Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Highlands Ranch (fka The Ranch Sub)
iiE1~U._;T F~dk SUBUI ~' ISIUN AFPkCiVAL FRELIf1INAkY FLAT AND/Ok FINAL FLAT rLANt~iI?IG A1ID ~GNING COMMiSGIOrI TTrgE i:.L..L~ ~Gf? :~U~!~;I~EZO!d: A te7lleSt f~+r pr- ~;minary L+lat apploVal rf1U:3t. t,e ir, ;-i,C '-'i t`i ,~le~k:S ~+C,S~e~~~Cr, r, C+ later' Lhan tt,ree days SG1.1Uw1f,C_: the 1"'eCJU.lar' meetlnq GS :.he Plar,nznq and GOn1ng l.Omm1°S1Gn. f't,e Ylar,ning ar,d ~.c+nir,g Commission wills hear the request at _y,_ ...~..:±:: i ...~'£'t.~:;Ci iO11Li711riy tiic .Bvs, ui i.i,8 1~~!jl,e°t way made. Aiter a proposal enters the process 1t may be acted u~~an at ut+~equer,t manthiy meetings provided the necessar;; procedures and documentation are received bezc+re ~+:~)~ r• M• ':hu-tsdav fu11ow1nq the Planning and ~on~nq Commiss'ior, a c'_-~ an. GENEF:AL IP1FC~iif1AT1~~N ~~~, 1. flame of Anne:!ation and Subdivision. ~~.~ 1 ~~~~+ ` 2. Ger,erai Loca*_ion, (:V~~~~ l~Jr!7i~L V ~~~~f'~j ~1~1 C~~~e ~~~ ;~. UWne: s U2 record, 1,~~Sk .~.1 e~ ~vI ~T l~~y ~~~ Add: ess. , yip Telephone ~ /; ~- Q~f' Address. ~~ ~~ .3~~ r~E~~ ~~'~ ~}. Appl=cant. j l C+. Er,glneer. d -Firm ~ .~ . ~/1Gf ~it~ 1 ~~/S Address1~~~ N - ~~h~ - ~~ , ~iP d7~JaTelephone "~~~ C,. Name and address to receive City billings: Narne ~ ~~~_ ,,~,Q Address ,JQ~~~ Telephone ~~Sb~" %~3 `~~ FRELIf'fINARY FLAT CHEC:hLIJI .' JL~~+dlVlslon Features L . ,~ ~r e ~ ~ 3 Z `~~ m r I»~-s, 1 li h^, ~ fe.~ ~~-~~ ~... ~i f ~~ s/n~lP..-~U 1 u Numt,er of lots ~. Lots per acre 3~ ~. Density per acre ~+3T ~. ~oninq Classi2ication ~ s) 7~` ~_~~O 6. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City Limits but within the jurisdictional .mile, what j. the existing zoning classification Nbstly mixed residential on._.. comprehensive plan with same single family designation. 7. Does the plat border a potential green belt Yes=Ridenbaugh canal. &. Have recreational easements been provided fortes-subject f.0.;-.` Nampa/Meridian license agreement. 9. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City Yes Ex p 1 a i n A 4.9 acre parcel is set aside for an element~- school and park. {Combined with adjoining 3evelopment or 1~1 acre si e7" 10. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? Yes Explain Bicycle .paths , walkways and greenbelts . For future parks? Yes Explain ~~ neighborhood parks:. Mary McP erson, e , 11. What school (s) service the area Meridian High do you . propose any agreements for future school sites Yes ~; - Ex pl ain A 4.9 acre portion of a 15 acre school/park on the-North property boon fu. s r ~ ~ Sa- e_ © 3 . GF ES 25 fj/.5,~ SckDa/ 12. Other proposed amenities to the City / Water cu~ppl}f'I` ~~ ~'~~~~ +-Cire Department S/fG ~j~e4eJ~~,,~~,~~'let~°~~r sc~oc~ `~~ _ Explain__ ,~: e 13. Type o2 Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial~or combination) Residential 14_ .Type of Dwelling(s) Single Family, Duplexes, Multiplexes,'; other Single family, ' 15. Proposed Development features: ,^ a. Minimum square footage of lot (s) , ~ fit? ~~IIL/ /~ b. Minimum square footage of structure(s)_ J_f~l ~ ~` c. Are garages provides for, ~ c-ar minSquare footage 400 siigle'fa d. Are other coverings provided for - _ _ __ _ e. Landscaping has been provided for Yes , Describe parks. greenbelt areas, entrances fully landscaped. Minimum requi.remerits for ~- single family home landscaping required by homeowners and by.dev~e oper• (2) -'• `y 3 ; . - ~'~. ~, ~A ~~ ,'r:L, f. Trees will be -provided for Yes Trees will be maintained Homeowners association . Each haler _.will also . be required to meet a miniirnun tree planting reauirement_ g. Sprinkler systems are provided for d,l( c,~YlAii1L"n- cL}•~a~ h. Are there multis leluen is iYesion for homeowner. c P Y Type -10(.(J~')Y~D(,C yPS ;. remarks _ ~-_7 ~1 f'~'CLG~ t'.~ ~ W-yL(.t.o rv~, PiS i. Are there special set back requirements No Explain j. Has off street parking been provided for ~'eS ,Explain Driveways and garages in single family areas. k. Value range of property, ~~~ ~~;;~ . 