Kingsford: I believe that was by their engineer more precisely is that right? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision by PNE/Edmunds Construction with the following conditions, be subject to staff conditions, ACRD conditions, a development agreement, a lift station maintenance agreement, and fencing of the north boundary. Currie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the preliminary plat of Packard Subdivision subject to staff requirements being met, ACRD requirements, a development agreement being agreed to, lift station agreement and fencing of the north boundary, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council August 1, 1995 Page 9 Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of Ordinance #709 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION (TABLED JULY 18, 1995): Kingsford: Does the Council have questions of the developer or his engineer? Morrow: I have some questions of staff, at our last meeting the proposal was made by the development team and their representative to talk with reference to the cost of maintenance for a temporary lift station. The number was bantered about that in Boise that cost was $4000 approximately per year. Were we able to come up with any approximate numbers here in terms of what it would cost to maintain a lift station? Smith: Councilman Morrow, I don't believe that I received any information from the Waste Water Department on that subject. Morrow: Okay Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, just for my own edification, I believe that was stated by the developer that would be paid for by them until it is changed to the other subdivision? Kingsford: I believe that was by their engineer more precisely is that right? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision by PNE/Edmonds Construction with the following conditions, be subject to staff conditions, ACHD conditions, a development agreement, a lift station maintenance agreement, and fencing of the north boundary. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the preliminary plat of Packard Subdivision subject to staff requirements being met, ACHD requirements, a development agreement being agreed to, lift station agreement and fencing of the north boundary, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council August 1, 1995 Page 10 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: RESOLUTION #161 -PICNIC SHELTER RESERVATION FEES: Kingsford: We don't have one, did we not get a resolution for the picnic shelter fee? Crookston: I did not prepare one I did not know that was requested. Kingsford: Well, who put it on the agenda? I would entertain a motion to table it until the next meeting. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table the Resolution #161 until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Do you wish to have me prepare that? Kingsford: It would be hard for us to take a look at that and adopt it if we don't have one. Is there a motion for the Council to have the Attorney prepare that resolution? Tolsma: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare Resolution #161 Picnic Shelter Reservation Fees, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAT FOR TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Does the Council have any question on that? I don't see Gary Lee, did you all receive the letter of that request? Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move that we grant this request for a one year extension. ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: AUGUST 1.1995 APPLICANT PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION ITEM NUMBER; 8 REQUEST; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: P8tiZ MINUTES 4-11-95 CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS, ,~~,v` r ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ' ~~1~ -~.+~~ ,~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ''~V NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • s Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 23 conclusions of law (inaudible) Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION, 126 LOTS BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: This is Packard No. 1, I will now open the public hearing. Would the applicant like to address the Commission, you need to be sworn again, it is a new public hearing. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, now we are to the meat of the annexation parcel. We are proposing to subdivide the parcel which we were just discussing the annexation on: This is a residential development we are proposing R-4 the lot sizes in this development are 8,000 square feet and larger. As indicated in the prior public hearing a number of the lots we have it broken out on this particular diagram, again from 8,000 to 10,000 square feet, from 10,000 to 15,000 square feet and then from 15,000 to on up. This includes the open space areas, in this particular proposal there is landscaped entry ways, and as you come in it would be on both sides of Hickory Way with an open area as soon as you got into the development. Then there are drainage lots and a couple of small open space lots within the development. Then we are proposing as well a landscaped easement that will affect all of the lots within the development so that there will be a 15 foot wide landscape easement which will contain street trees, and additional landscape treatment as well as entryway treatment for each of the individual lots. Mr. Richard Pavelic is here tonight as a consultant on this, he has done the landscape layout proposal to give you an example of what we are proposing for this particular development to move this development into an upper scale better than moderate price development for the City of Meridian. Again, the issues that have risen concerning the sewer. This particular development standing by itself would use a temporary lift station, however we have picked up additional properties and that property will be coming to you as Packard subdivision No. 2 and we have provided a copy of that plat to you, I believe that is in your packets. We picked up the Borup property which is immediately adjacent to north or our property which lies between the Sharp property and is adjacent to Carol Subdivision on the west side. We then picked up the Brown property which the annexation request has already been submitted on the Brown property it was tabled pending the development • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 27 it did cross and it zig-zagged. They wanted to put trees at the end of the lane so they could down the lane, if we have access from our end of the lane down to the end of the land would that not give everybody on the lane access to Wingate Lane too. We have been told by several people that who did or did not sell on the lane and we find out they did not. We were getting conflicting stories from developers and (inaudible). If you open the door and give them what they want then they could do what they want with the next piece which is the Borup's (inaudible) sewer again. They don't have that yet, they don't have it and they are still talking about a temporary lift station, are they talking 6 months or 6 years or 60 years. I think we need to get something in concrete and I think like I say we are showing a shiny penny to overlook that dull quarter. Johnson: Well I know now why I came home from Grandma's house with shiny pennys in my pocket, I never figured it out before, now I know why. My whole life is a dull quarter. Let's display those drawings over there as best we can so the public can see them. Doug Miller, 1035 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Miller: One of the concerns I have that I think has already been brought up but I would like to reinforce it is it appears to me that we have very much a piece meal planning process. Case in point is my property apparently bounds on both of these developments, both of these proposals being discussed under 9 and 10. I have seen no information about the one which is directly west of my property and that is part of the reason we have had some confusing testimony here because we are not clear on how these things connect. Johnson: Let me clarify something for you that might help you a little bit. We don't actually have anything on that piece of property directly to your west, but what we do have in our application is a requirement that if they are aware of any development or any pending development that is adjacent or contiguous to an application then they are to disclose that to us. Because we want to know what the ramifications are and the proximity of a speck application. So you are right in what you say, but on the other hand they are following our guideline mentioning what is down the road perhaps. Does that kind of help you a little bit? Miller: It helps a little bit but I think the issue is still there. Johnson: It is 2 separate applications, that is the distinction you need to make. Right now we are looking at the one that is south of your property. Miller: And what is planned for the one west of the property. I keep hearing references to that sewer connection, road connection, irrigation connection. I think it reinforces the point that we need to see a big picture both in terms of planning for the sewer, planning for the ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Apri 111, 1995 Page 28 egress and ingress out of these properties, planning for the irrigation right of ways that go through there. It is very confusing to us to even respond to these kind of applications when we don't see how they connect. 1 think we have a lot of references that are potentially going to happen and connections here. It seems to me it would make a lot more sense if we try to plan them all in sort of a group. Because there are a lot of contingencies that I am hearing, both in the connection of the roads, connections of the sewers, how it affects people's right of ways on private lanes. I would suggest that the approval of one piece which is contingent on too many future pieces is not a wise thing to do. I think I agree with a lot of the comments that have been said is that we are making decisions in a piece meal way and we are going to pay for it in the long term. Johnson: That is kind of a definition of Planning and Zoning, is piece meal. Miller: But does it need to be? Johnson: Yes it does because we are not Brigham Young, we don't have that luxury of planning a whole city at once. Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: Since this is concerning a preliminary plat I would like to bring up the ditches again and make sure they are tiled with the project or before the project and it doesn't get caught up in different phasing like has happened at Dove Meadows which we have lost the final phase of Dove Meadows and the ditches are still open and a mess. This property, the ditch, my water feed, if I can step over to the map. My live water comes from this border all the way (inaudible) perimeter. I would like to see that all get taken care of before they do the whole project or with phase 1. So they don't do phase 1 and have a nice entry here, is this the entry at the comer? Where is my head gate? (Inaudible) Like I stated I would like to see that all get tiled at the initiation of the project so that is taken care of and we don't have to deal with it later, 2 years down the road when they do phase 3 or 4 or whatever. Johnson: You made reference to losing the last phase of Dove Meadows, could you elaborate on that? Brian: Dove Meadows development went in 2 years ago, it started through Planning and Zoning 2 years ago and is going in 3 phases or 2 phases. They have done phase 1, the final phase is where my ditch comes in which they are required to bury all the ditches that cross their property. They have not buried that ditch because it is in the final phase, well that final phase of that project ran out of time. They have lost the final plat, so it has to go through again. So nothing is being done with my ditch out there and it is an ongoing • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Apri 111, 1995 Page 29 problem. We have had meetings down here at City Hall concerning that very thing what we need to do. As they develop these properties they wait until the certain phase to bury these ditches so you have problems with those ditches and no man's land that no one takes care of them unless you pursue the developer to make sure they are cleaned and taken care of which is a hassle in itself and then when you get that many developers down the line I have to find 4 or 5 different people to get the ditches cleaned. If they go in before the development starts and do that ground work first and get it out of the way then they don't have to wont' about me coming here and (inaudible). That is atl I need to bring up, any questions? Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Brian? Thanks Don, anyone else? Jon Barnes, 1034 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Barnes: I am just a developer and I can't read 9 and 10 and I don't want to be redundant. would just recommend approval, I would suggest, I like all the landscape treatment that they are doing but I would strongly encourage the developer to put a larger kind of a park like an acre park in there. I would like to have them held to a 30 foot rear yard setback on those lots that boundary us on the north there, those deep 140 lots and a fence on the north side. !encourage you to do this, thank you. Johnson: Thanks Jon Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I would recommend that they disapprove this (inaudible) we don't have the sewer accessibility, we don't have the access down Wingate Lane. And what they proposed to us and they came and talked to us and they came and talked to me and I have the chart right at home what they said. They said they wanted to come from Hickory Lane across and over Wingate Lane and block me off there. As far as, how are you going to stop those people from in these subdivisions from going down Wingate Lane are you going to fence them off or are you going to put berms and fences up there and stop that, well they should. Shearer: Is Wingate paved? Johnson: No it is a gravel road. Shearer: I doubt anybody is going to drive up a gravel road when they have a paved one. Sharp: I disagree with you there, I live there and they do drive up that gravel road. We would like to have 30 foot setbacks on these lots down closer to us too. Just because they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 30 live in (inaudible) doesn't mean they should have any more rights than what we do. I know that Jon is a developer and of course (inaudible) as far as that goes I just think (inaudible) schools to support the subdivisions like this and so I recommend (inaudible). Johnson: Thank you, I saw a hand over here. Craig Thompson, 2950 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Thompson: First of all I have been here for awhile, I have been trying to understand what is happening and I am completely confused. We are involved with this we live on Wingate Lane and when they say it is going to make Wingate Lane accessible to the Sharp's how are they going to do that, are they going to build an overpass over Wingate Lane. If they intersect it we are vulnerable because the traffic is going to pass there. We pay for the road, we pay for the gravel that goes on it and I really don't want anybody else to drive on it except the ones that live there. They mentioned about bringing trees in and rock this and that and I like it just the way it is. I just hope that they leave it that way. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks Craig, anyone else? Anybody have any other questions of the Developer? Wayne, can we act on this or should this item be tabled until we handle No. g~ Crookston: It should be tabled until you have acted on #9. Johnson: We needed to take the testimony and at this point we really need to table the item don't we. Hepper: I have a question for the developer, the park issue was brought up. I was just wondering originally there was a lot of park area designated in this and I guess we are little bit sensitive. There was so much there the first time and now there isn't any. What is the feasibility of having a small neighborhood park in the area, is there any particular reason why there couldn't be or shouldn't be? Hutchinson: Mr. Hepper, as I indicated earlier in fact we have no net gain in the number of lots, in fact we lost a couple of lots in the design. Part of the reason that the land was taken up is the new configuration of the streets it doesn't lend itself really to that large of a park area and still be able to yield a development that is going to be economical for total development. We have looked a couple of designs, we have toyed with working this out whether or not we can get a couple of smaller pocket parks within the development. We will have to sit down with the developer and see if there is a proposal in there that might work. We recognize the need for open area for the people in the development. We were a tittle dismayed at the response to our previous development proposal when we did get • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 31 further down the public hearing process. We thought that 5 acre park was an extremely nice amenity given the location. But whether or not we can come up with something that will be feasible again we will have to push the numbers and the configuration past the developer and see if they think it is possible. Hepper: Since this will probably be table I just wanted to point out right in the middle of the project there appears to be 2 very odd shaped lots, one is almost 18,000 - 19,000 square feet and the other is 17,000, it would be Lot 10 and Lot 29. Between the 2 of there that would be 35,000 square feet which would be almost 3/4 of an acre. Hutchinson: We also recognize that those lots the way they are configured in this drawing they need (inaudible) changing the flag so it didn't go onto the culdesac it would go on#o Justin Way which is the street in the middle. So there would be some reconfiguration there. We may be able to configure to provide a pathway from the culdesacs to Justin way but again we have to look at this in a little more detail. I think your information and input here tonight is going have a great deal of impact on pushing that through to see what we can come up with. Hepper: I don't think a small neighborhood park would be out of the question. I guess the economics and feasibility of it dictate whether you are willing to do it or not. We would have to look at it. Hutchinson: We will sit down with the developer on this thing and make sure that is one issue that we go over quite heavily. Johnson: Anyone else? I will now close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting on May 9th. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item until the May 9th regular meeting of Planning and Zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: For those of you that might be confused as to what is going on in this (inaudible) this item, the findings of fact and conclusions of law on item #9 will be at our May 9th meeting at that time those findings of fact will incorporate the testimony we took tonight plus how the application legally stands with our ordinances, then we will act on that on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 32 May 9th and then it will go for another public hearing to the City Council when it can be on their agenda which will probably either the last regular meeting in May or the first one in June. So you will have another opportunity to a public hearing and that is the purpose of me explaining that. FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS ADDITION N0. 3, 6 LOTS BY MAWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fourth Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Members of the Commission, this is an application fora 7 lot subdivision, I believe your staff report or something on the original application said 6 but there are 7 residential lots and one drainage lot. This is the final addition to Maws Addition subdivisions at Pine Avenue and Locust Grove Roads. This is going to be north of Pine with frontage on Adkins Lane: Each of these lots have been designed to comply with the zoning requirements of the R-8 zone. The lots are, when they were originally proposed as part of the master plan for the Maws Additions they were proposed at 60 foot wide lots, however the approval expired before the last phase could be submitted and we have redesigned these to comply with the current zoning standards. They are at least 65 feet in width and I believe they are about 6500 square feet, they are about 100 feet deep. This will be the final phase for Maws Addition, I think it is compatible with what has been approved and constructed in the area. We would ask that you recommend approval of this application to the City Council. With that are there any questions that I might answer for the Commission? Johnson: Thanks Ted, any questions for Mr. Hutchinson? Hepper: Does that street go on to the north, where does that street terminate at? Hutchinson: Mr. Hepper, Adkins Lane terminates up there, it simply dead ends I believe Danbury Fair, Shari said Danbury Fair is the subdivision to the north. They haven't quite worked out what they are going to do as far as access to Adkins Lane whether or not they are going to access it or not. The last conversation we had with the Highway District about Adkins Lane we'd be required to do improvements and possibly a temporary turn around but again the temporary tum around would be at the end of the current street. Whether or not that becomes a through street will depend on Danbury Fair's ultimate decision whether OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Enplnear BRUCE D. STUART, Water Worka Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Watte Water Supt. OENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parke Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P b Z Adm. 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) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM: (Supplemental) To: Mayor, City Council From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Re: PACKARD SUBDIVISION (Annexation and Zoning) COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P 6 Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER June 15, 1995 Engineer I have reviewed this submittal and offer the following supplemental comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: We have been receiving quite a few complaints of low water pressure from residents in various parts of the City. Also, our water system has not been able to supply required flows to fire sprinkler systems in some recent commercial developments. These developments have had to install a pressure booster pump in their line in order to meet required fire sprinkler flows. In light of these problems we don't feel comfortable adding more demand to our already taxed water system, and we respectfully request that this application be tabled until such time as we have the problems better defined and a clear plan of action in place. (': \WPWINC~\(;FiN)~I2AL\PACKARD L C-C HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICEL.GASS,CityTreasurer CITY OF MERIDIAN ROBERTD.ICORRE GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Planner 8 Zoning Administrator W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman -Planning 8 Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM: April 6, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning ~` From: Re: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator Annexation and Zoning of R-4 with a Preliminary Plat for Packard Subdivision by PNE/Edmonds Construction We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: GENERAL COMMENTS 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 5-104A. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and profile the subsurface soil conditions. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. 5. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. 6. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 7. Coordinate the fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent. 8. The Preliminary Plat map needs to be stamped, signed, and dated by the Land Surveyor. • • Mayor and Council, Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 1995 Page 2 9. Please submit information detailing the traffic impact on existing or adjacent roadways and intersections. 10. Indicate any floodplain boundaries as determined by FEMA and measures to amend this boundary. 11. Horizontal location and spacing of sanitary sewer manholes to be coordinated with the Meridian Public Works Department. 12. Show all proposed or existing utilities, including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainage, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, streetlights, and pressurized irrigation. 13. Provide statements of dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location, dimension and purpose of such. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS -PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. The Preliminary Plat map contour lines need to be tied to an established Benchmark. 2. Please submit, to the Public Works Department, a master street drainage plan including method of disposal and approval from the affected drainage district. 3. Streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. These will be installed at the subdivider's expense. 4. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 5. The legal description submitted with this application and the Preliminary Plat map doesn't follow the boundaries of the adjacent Plats of Record. Bearing and distance calls that don't match should be referenced as "Information of Record" . Please clear up these discrepancies and resubmit a new legal description per Resolution 158 (Aug. 16, 1994). 6. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system to the pressurized irrigation system being proposed will need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be watered. 7. Government Corners referenced in the legal description need to be shown on the Preliminary Plat map. • • Mayor and Council, Planning & Zoning Commission April 6, 1995 Page 3 8. A temporary sanitary sewage lift station will need to be installed to service this property. Details for the placement and configuration of this temporary lift station need to be worked out with the Public Works Department. 9. The lots adjacent to Carol's Subdivision range in size from 0.3 acre to 0.42 acre. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS -PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Applicant has submitted a proposed plan of future phases of Packard Subdivision for review. 2. This subdivision was previously submitted as a 128-lot subdivision with a 5-acre park. As a result of redesign, two building lots and the park have been absorbed. Some small "pocket" parks remain. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the need for a park in this area. 3. Perimeter fencing will be required prior to obtaining building permits. 4. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 5. No school capacity is available to serve this subdivision. 6. Block lengths exceed 1,000'. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided to minimize walking distances. For example, walkways will be required from Chandra Way through to Meadow Wood Court. Applicant should also install lighting system for the walkway for safety purposes. 7. Frontage on several of the lots do not meet the 80' minimum. Some corner lots will need arrows indicating front of lot. 8. Existing natural features along the northerly boundary could possibly be lost if this sub- lateral is tiled. 9. Phasing of this project, if applicable, shall be indicated on the preliminary plat. • ~' BEFORE THE MERIDIAN QTY°~~i` ~`"~T PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION ANNEXATION AND ZONING NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, SECTION 5, T 3N R lE B M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on April 11, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Ted Hutchinson, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for April 11, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 11, 1995, 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. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 • reference is incorporated herein; that the property is 39.87 acres in size; it is located between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road and between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road; surrounding subdivisions are Dove Meadows, Wingate Place Subdivision, Kearney Place Subdivision, Chateau Meadows Subdivision, which are in the City of Meridian, and Carol Subdivision, which is not in the City; the South Slough, also known as the Finch Lateral, runs along the North boundary of the proposed subdivision. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT (Rural Transition) and the proposed use is requested to be for R-4 Residential development. 