1. Type of financing for aevelopment Rank m. Protective covenants were submitted ~'eS ,Date JQ.I'i . `' , 1~~~ 16. Does the proposal land lock other property No Does it create EnclavesyPG STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: 1. Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be constructed to standards as required by Ada County Highway District and Meridian Ordinance. Dimensions will be determined by the City Engineer_ All sidewalks will be five t5> feet in width. 2. Proposed use is in conformance with the City of Meridian' Comprehensive Plan. 3. Development will connect to City services. . ~1. Development will comply with City Cr-dinances. 5. Preliminary Plat will include all appropriate easements. 6. Street names must not conflict with City. grid system.. t3> 4".e":vr. ~"'' .. DECD 18 ' 95 10 ~ 55 F R G i 1 Y UF' I`'1tK ! U 1 HIV cr~o 0o r tiv i v i u ..~-.,v... -. - a,~ ~~j ~ i PRELIMINARY SUBDTVTSTQN PLAT CHECKLIST llVCOMPLETE APPLiCAT10NS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED 'THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO NEXT REGULARLY-SCHEDULED P~icZ MEETING. i j~+j DESCRIPTION 1. Pre-application submittal meating held ACRD Technical Review Committee approval ~~Y' P ~-~ YY,~a~ J ~~ 2. submitted ~~~ ~ ~ 3. Thirty (30) copies of the completed and executai written application form 4.I Proof of current ownership of the real property included in the prelimiuaty Plat and consent of recorded owners 5.' Name and address of party to receive billings/correspondeace - 6.'! Legal description of subdivision prepared aad stamped by Registered Land Surveyor 7.'~ Thirty (30) copies of the preliminary Plat 'I~ with dimensions of not less than 24" x 36", drawn to a scale suitable tD insuro clarity of all lines, dimensions and other data. Preliminary plats shall include: i a. Proposed Subdivision Name b. Drafting date . c. Sectional location of plat -County ~~.-. d. North arrow - e. Scale of plat (not smaller than 1"=100') f. Names,. Addresses and telephone numbers of owner, subdivider or subdividers '' end engineer, surveyor or planner who prepared the preliminary Plat; g. Statement of imeaded use of the proposed subdivision (i.e., residential singla-family, two-family and multiple housing, commercial, industrial, recreational or agricultural) CITY OF MERIDIAN Q. lp~. '' j ~ ~. ;, ,, ,~ 18 ' 95 1100 FR CITY OF MERIDIAN 208 88? 4813 TO 34405?4 P.02i03 J h Sifts for >a ,schools, proposzd parks, P y$rowtds churches ar other public uses i. Streets, street names, rights-of-wxy and madway widths, .including a~joinaing streets or roadways; j . Lot lines and blocks showing scaled dimensions and numbers of each; k. Legcnd of symbols --- 1. M,~t~> m. Caatota' lines, shown at S" intervals where land slope is greater than 1091a and at 2' intervals where land slope is 10'~ ar less, ~a~~! ~~~~ 1~~ ~cludirtg location and elevation; n. Any proposed ar eaisrting utilities, including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, lrilgati0~ laLGrBIS, ditCllCS, drarnagC, brrdgcs, / culverts, vv~r mains, fire hydrants, sareetlrghts, J o. pressurized rmgaturn Any dedications to the public and/or easeme~ats together with a statetr~nt of location, dimensions and piuposcs of such p. Master street drainage plan including method of ditiposat end approval from the affected drainage 7~ "'' ~ ~ r .~,,,~~~'" ' ~ district ~vn'I. <. y. Ploodplain boundary as determined by FEMA or ~a i /~cJ ~I DP ~~~ rl measures to amend this boundary d . . _ . r. jacent Stub streets to provide access to a J undeveloped land or existing roadways ` (block lengths do nat exceed l,aoo') ~ s. Cul-do-sac lengths not in excess of 450' A statement as to whether or not a variance will be requested with respect to any provision of the Ordinance describing the particular provision, the variance requested, and the reason therefar A statement of development features A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a portion of a larger ,~ holding intcndcd far subsalucnt ckvclopmcnt 'Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map showing a minimwn 1/2-mile radius from exterior boundaries of plat, including land use and existing zoning of proposed subdivision and aQjacent land (scale optional) ~~ D~ 18 ' 95 1101 FR CITY OF MERIDIAN 208 887 4813 TO 34405?4 P . 