4. Most of the general area surrounding the property is either developed or is proposed to be developed. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is shown on the subdivision application to be the owner of record of the property. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for one house and for agricultural uses; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for an COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 • R-4 type subdivision use with lots ranging from 8,000 to over 18,000 square feet; that the Applicant did submit a request for approval of a subdivision plat at the time of submitting the application for annexation. That after the public testified the Applicant, through Ted Hutchinson, stated that Wingate Lane would not be affected by this development and it was not their proposal to utilize Wingate Lane, he explained the situation with larger lots being next to Carol Subdivision but not next to the lots where the Sharps and others live, that the developer would like to extend the South Slough sewer to serve the development but they will have to use temporary lift stations. He also stated that the irrigation water would be protected. 10. There were several property owners in the immediate area who testified about the Application; the testimony can be summarized as follows: a. Helen Sharp testified that there were already difficulties with lgr, that the density was already too high in Meridian and that there was no need for additional houses, that there were water drainage problems that need to be addressed, and that she was apposed to the high density. b. Jon Barnes testified that the redesign of the subdivision was much improved, that he understood that there was going to be a 30 foot setback on the lots next to his in Carol Subdivision when the lots are already 140 deep, that he would like a fence between the new homes and Carol Subdivision and that a neighborhood park would be nice. c. Vern Alleman testified that his concern was over parks and that not enough of them are provided in developments, that impact fees are possibly the best and fairest solution to need created by additional development, and his additional concern was the use of lift stations for. sewers. COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 • s d. Douglas Miller testified that he was concerned about privacy, that the idea of berms, fences and setbacks was very good, that the density was fairly high in regard to the other areas where people had already built, and that the design was much improved. e. Dale Sharp stated that she was opposed to the subdivision because of the school and traffic problems; that he did not want Wingate Lane cut off; he questioned where the sewer was going to come from; that he had the same problems as Mr. Barnes, but nothing was being done for him and his land. f. Bob Golse testified that he questioned by such high density would be allowed with only two accesses and that there would be too many cars coming in and out of the subdivision for the limited access. g. Don Bryan testified that he was concerned with the irrigation water, that he wanted know what was going to be done with the head gate on southwest corner, which is his headgate and it needed to be addressed in this development. h. John Schey testified that he was in agreement with the testimony of Mr . and Mrs . Sharp and that he was concerned about the traffic and stated that the subdivision did not have sufficient access. 11. That the property is in an area marked on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family residential area; that in the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre. 12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 14. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines and constructs and installs necessary equipment and facilities. 15. The Assistant to the Meridian City Engineer and Meridian City Planner did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. That some of the comments of the Meridian Planning Director were that perimeter fencing is required prior to construction; that a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation; that the previous plat showed a 5-acre park but the subdivision was redesigned with some small "pocket" parks; that there is no school capacity to serve the subdivision; that some block lengths exceed 1,000 feet; that pedestrian walkways will be required from Chandra through to Meadow Wood Court with a lighting system; and that frontage on several lots does not meet the 80 foot minimum requirement for R-4. 16. That the Assistant to the City Engineer commented and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of the general comments were that any existing irrigation ditches crossing the property shall be tiled; that the high seasonal ground water needed to be established; that water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis; that sidewalks to meet City ordinance must be constructed; that perimeter fencing is required prior to obtaining building permits; existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed and that the wells may be COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 i used ,for non-domestic and irrigation purposes; determine high seasonal ground water; provide sidewalks in accordance with Meridian ordinance; the preliminary plat map needs to be stamped, signed, and dated by a land surveyor. That the site specific comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full, some of which were that the legal description does not follow the boundaries of adjacent plats and correction needs to be made; that a temporary sewer lift station will need to be installed; and that a master street drainage plan needed to be submitted. 17. That the Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, Meridian School District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, and other agencies submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 18. That the R-4, 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. that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone. 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 • ! Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, town houses, apartments, condominiums, etc. ) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and .High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, town houses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 23. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 continue farming in the area. 24. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 25. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation should be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the City and designated in an approved development agreement. 26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 • zesidents of the City; that the City, knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 27. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 29. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 31. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 33. That Section 11-9-605 M, PIPING OF DITCHES states, in part, as follows: All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural water~,aays, intersecting, crossing, or lying adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal. COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10 • 34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That 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 Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11 the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, PNE/Edmonds Construction, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land, if annexed, must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches, and Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant would be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property would be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant is required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2- 417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L, M, and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forney, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-asides for future public service use; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12 executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de- annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property has not been shown and the Applicant must work to obtain better access. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with Sze Rural Areas policies; however, there are very large lots in the ~dingate Lane area and in Carol Subdivision and they shall be buffered by the Applicant and the subdivision covenants shall let the home owners in the proposed subdivision know that those lots are there and that the buffering must remain; that this matter shall be addressed in the development agreement. 12. That the development of R-4 as suggested by the Applicant would be compatible to the homes across Wingate Lane and in Carol Subdivision if they are buffered as required above; that R-4 development would be compatible with the lots and homes in Chateau Meadows, Dove Meadows, Wingate Place Subdivision, and Kearney Place Subdivision. 13. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that COUNCIL FINDINGS ~F r^ACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 13 • • Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned and the zoning of the property should be R-4 Residential; that the conditions would be those stated above if the property is eventually annexed and zoned; that the annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the necessary buffering is completed between this subdivision and the lots in the Wingate area and in Carol Subdivision; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 14. That it is concluded that a fence should be placed along Wingate Lane to p-event home owners on this land from gaining access to Wingate mane, particularly because it is a private lane„ 15. That the South Slough runs along the north boundary of the property, and as a condition of annexation the South Slough must be landscaped to fit into other improvements that have been made along the slough with a pedestrian and bike path or it must be tiled; that the South Slough shall be addressed in the development agreement. 16. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property should not annexed. COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 14 i • 19. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 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 HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) RECOMMENDATION VOTED ` ~~' VOTED ~~- VOTED _ ~~~ ~, VOTED ~, VOTED ~ ' The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the Application for annexation and zoning be granted under the terms and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and any other requirements set by the City Council; if the Applicant shall not meet these conditions, the Application shall be denied or the land shall be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 15 • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of >~ Fact and Conclusions this ~~' _ day of ~~~ , 1995. ROLL CALL ~~~~~,~<-~.~~eu: 1re~~-~ ~/~~ ~~~~ ~~r~~,~ ~~- COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED (INITIAL) APPROVED ~~' DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ~~~ ~~ `ha~~s CGr~J^Ti~C ~ T~ ~ • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS" A Good Place to Live RONALD R TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L GASS, City Treasurer CITY OF MERIDIAN MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART. Water Works Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. Planner 8 Zoning Administrator KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 JIM JOHNSON W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zening WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 4, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/20/95 HEARING DATE: 4!11/95 REQUEST: Annexation/Zoning/Preliminary Plat for Packard Subdivision BY: PNEJEdmonds Construction LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: North of Dove Meadows Subdivision, south of Carol's Subdivision #2 JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, 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 8 FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT} U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RE ~ATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES ~ OTHER: ,' ~ ~ ,~' ~ - YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~5 bt't'~t~ta~t t~~ MAR 2 3 1995 CITY OF MERIDIAN OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Cily Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY 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) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW SHARI STILES Planner 8 Zoning Atlministrator JIM JOHNSON Chairman -Planning 8 Zoning 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 recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 4, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3!20/95 HEARING DATE: 4/11/95 REQUEST: Annexation/Zoning/Preliminary Plat for Packard Subdivision BY: PNElEdmonds Construction LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: North of Dove Meadows Subdivision, south of Carol's Subdivision #2 JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z -CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z -TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C _MAX YERRINGTON, 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 GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9-S YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: c~rvc JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary TO: PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION 3131 LANARK STREET MERIDIAN, ID 83642 FROM: Karen Gallagher, C i at Development Servic s si n SUBJECT: PACKARD- PRELIMINAR April 6, 1995 On APRIL 5, 1995, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the Preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: 1. Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of--way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District: a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho Registered Professional Engineer, together with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. c. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. ~~~~.~~ A!'i7 i U 1~~5 ~~ ~ 1 ~1 ~+rt.ryx/r~'i ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 • • ' ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Development Services Division Preliminary Report Preliminary Plat and Annexation -Packard Meridian Packard is a 126-lot residential subdivision on 39.9-acres. The site is located 1/4-mile north of Fairview Avenue and 1/4-mile west of Eagle Road. This development is estimated to generate 1204 additional vehicle trips per day. Roads impacted by development are: FAIRVIEW AVENUE -Arterial street with a bike lane designation - Traffic count 16,470 in 1990 EAGLE ROAD - ITD jurisdiction -Arterial street - Traffic count 12,000 from traffic study (350 trips will be added) HICKORY AVENUE -Collector street with no pathway designation (1,200 trips added) ~ ~ USTICK RD. -- I SITE o I a ~ I 4 ~ W TAZ 265 (Y TAZ 144 Z ~ ~ /~/ J / ~ DOVEBDIVI DOwS W F AI R VI E W A VE I ~ TREASURE ~ VALLEY I ~ BUSINESS ~ PARK O $ TAZ 145 I ~ I ------ -------- I TAZ 266 PINE ST. ~ I I FRANKLIN RD. Packard ACRD Commission Date April 5, 1995 ~ ~ Facts and Findings: A. General Information R-4 -Zoning 126 -Lots 39.9 -Acres 265 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Hickorv Avenue Collector with no pathway designation 60-feet of frontage on the future right-of--way that has been approved as a preliminary plat 60-feet of right-of--way to be platted (30-feet from centerline) 60-feet required right-of-way for the extension of Hickory Avenue (30-feet from centerline) Hickory Avenue is improved with a 41-feet street section south of the site; the improvements do not reach the site, but will with the completion of a later phase of Dove Meadows. B. This is a modification to the original preliminary plat submittal. No action was taken on the original submittal. Staff has had several meetings with the representatives of this subdivision to discuss stub streets and traffic flow. Staff supports the stub streets as proposed. C. A traffic study was submitted and review for this subdivision. The traffic study was completed for 135 residential lots; the number of lots has been reduced to 126 buildable lots. D. Staff recommends that Hickory Avenue continue as a 41-foot back-to-back street section with a 60-foot right-of--way from the south boundary to the first internal intersection. Direct lot access to Hickory Avenue will be restricted. The preliminary plat shows Hickory Avenue with 60-feet of right-of-way with a landscaped median. Both travel lanes of Hickory Avenue should maintain a minimum width of 21-feet between backs of curbs. E. Staff can accept culdesacs having a 29-foot street section with 5-foot sidewalks and a 42-foot right-of--way for those culdesacs generating less than 200-trips per day. The 29-foot street section restricts parking on one side. Staff discussed the 29-foot street section with the applicant and supports the reduced street section on two of the culdesacs, Chandra Way and Mindy Place, since the loss of parking on one side of the street would directly effect only one lot in each of those cases. F. Unless otherwise specified, staff recommends that all internal local streets be constructed as Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 2 a 60-foot right-of-way. If a landscaped median is constructed, maintain a minimum width of 21-feet from back of curb on both sides of the median. 2. Direct lot or parcel access to Hickory Avenue is prohibited, in compliance with District policy. Lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat. 3. The District will not sign the final plat for any part of this subdivision until the adjacent street system that it connects to, Hickory Avenue, becomes part of the public street system. 4. Construct all other internal streets to a 37-foot back-to-back street section with 5-foot (Meridian width requirement) and a 50-foot right-of--way. 5. Two of the knuckles or half culdesacs shall be constructed with median islands, maintaining a minimum travel width of 21-feet to the back of curb. Coordinate with District Traffic Services Division. 6. All landscaped medians shall be separate platted lots owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 7. Maintain a minimum radius of 100-feet on all curves having other than 90-degree angles of deflection. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar davs of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity and minimum fee of $110.00. 2. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5-feet from the side lot property lines when driveways are not being shared with the adjacent property. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drainage appurtenances, etc.) outside of the proposed street improvements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 4. Aright-of-way permit must be obtained from ACHD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of-way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 4 • 15 ACRD. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. Staff Submitting Karen Gallagher Date of Co fission A oval: APR ~ Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 6 AFR 1 0 195 SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET QTY OF MERIDIAN Proposed Development Name PACKARD SUB City MERIDIAN Date Reviewed 3/30/95 Preliminary Stage XXXXX Final Engineer/Developer Tealev's Land Surveying/ PNE & Edmonds Contruction The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street names shall appear on the plat as: "N. HICKORY WAY" "E. MEADOW WOOD COURT" "E. CHATEAU DRIVE" "N. JUSTIN WAY" "BISON" is a duplication and therefore cannot be used. "SWEETGRASS" is reserved for another subdivision and cannot be used unless it is in alignment. "MINDY" sound too much like MENDI and therefore cannot be used. "CHANDRA" sounds too much like SANDRA and therefore cannot be used. "NIKKI" sound too much like DICKY and therefore cannot be used. Please choose 5 new street names and have them approved by the street name committee. T~~v 4bV V/G J\16i l~il r;vr^e VII IIIiiail l'lJ I~CIY~r Y~i mill ICiaV ar~V a~lp~L/Yed L/~' IFIe f~IfL ~~i111~J. Qy Glly~ representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee i order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTE GENC PRESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES Ada County Engineer John Priester ~2 Date Ada Planning Assoc. Terri Raynor - Date 3 3G rj'S- Meridian Fire District Representative I A.IIX~(.(~--"1~-~ 6~ ~ ~ (:U%!i~- Date NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Atria County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed !!!! Sub Index Street Index NUMBERING OF LOTS AND CENTRAL •• DISTRICT pR'HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # REVIEW SHEET Environmental Health Division ": i~ Return to: .~ ~. ^ Boise ^ Eagle ^ Garden city S~Meridian Co 'tional Use # ^ Kuna Preliminary Final /Short Plat ~~.~G'M-~ ~/~~~ri:Jiori~ _ __ ^ ACZ ^ I. We have 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 ^ solid lava from original grade ^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet ~7. 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 ~- 8. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ~entral sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines ,,~rentral water ~. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ 10. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ I I. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 12. 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 ^ 13. Date: ~/ ~3 /~ red By: ___., [DHD 10/91 rcb, rev. I I/93 jll ./11t/l1 ~) //t1/~1-1-7c~~ CENTRAL { 7~~i DISTRICT o HEALTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE 707 N, ARMSTRONG PL. BOISE, ID. 83704-0825 • (208) 375-5211 • FAX: 327-8500 To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our environment. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the first one half inch of stormwater be pretreated through a grassy Swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: 1) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND, State of Washington Department of Ecology, February 19892 2) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT 3) CALIFORNIA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACi'ICE HANDBOOK Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, .Larry Walker Assoc., Uribe and Assoc., Resources Planning Assoc., for the Stormwater Quality Task Force 4) URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL Volume 3, Best Management Practices Stormwater Quality Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, Colorado Serving Valley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties Ada /Boise County Office WIC Boise • Meridian Elmore County Office Elmore County Office 707 N. Armstrong PI. 1606 Robert St. 520 E. 81h Street N. of Environmental Health Boise, ID. 83104-0825 Boise, ID. 83705 Mountain Home, ID. 190 S. 4th Street E. Enviro Health: 321-1499 Ph.334-3355 83641 Ph. 587-4407 Mountain Home, ID. Family Planning: 327-7400 324 Meridian Rd. 83641 Ph. 587-9225 Immun¢ations: 321-1450 Meridian, ID. 83642 Nutrition: 321-7460 Ph. 888525 W!C: 321-1488 Valley County Office P.O. Box 1448 McCall, ID. 83638 Ph. 634-7194 OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. ROWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W MORROW SHARI STILES Planner 8 Zoning Atlmimstrator JIM JOHNSON Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zoning t ~ ~ rf ~ ~ ~~~~ 1NrtP~4 f'A ~ RP"=1~IZ)I PEN TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEy7(APID~t~~~~l~pJECTS 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 recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: vVill Berg, Clty Clerk by: April 4. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/20/95 HEARING DATE: 4/11/95 REQUEST: AnnexationlZoning/Preliminary Plat for Packard Subdivision BY: PNE/Edmonds Construction LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: North of Dove Meadows Subdivision. south of Carol's Subdivision #2 JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z -GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR -RONALD TOLSMA, C/C -BOB CORRIE, C/C -WALT MORROW, C/C _MAX YERRINGTON, C/C -WATER DEPARTMENT -SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ~NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District`s Stokesberry Lateral courses along the north CITY ATTORNEY boundary of the project. The right-of-way of the Stokes- CITY ENGINEER berry Lateral is 40 feet: 20 feet from the center each CITY PLANNER way. See Idaho Code 42-1208--RIGHTS-OF-WAY NOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John Anderson or Bill Henson at 466-0663 or • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN r approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. 't'his ll>strict requires that a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. Contact Donna Moore at 343-1884 or 466-7861 for further information. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. Municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within this District. ~~ifi~ Bill Henson, Assistant Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District ~::il • rl?a~c,~ia. ~i ~~erctd~a~ ~Ivsi yatlo~ ?~i.'a,~ztct 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 Phones: Area Code 208 Tealey's Land Surveying 109 South 4th Street Boise, ID 83702 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 RE: Land Use Change Application for Packard Subdivision Dear Tealey's: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above- referenced development. You were previously sent a complete packet of information concerning Land Use Change, urban irrigation, and exclusion. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call on Donna Moore at the District's office or John Anderson, the District's Water Superintendent at the District's shop. Sincerely, DAREN R. COON, SECRETARY/TREASURER NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DRC/dnm cc: File Water Superintendent PNE/Edmonds Construction /City of Meridian enc. ~Op~ APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS 40,000 30 March 1995 RPR-04-95 TUE 04010 PI'I IDAHO PWR SRVG KUb OF TRl4ASL/RE VALLFs'Y OFFICIALS WILLIAM Q. DERO, JR., CHy Clark JANIGE L. OASB, Clly Tfp7Urer GARY D. 6MITH, P.E. Glty Engineer BRUCE 0. STUART, Watcr Wotka Supt. JOHN T, SMAWCROFT, We9laweler9UD1. KENNY W: BOWERS.FIreGmal W.L. "BILL" CORDON. Police Gnlel WAYNE G.. CROOKSTON. JR.. Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888.4x33 • FAX (208) 887613 Public Works/Building pcpartment (208) 687.2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RGNAID R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINOTON R08ERT 0 CORRIE WALT W. MORROW SHARI STILES Planner 8 ZoNnq Admmiyvat or JIM JOHNSON Cn9irm9n • Plamm~q a Zontnq 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 recommendation to Meridian City Nall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: ril 4 189 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/20/95 HEARING DATE: 4/11/$x_ REQUEST: Ann®xation/Zoning/Prellminary Plat for Packard Subdivision BY:_ENE/Esimonds Construction LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: North of Q4 a Maa~ows Subdivision. south of Carol's Subdivisio~2 JIM JOHNSON, P/z MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARt^R, P2 -CHARLES ROUNTREE, P!Z -TIM HEPPER, P/Z -GRANT KINGSFORb, MAYOR -RONALD TOLSMA, C1C -BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C ^WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT ^FIRE DEPARTMENT `POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY 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 8 FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLA1~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: We require a permanent 10-foot wide public utilities easement along all lots adjacent to a road right-of-way dedicated to public or private use. Tim Adams Idaho Power 322-2047 APR 04 '95 17 00 ~~ ~D~S ~ - ~'9S 2083222032 PAGE.03 TE~EY'S LAND SURVEYING June 9, 1995 Gary Smith, City Engineer City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian Id 83642 RE: Comments and Conditions for Packard Subdivision #1 Dear Mr. Smith, RECE71/ED ~'~~ ~ 9 1995 MERIDIA N CITY ENGiRJEER Thank you for taking time on June 6, 1995, to meet with us regarding the Packard Subdivision # 1 proposal. I apologize for the delay of these responses as I was unaware of your new policy requiring written response to your subdivision comments. On Apri16, 1995, Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles sent a memorandum to the Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning, concerning Packard Subdivision #1. Regarding those "General Comments," we offer the following: As required by City Ordinance 11-9-605.M, irrigation/drainage ditches included in this project will be tiled. The tiling will be done under the supervision and approval of the appropriate irrigation district. 