03103 ~~~ ~~ i i PI~LIMINARY PLA''i~ CHECKLIST Page 3 of 3 jam, nFS~C'RTp~~ 1~ C'[]MMFNT_ C/DATE: ~~ '! ~ 1~~ Thuty (30) copies Of a 1"=300' scale map On 8~/~" x 11" ','; pager iAdicating all adjacent development and/or Lots of '' ~ record within 300' of any boundary of tha proposod ~ devclopment, with the layout of flit propodod development in bold outline. 131 A statement of tragic impact on wtistutg a[~laceat -~ .roadways and intersections 14 Foe Paid -5300.00 + Lots (~ SI0.00/Lot certified mailings @ 51.29/wailing '~ iSj Proposed restrictive coveaauts and/or deed restrictions 1b~~ A site report far establislunent of the highest seasonal groundwater elevation 1 17~ Other Information as Requcsted by Adminisaator, City Enginecr, Planning & Zoning Commission, '' or City Council ~~ ;,, RI~VIEW BY: API'LTCATION ACCEPTANCE DATE: ;~.:> Meridian Highlands Ranch -List of Development Conditions - 14 February 1995 A. Conditio . rom Meri inn Public Wor c Dep rrm n , ea'r'"" ~~5~ February 10, 1995 Memo. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 aze acceptable to Gem Park II. ~'~~ ' ~ ,Ir-' ~0' B. Conditions from Meridian Planning,j~partment. February 10, 1995 Mcmo. Condition 1 is acceptable to Gem Pazk II. Conditions 2 should be modified to indicate "theoretical" density. Planner is awaze that Gem Pazk II will develop well below "theoretical" density levels. Condition 3 is not workable at this tics. The Meridian Planned Development Ordinance (9-607.F.7) does not allow this type of quality development and mixed residential uses. The Planned Development procedure could increase density to 5 dwelling units per acre within the R-4 base zone. C. Conditions from Ada County Imo- ' way District All of the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) conditions included in the February 3, 1995, memo with the exception of item number 6 are acceptable to Gem Park II. The ACRD has indicated to Gem Pazk II that the office parcel on S. Locust Grove Road can have direct access to Locust Grove Road. ACRD will be modifying condition number 6. D. Conditions from a-11 other ag n i c, All other conditions listed in the Febnaary 14, 1995, Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission packet are acceptable to Gem Park II. E. I.isl of suggested conditions from Gem Park II to be placed on t_hc Meridian Highlands Ranch Projccl by lh_c Mctidia_n_ Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. The maximum gross density concept of the entire project will be to be 3.94 units per acre (682 units) as shown on the Highlands Ranch Concept plan. 2. The general elements of the concept plan pertaining to all lot azcas: pathways, open space, school/park site, pedestrian crossings, road improvements, multi-family and landscaping shall be included in a preliminary plat and fully delineated. The Preliminary Plat shall restrict the lot development to these standazds and maximum densities: Integrated Housing Choices Lot Size in S. F. House Size in S.F. ~ IJjljl.~ L?~nsi>x A -Luxury Home Sites 9000 l0 97UU t6UU + 2.3 DU/AC 5l B -Executive Home Sites 8140 to 8800 14UU + 2.9 DU/AC 112 C -Greenbelt Home Sites 6000 to 7700 1000 + 3.2 DU/AC 196 D -Keyhole Home Sites 5000 to 6000 900 + 4.5 DU/AC 93 E -Lifestyle Homes (Townhouse) 1400 + detached homes -Common area. 3.4 DU/AC 52 F -Multi-Family (Apartments) Attractive, two story - By CUP. 15 DU/AC 178 TOTALS MARKET NEED 3.94 DU/AC 682 e ~, r f~ v~ ~ F+ O N '" O .., W °~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ '~ rw C w o v~ ~~ ~ .~ A ~ ~" ° ~ 3 ~ ~ M ,~j z ~~ U3 ~ aU 3 a ~ ~ I U 1 a ~ \ U x ~ ~ w w a ~ •~ `i' I `n " ~ ~, U ~ ° ~ N > 4U, •rn U .-r ~ u.; ~,._,1 o ,,~ ~ Lz-~ p ~l C+ ~ ~, Q iN ~ V1 V ~ V rd ^ ~ O ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~a I ~ I I ~ a. a ~ ~U ~ ° 'c~ • G N rr A 'p ~' ° O G' U ~ N ~ p., ~ .