2 There are no existing domestic water wells or septic systems within this project boundary. 3 Test holes were dug on the site (6/5/95) to find the seasonal high ground water elevation. 4 The developer is preparing restrictive covenants. 5 Attached is a copy of the Ada County Street Name Evaluation form and a copy of the County Engineer's letter approving the subdivision name. 6 As shown on the preliminary plat in the typical street cross-section, a five foot (5') sidewalk will be installed. 109 South 4"' Stre~ Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) ~d5-0636 Fax (208) 385-0696 Packard Subdivision # 1 Proud. 1290 - 1 - • 7 I contacted Bruce Stewart of the Meridian Water Department concerning placement of fire hydrants. The locations recommended by Mr. Stewart have been incorporated into the preliminary plat drawings and will be used in the construction drawings. 8 The preliminary plat has been stamped by a licensed surveyor. 9 A traffic study for this site was prepared and submitted to the Ada County Highway District. A copy of that report is attached. 10 T!2P~e are no flood hazard areas shown on F.I.R.M. panels X0165 or #0251 that would affect this project. 11 Location of sanitary sewer manholes will be coordinated with the Meridian Public Works Department. Those locations will be shown on the shown on the preliminary plat. 12 All proposed or existing utilities are now shown on the preliminary plat. 13 Statements of dedications to the public are provided on the final plat. Locations of proposed easements and public streets are shown on the preliminary plat. Regarding the "Site Specific Comments" from the Public Works Department., we are providing the following responses: The contour lines on the preliminary plat are tied to an established Benchmark referenced to the southwest corner of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian. This is an elevation of 2607.14. This datum is the same datum used for the aerial photography done for the city of Meridian by J.U.B. Engineers. 2 The master street drainage plan will be prepared before the construction phase following the approval of the preliminary plat and before submitting the final plat for approval. Estimated ninoff directions and locations of retention areas have been identified on the preliminary plat. Location of street lights is shown on the preliminary plat. Specific locations for street lighting will be approved by the Meridian Public Works Department before installation by the developer. 4 Has your computer model for hydraulic analysis been performed to evaluate this proposal? 5 A revised legal description is attached. 6 Any plans for supplemental water supply for irrigation purposes will be submitted to your office for review and approval. Packard Subdivision #1 Project 1290 _ 2 _ 7 The Government Corners referenced in the legal description are shown on the preliminary plat. 8 Location for the temporary lift station has been identified on the preliminary plat. We will work closely with your department to ensure that the Iift station meets your criteria. 9 No response. Regarding the "Site Specific Comments" $-om the Planning Department, we are providing the following responses: 1 No response. 2 A minor redesign of this project has yielded two (2) smaller pazk/open space azeas for this development. These will be private open space lots maintained by the homeowners association for use by the residents of this development. 3 Perimeter fencing will be installed for each phase before requesting building permits. 4 A development agreement will be submitted by the developers. 5 The developers support the Meridian School District's plans for needed facilities. The developers also recognize that the children living in this subdivision will not necessarily attend the neazest neighborhood school. 6 Few intervening streets or natural breaks occur around the boundaries of this plat. This makes long blocks necessary. The internal block lengths have been interrupted by access to the pocket parks. These accesses also provide internal pathways through the subdivision for pedestrians and bicyclists. 7 The eighty foot (80') frontage requirement has been met for all lots that are not fronting on a cul-de-sac or are not flag lots. Those lots meet the minimum standards for cul-de-sac or flag lot frontages. 8 The developer will work with the city of Meridian to protect the existing natural features along the northern boundary of this development. Most of those features are, however, not on the developer's property. But, anywhere the nature features exist on-site, protection of those features will be attempted. Otherwise, the waterway will be tiled according to City Ordinance. 9 Phase lines have been included on the preliminary plat. Packard Subdivision #1 Project 1290 - 3 - • Many comments and concerns expressed by your department will be addressed as part of receiving approval for a final plat. Construction drawings, engineering, and other costly preparations are not made until after the preliminary plat is approved. Developers aze hesitant to expend money for those costs if there is a possibility that their project will not be approved. However, the developer is willing to work with you and your staffto address those items to your satisfaction. We look forward to working with you and your department. in the completion of this project. If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please let me know. Thank you again for taking time to meet a nth us. Respectfully, Patrick A. Tealey Tealey's Land Surveying B. /~~`~ Ted Hutchinson Packard Subdivision # 1 Projad 1290 - 4 - SE~LERS' IRRIGATION DIST~T P.O. BOX 757'1 • BOISE, IDAHO E13707 PHONE 344-247'1 /' `tea ~i' C': ~ ~c.J n~d~ M~E7 2 3 135 r ~ ~ ~~~ ,~~~r~it.r~~,i~~ March 22, 1995 City of Meridian Planning & Zoning 33 E Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 RF.: Packard Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: T'he above referenced subdivision lies within the Settlers Irrigation District; however, Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District delivers the water for us. We are pleased to see that this development will comply with Settlers' policy by providing a pressurized irrigation system for the homeowners. If you have any questions, please phone me at 343-5271. Sincerely, ~ , / mar,{/ V Troy L. Shaw, Manager Settlers Irrigation District TLU/vrk ~ i~a~Ka~ol Sub~'~w~s,wn /V~.~ 21 U 4 ri. U s t ick rcd. r~teridian, ldaho ~g641 s , ~~~~'~ tune 2U, 1y95 JU X12 0 199 kono:rable l~TQyor .;.'{'~'~ (,~~ ~~;~$~' 9 and City council ~ylembexs Meridian, Idaho ~~e4~ 'J:here is a need. i'or parks and scho©ls as indicated in the findings of .Fact and Conclusions c,~.' Law of Alarming and mooning for this subdivisian. uriginally there was afive-sore park planned wt,ich has now been redesigned with some small "pocket" parks. 1 don't think these su-all "pocket parks are ttie answer. `there neeas to be 1ar~;er areas to a,ccom~uodate sports activities in particular. This location is centrally located .for this section, which is desirable. '.the time to address this need for parks ana schools in this area is now rather than later. ~t least tree set aside of land for these should be done now . 1 am concerned and worried that if this is not done now, ai'ter the fast, you will cows to me and say we have to have your land for this. c'lease don't do this. Please sct prudently now. Thank you. Sincerely, Yern .~llernan r ~ A , • Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 10 whether some of them are easily buildable lots is another question. This is essentially the exact same plat we got that was approved as a preliminary. Kingsford: Any other questions Mr. Morrow? What is your pleasure? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the final plat for Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5 by Interwest Developers subject to all of staff and ACRD staff conditions. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the final plat by Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5 by Interwest Development subject to all staff requirements being met as well as all ACHD requirements being met, discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINAL PLAT: WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5, 52 LOTS BY RAMON YORGASON: Kingsford: Does the Council have any questions on that? Morrow: Mr. Mayor there was a letter in our box with a question that, in tonight's box requesting that this be tabled for a period of two weeks. Kingsford: Entertain that motion. Tolsma: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to table Waterbury Park No. 5 until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: TABLED JUNE 20, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 39.87 ACRES TO R-~ BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION (PACKARD SUBDIVISION): Kingsford: Does Council have questions about that? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would like to see a brief presentation, in the last presentation that r • • Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 11 was before us it was for, I think the issue there was it was tabled because there was not a preliminary plat. Kingsford: The next item is a public hearing on that. Morrow. I understand that, I guess my question here is are we asking to do the zoning and the annexation prior to the hearing of the preliminary plat? Is that where we are at with this? Crookston: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, the situation is that the public hearing hearing on this first item has been held it was tabled because the second item was coming before the Council and it was felt that the City Council was better off to deal with them all together. Kingsford: So it would appear that it would be most prudent to go ahead with the public hearing, take the annexation then after it. Crookston: That would be appropriate, you should table this matter until the conclusion of item #8 is heard and depending upon what you do with item #7 you could continue that table until the Council wanted to act upon both of them. Kingsford: I entertain a motion to table item 7 until after item 8. Yerrington: So moved Morrow. Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table item 7 until item 8 is heard, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fourth Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, this is the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision No. 1, I believe you should have that in your packet. If it is alright • Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 11 was before us it was for, I think the issue there was it was tabled because there was not a preliminary plat. Kingsford: The next item is a public hearing on that. Morrow: I understand that, I guess my question here is are we asking to do the zoning and the annexation prior to the hearing of the preliminary plat? Is that where we are at with this? Crookston: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, the situation is that the public hearing hearing on this first item has been held it was tabled because the second item was coming before the Council and it was felt that the City Council was better off to deal with them all together. Kingsford: So it would appear that it would be most prudent to go ahead with the public hearing, take the annexation then after it. Crookston: That would be appropriate, you should table this matter until the conclusion of item #8 is heard and depending upon what you do with item #7 you could continue that table until the Council wanted to act upon both of them. Kingsford: I entertain a motion to table item 7 until after item 8. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table item 7 until item 8 is heard, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fourth Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, this is the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision No. 1, I believe you should have that in your packet. If it is alright I • Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 12 do have an overhead that shows that, let me set that up real quick. This is a preliminary plat layout for Packard Subdivision No. 1 we are just under 40 acres. We are proposing that this be annexed and zoned R-4 and that the development of this parcel would be in accordance with the regulations and the comprehensive plan that regulate development in the R-4 zone. The primary access to this is in the southwest corner of the development along Hickory Avenue. Now, Hickory Avenue extends into through Dove Meadows to this point right here. Just south of what was proposed to be Dove Meadows No. 2, now Dove Meadows No. 2 has expired however, I believe Mr. Leader is looking at his options of re- developing that. The owners of this ground, the Packard property, before they submitted the application had obtained an easement from Mr. Leader. It is an easement that is a temporary easement would expire upon the dedication of a public road right of way. So we do have access and it is part of our plan that regardless of whether or not Dove Meadows goes through we will work with Mr. Leader to get that ground dedicated as a public road right of way. We will construct those improvements and our access will be complete from Fairview Avenue into the development. This is a copy of the easement that was entered into regarding the access. Now it is a 50 foot wide easement however we are going to re- negotiate that with Mr. Leader to make certain that it is at least 60 feet wide to accommodate a collector status street. Then that will be our primary access into the development. There is a secondary access, Meadovwod Drive which connects to I believe that is Wingate Place Subdivision which is immediately west. That has been final platted, the road that is dashed on, to the west of the subdivision has been constructed. That interconnects through that subdivision and Keamy Place and then extends out to Chateau which extends out to Locust Grove. So we do have two access points in and out of this. Traffic study's indicate that once that connection of Hickory Avenue is completed that some of the traffic that currently goes down Chateau will re-route through this and go onto Hickory particularly when there is a signalized intersection at the intersection of Hickory and Fairview Avenue. As a brief history of this, I am sure you are aware, you recall that we brought this before you once before. It was more or less a grid pattern and for some reason we met with some opposition to the grid pattern that we had proposed. We had also proposed about a 5 acre park that would have been maintained by the homeowners association. The only way that we were able to come up with that five acres and still have a usable viable proposal was to go with the grid system. However, because we met with some opposition we made some alterations and offset this at about 45 degrees and when you start changing your street pattern like that you tend to lose some of your options as far as being able to put together large chunks of ground. We have however, established 2 smaller pocket parks in there that are interconnected so that you can get from one part of the subdivision through to the other part of the subdivision with minimal traffic on the public streets. These are large enough that I believe that the total acreage in just the tow large parks is a little over an acre. I believe that is enough ground to provide for some recreational space for those people who live within this subdivision. We are proposing some additional pocket parks, some landscape green areas. And we are proposing a Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 13 landscape scheme throughout the development. It will be incorporated into the covenants of the subdivision. This is the entryway, it is going to be nicely landscaped, sidewalk separated from the main right of way at the initial portion. Then you come into the subdivision, there will be a landscape and pond area. But the street scheme along here is going to be regulated in the covenants. The locations of the driveways will be specified there will be a specific landscape treatment or driveway treatment for the individual driveways. Also a specific landscape treatment requirement including the landsca e easement along each of those which would be maintained by the homeowners as part of the covenants. It will be carried through this subdivision so that each will have a tree lined streets very early on in the development. That will all be incorporated into the open space scheme that we have for this particular development. We are asking for an R-4 which is what the comprehensive plan provided for in this particular area. It specified that it would be residential development, something that is compatible with the existing and surroundin development. We originally looked at R-8 because the neighboring subdivisions to the west are R-8, Wingate Place, Kearney Place, I believe even those farther north are zoned R-8 and have the smaller lots. When we looked at this and spoke with you and the staff and the previous public hearings during this it was decided that the R-8 is not feasible. That there is more than enough R-8 ground in Meridian and that you would like to have more of the larger lots. So we went with the R-4, we have a mix of lots within this development. Some of them are 8,000 square feet, however the majority of them are much larger. To provide a buffer along Carol Subdivision which are acre lots we have some rather deep lots and we are including an additional set back requirement that is above and beyond what the City of Meridian has for their setback requirement to add some additional space back there so that you don't get, so that the residents of Carol don't feel like they are being encroached upon. We will also fence the perimeter of this development. Any ditches that cross will also be tiled or appropriately fenced. It is going to be a quality development, I don't believe it is going to be because of the lot size and the minimum house size requirement. You won't really be looking at starter homes there, it is just not going to be feasible. We colored up a prelimina The gray lots that you see here, they are from 8, OOlto 10,000 square feet n suze.f T is. next shade color is lots that are 10,001 to 15,000 square feet. And you see there are qu to a number of those interspersed. Lots 15, 000 and up are the darker colors in here. Then the common area and also the location of the landscape easement which I spoke to before so it is all tied in together. So that this is a quality development. Kingsford: Ted if I may, both of those, if you would show the audience, public hearing I am sure that would have some influence on testimony that will be forthcoming. Hutchinson: This is the one that shows the break out of the lot sizes, the various lot sizes are indicated on the color chart. Then the landscape easement adjacent to (inaudible). We did have quite a mix of lot sizes as I stated they run from 8,000 square feet to well over i i Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 14 15,000 square feet. This proposal is the landscape plan that will be incorporated throughout the subdivision with the tree lined streets that will be in part of the covenants that this will be maintained by the individual homeowner. As required by Meridian City code we will incorporate a pressurized irrigation system for this development and that will maintained by the homeowners association. Any of the common open space areas will also be maintained by the homeowners association. This display is the entire section, Section 14. This pretty much shows how that section is developed or is proposed to develop. There are a couple of items that are not on here that of interest and would have bearing on this particular development. This comer is the Fred Meyer site right here and right over in here there is another commercial site which has been approved or is proposed I am not sure what the status of the approval is on that. The residential development is sound through the majority of this section. We believe that we are compatible with those existing residential developments. We asked specifically for the R-4 in this development because of the way the Meridian Ordinance reads. This one was prepared basically for reference for the Council. This will show our property in relationship to those other properties, other subdivisions in the area and principally those who are going to testify before you tonight, this shows where some of those people, particularly along Wingate Lane. Wingate Lane the easement for Wingate Lane stops right here at the center of the section. So this development, this portion that is before you tonight will not affect Wingate Lane. Our proposed future development which is still before the Planning and Zoning Commission will have an affect on that area. We are trying to put our heads together collectively with the Highway District to come up with a solution on how we are going to deal with the traffic that is going to be generated on all of this. Again, the traffic study that is done indicates that the existing proposed street connections within this development are adequate to handle the traffic and will actually accommodate some additional traffic as I indicated from Wingate and Kearney that would come out rather than go out through Chateau in an effort to go east into the City of Boise. We believe that adequate conditions of approval can be established by the council which would address any concerns that you might have particularly with regard to sewer or water, landscape easements, pressurized irrigation. I think that you will find that this is a quality development that will be a great addition to the City of Meridian. The nice thing about this particular site is that it is already in close, we are not asking that we make some shoestring annexation or some far stretch to incorporate this piece of ground. Your city limits forms the western boundary and the southern boundary of this already. This is a logical extension of you current city limits and it definitely is in conformance with your comprehensive plan. The preliminary plat was designed to comply with the regulations that you have for the R-4 development. In fact I think we exceed your minimum standards in many areas within this development. So, I think we have addressed the major issues, one is the access. We are providing the access, we will complete Hickory Way, we have the access in hand, we don't have to go out and try to negotiate this. This has been in place since 1994. We have that access, all we have to do is once we get the dedication we will build it. That access will be there it is Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 15 not a question of if but just a matter when this is approved that access will be built. It will be our primary access, we are going to landscape that so that it shows this is an attractive subdivision. It is not a cookie cutter subdivision. Are there any questions that I might answer from the Council? Kingsford: Any questions of Ted? Morrow: I have three questions, the question with respect to has ACHD blessed the temporary easement or the easement situation that you have with the Leader people and Dove Meadows? How is that being addressed? Hutchinson: We have discussed that with the Highway District and they understand that we will construct that and it will be dedicated to the Highway District and they have no problem with it. Kingsford: I have a follow up on that. Did I hear you say Ted that Mr. Leader hadn't taken any lease options on that, he does own this property and was legally able to grant this? Hutchinson: Yes, Mr. Leader does own the ground under which that easement was granted. Kingsford: I thought I heard you say that he hadn't taken the option or (inaudible) Hutchinson: No, with regard to Dove Meadows No. 2 he is still looking at what he is going to do now that Dove Meadows approval has expired for phase 2. Regardless of what he does we will construct that and have that dedicated as a public road right of way. It will not be an easement, in fact that easement goes away with the dedication. The language is specific in the easement. Morrow: You indicated that you needed to renegotiate this easement from 50 to 60 feet with Mr. Leader? Hutchinson: It needs to be 60 feet to be collector status. Hickory Way right now is a 60 foot wide street. When this was negotiated they weren't aware that the Highway District was going to require 60 feet. We have right now 50 feet which we can build tomorrow. Mr. Leader has indicated that he is willing to re-negotiate that for that additional 10 feet. But it will be there. Morrow: My next question is with respect to the development of the pocket parks. What do you envision in terms of the development of the pocket parks? ~~ Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 16 Hutchinson: As far as timing? Morrow: No, I guess yes that is part of the question and the rest of the question is (End of Tape) Hutchinson: (Inaudible) recreation in the pocket parks. It is a place for the kids to run, there may be room to throw a baseball or football around. A parcel that size I think they can very readily passively recreate. Morrow. What does passive mean? Hutchinson: It wouldn't have an organized field, a specified field for soccer, football or baseball. It would be, it is more random use of a typical park rather than a sports field. Morrow. So there is not a basketball or a volley ball area or those kinds of things. Essentially what you are telling us you are just going to grass those areas? Hutchinson: There will be a pathway between those to provide the bicycle and pedestrian path, the interconnection between the ends of the subdivision. Morrow. My final question is with respect to the sewer, did you not in a presentation before us earlier discuss something about lift stations? Hutchinson: Yes Morrow. What would be the location of the lift station? Hutchinson: We are proposing that the lift station wall be located on this lot. There will also be a temporary turn around constructed on that lot so this will not be buildable until such time (inaudible) physically connect to sewer, wet line sewer to the north and have future road connections that would terminate at a culdesac with that lot being unbuildable until such time as those other connections are made. The lift station will service only this development. It will not service anything to the north of it. Morrow. When does the lift station go away? Hutchinson: That will depend upon the city of Meridian. When we get Packard Subdivision No. 2 approved and get the connection through Chamberlain Estates then that sewer extension will follow that. Morrow. Why would it depend on the City of Meridian? Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 17 Hutchinson: You are the ones that control the approval of the development. Morrow: Let's assume that the development is approved, what I am after here is a time frame. As you know the City doesn't particularly relish having lift stations. Hutchinson: We understand that and as I have indicated in previous testimony there will be a surcharge added to each lot to help off set the cost of the maintenance of that lift station. Morrow. Could you explain how the surcharge systems works please. We have a terrible problem in this community understanding builder upcharges and so on and so forth with another issue on the other side of town. So I want to make absolutely clear what surcharge means. Hutchinson: This would be a nominal fee and I believe you were talking $2.00 per lot that would be assessed each lot monthly to aid in Morrow: What does it mean, it means a collection of the $2.00. Hutchinson: Through the homeowners association. Morrow: And how does that money get to the City? Hutchinson: The homeowners association would pay it directly to the City. Morrow. What method do you have in place to guarantee that the City gets that payment? Hutchinson: That would be incorporated in the covenants of the subdivision. Morrow: So, you have $2.00 a lot, how many lots is that? Hutchinson: This proposal is I believe 123 buildable lots. Morrow: Do we get $246 each and every month from date of beginning or at what point does each lot pay its $2.00? Hutchinson: I believe as those lots are developed. Morrow: As they are developed or become occupied? Hutchinson: That would be something that we could negotiate with the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 18 Morrow. Where did the information come from that $246 would off set the cost to operate the lift station? Hutchinson: That is what I was told by the developer, Morrow: Thank you Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Hutchinson? Corrie: I will have later. I don't know where he got his cost. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, I think we have gone through this before numerous times. We have a very unique situation here. And realizing of course that he is addressing phase #1 of Packard subdivision we are at the very corner of the property that he is talking about. He is talking about the lift station being in that general area kitty corner from where we are. The lift station would be just north of that. Of course going along with you saying you don't know how fast this is going to develop. Another thing that is a grave concern to me and those of us that live on Wingate Lane is when we are talking about phase 1 and 2 which are very intermingled because we know that going in off or just north of that property where he proposes to put phase 2 we have a little access problem because he wants to cross the plat that we have seen wants to put a public road across a private lane and they would cross that so they could get on the other side of the property which would be east of Wingate. So they have property on the west and the east of Wingate Lane and having to cross to join those. As I understand it, does that mean that both accesses on that property would go out to the subdivisions and then go on to Locust Grove? Kingsford: The one I believe Mrs. Sharp that we are talking about there, we are talkin about one of the accesses that would go south into Fairview. g Sharp: And the other would go through Kingsford: To the west and through Kearney Place. Sharp: In talking with the Highway Department on this they don't propose to do anythin with Locust Grove as far as re surfacing or anything finishing the curbing and gutter and I am sure if anybody has gone along there we can see where the fencing may have done Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 19 but they have not completed the sidewalk. They are not going to do anything until 2001 and for those of us that live out there the traffic on that right now is just horrendous. We talk about the comprehensive plan, my question that while that block that section might. be included in the comprehensive plan does the lift station go along with the comprehensive plan. As it is developed they will be charged that could go on for years and I question that. Another I thing I think of listening to the tapes the gentlemen said that when talking to the availability of schools, Chief Joseph on Chateau is closed, he said he would work with the schools and try to resolve that problem. I am interested in knowing what was done on that. He was going to talk to the rest of us about this and of course that has not been done. I am going along, he said they can get the easement from Mr. Leader, I think that should be in his hands and shown to you without the idea that we can get it, we will get it. It is a summation in that it would be a matter of fact. As the example I used before the Planning and Zoning and they have not acted on this because they feel they do not have all the necessary information. I think it is like holding out your hand to a child and you have a shiny penny so that they don't notice the dirty old coins. We are going to have beautiful plantations, shrubbery and all and behind it will be this subdivision that has not got all the plans before you. I would strongly ask please that you get all the information from ACHD which I know they don't have right now. And not guess that we are going to get or we are assured we are going to get, they don't have all the information and I think that should be required before the annexation is granted. I think once it is granted the City of Meridian will be responsible for certain things that is just part of being annexed. Thank you Kingsford: Thank you, any questions for Mrs. Sharp? Anyone else from the public? Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I have a question on the lift station and regard to the accessibility of the sewer. There is no guarantee that sewer is going through there for a long time because it is held up by Mr. Alleman and from last conversation I had with him that he is not ready to do anything and he just testified that in previous testimony. As far as the easement, we have easements down to our property. It is not halfway down the lane it is clear down at the end, I have been driving it for 27 years. This would open up Wingate Lane for more traffic on Wingate Lane and we have attended the Ada County Planning and Zoning and they said there would be no more permits issued for access off of Wingate Lane. There were several of us there at that time. This in effect, technically this would open up so that every house in the subdivision that is proposing would have access to Wingate Lane. So I do have a question there. There is as far as schools we have a drastic situation there, bonding wasn't approved. A bond wasn't approved last time and there is no guarantee that it is this time. So, all we are doing is exasperating the problem that we have now. I think that before this is acted on some of these issues should be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone concerned. This position that you are in should require that. • • Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 20 Morrow. I have a question for Mr. Sharp, with respect to this phase of and this phase onl which is what we are addressing tonight. If there is a culdesac that has to be at northwe t corner and the culdesac is put in and it is required for temporary turn around and the lot is not developable and that is the site of a lift station plus it is the size to enable a fire truck to turn around how does that traffic get across there onto Wingate Lane at this oint in time? p Sharp: At this point in time it doesn't, but it will. This whole thing should be addressed a one time not because, they are proposing that Hickory cross over the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District road there and then ties into Wingate Lane on the left there. Are the going to put continuous fences across there to buffer that? If we are talking about this along there, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, they should. If they are going to isolate this there should be a fence clear across there so that they don't have access to the Nam a Meridian Irrigation District road there. And we do want fences and buffer from our pro ert . P Y Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Sharp? Thank you Mr. Sharp, anyone else from the public? Mick Dauvin, 2821 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dauvin: I would think that we have some ag zone in there just next to the residential and we should probably look at some buffers. Also you have got a fairly rapid water stream through there, an irrigation canal that probably needs to be addressed. That is all the comments that I have on it. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Hutchinson: Conditions of approval are typically established for preliminary plats and that is the stage where we are right now. People have asked what our plans are for this development. This is our plan, this is what we intend to do. The City can establish the conditions to ensure that this is constructed as we are proposing. Any preliminary plat is dust that, it is preliminary. Between the preliminary and the final plat those issues and concerns of the City will be addressed. They have to be addressed adequately to the City's satisfaction that the development will occur as we have proposed. This proposal is in compliance with your comprehensive plan and it does conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. It is a logical extension of your existing city limits. It will be a qualit development within your City. We simply ask that you approve this relimina Y subsequently the annexation and zoning and establish the condpions that/yolut feel comfortable with that will ensure that this project will result in what you have in mind for the City of Meridian. Are there any further questions that I might answer? Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 21 • Morrow. I have a question Mr. Hutchinson with respect to the issues are well raised with respect to the agricultural ground. Typically in that area as a City Council we have taken strong measures to protect the ag interest. How are you prepared to protect the neighbors to the north for their agricultural interests. How do you propose to do that? Hutchinson: Well, presently our client owns everything that is outlined in green in here. This used to be the Borup place, they own this and the Brown's they own this. Currently it is being farmed, we will provide a fence to prevent the incursion of the residential development into the agricultural. There is a substantial ditch there. We do either by City ordinance depending on the size of that ditch it would have to be tiled or it will have to be fenced. We are also putting perimeter fencing on this development. It is our intention to prevent the incursion through that method. Morrow. Would you point out on that map please where you would be willing to fence at the present time? Hutchinson: I will have to ask the developer specifically where he would be wilting to fence. There is a large ditch that runs through here and I don't know (inaudible) presents a natural barrier. (Inaudible) in this area as we got up in here in phase 2 this would be fenced (inaudible). Morrow: My point here is in the construction industry as you well know they are not the best of citizens. The issue here that is a valid issue in my mind is even though the developer's own that parcel of ground the trash and debris that comes about while a subdivision is under construction can easily get to these other folks' property over here. Our interest historically as a Council has been that you protect those people and their animals, quite candidly and I made the comment before is that with respect to the Davis property on the other side of Ustick and that the issue is that those animals and things that those folk do are susceptible to illness or death caused by construction debris. From our perspective I think we need to see some sort of assurance in the short term that protects the interest of those properties. Hutchinson: Do you have a preferred place that you would like to see fencing initially constructed? Morrow: Well my preferred answer to the construction would be that you protect those properties all along that front with some sort of fencing that doesn't allow construction debris to go to the north and to the west. To either the Sharp property or any of those folk that are along in that particular area. Hutchinson: I think the prevailing winds tend to be out of the north and northwest in this Meridian City Council Juty 18, 1995 Page 22 • particular area by all means. If you condition us to place a fence in that area to prevent that that is a conditions of approval that we can live with. One other thing, you asked about the maintenance of a lift station. (Inaudible) Briggs Engineering and passed along some information. The City of Boise estimates that it is $4000 per year to maintain a lift station. We would come up a little short at $2.00 per lot. I don't know how the City handles any other lift stations that you might have on line, whether or not there is a fee assessed to a system to off set the cost or not. Tolsma: At what point in time is this lift station going to be constructed (inaudible). Hutchinson: It would have to go in with the first phase of construction. The ultimate location for that lift station is that lot in the northwest corner. Tolsma: So if you were constructing up in that area then (inaudible) Hutchinson: I would think so yes. Again, that would be a condition of approval that we can live with and work with. Tolsma: (Inaudible) what that ditch is? Hutchinson: I didn't see any reference to the particular size for that ditch. I know when I cross it on Eagle Road it looks like it is a pretty fair ditch and has quite a bit of water. I don't know if it is large enough that it would require tiling or small enough to require tiling. Shari do you know how large that one is or Gary? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, it was tiled through Chateau Meadows and I think they used a 48 inch pipe through there. It is tilable, I believe it is tilable under our ordinance. Hutchinson: And your ordinance does require it and we will fence or the it in accordance with your ordinance. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, can you give me some background here. On the site specific comments from the engineering department, it says the subdivision was previously submitted as a 128 lot subdivision with a five acre park. Now it is 123 lots is that what you said it was? Hutchinson: That is correct, 123 buildable lots. Corrie: Okay so we lost lots, we lost the 5 acre park? Why? Hutchinson: Any time that you start skewing your streets off of perpendicular and again we Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 23 • have gone with 45 degree angles, we have put some curvilinear streets in there to break it up. You start using up a lot of ground that ordinarily you might be able to incorporate into other features. With the previous design it was laid out pretty much on a grid system like north, south, east, west streets. We were able to optimize the number of lots and still come up with the amenity. However, because the grid pattern was met with a great deal of opposition there was really no way, it cost us five lots just to do that. We had this laid out so that I think we had two additional lots where we have the 2 large parks areas now. We figured it was just best to make the lots around the culdesacs work better and to provide some additional open space within the development. But again we did lose the lots because of the curvilinear streets and going off of perpendicular streets. Corrie: Okay, and block lengths, it looks like you have one that is going to be more than a 1000 square feet long. Hutchinson: The one Chateau Drive to where this intersection with Hickory, I don't know of anyway to really break that street up. There is no north-south connection to any other street. Obviously the culdesac in Carol's Justin Way is there it is not going to extend. The other option and I don't know how, it would be more feasible or work better than what we have would be to intersect that street. Move the intersection from the western portion to the (inaudible) the length of a block. There were really no features that would warrant, typically you would find an intersecting street, this layout, the ground just isn't conducive give the existing development. Corrie: What is the reason that Packard Subdivision No. 2 isn't started before one? Hutchinson: Access primarily, we have excellent access to this one. Packard No. 2 will access off the north end of this would be one access point into this one then it will also connect into some existing subdivisions to the west particularly into Chamberlain Estates when that is completed. So, primarily we are starting down in this our preference would be to start on the north end with sewer but until we can get sewer to that and an access to Ustick Road I think w+e are starting in the most logical place which is where we have got access to public streets. Corrie: The cost of the $4000 a year for the lift station, is that cost from the very beginning or as you add houses to it? You are going to put your lift station in first will that cost start then? Hutchinson: I believe that a lift station is the maintenance cost starts with the installation. Corrie: The developer is going to pay that? Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 24 Hutchinson: I am getting an fee on it. indication that yes they are willing to pay that maintenance Corrie: I have no further questions Mr. Mayor. Hutchinson: As you can see it is pretty easy to optimize the land when you are operating within a square and you are making basically square lots it is easy to optimize the number of lots and still come up with something to turn over a large open space. Corrie: With this one (inaudible) Sharp and (inaudible) Hutchinson: In fact the neighbors in Carol subde itfle ca h nk we satisfied their concerns to that one. I believe once they saw this on y, basically. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, we are still in the public hearing? Kingsford: Right, was there anyone that wanted to make initial comments first that hadn't had an opportunity? Sharp: The question, one of them that I have he says that we are acting on phase one, we are not going to take into consideration phase 2. With that in mind then when they put a berm a fence or whatever all the way across there so there is no chance we have to worry about bringing phase 2, could that be a part of that. Do you understand what I am saying, all across the property. That way we know they can't connect that with phase 2. This is a very bad picture but you can see here the farm land, this is the proposed site right here and we are right here. We are saying right across here, all across there, why can't they put a big berm and a fence. At that point you don't have to worry about them being included with these two they can (inaudible) and those (inaudible) Wingate Lane is a private road. Morrow. I think there is some confusion here, phase one and phase 2 would be within this subdivision, I think that we are talking about Packard subdivision No. 1. Sharp: That is what I am saying, if you aencel o'r ome cleaa across the (north part of that 1 make it a stipulation that they have to f so it can't go into part of phase 2. Would have to be acted on separately with accesses and not crossing Wingate Lane. It would be across, see all across here (inaudible) they can't join this into this one and cross Wingate Lane. He says he is acting on it as phase Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 25 1 so I say make a stipulation it is phase 1 1 and he can't cross over in from there. acting independently so then we get to phase Morrow. To clear up some confusion here, this is Packard Subdivision No. 1 and it is totally independent of Packard Subdivision No. 2. Packard Subdivision no. 2 is, we are not even addressing, that is the ground that is directly in front of your place. Hutchinson: This has phase, four development phases. Morrow. The phases that he is referring to ar th t fences that groundsacross there aml issue you to address I believe is a fence correct? Sharp: Yes, so that it is complete, it is a complete phase right there and it doesn't involve that property that is on Wingate Lane. I still didn't hear (inaudible) the preliminary plat and quote and unquote, this is not the first one that was presented if has been changed and we no longer have that park. Sharp: I have to reiterate that if we ar fence on the (north s~de eah acrossstherebso that then we should have a fence a buffer there isn't any, so we don't tie it into the other ss bdot a buffer I clan guarantee thatl have a buffer there. The ditch and the ditch rider road a fence to the south of me on the subdivision and there is a street stubbed in there vrnth blocks but I tell you right now I get a lot of trash out in my pasture that blows out from that street entrance there. And I get a lot of people in fact Nampa Meridian Irrigation District at my request put up a cable across there so we didn't have motorcycles and cars and everything come through there. If it continues I am going to request a fence or a gate put up there and also to the east of me on my property so that we don't have people travelling down there and they throw rocks in my pasture and I get a lot of trash through there. That is why we are requesting if we are acting on this as subdivision no. 1 then we should have a fence across there to buffer it. Kingsford: Anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council, we have findings, are there significant changes from P & Z on the annexation now I am talking about. Morrow. I had some questions with respect to for Gary Smith for site specific comments and those issues. Have the responses from Mr. Hutchinson been satisfactory to both yours and Shari's comments that you mad soon wou d be do we knowwhow bmu h f the question. And then the follow up que maintenance costs us on a lift station? • Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 26 Smith: I can answer the second question, I don't know what the cost is for maintenance of a lift station. It is a daily maintenance item where one of our workers has to access the lift station and check it and of course the power costs are there for running of the pumps. But I don't have a dollar number for you, I do not know what that would be. I believe on your other question Councilman Morrow that the developers representative did meet with me and address my comments in a meeting and followed that with a written letter addressing the comments also. I did want to ask a question concerning the Highway District's comments on the preliminary plat. We are on the zone change, (Inaudible) How do we or how does the Council accept these staff recommendations from the Highway District, is that automatic acceptance or does it need to be part of the record specifically? Kingsford: I think Gary that they have to be a part of the record specifically, if the Council makes that as a condition then that is a condition of approval. As you know and Karen will probably attest to back there there have been occasions when we have not accepted ACHD's comments. For example to build a sidewalk when there is not a sidewalk within a mile and a half of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So there have been those sorts of things. Smith: If I may there are a couple of comments that Karen did make in her staff report that seem to be kind of significant in my mind. One has to do with the 126 lots of this subdivision being the maximum number of lots that are developed until such time that the 3 stub streets are extended to arterial. And the other item is the district will not sign the final plat for any part of this subdivision until the adjacent street system that it connects to Hickory Avenue becomes part of the public street system. Morrow. Now that is in reference to the Leader property? Smith: Yes sir. Morrow. And the other stub streets you are talking about are? Smith: There would be a stub street to the north, the east, and I guess the west. They speak specifically to the 3 stub streets. Morrow: The west could be tied in now according to (inaudible). Smith: The west could be tied in now, it is very circuitous to access Locust Grove from there but it can be accessed. Morrow. Okay the other issue is that what you are saying then is that once the entire build out of the subdivision is done because you are saying 126 lots? Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 27 Smith: Correct, that is all the lots in the subdivision. Morrow. There are 123 lots in the subdivision now. Smith: Okay, yes correct. • Morrow: So then at that point in time there is not further development of what ground? Smith: I assume they are talking abut the number 2, proposed number 2 subdivision. Because that subdivision accesses back into this subdivision. Morrow. I guess my next question would be is what does that relate to on the ground on the east side? Smith: I don't know. Kingsford: Since Karen is here why don't we ask here, Karen come up please and answer Mr. Morrow's question as to what your comments represented. For the record, Karen Gallagher, ACRD. Gallagher: Thank you Mr. Mayor, the comment as to the stub streets was in reference that his subdivision Packard No. 1 could be filled but had to have that connection to Hickory Way. We wanted that part of the street system to connect and be part of the public. At that time that was staffs analysis of what Hickory Way could accommodate. We thought it was 126 that might be including some common lots. With Packard No. 2 coming through and the original traffic study that we received on that it is doing a more technical analysis than what staff did of Hickory Way. So that statement may change pending the traffic study for Packard No. 2. Morrow: The issue with the eastem street on the eastem boundary? Is that into properties that are not subject to development at this time, that is a future stub street? Gallagher: To the west? Morrow: No, to the east. Gallagher: To the east, if I am following your question correctly, if that property intervening between Eagle and this property were to develop, obviously that would help the circulation for the subdivision. We are expecting that some time in the future, but without that connection we do have some circulation concerns in this area. Not for this subdivision as Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 28 it is but the future connections. Kingsford: Any other questions for Karen, thank you. Tolsma: I have a question for the attorney, when the (inaudible) number 14, (inaudible) Crookston: The last statement was, the sentence was not completed and that is my error. What the statement is is that there should be a fence between Packard No. 1 and Packard No. 2 because it is a private lane. The until, right now I can't remember it I would have to look back at my notes in preparation of these findings. Tolsma: So basically the findings are stating that there is supposed to be a fence between No. 1 and 2 separating Wingate Lane from this subdivision? Crookston: That is correct. Kingsford: Some direction Counselor, procedurally. The Council has now heard the preliminary plat testimony. And we obviously can't act on that if the property is not annexed. Is it not appropriate now that we go back to the annexation issue? Crookston: Yes it is. The other thing that I did want to comment on was that in regards to a preliminary plat, it has generally been held that the preliminary plat if you will is the guiding light. If you approve that then if you want to make changes above and beyond that it has already been approved and you cannot do that without the consent of the applicant for the preliminary plat. So if you have conditions they need to be stated. You can approve the plat subject to certain conditions. But if those conditions are met and then you want to do have something else done and the developer does not agree to it you are not allowed to do that. Kingsford: Well, we are trying to hear the old proverbial cart and horse and chicken and egg and so forth. Council has asked to hear the plat or see a plat before it is annexed because that is not the procedure. Let's revert back then to agenda item #7 and Council then considering that. There is no way you can deal further with the preliminary plat if you don't annex it. You have now seen that and that was your request. Crookston: This particular matter then needs to be tabled until you act on the annexation. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would that we table item 8. Yerrington: Second • Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 29 Kingsford: To a date certain please. Morrow. To 15 minutes from now, because we are going to act on item 7 and then we can discuss item 8 if I understood what he was saying correctly. Kingsford: I guess one of the things that you need to consider is has there been different testimony from the findings that you have and in which case they would have to be prepared and they couldn't act on that until the next meeting. Crookston: There are no findings on the plat. Kingsford: No, on the annexation is what I am saying. Which again you can't act on the plat until you have annexation. Crookston: That is correct, but we heard tonight was testimony on the plat that would not pertain to the annexation. (Inaudible) Kingsford: Let me run this by you one more time Wayne, we had testimony on the annexation last meeting, was there different testimony at the last meeting than what was at Planning and Zoning? Crookston: No Morrow. I have a question with respect to these findings of fact given that page 14, item 14 (Discussion Inaudible) Crookston: Yes, I would prefer to have a period after lane and the until stricken. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I am prepared to move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as passed onto us by P & Z with the amendment to item 14 on page 14 that at the end of private lane be a period and that we strike the word until. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z for annexation and zoning for Packard Subdivision No. 1 amending item 14, page 14 putting a period after private lane and Meridian City Council July 18, 1995 Page 30 striking the word until from the paragraph, roll call vote. • ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion for the City attorney then to prepare an ordinance? Morrow. Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare the annexation and zoning ordinance. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attorney prepare annexation and zoning ordinance for Packard Subdivision No. 1, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Now then item #8, it would be appropriate to table until that ordinance is passed. Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table item #8 preliminary plat until the annexation and zoning ordinance is approved, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 20.67 ACRES TO C-G BY W. H. MOORE: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Winston to speak first or his designee. Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. (End of Tape) Bowcutt: This is an application for annexation and rezone of a property located just west • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JULY 18.1995 APPLICANT PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION ITEM NUMBER; 7 8~ 8 REQUEST; ANNEXATION/ZONING/PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: P St Z MINUTES FROM 4-11-95 CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ^~ ~3` SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~~/ ~L~ " 1` ~~ ~~ ~~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. c c. rvc JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary TO: PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION 3131 LANARK STREET MERIDIAN, ID 83642 FROM: Karen Gallagher, C i at Development Servic s si n SUBJECT: PACKARD- PRELIMINAR April 6, 199 On APRIL 5, 1995, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the Preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: 1. Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of--way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District: a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho Registered Professional Engineer, together with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. AE'i3 1 U ~~~;a li! i ~ ~0 l`iLM,LyLi~~, ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 AD~COUNTY HIGHWAY I~STRI CT Development Services Division Preliminary Report Preliminary Plat and Annexation -Packard Meridian Packard is a 126-lot residential subdivision on 39.9-acres. The site is located 1/4-mile north of Fairview Avenue and 1/4-mile west of Eagle Road. This development is estimated to generate 1204 additional vehicle trips per day. Roads impacted by development are: FAIRVIEW AVENUE -Arterial street with a bike lane designation - Traffic count 16,470 in 1990 EAGLE ROAD - ITD jurisdiction -Arterial street - Traffic count 12,000 from traffic study (350 trips will be added) HICKORY AVENUE -Collector street with no pathway designation (1,200 trips added) ~ USTICK RD. I SITE o I a ~ I q Z ~ (V TAZ 265 (Y TAZ 144 Q > /~~ W , /// r~ / ~ DOwS D ¢ ~UBDIVI L FAIRVIEW AVE I ~ TREASURE a VALLEY V BUSINESS ~ PARK I ~ ~ TAZ 145 I I I - - - - - - TAZ 266 - - - - - - - - PINE ST. I I FRANKLIN RD. Packard ACRD Commission Date April 5, 1995 L_J Facts and Findings: A. General Information R-4 -Zoning 126 -Lots 39.9 -Acres 265 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District n Hickory Avenue Collector with no pathway designation 60-feet of frontage on the future right-of--way that has been approved as a preliminary plat 60-feet of right-of--way to be platted (30-feet from centerline) 60-feet required right-of--way for the extension of Hickory Avenue (30-feet from centerline) Hickory Avenue is improved with a 41-feet street section south of the site; the improvements do not reach the site, but will with the completion of a later phase of Dove Meadows. B. This is a modification to the original preliminary plat submittal. No action was taken on the original submittal. Staff has had several meetings with the representatives of this subdivision to discuss stub streets and traffic flow. Staff supports the stub streets as proposed. C. A traffic study was submitted and review for this subdivision. The traffic study was completed for 135 residential lots; the number of lots has been reduced to 126 buildable lots. D. Staff recommends that Hickory Avenue continue as a 41-foot back-to-back street section with a 60-foot right-of--way from the south boundary to the first internal intersection. Direct lot access to Hickory Avenue will be restricted. The preliminary plat shows Hickory Avenue with 60-feet of right-of--way with a landscaped median. Both travel lanes of Hickory Avenue should maintain a minimum width of 21-feet between backs of curbs. E. Staff can accept culdesacs having a 29-foot street section with 5-foot sidewalks and a 42-foot right-of--way for those culdesacs generating less than 200-trips per day. The 29-foot street section restricts parking on one side. Staff discussed the 29-foot street section with the applicant and supports the reduced street section on two of the culdesacs, Chandra Way and Mindy Place, since the loss of parking on one side of the street would directly effect only one lot in each of those cases. F. Unless otherwise specified, staff recommends that all internal local streets be constructed as Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 2 i • a 60-foot right-of--way. If a landscaped median is constructed, maintain a minimum width of 21-feet from back of curb on both sides of the median. 2. Direct lot or parcel access to Hickory Avenue is prohibited, in compliance with District policy. Lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat. The District will not sign the final plat for any part of this subdivision until the adjacent street system that it connects to, Hickory Avenue, becomes part of the public street system. 4. Construct all other internal streets to a 37-foot back-to-back street section with 5-foot (Meridian width requirement) and a 50-foot right-of--way. , 5. Two of the knuckles or half culdesacs shall be constructed with median islands, maintaining a minimum travel width of 21-feet to the back of curb. Coordinate with District Traffic Services Division. 6. All landscaped medians shall be separate platted lots owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 7. Maintain a minimum radius of 100-feet on all curves having other than 90-degree angles of deflection. Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar davs of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity and minimum fee of $110.00. 2. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5-feet from the side lot property lines when driveways are not being shared with the adjacent property. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drainage appurtenances, etc.) outside of the proposed street improvements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 4. Aright-of--way permit must be obtained from ACHD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of--way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 4 ACRD. 15. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. Staff Submitting Date of Commissi n A oval: APR ~ Karen Gallagher Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 6 • ! Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 15 Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table items 10 and 11 the final plats for Lost Alamitos and Salmon Rapids Subdivisions No. 2 until the July 5th meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Mr. Mayor, can I make one more comment, just for the applicant and their representatives that might be here tonight. I hope they understand that this is being taken very seriously by me because for the welfare of the people that are already here utilizing water. I hope I am not over-reacting I just felt like I needed a few minutes to get a good assessment on what the situation is and give you the best information possible for decisions. ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 39.87 ACRES TO R-4 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONTRUCTION (PACKARD SUBDIVISION): Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Ted Hutchinson, Tealy's Land Surveying, 109 South Fort Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we are requesting annexation of about just under 40 acres of ground, we are adjacent to the city limits on 2 sides. We have Wingate Place subdivision on the west side and the next phase whenever it comes before you of Dove Meadows on the south as well as the Capital Christian Center on the south. We are located west of Eagle Road there is a 1/4 mile separation between Eagle Road and our site. We are also a 1/4 mile north of Fairview. We do stretch, we are about that square 1/4 in there. There is a subdivision application which was delayed at the Planning and Zoning level we believe we have everything ironed out at their last meeting they recommended approval and passed that on. That subdivision request will be coming before you. The area surrounding the site is predominantly residential zones, there is R-8 to the west which has the smaller lot sizes and R-4 I believe to the south. We are proposing that this be annexed for residential development with an R-4 density. The lots will be at least the minimum lot size would meet the R-4 zoning standards. The lot sizes that we are proposing range from 8,000 to almost 20,000 square feet. We have reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission. We agree with those basically I believe they were recommending that this be annexed and that there were several requirements that were included. However there seem to be some confusion because we are also submitting Packard Subdivision No. 2 which is going to be north of this site and north of that or adjacent to that • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 16 in fact running through the middle of that is a portion of Wingate Lane which is not a public road and I don't believe it is an approved private road by Ada County. But there was some confusion about the development that should occur next to those properties that front on Wingate Lane. And basically those are properties that are north of the South Slough excuse me there is a lateral that runs in there, north of that lateral that is south of Carol Subdivision. I think there was some confusion in the findings concerning any development that occurs against those. I think that basically shoudl be reserved until Packard Subdivision No. 2 comes along which will be, in fact it will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission this Thursday night. Anyway (End of Tape) Again on page 3 there is some confusion regarding Wingate Lane and how much development of Packard Subdivision No. 1 would affect those parcels that are on Wingate Lane. Virtually none of those parcels will be affected by this particular development. The Packard Subdivision No. 1 that we are proposing to develop in four phases the first phase would be the far southwest portion of the site. The second phase would extend up to the lateral which forms our northern boundary and phase 3 the northeast comer and finally phase four being the southeast comer just north of the Capital Care Center or Capital Christian Center. The findings and conclusions particularly in the requirements and we are just talking about the annexation and zoning of this particular piece of ground we understand that the City of Meridian prefers development agreements. The developer has picked up a copy of the development agreement, I believe they are getting that ready so that it can be submitted to the City of Meridian for review and ultimate adoption. We would like to ask if you look at page 13 beginning on page 13 where we talk about the issue at hand which is the annexation and in the findings it says that the application for annexation and zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan it is not in conflict with the rural sections. It discusses the large lots in the Wingate Lane area and the Carol Subdivision area in requiring buffering. In the design of the subdivision which will be coming before you we have proposed some pretty good sized lots up against the Carol Subdivision and we have added considerable amounts of depth to those lots so that we can require an additional rear yard setback to provide some distance between any dwellings that may be developed in the Packard Subdivision and the existing dwellings in Carol Subdivision. The lots on the Wingate Lane we will specifically address when we bring forward the Packard Subdivision No. 2 should be noted at this point that the lots along Wingate are not developed to their full potential. Basically these are unplatted parcels. They range in size from probably an acre to five acres or more. Basically they do have a considerable redevelopment potential. Conversely the lots in the Carol Subdivision are fully developed and there would be, there really is no comparison between the lots that lie in Carol Subdivision and those that are in the Wingate area. There is little or no opportunity for redevelopment of Carol Subdivision, however the lots along Wingate Lane are large tracts that will in all likelihood redevelop at least to an R-4 density. Although the current property owners may or may not be inclined to develop their property a realistic evaluation of the property value is based on the redevelopment potential for those parcels. The highest and Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 17 • best use of those tracts is not going to be 1 to 5 acre parcels. The highest and best use will be found in the development of lots that are 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. Particularly those tracts that are next to the Kearney Place Subdivision, Wingate Place and Chamberlain Estates Subdivisions. For those parcels closer to Ustick Road most of that redevelopment will most likely be similar to the development which has been approved north of Wingate. So we ask that in your review of the findings and before you issue the findings we would ask that you maybe take a look at those items that do not specifically affect Packard No. 1 which is the 39.87 acres south of the lateral. Again, we are contiguous to the City limits, your comprehensive Plan has designated this as a residential zone. We are trying to provide for buffering between the Carol Subdivision which is an acre lot subdivision currently under county jurisdiction and those smaller lot subdivisions which are located within the Meridian City limits. Those basically have an R-8 density and have lots as small as I believe about 6,000 square feet. We do comply with the provisions of your Comprehensive Plan, the subdivision will be in compliance with your zoning ordinance and development standards. We ask that you annex this property with the zone of R-4. Are there any questions from the Council? Kingsford: Questions from the Council? Mr. Morrow? Morrow: I have some, is my packet missing, there is no proposed, in my information, there is no proposed lot layout or any of those kinds of things. Kingsford: He is indicating that is still at P & Z. Morrow: The question is why is not with this? Hutchinson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Morrow, the application, the P & Z held it up they felt comfortable with the annexation when they acted on the annexation. However, they had a couple of questions for the City Engineer so they delayed the application for the subdivision. At their last meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval and passed the subdivision proposal on for you. I am not sure when that is going to be scheduled for you. Kingsford: You didn't receive this map, I thought that everyone received it. I don't have it out here I have seen it. Hutchinson: I have a view foil, I don't know if you have an overhead projector. Kingsford: We don't right here. Do you have any other questions? Morrow: Not at this time. • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 18 Kingsford: I would comment then that the Council should have received a letter that we received today from Mr. Vern Alleman with regard to his comments. If he would like to make those he is welcome to but we will include that in the record. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony? Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: I am one of those confused individuals that he is talking about. I don't know what the distinction is between Packard 1 and Packard 2. Is it my understanding that what is on the agenda tonight is that parcel south of Carol Subdivision? Or does anybody know on the Council? (Inaudible) Brian: On that parcel my ditch lateral runs the entire length of the east side if I am not mistaken and on the entire south side also. I haven't got a copy of the findings from the planning and zoning so I am not aware of what it states in there but I voiced by concern at the Planning and Zoning meeting about as they progress through this subdivision in phases of 1, 2, 3 and 4 they are working right around that lateral. It was my wishes at the time of planning and zoning to persuade them to get all the ground work such as the tiling of that ditch done as soon as they start phase 1 and get that out of the way so it doesn't lead onto a situation that we have in Dove Meadows which is adjacent and they waited until the last, they waited until their subdivision approval ran out of time and hasn't been approved. They haven't buried that ditch yet and we still have problems with the ditch out there. Because they waited until the final phase in the Dove Meadows project to that ditch burying and now the final phase of Dove Meadows has lapsed and they haven't got anything going. That ditch is going to lay open for another year or however long it takes to get it developed. I would like to keep that from happening in this development and get that ditch buried and out of the way and get me out of your guys hair for the next 4 phases of this subdivision. I don't know if that was addressed in the findings or not if they are going to do that. There is also a question of where that ditch lies and whose land it lies on, whether it is one the developers side or if it is on the church property side and back on the east side. I don't think anybody even knows where it is because it is buried and there are a couple of ditches going over the top of it. So I don't know what is going to happen out there and as that all becomes developed and the undeveloped portion to the road that is all going to end up being buried. I know there is a problem with that ditch lateral. I get to go out there and, I don't know what it is every 400 feet and check one of the clean out boxes and find out what the problem is for 5,000 feet down to my place. That whole ditch line is going to be in people's back yards all the way to my property when that development is all done. I would just like to see that ditch be taken care of as they start phase one or before and make that a requirement of the developer to get that out of • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 19 everybody's hair. Also take care of the problems we had pending with the Dove Meadows Ditch on what is going to happen with that. Because I don't know where that stands or what the status is of that, what they are going to do. It is a temporary ditch now, Dan Wood' development and Wingate Lane he has done his part, he has buried his ditch and I am sure when he does phase 2 of Wingate he will do his tiling but nothing has been done in Dove Meadows other than problems and relocation as a temporary stuff. It is anybody's guess how long that is going to lay out there. That is all I have. Kingsford: Do you have any questions? Morrow: I guess my only question would be is that we are getting some relief there with respect to the flooding. These issues that you are discussing now are with respect to the supply of water to your. Brian: Right, the live water coming to feed me. The drain water, to give you the rest of the Councilmen an update on the drain water that I had problems with last year or the last four years of flooding I have been dealing with the Avest people on the Fred Meyer property and they have put in a temporary ditch and a diversion that has taken care of the flooding problem so I haven't been flooded out this year yet. This is just the live ditch. Kingsford: I didn't know if it was that or you just didn't like me anymore that I hadn't seen you. Brian: There is more to life than City Council. Kingsford: Thank you Don, anyone else from the public? Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I am at the end of Wingate Lane and of course we have lived there numerous years and I of course would disagree with the developer in that we are not using our land to the maximum. Not everybody wants to live in a subdivision, we kind of like the idea that we bought five acres, we would like to see it that way. We moved out there in that country lane that we maintain, we would like to keep it that way and while it does not directly affect this particular he was the one that suggested in time it will because Wingate Lane is going to be involved in it. The main reasons that I am against this annexation is because it is going to open too many doors and the services are not there. The developer knew when he bought this land and proceeded to develop that at this time water and sewer are not available. Should this board or this Council of the City of Meridian grant this then I would assume since part of the niceties or good things about (inaudible) are the services that are to be provided being sewer and water. If they are not there that could be lift station with • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 20 • the lift station that of course would be another expense for the City of Meridian. And I don't believe that the Meridian residents should be burdened with an expense to the betterment of a developer so he could have what he wants. And I think that, I (inaudible) I think that is very evident when the plat itself is not being presented at this time along with the zoning and the request for annexation. I think this one way to put guilt upon this board they have spent so many dollars to start this and it is easy to say what do I do with it now. i can't economically feasibly sit on it and wait for an action that is (inaudible) and the feasibility of any project (inaudible) why this board should even consider it. It certain is not there, we have another real serious problem, we are asking our kids to go to schools that are overcrowded and I think the public has spoken very strongly when they denied the last bond issue. And it is going to get progressively worse. We do know that the children that live right in the immediate area of St. Joseph school cannot attend and what will this do with the school if they continue to build right close by it. Also the traffic, the traffic is horrendous if you live in that and (inaudible) back to phase 2 crossing private lane Wingate because they want to go off Locust Grove (inaudible) even Locust Grove now is worse than Wingate Lane which is a private lane. We do keep that maintained. Of course our question and our concerns are stop it now before it gets even further out of hand. You can annex this which would be an opening for phase 2, why do we have to be concerned about that. We are talking about this specific piece of land and I say now we do not have the services, we know the services are up there (inaudible) I don't think it should be granted. Here again I think if Planning and Zoning was not willing to give it to you as a total package they gave it to you in parts then it should be acted on this until we find out just exactly what the proposals are. Thank you. Kingsford: Questions for Mrs. Sharp? Anyone else from the public? Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I kind of resent the fact that this is being presented in a piece meal fashion where you say Packard No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and they know darn well it hinges on crossing Wingate Lane and this is a private lane and you are going to affect the traffic on that lane and they say well people won't use that lane, but they will. They will use it because they got to leave us access to Ustick from our place. And they say they will use the paved lane but people come down there and try and use it just for a short cut to Ustick and also if this happens these different phases they will try and use Wingate Lane to bring their construction equipment in if this is approved for these different phases. I do have water pressure of the neighbor over in the subdivision south of me. He said we just have a trickle that is coming out of there. Putting it mildly he was not very happy. As far as the annexations and zoning there, they don't have the sewer. The schools are overcrowded and the public has spoken and said something has to be done here. We don't have this now and we are just compounding it if we continue to annex and place these subdivisions • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 21 • in existence. As far as putting bigger lots and so forth close the Carol Subdivision we would like also to have bigger lots and so forth closer to our property if these are approved. We have been out there 30 years practically and I think we deserve just as much consideration as Carol Subdivision residents. In fact we, they were going to put mobile homes in that Carol Subdivision and we opposed that. Now we have a beautiful subdivision, why can't we have something like this going on instead of these small and (inaudible) where people don't have enough room and so they get, there is always these people get mad and everything else. I think it is just because they don't have enough room they don't have any privacy and if a house starts on fire the next house starts on fire and that happened right over here, right over south of Meridian. So, I think we need to look at these things before we ever approve. These piece meal planning and approval of these things I am just opposed to it and I am opposed to this annexation. Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Sharp? Corrie: Wingate Lane, is that, you say it is a private lane and who is that owned by, is that owned by you? Sharp: We have access the property owners have access down there and it was granted in 1913. Kingsford: Who is the owner of the deed, does it go as it progresses. Sharp: As it progresses down right. Morrow: So each property owner owns a portion of the lane and then you maintain it. Sharp: I might offer more we went to Ada County Planning and Zoning here abut 4 or 5 years ago and at that time they said there would be no more single family residential permits off of Wingate Lane. If you do cross Wingate Lane and put those houses up there that is going to in effect put more permits off of that lane. At the time they said okay we will allow this one property to build a house there then subsequent to that an individual down at the end of the lane bought some property and they denied it solely on that basis. So I think that when you start affecting the people that live on Wingate Lane I think you should give us some consideration because we have been there a long time and we have been supportive of Meridian, Ada County and the State of Idaho. Kingsford: Any other questions? Anyone else from the public? Floyd Reichert, 2575 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 22 Reichert: I would like to give a little input on the clarity of Wingate Lane. When it was dedicated by the land owners as the East 15 feet of the northwest section. It is recorded on a contract of agreement, recorded at the court house. Wingate Lane is one the property of those on the west side of the lane. I have asked repeatedly from people on the east side of the lane to dedicate right of way when they build their home and they have never dedicated any footage other than 2 homes. Those 2 homes have dedicated 25 feet but they piled rocks out there and planted trees that you can't use the east side of the lane. If you need be I can bring that document from the court house that was recorded down there in 1913 of who owns that 15 feet. It is the property owners on the west side of the lane. It is the east 15 feet of their boundary. Kingsford: Can I ask you a question please? That being the case, you're the ownership Mr. Sharp's question confused me. The owner of this property then would be able to traverse across that lane because they do not own it, am I right there? Reichert: If you are looking at the first subdivision that you look out (inaudible) property that is directly east of my property doesn't have it, that was the old Kirkpatrick place when moved out there. The property that is south or north of my property owns the 15 feet, owns Wingate Lane. Just like the man that owns the property and paid taxes on it for 40 years on the end down there of Ustick that can't use it owns it and pays taxes on it. Any other questions? Kingsford: Let's see if there is other comment first please. Anyone else from the public? Your response. Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Mayor, again I am Ted Hutchinson of Tealey's Land Surveying, a lot of the, 1 think we are getting into issues that will be specifically addressed when we get to Packard Subdivision No. 2 and I believe that most of you have, somehow that got into your packet for tonight and that is coming forward to you. I have a map of the area that shows the location of our property in relation to the development and I will submit this into you. This is Fairview Avenue here, Eagle Road, Locust Grove. We have Wingate Place Subdivision No. 1, No. 2 I believe is going to be to the west of that. Kearney Place Subdivision is here. Dove Meadows is in this area down in here with the Capital Christian Center being located here. The hatch part here is our proposal is 39.87 acres just barely under 40 acres. I believe it is Hickory Way is the road that goes into Dove Meadows, we will have to extend Hickory Way into our property to get access to Fairview Avenue. Then we will develop basically phase 1 is this area down here and then phase 2 of here, phase 3 and then phase 4. Wingate Lane is this area that runs from Ustick Road down to the Sharps's property which is right here in the corner. Again Kearney Lane is immediately south of Sharp's, R-8 6,000 square foot lots. Chateau Meadows No. 6 is also R-8 forms the Western boundary of the Sharp property. Wingate Lane as they have indicated was • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 24 Hutchinson: Certainly, right now there is water at the end of Hickory Way which is in Dove Meadows and we will extend water, that is , in talking with your Water Superintendent I believe that was a 10 inch line. We will extend the 10 inch line into Packard and through Packard to the north so that it will continue with a 10 inch line to the north. I believe we also have to take the ten inch line out to either 8 or 10 inch I can't recall whether it is 8 or 10 that we extend to the property to the east. Sewer right now, there is sewer in Dove Meadows, we have worked with Gary Smith the City Engineer and we recognize that it is going to take a temporary lift station. There will be a temporary lift station that would service just this parcel. We understand that if we when we submit this which is already in the process that the sewer for this will come through the extension of the south slough which is up in this area here. So this will be sewered by gravity and then once this is fully developed in here then the temporary lift station will be able to be taken off and this whole thing would gravity to the south slough trunk line. So there really are services available to this, water and sewer. All be it we will be using a temporary lift station but we will work that out with and make sure it is complete to the City Engineer's satisfaction. This would be temporarily on a lift station. As soon as this one, sewer was extended through this then the lift station would be removed. Morrow: Question, what does temporary mean? Hutchinson: Well, as soon as the sewer from the north is extended. Morrow: I understand, is that 5 years, 10 years? Hutchinson: I don't have a time frame on that. Morrow: Who maintains the temporary lift station? Hutchinson: I believe the City of Meridian maintains the lift station. Corrie: So in other words if you don't do that No. 2 for 15 years we have a lift station for 15 years. Hutchinson: That would be correct. Corrie: That is expensive. Kingsford: Any other questions? Anyone else from the audience? (Inaudible) • • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 25 Kingsford: Well, we take your testimony whatever it is you wish to offer. Would you come up here so we have you on tape please? Sharp: On this drawing that he gave you may I see something please? Now if I can get this turned around so I really know where I am. We are on the corner this is our corner and the corner of the subdivision are right together. One of the problems that we heard when it went to Planning and Zoning and I talked to the engineer and the Attorney for the Highway Department, there has to be 2 accesses into and out of the properties. The drawing that was submitted originally to Planning and Zoning had one. This is where Phase 2 comes in and we have to take into consideration because in order to have that separate access they want to develop this 2 crossing Wingate Lane and going out through Locust Grove. There is not any immediate plans for Locust Grove and we know I have attended (inaudible) studies done on Locust Grove. We have a light at Locust Grove and they are going to do something about that intersection is coming in there. Nothing is being planned for Locust Grove from Fairview to Ustick until 2001 and that is only because Fred Met'er's is coming in there and because of the traffic. When this was brought up someone said just because someone works at Micron does that mean they live at Columbia Village, and I'm saying I hope not. (Inaudible) same as our situation here with Fred Met'er's and (inaudible) live in one of these subdivisions immediately close to it. We talked about the (inaudible) how is Meridian going to benefit. We are going to get an expense (inaudible) thank you for asking what temporary meant that could mean 30 years. The only one that is going to benefit is the developer (inaudible) with that tax base and (inaudible) but if you had a $125,000 house (inaudible) of that money that you pay for taxes you would have $481 that would go to the school district (inaudible) $2600 to educate a child in the Meridian School District. (Inaudible) there is also the funds that come from (inaudible) and I know we don't pay State taxes or Federal taxes all we pay is property taxes. So where is this money going to come from? Here again when you are talking about broadening the tax base it is a false front. If that was a big (inaudible) such a tremendous problem with our schools. If our tax is so good with this tremendous influx of subdivisions. Here again the only ones benefitting are developers. We have a high water table there, 18 inches down we have hard pan and that is going to be brought up when the Brown property comes into play again because (inaudible) the hard pan and the water won't flow. We have 6 inches of water in one of the houses just to the (inaudible). We cannot ignore this (inaudible) here again since we don't have the plat (inaudible) do we or do we not have (inaudible) says there has to be. I for one say think about please think about this before you grant it. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Mick Dauvin, 2820 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dauvin. Just a couple quick comments, I would think we would probably want to see a • Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 26 L J complete plot or plan before from P & Z before you act on an approval. Is there easements granted for the permanent sewer line along the slough. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council members, Mr. Crookston has there been significant changes since the findings of P & Z? Crookston: There have been people that did not testify at P & Z. I don't believe that the comments are significantly different from what was presented at P & Z though. Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, from my perspective, and I am going to be consistent here with my long held position that is that I am not seeing a whole project. I don't intend to vote for these findings of fact if that is in fact what the motion is until I see a whole project. I think that it makes good sense from the stand point of the development teams and the contractor teams and from the City's perspective, the neighbors perspective that we see the entire thing. If we have got part of this held up at P & Z for actions there I think that we need to see that. My major reason for that is that as a City the major hammer that we have is that point of annexation. I want the loose ends tied up at the point of annexation so that it is clear in our minds as a City, our citizens mind, the developers mind and the builders mind exactly who gets what and who does what and all of those issues are resolved upfront and not at some point later. So, from my perspective I am not prepared to vote on these findings of fact and conclusions until t see the rest of the information. Kingsford: When you say that you mean specifically the plat? Morrow: The plat and those things that are related to this 40 acre subdivision. I would think as a word of caution to the engineering folk it looks to me like there are some other issues out there that and to the developer that maybe ought to be resolved because I can see that some of those are real valid issues. And that would be a secondary point of access and Wingate Lane, how you effectively keep people from using it if you are going to tie into it and those kinds of things long term. That does affect this subdivision and it does affect the neighbors at some point in the future. So I would like to hear some comments with respect to that also or those issues being addressed at least. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Walt's sentiments entirely. Also, in relation to Mr. Alleman's comments here on the park that was originally proposed there which is no longer out there I would like to see where that City park is going to be or where the community park is going to be or where the green area or open area is supposed to be inside that subdivision. Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 27 (Inaudible) u Kingsford: Sir, we have closed the public hearing and at a minimum we would need to have this on tape but those are issues that I think need to parallel or at least the Council is saying needs to parallel or at least the Council is saying needs to parallel the annexation. That they want to have that either with or have these things before they approve the annexation. (Inaudible) Kingsford: Shari, are you aware of that? July 18th they are saying. (Inaudible) Kingsford: I understand that what this Council would like to have as this annexation is proceeding is that in front of them as to what is going to happen with the property. Planning and Zoning has had that this Council has not seen that plat. That is as I am hearing their comfort level is they need to have that. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, also, I have some problems with this lift station it looks to me like you should flip flop your subdivisions around. What, if you don't do number 2 for 10 or 15 years and let's say we don't have the population or growth pattern we are stuck with a lift station cost. Is there, I think you should look at it the other way around. Get those problems solved and then not have to do your lift station. So, I agree with the other 2 Councilmen, I am not at ease with this at all and wouldn't put it to a vote either. Just for the comments of the developers. Morrow: If I might raise another point Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that maybe part of what is remiss here is that I guess my preference would be that P & Z not pass on these issues piece meal. I don't know that is fair to us it is not fair to the public or the development teams. I would think that it would make sense that either we get the whole thing from them or nothing from them and if they are uncomfortable with parts then they hold it until they are comfortable with the entire project and then forward it as one project. It seems to me like there is some room for improvements there. Kingsford: Other comments? What is your pleasure? Morrow: My pleasure would be to table this until we received the second portion of it and then look at the whole thing. If that is July 18th that we are going to receive that than I would move that we table this until July 18th. Meridian City Council June 20, 1995 Page 28 Tolsma: Second Kingsford: A question then that I would have, you are saying the second part, now Shari is Packard No. 2 on for the 18th? 1 wanted to be clear on what you said. Morrow: The second part has nothing to do with Packard No. 2. Kingsford: You are talking about the plat for Packard No. 1 this property? Morrow: Yes Kingsford: You have heard the motion and second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: I assume that you have those maps and we should be able to see those forthwith. Even though the P & Z has them the Council should see those. (End of Tape) ITEM #13: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed that, is there any question or discussion? Tolsma: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Is that right Shari, number 3 is the correct one for Crossroads No. 3 am I right? Is that the one that they are asking for the extension on? That is correct. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move that we grant the extension to Crossroads Subdivision No. 3 until the first meeting in, well first of July 1996. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to grant the extension on Crossroads subdivision No. 3 until the first meeting in July, 1996 all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION: ~ • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JUNE 20.1995 APPLICANT PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION ITEM NUMBER; 12 REQUEST; PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 39 87 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: MINUTES FROM 4-11-95 P&Z MEETING CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONLUSIONS OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~ti^~~ ~/ ~> ~ !~ r `~ All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. SUP~TENDENT OF SCHOOLS ob L. Haley Q Ex CE DEPUTYSUPERINTENDENT ~O ~~ Dan Mabe, Finance & Administration ~y ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT ,~~\r~~ n Christine Donnell, Personnel & Instruction ~^ DIRECTORS Sheryl Belknap, Elementary Jim Carberry, Secondary Doug Rutan, Special Services JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911 MERIDIAN STREET MERIDIAN, IDAH083642 PHONE (208)888-6701 ~2 Q ~~ March 24, 1995 City of Meridian ,_~~ . _. .. -. 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Packard Subdivision Dear Councilmen: I have reviewed the application for Packard Subdivision and find that it includes approximately 126 homes at a median value of $130,000. We also find that this subdivision is located in census tract 103.11 and in the attendance zone for Chief Joseph Elementary, Meridian Middle School and Eagle High School. The School District may be required to transport elementary students that may have capacity, due to overcrowding at Chief Joseph Elementary. Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 44 elementary aged children, 31 middle school aged children, and 29 senior high aged students. At the present time Chief Joseph Elementary is at 119% of capacity. The Meridian School District is not opposed to growth in our district, however this subdivision will cause increased over- crowding in all three schools. There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. Before we could support this subdivision, we would need land dedicated to the district or at least made available at a minimum price for a school site in this area. The site would need water and sewer services available. In addition we would need to pass another bond issue for the construction of schools. Even if we were willing to use portable classrooms for a year or two, this project would require two classrooms at the elementary level, one at the middle school level and one at the high school level. To build portables ready to occupy by students will cost approximately $40,000 each. As you can see the total for four portables would be $160,000. We would welcome a meeting with you to find ways of mitigating the projected costs to the school district. We are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools. Sincerely, 15an Mabe Deputy Superintendent DM:gr • • ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR 650 Main Street Boise, ID 83702 (208)364-2400 p~u~~ Leo S c~~.~~ yiridy Name of Subdivision Parcel Numbers S//05~~7 ~O~ SEC REC~I'V'~~1 APR - 4 t~~5 CITY OF 1'~ERII}IA~1 TWN. 3~ RNG. Owners of Record ,C D M d lU OS G O ~ll.S i •P uc Ti a./..;C~ ~U zD9hro ~. o.e Pa.e•4 r ~o~v~ ~~1~-!~D C D~ P~~eA i r d ~y ~3tio A- /2I A!~/2/ ~ D /17 ~4 ~t/. Reviewed by: ~'f~:li ~. ~ ~~Deputy Assessor -- Acreage: ~ ~* ~7'~ Date: ~'a 9- y-s~ - Y {i -} C`~ _. -f ~ i ~ ( I~1 ~. I .~J .t 1 t.l a L..J v .J ~ I ~ I C' 4 J ~ti L-I -, - ji ,. (. , ~'~ C: a C, ~;~~ i1 l'~ t=~ ~_! ~~ 1 i i g ~' t- .?. 4' ~.~ t _ -= 2 i~1 i ): t't [.,. ,.. ', ! i. . F~ ~- .. r'+ L! t` ~ ice' _~ SJ , ,..a •.~, n , _. a ~:7.L' .. ..: 1~=: i'a4::F~C.i7'f• )-~!:~it-}'~. 'te`a( ~~~ ~ .i! .- 1._~_~CJ :J a ;.~ ...I. t Sri lvrt..L l_~_~. 1:.4 j.E'_'l`~ E?t li~ ~t~'-f ~-~r_:, G .~'_)~j 1 ~_. 1 [', ~;I,_I,} t~? .- n t) ~• .-(_) n t it J :)l.S 1 ..._:~ f~-.:.~`,',I, I(,~ r: 1. C+ _ f~ d Fi F? <_,. r' i r7 +~_ i_ ~ - .-t 'y ~ )- =_ e s'~ i ± I~ ~:~ f~ i ~l r.._> F=~ ~ . ._t ~ :i ~ l .--• i; t f1 L v . ~: )'- ~t n d ~ 1.1 ' s r ~_l E_'.t11_!t-~i? -I-'•./('7,~.~ t-i i"t ! ._ _.. j-`/,-? (r_, + ~~ <`I. -. ti ... ~ 4 .._ . T _a t:: to+_! ;~ ~r- ,~~ ~, i }-, t: G , ~ iwJ'? n c ~i. i' E3 i?" n +>> 1. X14_ C)i1 i'!?'t_ _- ~h_`_~n ~~t i'~'C~~L)~i ~,::]~. { . c! ~. L: 1.1 1. cl '~: Fi f j ~''I 1 Cl '-, ` .-~ ~ - r - <•~; .r~,f:_~l Ft•-~~:ai:;n ~;L°~.:i. n.~':L f;~=1.a!.t:i..,:~ ~,i_.~ !.,t_ ~~l:.;raE L., i :i I_t 1'- _ E? i t~~ .)_ .).:...:i. ~.'t i_t t' ! _' `d <:~ 1 !.l (l?'=i ! t~ t: ,7 i l =` f: t?a ij `d <3 1. ! .l f~ c_ I f•: E"_ 1 t~ l_t c'a 1 'd c?. 1. !_l (~ ~a_ i. i ~ t~c1--ter! ;'-~_' jL: _ ~ :_ ,_ ~ __ __ + 1 i ~y i ,~.__ f ..,,., _ _ _ ~~~~ r_4~ )"-1~~•_f L'_ 1. .:~C_'`.I. n i (_, I (~)._i 1{•)_..I.j( j "~ i i'kafi~= _.ri.G'-.:_;f.-: «:) 1 ~~i^_? „ ~~~ ~ ra~~ -~rH'-~~~.,6~d 1. ~:~~'_:=; . ~':~~ i .+. ,:_,--i;rj-i;;i~; ~~+ i i~a+:::;,: )._~_:-- i ~~. ~ :~ ~ r- n ~;__ ! rai~)i_;'-t~ ; .._ t ;:='r-: :z :~ 1.= n e=,,_, .__ ,.~ - i ,.. J~J .1 t:~.i= ~1'"t!t_ll'l,~ t=~f•..}t... Iill~ i'I:t~~t° ,~7~~' 1 n b 1. i~i Hl~.~i ~_ _ ~~C7 ~r ~ t._ Tt,d ~,1... ~ ~, ._ ,::}'v i'`! f..l i 'i 1 h: t- :~! ~d E-~ r- :s ~•, ?~ i 1. ~ .,' i--I C1 r'~ L:_ : ' F:~ ~1 F::t - T E_. r'i r'' ; (~; ^ ~ ~:;1 ~" f;; ('t'~I i E=` ri C F~; ~~1 F~' ~+ . '~ R i-"i ~,~ i_ia (-jy i_) , f;)i_i l 1 , i_ii} . ~ • F'ri nt K:ey ~:~;utpufi F'~=ige 1 5738,:: 1 'J2~~3M0 93 121 "7 ~_ 1021186 03 /29/95 14:48:16 Ci~~pl,~iy C1evi ce ~~~F'.AC~EV0006 r_t'~ei"' . A~~t't:? IN(akA f'FNI~;02 95 T~ e~ W M A ~~~ T E R U F' C) A 1 E ASR:? TPd~;f~A 3/29/95 {='.~r'ce1 ~'I 105427900 ~:;o~Je Are~~r 2t;? I_Y~~e ~~~=y v„=,lr.,~~ ..._ A,::.~rlVt~ f~l ~=i CTl e E C~ M ~~~ Pd D 'c~ C C:~ ~d '~; T F; U ?, T i C:~ Pd 1: T! C; t" T A L 0 1 0 3 9. 8 7 0 3 1 7 ~~ 4 C~ ,., t ,., F r' o m 8,~ryer~ M;iW,t~~t ~~ r'i I< ~~ cs Cf ~` / ~`~ L. i M n ~~ o cf " Acf~ir~;w~,~;; 3 't 3 1 LAI'~lAttK f- Y' ~? F' d 1 Cf L.x.a. P~1 t, fZ ~C Ci ~I; A ~J I C' B ,~ n !: r ~.r p ~t~ 83642 - OOOt,:i ~3uf~.Code Ai1r:X<y1:1 on L;~i;~fi ~~i~,.~r,~:3e cj4/1?/06 t3y .ASR2 Al_~_~=~! I=rom• T"o-t_~1 31744 To: 1_~w':~<_~1 F'Ar~ #~79U0 CAF P~W4SE4 3kC 5 3P! 1 E trxemp~i on #~r38400--8 #94102656 ~7r'p 000 7"yp 000 Ap 03~~01f~057900 3P~ 1E 05 H;1r'dsl7ip F'r c~per'fiy ?oni n~~ RT F l,~,c; Ar~drYs:~ 00000 E FAIf<VIEW AVE ME~IC~IA~! IC' p,C~, Type 1 F;EA.L fool 11 PRIMARY C~cc. 0 ~d~v~~~I-~~~r~2 F2 ~..1vc± F3 Fxit FS-Correct.~c-f P~otic:~ F6-L~~t~t er•~ v Pdc>t Aul~fiori red to AC?D Re,,~1 F'ropertY ?`1I0265G THIS FORM FURNISHED COURTESY OF: STEWART TITLE ~ .. .. ' READ & APPROVED RY GRANTEE(S): ~CUiti!)LZ J l^.IJ: iJ r~ ~J~~~ Yrl~ i.= '~`I l~UII 2Z ~il~i 1~ 31. ACE A80Vc THIS LINE FOR ,tECORDING DATA QUITCLAIM DEED ~~UJUU~.U~),~ FOR VALUE RECEIVED EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION, INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC, INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION do(es) hereby CONVI.Y, RELEASE, REMISE and FOREVER QUIT CLAIM unto E1)MONDSRANTOR(S) CONSTRUCTION, INC., AN IDAHO CORPCRATION, PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC, INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION AND ALLEN LEE CENTERS, A MARRIED MAN whose current mailing address is: 1966 STONEVIEW PLACE, BOISE, ID 8070? GRANTEES; the following described property located in ADA County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows, to wit: As set forth on the attached EXHIBIT "A", which by reference becomes apart hereof. together with their appurtenances. Dated: November 18, 1994 IiDMONDS CONSTRUCTION, INC. Wirt Hdmords, President STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF ADA On this 18th day of November , in the year of Public in and for said State, personally appeared PACTPTC NORTi1WF,S~,Jj TiY • ~,~ a.Ltcr Ti Sip nt, ~>< ,IAL•fif. Secretary/Treasurer l~}` ~'j 1994 ,before me, the undcrsi{lned, a Notary known or identified to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/arc subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same. Signature: See attached notary jurat Name: PA7dELA J. BZGEIAW • r • • 2St,`J~~(~~UJ:j EXHIBIT "A" The North half of the West half of Southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. Ir ~,r// ~b~-C/~ • • HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G.BERG.JR.,CityClerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA MAXyERRINGTON ROBERT 0. CORRIE GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS. Fire Chief " MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Planner 8 Zoning Administrator GORDON. Police Chief W.L. "BILL JIM JOHNSON W AVNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH TI3E CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 4. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/20/95 HEARING DATE: 4/11/95 REQUEST: Annexation2onina/Preliminary Ptat for Packard Subdivision BY: PNEIEdmonds Construction LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: North of Dove Meadows Subdivision south of Carol's Subdivision #2 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P2 -,CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P/Z -GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR -RONALD TOLSMA, C/C -BOB CORRIE, C/C -WALT MORROW, CIC -MAX YERRINGTON, 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 8~ FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) ~_U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS Request a 10' easement on front and rear properly lines. And a 5' easement on all side lot lines. Thank you. A.J. Carlson ~E~~I~~~ APR 1 2 f9~5 CITY OF ME>~I~IAN ~~~~ ~~I'~x~ SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET ~f1°Y OF P~ERIDIA~~ Proposed Development Name PACKARD SUB City MERIDIAN Date Reviewed 3/30/95 Preliminary Stage XXXXX Final Engineer/Developer _Tealev's Land Surveying / PNE & Edmonds Contruction The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street names shall aa~ear on the plat as' ~`N HICKORY WAY" "E MEADOW WOOD COURT" "E CHATEAU DRIVE" "N. JUSTIN WAY" "BISON" is a duplication and therefore cannot be used "SWEETGRASS" is reserved for another subdivision and cannot be used unless it is in alignment. "MINDY" sound too much like MENDI and th refore cannot be used °CHANDRA" sounds too much like SANDRA and th refore cannot be used °NIKKI" sound too much like DICKY and therefore cannot be used Please choose 5 new street names and have them a~aroved by the stree name committee Tl;e above street ^a^:e ccrnments hava uc^e^ read and approved by the follov~ing agent, representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee i order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTE GENC PRESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES Ada County Engineer John Priester ~t Date Ada Planning Assoc. Terri Raynor ~L ~`~r~ ~~ Date 13G~~s-- Meridian Fire District Representative ~/lJ(X.C,((~~`'~ ~/Ul ~,;~~Date N~~'": ~ copy of this evaluation sheet crust be presented to the Apia County Engineer at the time u~ signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed !!!! Sub Index Street Index NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS 1 ~ T~.EY'S LAND 109 South 4'" Stre~Boise, Idaho s3~o2 SURVEYING (208) ~d5-0636 Fax (208) 385-0696 TRANSMITTAL July 5, 1995 Project 1290 & 1408 TO: Gary Smith Meridian City Engineer RECE/VED FROM: Ted Hutchinson ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X995 MEFii~S~AN RE: Traffic Study -Packard Subdivisions # 1 & #2 CITY ENGINEER (~ For your action (~ For your files Gary: Attached, please find a copy of the updated Traffic Study for Packard Subdivisions. This report was prepared by Dobie Engineering. Ted DOBIE ENGINEERING, INC. PACKARD SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE 1995 JUNE 29, 1995 SUBMITTED T0: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 318 E. 37TH ST. BOISE, ID 83714 ~- DOBIE ENGINEERING, INC. 777 HEARTHSTONE DR., BOISE, ID 83702 (208)345-3290 • , DOBIE ENGINEERING, INC. 777 Hearthstone Dr. Boise, ID 83702 (208)345-3290 June 26, 1995 Larry Sale Ada County Highway District 318 E. 37th St. Boise, ID 83714 RE: Packard Subdivision Traffic Study Update Dear Larry: In 1994 Dobie Engineering, Inc., prepared a traffic study for the Packard Subdivision that focused on a 135 lot residential development north of Fairview Road with access via Hickory Avenue. Since that time an additional phase of 95 lots has been included in the development program, and the proposed land uses within the adjacent Dove Meadows Subdivision have changed from multifamily to commercial. The purpose of the following report is to update that traffic study in order to analyze the cumulative impacts of the combined projects and examine the interim traffic circulation as the section develops. Sincerely, J ,~, e.~ -Patrick Dobie, P.E. '~ Dobie Engineering, Inc. s ~ PACKARD SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE 1995 1 Summary of Findings 1. Packard Subdivision is a residential development located north of Fairview Avenue and adjacent to the Dove Meadows Subdivision. The full development contains 223 single family tots and will be fully developed by the year 2000. 2. Preliminary access to Fairview Avenue is along Hickory Avenue. This is a proposed residential collector street that will be developed as the Dove Meadows Subdivision is platted. A secondary circuitous access is also available to Locust Grove Road via E. Chateau Drive through the Wingate Subdivision. 3. A 66,000 sq. ft. commercial center is also proposed at the intersection of N. Hickory Avenue and Fairview Avenue. ACRD has estimated that this project will generate 4000 vpd. 4. After the buildout of the Packard Subdivision lots and the proposed commercial center, the Fairview Avenue/Hickory Avenue intersection will reach the capacity of an unsignalized intersection. The proposed traffic signal should coincide with the opening of the commercial center. I ~ Prepared by Dobie Engineering, Inc. • PACKARD SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE 1995 2 Overview The Packard Subdivision is situated in the middle of Traffic Zone 265 and has no direct access or frontage on an arterial highway. Indirect access is available via a Hickory Avenue connection to Fairview Avenue and a circuitous connection to Locust Grove Road via Wingate and Chateau Drive. Additional access points will be available in the future as the remainder of the traffic zone develops and residential collectors are extended to each of the four arterials bordering the section. In this analysis, the site traffic distribution and traffic loading on both the existing and future roads were evaluated. The study was prepared to help assess the adequacy of the interim road system and to determine what changes or improvements may be needed. ° ` Prepared by Dobie Engineering, Inc. PACKARD SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE 1995 3 Trip Generation The following trip rates are recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Manual , (5th Edition), for residential land uses. These rates were used in this report to project traffic volumes from the developed and undeveloped lands within the study area: Table 1 Trip Generation Rates Residential Occurance Single Family er Unit Weekday End Trips 9.55 AM Peak Hour 0.7 Enter (27%) Exit (73%) PM Peak Hour 1.0 Enter (63%) Exit (37%) Traffic volumes for the non-residential uses were projected based on previous studies and ACRD staff reports. .. Prepared by Dobie Engineering, Inc. • . PACKARD SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE 1995 4 Using the trip generation rates in Table 1, future site traffic at full buildout of the Packard Subdivision was estimated, and the findings are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Site-Generated Traffic (Rounded) Number New Trips/Dav PM PH Trips AM PH Trigs Packard Lots 223 lots 2130 223 156 In the initial phases of development only Hickory Avenue and Chateau Drive will be available to accommodate the site traffic. Internal traffic assignments associated with these access streets are shown in Figure 1. Under these conditions traffic volumes will approach 2500 vpd at the south project boundary and 600 vpd at the Meadowood Drive connection to the Wingate Subdivision. In aggregate, this traffic volume exceeds the site traffic generation of the Packard Subdivision. This excess traffic results from the travel opportunity created by the connection from Wingate to N. Hickory Way through E. Meadowood Drive. This condition should continue until Dove Meadow ' Prepared by Dobie Engineering, Inc. E= , , , d i ~ ~ i : j i I I [[ I 0 1 r D , PACKARD SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY FIGURE 1 z - ~~ ~ , , , I e raawx n. i o< ~ , e uea~an sue. ~ ~ 250 - r , ~ I ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~600- ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ I I 1 ~ ' t I ~ ADT ~ AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ,rpnlG J[YpY R~pfp OY - 0 A OOBE ENdNEERwG, INC. ~w..r.n • ra • ~[ ar~~re -o --- -- --- ---~ o~ ~~ ~ ~~ I ~ yoo ; ~° , , , ~ 600 - 3~ ~ ~~ ~~ 9 , ~ @~ ~ ~ 600 - ~ ryy0 ~ s ~ PACKARD SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE 1995 5 Subdivision is completed and E. Grapewood Drive is extended to the Wingate Subdivision. (See accompanying map.) In addition to the site-generated trips, traffic will result from development in the adjacent subdivisions and commercial parcel adjacent to Hickory Way. Estimates of this traffic is illustrated in Figure 2. These projections were obtained from the Dove Meadows Traffic Study (BeII.Walker, 1993) and the ACHD staff report for the proposed 66,000 sq.ft. commercial center at Fairview Avenue and Hickory Way. It was further assumed that the commercial tract south of Fairview Avenue would develop during the study period contributing 3000 vehicles per day to the Hickory/Fairview intersection. With full buildout of the Packard Subdivision the traffic volumes on Hickory Avenue will reach 7000 vpd at the intersection with Fairview Avenue and 3800 vpd above the commercial drives. This volume is generally consistent with volumes on most residential collectors and similar to the traffic previously projected for the Dove Meadows Subdivision. Prepared by Dobie Engineering, Inc. FIGURE 2 ~~~, PACKARD SUBDIVISION -- AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Jy ~ ~ YEAR 2000 i W/0 ALT ACCESS t ~ ~~ CAROL'S SUBDIVISION No. 2 i . I , ~n CHATEAU DR. I'I --- _------ ICI :\ Y/ 0 w O U J DOVE MEADOWS - Z00 ~ SUBDIVISION .. - . . _ _ ~ N~HICK CAPITAL (i2APEW0O0 DR. ORY q~ CHRISTIAN CENTER COMMERCIAL' ~ZypO' 6O~' 0 EAIRVIEW AVE. . laooo . . ~aooo Q W TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS °ARK HICKORY AVE. Troffic Study Pr~por~d By. O db DOBIE ENGINEERING, INC. 777 Heor thatone Dr. Boise. ID 63702 NS-}290 w J • PACKARD SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE 1995 6 InterSeCtlO11 CBpaClty Current ITD and APA traffic projections for the adjacent arterials are listed in Table 3. Table 3 Reoional Traffic Growth (Rounded) 1995 2000 2015 Fairview Ave.' 15,000 18,000 22,500 Eagle Road'" 12,000 14,000 22,000 Locust Grove Road 3,000 8,000 11,000 'Source: Ada Planning Association "Source: ITD These traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service that would exist at the Hickory Way intersection prior to the installation of a signal and subject to the interim traffic conditions previously described. The turning volumes are shown in Figures 3 and 4, which follow. Findings of a level of service analysis are presented in Table 4 below and details of the calculations are contained in Appendix A for review. Prepared by Dobie Engineering, Inc. ~~ .J • APPENDIX _.