~ U ~ i/'1 O U ~ O a ~ ~ ~ -d •3 ± 3 0 ~ o ~ oU W ''~ ~ ~ O O +y-~ O ~" U .~ e~ . ~ O 3 i '" O ^'' 00 ~ ~ .--i C r•+ N M d ~ ~ [` -~ Q M M n U O d d• O '--~ II U U N .b ~_ 0 i ~ C/~] ~ ¢" r~- O ~ H Q N Q\ M n a~ U 0 N G 0 00 N I I~~++ C~ U '~ A ^~ 0 td y tom. .~ a p N a~ O d Q 0 M II 0 00 0 II :5 U N •o a 0 H N U U 0 Ii U O A 0 H U O .~ a~ C~ .~ b .N a~ a., N ~''~ .d• v1 ~t7 ~` PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR THE RANCH SOBDIVISION A parcel of land being a portion of the South 1/2 of Section 20 T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Co~mencing at the iron pin marking the corner common to Sections 19 20, 29 and 30, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence, N.0°44'50"E. 1327.36 feet to an aluminum cap marking the South 1/16 Corner common to said Sections 19 and 20 said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, 5.89°49'11"E. 2249.32 along the north line of the S 1/2 SW 1/4 of said Section 20 to the easterly bank of the Ridenbaugh Canal; thence along said bank the following courses and distances: N.12°05'58"W. 117.03 feet; thence, N.18°02'08"E. 105.00 feet; thence, N.39°02'08"E. 322.46 feet; thence, N.34°43'08"E. 86.20 feet; thence, N.40°22'38"E. 174.02 feet; thence leaving said bank, 5.89°56'41"E. 55.02 feet to the Meridional Center Line of said Section 20; thence, N.0°23'54"E. 669.47 feet to the Center 1/4 Corner of said Section 20; thence, N.89°54'59"E. 1332.18 feet along the Latitudinal Center Line of said Section 20; thence, S.0°11'58"W. 26$9.01 feet to the East 1/16 Corner common to said Sections 20 and 29; thence, N.89°36'11"W. 476.36 feet along the line common to said Sections 20 and 29 to the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal; thence along said centerline the following courses and distances: N.56°01'17"W. 290.40 feet; thence, N.53°20'29"W. 340.70 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the right 175.67 feet, said curve having a delta of,13°25'12", a radius of 750.00 feet, tangents of 88.24 feet and a long chord of 175.27 feet which bears N.46°37'53"W. to a point of tangent; thence, N.39°55'17"W. 343.46 feet; thence, N.52°22'11"W. 198.23 feet; thence leaving said centerline, S.p°25'48"W. 206.24 feet; thence, N.89°34'12"W. 538.36 feet; thence, S.0°34'22"W. 126.54 feet; thence, N.89°32'04"W. 639.99 felt; thence, S.0°34'24"W. 531.00 feet to the West 1/16 Corner common to said Sections 20 and 29; thence, N.89°34'22"W. 388.90 feet along said line common to Sections 20 and 29 to the centerline of the Eight Mile Lateral; thence along said centerline the following courses and distances: N.3°04'10"W. 319.40 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the left 155.25 feet, said curve having a delta of 74!°07'42", a radius of 120.00 feet, tangents of 90.64 feet. and a long chord of 144.65 feet which bears N.40°08'01"W. to a point of!t~ngent; thence, N.77°11'52"W. 523_.60 feet; thence, 5.89°22'14"W. 323.49 feet to the west line of said Section 20 thence, N.0°44'50"E. 792.41 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, said parcel containing 132.94 acres, more or less. EMg1I~EEIP .!q 1STE E~®~d o 2471 '' lZ'1~ E 0 F ~p~ ~~ ,/ H O~ ` ' ~'`' SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET ---~~~~~ 't3 ~~ i f ~~~~< Proposed Development Name HIGHLAND RANCH City MER~~IV~~ ~~~vF~~~r'~.'a~ Date Reviewed 06/08/95 Preliminary Stage XXXXX Final Engineer/Developer J. J. Howard Engr. /The Westpark Company 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 Meridian City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street names shall appear on the plat as: "E. VICTORY ROAD" "S. LOLUS7 GROVt RvAD`' "S. EAGLE ROAD" The following new street name is approved and shall appear on the plat as: "E. LIMOUSINE DRIVE" "E. SHORTHORN COURT" "E. SIMMENTAL STREET" "E.BRAUMA STREET" "S.KETCHUM PLACE" "S. POTLATCH PLACE" "S. MACKAY PLACE" "S. HYNDMAN PLACE" "E. BULL TROUT DRIVE" "E. DWORSHAK DRIVE" "HEREFORD" is a duplication and cannot be used. "ANGUS" sounds like ANDROS and therefore cannot be used. "BRANGUS" sounds like ANDROS and therefore cannot be used. "GIAVINA" sounds like GINA and therefore cannot be used. "LONGHORN" is a duplication and cannot be used. "DEADWOOD" is reserved for use in another subdivision and therefore cannot be used unless Information .Pertaining to REvE~v~d APR Q ~ 199 ian, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION For REVIEW BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN April 4, 1996 Submitted by Gem Park II Partnership ,, Additional information pertaining to the "The Ranch Subdivision" Planned Development Residential request. Item No. 1 -Architectural Style and Building Design. The Ranch Subdivision will incorporate a Western style architectural theme using wood, stucco, brick, picket, split-rail and pole fencing plus outdoor porches. Some homes will be two story, but the majority of buildings will be one level. See attached drawings of typical home styles anticipated for "The Ranch Subdivision" in Item No. 10 of this document. It is important to note that lots within "The Ranch Subdivision" will be made available to and sold to individual contractors. Individual small-business home contractors will be able to construct a quality home in compliance with the subdivision covenants. This is a continuation of a very successful housing development system that is currently working well throughout Meridian subdivisions. Westpark Company or its affiliated companies may choose to construct homes within "The Ranch Subdivision", but the intent is to provide quality subdivision lots to the public and small business contractors so homes can be built in the free market in conformance with the subdivision covenants. The office building style proposed for Lot 1 Block 2 (zoned L-O) is a single story quality office building constructed of wood and brick with architectural glass and trims. See attached photos of an existing professional office building that is very similar to the style of building that Westpark anticipates for this location. Refer to Item No. 10 of this document. Item No. 2 -Building Materials and Color. "The Ranch Subdivision" will include a variety of Western Ranch theme building products to create a Western architectural style. There will be extensive use of wood, stucco, brick plus picket, split-rail and pole fencing. Outdoor porches will be incorporated as possible. Colors will be primarily earth tones to represent the Western Ranch heritage. Some exterior wood applications may be left natural to weather and provide a true Western color. Individual builders and -lot purchasers/homeowners will be able to choose their house color ...but it must comply with the subdivision covenants. Please refer to previously submitted subdivision covenants and suggested color scheme in Item No. 10 of this document. Item No. 3 - Landsca~g. "The Ranch Subdivision" will be extensively landscaped. About fifteen percent (15%) of the subdivision is set aside for landscaped and natural open space. The landscape theme is Western and Ranch oriented. There will be liberal use of native shrubbery, grasses, flowers, bushes and trees. A professional landscape firm will maintain the landscaped areas to preserve the Western Ranch planting theme. Please refer to the colored rendering of the Preliminary Plat which depicts the landscape plan for the subdivision. Also, "The Ranch Subdivision" will utilize tree species that are listed with the Tree Selection Guide by the Boise Parks and Recreation Department. This tree listing is very comprehensive and provides good information on trees for the open space areas that are attractive, hardy, wildlife friendly, utility friendly, and adaptable to urban situations. The tree species list for "The Ranch Subdivision" is attached in Item No. 10 of this document. Item No. 4 -Screening. "The Ranch Subdivision" incorporates lots which are deeper than typical subdivision lots in Meridian. This extra rear yard space is an asset and complements the Western lifestyle and privacy needs of residents. The extra rear yard depth also provides additional screening space for landscaping