~ _., • • LOCATION:N. HICKORY @ FAIRVIEW AVE. NAME:PACKARD SUBDIVISION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30URLY VOLUMES Grade 0% N = 2 N= 3 trade 0$ 170 --Vl------------^ 510 --V2------------> 95 V12 15 V11 145 V10 < v ~> 20 --V3------------v <1 > FAIRVIEW AVE. ______________________ V7 ---___---_____________ 100 STOP xx V8 YIELD N= 2 15 Date of Count •2000 V9 Time Peri d•PM minor road 140 Prevailing •peed:45 N. HICKORY AVE. PHF:.9 Grade 0 Population:100000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movement no . ~ 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 ~ 11 ~ 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume (vph) 1 1701 5101 201 351 8401 2601 1001 151 1401 1451 151 951 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vol(pcph),Tab.10.11 187~XXXXIXXXXI 39~XXXXIXXXXI 1101 171 1541 1601 171 1051 VOLUMES IN PCPH 187 --V1------------^ __ --V2------------> __ --V3------------v 105 V12 17 V11 160 V10 < v 1> ^ N ^----------V6-- 260 <----------V5-- 840 N= 3 v----------V4-- 35 major road Grade Oo ^----------V6-- __ <----------VS-- __ v----------V4-- 39 <1 > V7 I 110 V8 17 V9 154 I :._.i • LOCATION:N. HICKORY C FAIRVIEW AVE. NAME:PACKARD SUBDIVISION ---- ----- --------- STEP 1 RT From Minor Street ~ /-> V9~ ~ <-/ V12 _~nflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc (Tah.10.2) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) s of Cp utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) Actual Capacity, Cm 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 10+ 255= 265 vph 6.5 (secs.) Cp9 = 662 pcph (V9/Cp9)x100= 23.3% P9= .83 Cm9=Cp9= 662 pcph 1/2 V6+V5=Vc12 130+ 420= 550 vph 6.5 (secs.) Cp12 = 455 pcph (V12/Cp12)x100= 23.1% P12= .83 Cm12=Cp12= 455 pcph STEP 2 LT _______ From Major Street ~ _ v-- V4 ~ --" V1 ~onflicting ------- Flows, Vc ~ --- - V3+V2=Vc4 ~ V6+V5=Vc1 Critical Gap, Tc (Tah.10.2) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) of Cp utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) Actual Capacity, Cm 20+ 510= 530 Vph 6 ( secs . ) Cp4 = 529 pcph (V4/Cp4)x100= 7.4~ P4= .96 Cm4=Cp4= 529 pcph 260+ 840= 1100 vph 6 (secs.) Cpl = 235 pcph (V1/Cpl)X100= 79.60 P1= .25 Cml=Cpl= 235 pcph STEP 3 TH From Minor Street ~ V8 ~ v V11 Conflicting Flows, Vc itical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity,~p(Fig10.3) 0 of Cp utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) Actual Capacity, Cm .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 10+ 510+ 170+ 260+ 840+ 35= 1700 vph 8 (secs.) Cp8 = 40 pcph (V8/Cp8)x100= 42.5% P8= .65 Cm8=Cp8xP1xP4 10= 40x.25x.96pcph .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V1=Vc11 130+ 840+ 35+ 20+ 510+ 170= 1700 vph 8 (secs..) Cpll = 40 pcph (V11/Cpll)x100= 42.50 P11= .65 Cm11=Cp11xP1xP4 10= 40x.25x.96pcph STEP 4 LT From Minor Street ~ <-\ V7 I \-> V10 Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical .Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm Vc8(step3)+V11+V12=Vc7 1700+ 15+ 95= 1700vph 8.5 (secs.) Cpl = 35 pcph Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xP11xP12 = 35x.25x.96x.65x.83 = 5 pcph Vcll(step3)+VS+V9=Vc10 1700+ 15+ 140= 1700vph 8.5 (secs.) Cp10 = 35 pcph Cm10=Cp10xP4xP1xP8xP9 = 35x.96x.25x.65x.83 = 5 pcph • ~OCATION:N. HICKORY @ FAIRVIEW AVE. NAME:PACKARD SUBDIVISION SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 CR CR LOS LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 7 110 5 -105 --------- F ----- 8 17 10 -7 F 9 154 662 508 A APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 CR CR LOS LOS 'MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH 10 160 - -- -------------- 5 -155 ---------- ------- F ----- 11 17 10 -7 F 12 105 455 350 B MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 ~'iOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS 1 187 235 48 _ _________ ___E__- _-_-- 4 39 529 490 A COMMENTS: ^ .~ • • ION:N. HICKORY @ FATRVIEW AVE. NAr~.;,:PACKARD SUBDIVISION s'~,Y VOLUMES Grade 0% N = 2 140 V12 ^ 1 _> N J11 215 ---------------- ----- ~ V10 ---------------------- ---------------------- 0~ 60 --V1------ 615 --V2------ 15 --V3------ 3~TME ADJUSTMENTS v~nent no . ~ 1 e (vph) ~ 6C! ------------------ ~cph),Tab.10.1~ 66 IN PCPH <----------VS-- 265 N= 3 -----^ v----------V4-- 25 -----> major road Grade 0% ~----v i > FAIRVIEW AVE. .___= V~ ______________________ 100 STOP xx Vii YIELD N= 2 15 Date of Counts:2000 V9 Time Period:AMA minor road 140 Prevailing Speed:45 N. HICKORY AVE. PHF:.9 Grade 0 % Population:100000 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 ~ 9 I 10 ~ 11 I 12 ---------------------------------------------- 615~ 15~ 25~ 2651 90~ 100 15I 140. 215 15~ 140I ------------------------------------------------------ :XXXIXXXXI 28IXXXX~XXXX~ 110 17~ 154 2371 17I 1541 154 V12 66 --Vl------ __ --V2------ __ --V3------ ----^ ----> ----v 17 V11 I 237 _____________________ V10 v ~> ^----------V6-- __ <----------V5-- __ v----------V4-- 28 <I > 110 - V7 - I ______________________ V8 17 V9 154 • • LOCATION:N. HICKORY @ FAIRVIEW AVE. NAME:PACKARD SUBDIVISION "'EP 1 RT From Minor Street ~ /-> V9 ~ <-/ V12 ^onflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) 0 of Cp utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) Actual Capacity, Cm 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 8+ 308= 316 vph 6.5 (secs.) Cp9 = 619 pcph (V9/Cp9)x100= 24.9% P9= .82 Cm9=Cp9= 619 pcph 1/2 V6+V5=Vc12 45+ 133= 178 vph 6.5 (secs.) Cp12 = 742 pcph (v12/cpl2)xloo= 20.8% P12= .85 Cm12=Cp12= 742 pcph ------------------------------------ STEP 2 LT. From Major Street ~ v-- V4 ~ --^ V1 onflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) ?otential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) of Cp utilized Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) actual Capacity, Cm V3+V2=Vc4 15+ 615= 630 vph 6 (secs.) Cp4 = 461 pcph (V4/Cp4)x100= 6.1% P4= .96 Cm4=Cp4= 461 pcph V6+V5=Vc1 90+ 265= 355 vph 6 ( secs . ) Cpl = 661 pcph (Vl/Cpl x100= 10% P1= .94 Cml=Cpl= 661 pcph ------------------- STEP 3 TH From Minor Street ~ V8 ~ v V11 onflicting Flows, Vc ~~itical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) Potential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) 0 of Cp utilized Cmpedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) Actual Capacity, Cm .5V3+V2+V1+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 8+ 615+ 60+ 90+ 265+ 25= 1063 vph 8 (secs.) Cp8 = 119 pcph (V8/Cp8)x100= 14.3% P8= .91 Cm8=Cp8xP1xP4 107= 119x.94x.96pcph .5V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V1=Vc11 45+ 265+ 25+ 15+ 615+ 60= 1025 vph 8 (secs:) Cpll = 129 pcph (V11/Cpll)x100= 13.2% P11= .91 Cm11=Cp11xP1xP4 116= 129x.94x.96pcph ------------------------------------ STEP 4 LT From Minor Street ~ <-\ V7 ~ \-> V10 onflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc (Tab.10.2) ?otential Capacity,Cp(Fig10.3) Actual Capacity, Cm Vc8(step3)+V11+V12=Vc7 1063+ 15+ 140= 1218vph 8.5 (secs.) Cpl = 72 pcph Cm7=Cp7xP1xP4xP11xP12 = 72x.94x.96x.91x.85 = 50 pcph Vcll(step3)+V8+V9=Vc10 1025+ 15+ 140= 1180vph 8.5 (secs.) Cp10 = 78 pcph Cm10=CplOxP4xP1xP8xP9 = 78x.96x.94x.91x.82 = 53 pcph _J • ~OCATION:N. HICKORY @ FAIRVIEW AVE. NAME:PACKARD SUBDIVISION SHARED LANE CAPACITY APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 r'IOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) _ CR (CM-V) CR (CSH-V) LOS CM LOS CSH 7 110 ________________________ 50 __________ -60 __________ ______ F ______ 8 17 107 90 E 9 154 619 465 A APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) CR (CM-V) CR (CSH-V) LOS CM LOS CSH 10 237 _______________________ 53 _________ -184 __________ _______ F _____ 11 17 116 gg E 12 154 742 588 A " MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 tOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS 1 66 ________________________ 661 __________ 595 _________ _______ A _____ 4 28 461 433 p, COMMENTS: i .; ~..~ • City of Meridian INTER-OFFICE MEMO FROM: SUBJECT: ./~ w DATE ~ ~/ ~ f 5 TO: ~ltiun,~: ~ ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: Is there a representative for Packard Subdivision here? I was hopeful that Shari Stiles or Gary Smith would be here apparently this item was tabled due to some of the concerns of the City that hadn't been addressed. Can you shed some light on that? Hutchinson: Yes, Mr. Chairman on I believe it was last week we had a meeting with Gary Smith and went over some of the concerns and in fact wrote him a letter that addressed those concerns. We discussed the temporary lift station situation that will be involved with this particular subdivision, extension of water service and just a general review of the subdivision plan. I believe that, I came out of the meeting feeling that we had accomplished quite a bit. It is unfortunate that he isn't here because he does have that letter that we did send to him. Johnson: Do you have a copy of that letter with you this evening? Hutchinson: I believe I do, just a moment. Johnson: Do you we have your permission to make copies of this and enter it into the record? Hutchinson: Yes Johnson: Do you recall any areas of contention that still remain? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, I don't recall any that remained after that conversation. I don't know if Mr. Smith had any after receiving the letter and the copy of the plat. Johnson: Did you discuss the letter with him or had you just not heard back from him? Hutchinson: We had discussed each of the items in that list of conditions of approval and then we went through and answered those questions in a letter form. Johnson: So the meeting was prior to the letter? Hutchinson: Yes it was, in fact I believe the date of the letter is on there. Johnson: Yes, you met on the 6th and the letter is the 9th. Shari Stiles, we are on item ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 3 #2, did you have any discussions with Gary regarding whether or not the City's concerns have been satisfied or not? Stiles: No I haven't, I don't know, I haven't read his comments. Johnson: You haven't seen anything in writing? Stiles: No, excuse me Mr. Chairman, I do have a letter dated June 10th, do you have a copy of this. But whether there were any issues that needed to be resolved on Gary's part I don't know. Johnson: What is your pleasure gentlemen, what would you like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass the preliminary plat onto City Council with a favorable recommendation. Shearer: Second it. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the preliminary plat onto the City Council with a favorable recommendation from Planning and Zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES TO C-G BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: We conducted a public hearing on this, we tabled this item pending some traffic study and some comments and recommendations from ACRD. To my knowledge we haven't received anything from ACHD, directly from them. We have the specific site recommendations that came in initially. Stiles: Mr. Chairman (Inaudible) Gallagher: Karen Gallagher, Ada County Highway District, this item has not been acted on by the Ada County Highway District Commissioners at this time. It was on their agenda as of last Wednesday and was tabled until tomorrow night to accommodate people from public who would like to speak. I do have staffs recommendations with me at this time that includes 2 of the recommendations were to given to our commission and I could recite • • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JUNE 13.1995 APPLICANT: PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 2 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: COMMENTS ;p~('~µt~ ~ pF f'~ "^ r~y ~l~ AEI Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. TE~.EY'S LAND SURVEYING June 9, 1995 Gary Smith, City Engineer City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian Id 83642 109 South 4"' Stre~oise, Idaho 83702 (208) 385-0636 Fax (208) 385-0696 RE: Comments and Conditions for Packard Subdivision # 1 Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for taking time on June 6, 1995, to meet with us regarding the Packard Subdivision #1 proposal. I apologize for the delay of these responses as I was unaware of your new policy requiring written response to your subdivision comments. On April 6, 1995, Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles sent a memorandum to the Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning, concerning Packard Subdivision #1. Regarding those "General Comments," we offer the following: As required by City Ordinance 11-9-605.M, irrigation/drainage ditches included in this project will be tiled. The tiling will be done under the supervision and approval of the appropriate irrigation district. 2 There are no existing domestic water wells or septic systems within this project boundary. 3 Test holes were dug on the site (6/5/95) to find the seasonal high ground water elevation. 4 The developer is preparing restrictive covenants. 5 Attached is a copy of the Ada County Street Name Evaluation form and a copy of the County Engineer's letter approving the subdivision name. 6 As shown on the preliminary plat in the typical street cross-section, a five foot (S') sidewalk will be installed. Padiard Subdi~lsion #1 Project 1290 _ 1 _ • • 7 I contacted Bruce Stewart of the Meridian Water Department concerning placement of fire hydrants. The locations recommended by Mr. Stewart have been incorporated into the preliminary plat drawings and will be used in the construction drawings. 8 The preliminary plat has been stamped by a licensed surveyor. 9 A traffic study for this site was prepared and submitted to the Ada County Highway District. A copy of that report is attached. 10 There are no flood hazard areas shown on F.I.R.M. panels #0165 or #0251 that would affect this project. I 1 Location of sanitary sewer manholes will be coordinated with the Meridian Public Works Department. Those locations will be shown on the shown on the preliminary plat. 12 All proposed or existing utilities are now shown on the preliminary plat. 13 Statements of dedications to the public are provided on the final plat. Locations of proposed easements and public streets are shown on the preliminary plat. Regarding the "Site Specific Comments" from the Public Works Department, we are providing the following responses: The contour lines on the preliminary plat are tied to an established Benchmark referenced to the southwest corner of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian. This is an elevation of 2607.14. This datum is the same datum used for the aerial photography done for the city of Meridian by J.U.B. Engineers. 2 The master street drainage plan will be prepared before the construction phase following the approval of the preliminary plat and before submitting the final plat for approval. Estimated runoff directions and locations of retention areas have been identified on the preliminary plat. Location of street lights is shown on the preliminary plat. Specific locations for street lighting will be approved by the Meridian Public Works Department before installation by the developer. 4 Has your computer model for hydraulic analysis been performed to evaluate this proposal? 5 A revised legal description is attached. 6 Any plans for supplemental water supply for irrigation purposes will be submitted to your office for review and approval. Pac}:ard Subdivision #1 Pmjed 1290 _ 2 _ 7 The Government Corners referenced in the legal description are shown on the preliminary plat. 8 Location for the temporary lift station has been identified on the preliminary plat. We will work closely with your department to ensure that the Iift station meets your criteria. 9 No response. Regarding the "Site Specific Comments" from the Planning Department, we are providing the following responses: 1 No response. 2 A minor redesign of this project has yielded two (2) smaller park/open space areas for this development. These will be private open space lots maintained by the homeowners association for use by the residents of this development. Perimeter fencing will be installed for each phase before requesting building permits. 4 A development agreement will be submitted by the developers. 5 The developers support the Meridian School District's plans for needed facilities. The developers also recognize that the children living in this subdivision will not necessarily attend the nearest neighborhood school. 6 Few intervening streets or natural breaks occur around the boundaries of this plat. This makes long blocks necessary. The internal block lengths have been interrupted by access to the pocket parks. These accesses also provide internal pathways through the subdivision for pedestrians and bicyclists. 7 The eighty foot (80') frontage requirement has been met for all lots that are not fronting on a cul-de-sac or are not flag lots. Those lots meet the minimum standards for cul-de-sac or flag lot frontages. 8 The developer will work with the city of Meridian to protect the existing natural features along the northern boundary of this development. Most of those features are, however, not on the developer's property. But, anywhere the nature features exist on-site, protection of those features will be attempted. Otherwise, the waterway will be tiled according to City Ordinance. 9 Phase lines have been included on the preliminary plat. Packard Subdivision # 1 Project 1290 -3- • • Many comments and concerns expressed by your department will be addressed as part of receiving approval for a final plat. Construction drawings, engineering, and other costly preparations are not made until after the preliminary plat is approved. Developers aze hesitant to expend money for those costs if there is a possibility that their project will not be approved. However, the developer is willing to work with you and your staffto address those items to your satisfaction. We look forward to working with you and your department in the completion of this project. If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please let me know. Thank you again for taking time to meet with us. Respectfully, Patrick A. Tealey Tealey's Land Surveying B - ~~~ Ted Hutchinson Packard Subdivision #1 Project 1290 - 4 +r 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 2 scheduled meeting on June 13, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON: Johnson: Any discussion or changes regarding these findings of facts as prepared by the City Attorney? Is there a motion regarding the findings? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts an+J approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time? Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides that the application shall be tabled to allow the Applicant to provide the Commission additional information before making a recommendation to the City Council. Shearer: Second Johnson: A motions and a second to approve the decision as stated in the findings of fact and conclusions o•F law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIEDD: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION (PACKARD SUBDIVISION): Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact? We need a motion. . - ~ ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 3 Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves and adopts these findlings of fact and conclusions. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared by tl'~e City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is therE~ a recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby recommend the application for annexation and zoning to be granted under the terms and conditions in the findings of facts and conclusions of law and any other requirements set by the City Council. If the applicant shall not meet these conditions the application shall be denied or the land shall be de-annexed. Rountree: Second Johnson: A motion and a second to pass a recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: This is the plat, any comments or discussion, any recommendation? Rountree: Mr. CI-iairman, I have a question for City Engineer, Gary, preliminary plat for Packard have the questions you had previously been resolved? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, I have not heard from the applicant, I don't know whether my assistant has or not. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I would move to table the preliminary plat recommendation until such time that we know that the City's concerns and issues have been addressed. ~ ~ ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 3 Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves and adopts these findings of fact and conclusions. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby recommend the application for annexation and zoning to be granted under the terms and conditions in the findings of facts and conclusions of law and any other requirements set by the City Council. If the applicant shall not meet these conditions the application shall be denied or the land shall be de-annexed. Rountree: Second Johnson: A motion and a second to pass a recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PRELIIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTIONI: Johnson: This is the plat, any comments or discussion, any recommendation? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for City Engineer, Gary, preliminary plat for Packard have the questions you had previously been resolved? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, I have not heard from the applicant, I don't know whether my assistant has or not. Rountree: Mr. Chaiirman, I would move to table the preliminary plat recommendation until such time that we know that the City's concerns and issues have been addressed. Y { ;a • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 4 Alidjani: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded that we table this item regarding the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision until such information requested from the applicant is confirmed as being receivecl all those in favor? Opposed? P/IOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SPECIALTY CANDY BY THE LITTLE CHIPMUNK: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of facts? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopts the findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is mov~sd and seconded that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE=: Alidjani -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Hepper -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recomrnendation for the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we pass on a favorable recommendation onto the City Council for approval of the conditional use permit. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIEDD: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOFt A QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT BY MCDONALD'S INC.: MERIDIAN PLANNING; & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING:.. MAY 9.1995 APPLICANT: PNE/E:DMONDS CONSTRUCTION AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 3 REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4 (PACKARD SUB~DIVISIONI AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRE=CTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT': MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHVIJAY DISTRICT: COMMENTS FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT IiEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTH All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 23 conclusions of la~v (inaudible) Rountree: Second • Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION, 126 LOTS BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: This is Packard No. 1, I will now open the public hearing. Would the applicant like to address thE: Commission, you need to be sworn again, it is a new public hearing. Ted Hutchinson, '109 South 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, now we are to the meat of the annexation parcE~l. We are proposing to subdivide the parcel which we were just discussing the annexation on. This is a residential development we are proposing R-4 the lot sizes in this development are 8,000 square feet and larger. As indicated in the prior public hearing a number of the lots we have it broken out on this particular diagram, again from 8,000 to 10,000 square feet. from 10,000 to 15,000 square feet and then from 15,000 to on up. This includes the open space areas, in this particular proposal there is landscaped entry ~nrays, and as you come in it would be on both sides of Hickory Way with an open area as soon as you got into the development. Then there are drainage lots and a couple of small open space lots within the development. Then we are proposing as well a landscaped easE~ment that will affect all of the lots within the development so that there will be a 15 foot wide landscape easement which will contain street trees, and additional landscape treatment as well as entryway treatment for each of the individual lots. Mr. Richard Pavelic is here tonight as a consultant on this, he has done the landscape layout proposal to give you an example of what we are proposing for this particular development to move this development into an upper scale better than moderate price development for the City of Meridian. Again, the issues that have risen concerning the sewer. This particular development standing by itself would use a temporary lift station, however we have picked up additional properties and that property will be coming to you as Packard subdivision No. 2 and we have provided a copy of that plat to you, I believe that is in your packets. We picked up the Borup property which is immediately adjacent to north or our property which lies between the Sharp property and is adjacent to Carol Subdivision on the west side. We then picked up the Brown property which the annexation request has already been submitted on the Brown property it was tabled pending the development • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 24 again that will be coming to you. That takes us up to the South Slough, now the South Slough is where the trunk line will be for the gravity flow sewer. We hold the majority of the property that lies between the north boundary of Packard Subdivision No. 1 and the South Slough. We also have been working negotiating with Mr. Alleman concerning that easement so that we could cross his property with the South Slough and that would come from Chamberlain Estates which is proposed on the south side of the Slough on the east side of Locust Grove between Locust Grove and Mr. Alleman's property. So we are able to provide the property for the access for sewer services for this particular area including the Packard development which will as stated be served by a temporary lift station. Again the traffic issues, we have had a traffic study that was done for the original Packard Subdivision property, the Highway District looked at this and they agreed that it would just take a minor amendment to that traffic study to include the Brown/Borup piece. The developers have been talking to Mr. Reichert, he is looking at coming on board with this particular development. The layout includes Mr. Reichert's property so that would account for the 3 houses that exist on that number 2 property. So we are able to provide a means for providing the sewer. Wingate lane will not be affected by this development, the only ones that are living on Wingate that will be affected will be the Sharp's and they are going to have complete and full access to their easement which gets them to Wingate Lane. A portion of that which crosses the Reichert and Borup property and the Brown property some of that will be dedicated to public streets. However, the street will no connect to Wingate lane as an access point for this development. After all of the discussions that happened when we originally brought this in and the discussions with the Brown application for the annexation we knew that Wingate was going to be a major problem. We talked to the property owners and made an attempt to purchase the property so that we could if necessary go out Wingate. That fell through and didn't work appropriately and therefore we are not going to utilize Wingate Lane with the small exception of dedicating a public street which will run where the easement is now but will be fully developed and still provide the Sharp's with an access to Wingate Lane from their house through Wingate Lane to Ustick Road. We are not going to interrupt that particular easement. At this time I would like Mr. Pavelic to come up and go through the landscape proposals, the easements that we are going to propose and the street treatment. I think it is something different that in the development that I have seen in and around Meridian I don't think we have seen anything that is quite like it. 1 think you will be quite pleased with what you see. Richard Pavelic, 5737 Gekler Way, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney. Pavelic: We have 2 exhibits to try and give some indication of how this development will not only fit in with the existing neighborhood but also what we intend to do to ensure the quality of this development is maintained. The first exhibit is the one that in fact Mr. Hutchinson has been referring to. What we intend to do is besides having the lot (inaudible) in this diagram to control basically the street frontage along the entire project • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 25 (inaudible) and what we hope to do there is to create more or less neighborhood wide quality of landscaping. We want to try and pair up the driveways (inaudible) we know that there will be instances we will not be able to accomplish this, but what it does do where we will be successful is to provide longer, broader strips of landscaping that would have the division of street trees that would control the type of fencing and other elements that could be placed within that strip. It would also be the developer's desire to provide the street trees for the entire development. The second exhibit I would like to point out to you is the concept for the entrance way to the project. This basically indicates the type of detail that the developer feels is compatible with this type of development and is not a matter of leaving it up to every individual come along. What we would propose to do would be in the entrance areas and those areas immediately adjacent to the open space the developer would in fact be installing the landscaping as indicated here. The other areas as I mentioned earlier he would be looking at the provision or the planting of the trees, but within the covenants of the overall neighborhood subdivision there would be clear and definite controls over the quality and the types of materials that individual homeowners could in fact place in there. We feel that this would eliminate some of the conflicts that tend to come up with typical subdivisions and we think that this is a prudent move on the developers standpoint to leave an overall comprehensive view. What we would have is a landscape plan that would set what would be desirable to have within that easement and there would also be indications of what type of driveway treatment we would be looking at possibly some (inaudible) of concrete in the street itself. We would be looking at some possibly looking at some stone or other elements to give base to the signage. And basically look at the detail of the project that we would have more uniform quality control over the mail box locations and those sorts of items. We feel that this is the right direction to do and the developers had indicated a willingness to take this concept and make it an attractive development here. Are there any questions? Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Pavelic? Rountree: Yes, the second drawing there, I know it is conceptual but you show the smaller solid green circular plantings at the corner, up towards the corner of the intersection right in there, what is that material? Pavelic: That would basically a low shrub plant, it would be conscious of views and safety issues, but we would be looking at low shrub plantings and that would give some color and definition to those intersections. Shearer: Have you selected a (inaudible) species? Pavelic: I think we are looking at a Red Oak in terms of a sizable tree that would mature. We would also be looking at flowering trees on the sides of the houses where you have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 26 circumstances where you probably would need some privacy and those areas we would be looking at conifers of mixed types. Rountree: Going back to the drawing, (inaudible) you have considerable effort in layout of the landscaping, but the upper most lot there we run into situations where somebody is going to want to build a fence on that lot at some point in time in the future. If you would incorporate that into your concept it would be helpful for the City so we don't have to look at variances and safety situations and that sort of thing. Pavelic: I thought 1 had mentioned it, and maybe I didn't, in the package that would go as part of the provision of the covenants and restrictive covenants would be a community or neighborhood wide fence (inaudible) cover those issues. Hepper: Did you say that the developer would provide the trees for the Pavelic: We are looking at the developer taking the responsibility for the street trees and they would be a random planting more or less and try to group them along the street. Hepper: That type of configuration, would that be throughout the subdivision not just in the entry way? Pavelic: Yes (End of Tape) Sharp: I would like them to show those drawings so that those in the audience know just exactly where they are talking about this development. Johnson: This is a separate public hearing Wayne, doesn't she have to be sworn again? Crookston: I'm sorry she does. Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I would like to see that these, I think some of us are a little confused as to just exactly where this is. I couldn't help but think of the little anecdote if you show a child a shiny penny he will overlook that dull quarter and that is what I think we are looking at now. You can put all the beautiful trees and all that you like we still have a subdivision and we don't really need it. What it amounts to he is saying we don't jeopardize Wingate Lane or the access for the Sharp's, that is me at the end of the lane. They have easements along the lane (inaudible) when they approached us about buying some of the property, • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 27 it did cross and it zig-zagged. They wanted to put trees at the end of the lane so they could down the lane, if we have access from our end of the lane down to the end of the land would that not give everybody on the lane access to Wingate Lane too. We have been told by several people that who did or did not sell on the lane and we find out they did not. We were getting conflicting stories from developers and (inaudible). If you open the door and give them what they want then they could do what they want with the next piece which is the Borup's (inaudible) sewer again. They don't have that yet, they don't have it and they are still talking about a temporary lift station, are they talking 6 months or 6 years or 60 years. I think we need to get something in concrete and I think like I say we are showing a shiny penny to overlook that dull quarter. Johnson: Well I know now why I came home from Grandma's house with shiny pennys in my pocket, I never figured it out before, now I know why. My whole life is a dull quarter. Let's display those drawings over there as best we can so the public can see them. Doug Miller, 1035 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Miller: One of the concerns I have that I think has already been brought up but I would like to reinforce it is it appears to me that we have very much a piece meal planning process. Case in point is my property apparently bounds on both of these developments, both of these proposals being discussed under 9 and 10. I have seen no information about the one which is directly west of my property and that is part of the reason we have had some confusing testimony here because we are not clear on how these things connect. Johnson: Let me clarify something for you that might help you a little bit. We don't actually have anything on that piece of property directly to your west, but what we do have in our application is a requirement that if they are aware of any development or any pending development that is adjacent or contiguous to an application then they are to disclose that to us. Because we want to know what the ramifications are and the proximity of a speck application. So you are right in what you say, but on the other hand they are following our guideline mentioning what is down the road perhaps. Does that kind of help you a little bit? Miller: It helps a little bit but I think the issue is still there. Johnson: It is 2 separate applications, that is the distinction you need to make. Right now we are looking at the one that is south of your property. Miller: And what is planned for the one west of the property. I keep hearing references to that sewer connection, road connection, irrigation connection. I think it reinforces the point that we need to see a big picture both in terms of planning for the sewer, planning for the • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 28 egress and ingress out of these properties, planning for the irrigation right of ways that go through there. It is very confusing to us to even respond to these kind of applications when we don't see how they connect. 1 think we have a lot of references that are potentially going to happen and connections here. It seems to me it would make a lot more sense if we try to plan them all in sort of a group. Because there are a lot of contingencies that I am hearing, both in the connection of the roads, connections of the sewers, how it affects people's right of ways on private lanes. I would suggest that the approval of one piece which is contingent on too many future pieces is not a wise thing to do. I think I agree with a lot of the comments that have been said is that we are making decisions in a piece meal way and we are going to pay for it in the long term. Johnson: That is kind of a definition of Planning and Zoning, is piece meal. Miller: But does it need to be? Johnson: Yes it does because we are not Brigham Young, we don't have that luxury of planning a whole city at once. Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: Since this is concerning a preliminary plat I would like to bring up the ditches again and make sure they are tiled with the project or before the project and it doesn't get caught up in different phasing like has happened at Dove Meadows which we have lost the final phase of Dove Meadows and the ditches are still open and a mess. This property, the ditch, my water feed, if I can step over to the map. My five water comes from this border all the way (inaudible) perimeter. I would like to see that all get taken care of before they do the whole project or with phase 1. So they don't do phase 1 and have a nice entry here, is this the entry at the comer? Where is my head gate? (Inaudible) Like I stated I would like to see that all get tiled at the initiation of the project so that is taken care of and we don't have to deal with it later, 2 years down the road when they do phase 3 or 4 or whatever. Johnson: You made reference to losing the last phase of Dove Meadows, could you elaborate on that? Brian: Dove Meadows development went in 2 years ago, it started through Planning and Zoning 2 years ago and is going in 3 phases or 2 phases. They have done phase 1, the final phase is where my ditch comes in which they are required to bury all the ditches that cross their property. They have not buried that ditch because it is in the final phase, well that final phase of that project ran out of time. They have lost the final plat, so it has to go through again. So nothing is being done with my ditch out there and it is an ongoing • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 29 problem. We have had meetings down here at City Hall concerning that very thing what we need to do. As they develop these properties they wait until the certain phase to bury these ditches so you have problems with those ditches and no man's land that no one takes care of them unless you pursue the developer to make sure they are cleaned and taken care of which is a hassle in itself and then when you get that many developers down the line I have to find 4 or 5 different people to get the ditches cleaned. If they go in before the development starts and do that ground work first and get it out of the way then they don't have to wont' about me coming here and (inaudible). That is all I need to bring up, any questions? Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Brian? Thanks Don, anyone else? Jon Barnes, 1034 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Barnes: I am just a developer and I can't read 9 and 10 and I don't want to be redundant. I would just recommend approval, I would suggest, I like all the landscape treatment that they are doing but I would strongly encourage the developer to put a larger kind of a park like an acre park in there. I would like to have them held to a 30 foot rear yard setback on those lots that boundary us on the north there, those deep 140 lots and a fence on the north side. I encourage you to do this, thank you. Johnson: Thanks Jon Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I would recommend that they disapprove this (inaudible) we don't have the sewer accessibility, we don't have the access down Wingate Lane. And what they proposed to us and they came and talked to us and they came and talked to me and I have the chart right at home what they said. They said they wanted to come from Hickory Lane across and over Wingate Lane and block me off there. As far as, how are you going to stop those people from in these subdivisions from going down Wingate Lane are you going to fence them off or are you going to put berms and fences up there and stop that, well they should. Shearer: Is Wingate paved? Johnson: No it is a gravel road. Shearer: I doubt anybody is going to drive up a gravel road when they have a paved one. Sharp: I disagree with you there, I live there and they do drive up that gravel road. We would like to have 30 foot setbacks on these lots down closer to us too. Just because they • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 30 live in (inaudible) doesn't mean they should have any more rights than what we do. I know that Jon is a developer and of course (inaudible) as far as that goes I just think (inaudible) schools to support the subdivisions like this and so I recommend (inaudible). Johnson: Thank you, I saw a hand over here. Craig Thompson, 2950 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Thompson: First of all I have been here for awhile, I have been trying to understand what is happening and I am completely confused. We are involved with this we live on Wingate Lane and when they say it is going to make Wingate Lane accessible to the Sharp's how are they going to do that, are they going to build an overpass over Wingate Lane. If they intersect it we are vulnerable because the traffic is going to pass there. We pay for the road, we pay for the gravel that goes on it and I really don't want anybody else to drive on it except the ones that live there. They mentioned about bringing trees in and rock this and that and I like it just the way it is. I just hope that they leave it that way. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks Craig, anyone else? Anybody have any other questions of the Developer'? Wayne, can we act on this or should this item be tabled until we handle No. 9? Crookston: It should be tabled until you have acted on #9. Johnson: We needed to take the testimony and at this point we really need to table the item don't we. Hepper: I have a question for the developer, the park issue was brought up. I was just wondering originally there was a lot of park area designated in this and I guess we are little bit sensitive. There was so much there the first time and now there isn't any. What is the feasibility of having a small neighborhood park in the area, is there any particular reason why there couldn't be or shouldn't be? Hutchinson: Mr. Hepper, as I indicated earlier in fact we have no net gain in the number of lots, in fact we lost a couple of lots in the design. Part of the reason that the land was taken up is the new configuration of the streets it doesn't lend itself really to that large of a park area and still be able to yield a development that is going to be economical for total development. We have looked a couple of designs, we have toyed with working this out whether or not we can get a couple of smaller pocket parks within the development. We will have to sit down with the developer and see if there is a proposal in there that might work. We recognize the need for open area for the people in the development. We were a little dismayed at the response to our previous development proposal when we did get Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 31 further down the public hearing process. We thought that 5 acre park was an extremely nice amenity given the location. But whether or not we can come up with something that wilt be feasible again we will have to push the numbers and the configuration past the developer and see if they think it is possible. Hepper: Since this will probably be table I just wanted to point out right in the middle of the project there appears to be 2 very odd shaped lots, one is almost 18,000 - 19,000 square feet and the other is 17,000, it would be Lot 10 and Lot 29. Between the 2 of them that would be 35,000 square feet which would be almost 3/4 of an acre. Hutchinson: We also recognize that those lots the way they are configured in this drawing they need (inaudible) changing the flag so it didn't go onto the culdesac it would go onto Justin Way which is the street in the middle. So there would be some reconfiguration there. We may be able to configure to provide a pathway from the culdesacs to Justin way but again we have to look at this in a little more detail. I think your information and input here tonight is going have a great deal of impact on pushing that through to see what we can come up with. Hepper: I don't think a small neighborhood park would be out of the question. I guess the economics and feasibility of it dictate whether you are willing to do it or not. We would have to look at it. Hutchinson: We will sit down with the developer on this thing and make sure that is one issue that we go over quite heavily. Johnson: Anyone else? I will now close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting on May 9th. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item until the May 9th regular meeting of Planning and Zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: For those of you that might be confused as to what is going on in this (inaudible) this item, the findings of fact and conclusions of law on item #9 will be at our May 9th meeting at that time those findings of fact will incorporate the testimony we took tonight plus how the application legally stands with our ordinances, then we will act on that on • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 11, 1995 Page 32 May 9th and then it will go for another public hearing to the City Council when it can be on their agenda which will probably either the last regular meeting in May or the first one in June. So you will have another opportunity to a public hearing and that is the purpose of me explaining that. FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS ADDITION NO. 3, 6 LOTS BY MAWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fourth Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Members of the Commission, this is an application fora 7 lot subdivision, I believe your staff report or something on the original application said 6 but there are 7 residential lots and one drainage lot. This is the final addition to Maws Addition subdivisions at Pine Avenue and Locust Grove Roads. This is going to be north of Pine with frontage on Adkins Lane. Each of these lots have been designed to comply with the zoning requirements of the R-8 zone. The lots are, when they were originally proposed as part of the master plan for the Maws Additions they were proposed at 60 foot wide lots, however the approval expired before the last phase could be submitted and we have redesigned these to comply with the current zoning standards. They are at least 65 feet in width and I believe they are about 6500 square feet, they are about 100 feet deep. This will be the final phase for Maws Addition, I think it is compatible with what has been approved and constructed in the area. We would ask that you recommend approval of this application to the City Council. With that are there any questions that I might answer for the Commission? Johnson: Thanks Ted, any questions for Mr. Hutchinson? Hepper: Does that street go on to the north, where does that street terminate at? Hutchinson: Mr. Hepper, Adkins Lane terminates up there, it simply dead ends I believe Danbury Fair, Shari said Danbury Fair is the subdivision to the north. They haven't quite worked out what they are going to do as far as access to Adkins Lane whether or not they are going to access it or not. The last conversation we had with the Highway District about Adkins Lane we'd be required to do improvements and possibly a temporary turn around but again the temporary turn around would be at the end of the current street. Whether or not that becomes a through street will depend on Danbury Fair's ultimate decision whether MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: APRIL 11.1995 APPLICANT: PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 9 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONNG OF R-4 FOR 39.87 ACRES 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: OTHER: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS "REVIEWED" SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~ ``~ ~v ~~~ ~ . ~ti~ ~~a n S~v ~ 1~ ~ " SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS J' YV ~ ~t /~/ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~~ G y~,' f~~~, j~,,~a~l ~c ~ti~ ~ ~Ft~ All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~~~ r ~` ~~~ ~y a .~ ~~~ ~ ~l ~ ~ COMMENTS MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: APRIL 11.1995 APPLICANT: PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 10 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION 126 LOTS 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: OTHER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS "REVIEWED" SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~ ~~' ~~ .~~ , ~~ ~~ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~, S~ Q ` ~ k~~~~~1~v ~~ , ~~ ,.o SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~~~ J~ ,~, ~~ ,^~' Y~" ~~~~ Sr~bi~, ~) a o~'" ~~ ~~ S~Y~~~~Q \~ d'~ All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i • ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Development Services Division Preliminary Report Preliminary Plat and Annexation -Packard Meridian Packard is a 126-lot residential subdivision on 39.9-acres. The site is located 1/4-mile north of Fairview Avenue and 1/4-mile west of Eagle Road. This development is estimated to generate 1204 additional vehicle trips per day. Roads impacted by development are: FAIRVIEW AVENUE -Arterial street with a bike lane designation - Traffic count 16,470 in 1990 EAGLE ROAD - ITD jurisdiction -Arterial street - Traffic count 12,000 from traffic study (350 trips will be added) HICKORY AVENUE -Collector street with no pathway designation (1,200 trips added) Issues to be addressed are: 1. Right-of-way requirements 2. Road improvements 3. Medians needed in knuckles or bulbs ~ USTICK RD. - i a SITE o 4 Q I j TAZ 265 (1C TAZ 144 ~ , ~_ W %~ ~ ~~~ ~ ' ~ w ~ DOVE DOWS s ~- uB°'" W FAIR VIEW AVE ~ I ~ TREASURE a '/ALLEY I ~ BUSINESS >- PARK I ,J _~ TAZ 145 I _ I I I _ _ TAZ 2~6 PINE ST. I FRANKLIN RD. Packard ACHD Commission Date April 5, 1995 ~ , Facts and Findings: A. General Information R-4 -Zoning 126 -Lots 39.9 -Acres 265 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Hickory Avenue Collector with no pathway designation 60-feet of frontage 60-feet existing right-of-way (25-feet from centerline) 60-feet required right-of-way (45-feet from centerline) Hickory Avenue is improved with a 41-feet street section. The improvements do not reach the site, but will with the completion of a later phase of Dove Meadows. B. This is a modification to the original preliminary plat submittal. No action was taken on the original submittal. Staff has had several meetings with the representatives of this subdivision to discuss stub streets and traffic flow. Staff supports the stub streets as proposed. C. A traffic study was submitted and review for this subdivision. The traffic study was completed for 135 residential lots; the number of lots has been reduced to 126 buildable lots. D. Staff recommends that Hickory Avenue continue as a 41-foot back-to-back street section with a 60-foot right-of--way from the south boundary to the first internal intersection. Direct lot access will be restricted to Hickory Avenue. The preliminary plat shows Hickory Avenue with 60-feet of right-of--way with a landscaped median in the center of it. Both travel lanes of Hickory Avenue will needed to maintain an minimum back of curb width of 21-feet. E. Unless otherwise specified, staff recommends that all internal local streets be constructed as 37-foot street sections and 4-foot minimum (5-foot required by Meridian) with a 40-foot right-of--way. F. Several curves are shown the preliminary plat with radii less than 100-feet. If the turn or curve is a right-angle a lesser radii can be accepted. Staff recommends that the streets be modified to maintain a minimum radii of 100-feet unless it is aright-angle. Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 2 ~ ~ 4. Construct all other internal streets to a 37-foot back-to-back street section with 5-foot (Meridian width requirement) and a 50-foot right-of--way. 5. Two of the knuckles or half culdesacs shall be constructed with median islands, maintaining a minimum travel width of 21-feet to the back of curb. Coordinate with District Traffic Services Division. 6. All landscaped medians shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 7. Maintain a minimum radius of 100-feet on all curves other than 90-degree corners. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar davs of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity and minimum fee of $110.00. 2. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5-feet from the side lot property lines when driveways are not being shared with the adjacent property. 3. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drainage appurtenances, etc.) outside of the proposed street improvements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 4. Aright-of--way permit must be obtained from ACRD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of--way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. 5. Install a stop sign on every unsignalized approach of a project street to an intersection involving a collector or arterial as the cross-street. The stop sign shall be installed when the project street is first accessible to the motoring public. 6. The developer is required to install street name signs at the locations approved by the Ada County Highway District. Purchase street nave signs, sign poles, and mounting hardware from ACHD's Traffic Operations Department or an approved outside supplier. The District will not manufacture street signs until a copy of the recorded plat showing the recording data has been provided to Development Services staff. Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 4 ~ • 'A Karen Gallagher Preliminary Plat -Packard Page 6