which every homeowner usually plants in their back yard. Also, you can see on the landscape plan that a tree is planned to every joint lot line adjacent to the Lot 61 Block 4 common open space. This provides extra screening and beautification. "The Ranch Subdivision" will include three types of fencing in the project. The subdivision perimeter fence will be a six foot (6') high cedar fence for screening and privacy definition. The Preliminary Plat map shows the location of the 6' cedar fence. The fence along the Ridenbaugh Canal easement will be a six foot (6') high chain link fence, with non-climbable mesh fabric. A similar chain link fence will be installed along the Eight Mile Lateral easement. Both of these chain link fences are shown on the Preliminary Plat. A two pole, split-rail open fence will be constructed along the edge of the common open space, Lot 13 Block 8, Lot 31 Block 1, and Lot 61 Block 4, where the common open space abuts the residential lots within the subdivision. A brown line representing the location of the split-rail open space is shown in the Preliminary Plat. The 6' cedar, the 6' chain link and the split-rail open fence will be maintained by a professional landscape maintenance firm. See attached photos offence style in Item No. 10 of this document. Item No. 5 - C7arbage Areas. "The Ranch Subdivision" representatives have met with the owner of Meridian's Sanitary Service and a good understanding of garbage truck pick-up needs has resulted from these meetings. The Subdivision incorporates street-side garbage pick-up to make it convenient for residents and Sanitary Service personnel. Each residential home will have sufficient space at the front of the lot to place garbage cans out for pick up. This is the same garbage pick up system used in all new Meridian subdivisions. The Homeowners Association will provide trash can and trash pick-up in the open space Lot 61 Block 4 and open space Lot 13 Block 8 at locations as shown on the Preliminary Plat. Item No. 6 -Parking. "The Ranch Subdivision" incorporates off-street parking in the driveway of each home. The Homeowners Association will enforce the Community's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) to prevent unnecessary on-street parking. Auto parking will be developed on each Additional Information -Page 2 residential lot in accordance with the CC & R's. An adjacent property owner has expressed an interest in developing a public storage facility that will be available to residents of "The Ranch Subdivision". Separate pazking will not be constructed in the open space areas as a way to encourage walking, jogging and bicycling use of the pathway system and open space. Item No. 7 -Open Sgace. "The Ranch Subdivision" incorporates nine point zero seven (9.07) acres of open space into the total subdivision which includes 56.42 acres. This amount of open space represents over fifteen percent (15%) of the 56.42 acre subdivision. The City of Meridian Zoning Ordinance requires at least ten percent (10%) open space to qualify for Planned Development. "The Ranch Subdivision" exceeds the required minimum and provides high quality open space with a diversity of uses. The intended use of each open space area is listed below. • Lot 30 Block 1 -Natural open space, pedestrian, bicycle and maintenance vehicle access along the existing Eight Mile Lateral access road. • Lot 31 ~ 32 Block 1 -Landscaped open space, pedestrian and bicycle access between Locust Grove Road and Ketchum Drive. Five foot wide asphalt pathway shown on Preliminary Plat as magenta-colored dots constructed in Lot 31 for access. • Lot 1 Block 1, Lots 18 and 20 Block 7, Lot 29 Block 8 -Landscaped open space to define and beautify Victory Road and subdivision entrances. • Lot 61 Block 4 -Landscaped open space with permanent soccer goals installed at location as shown on Preliminary Plat. Five foot wide asphalt pathway constructed throughout the open space lot -- shown on Preliminary Plat as magenta-colored dots. Multi-use sport court to be constructed as part of the storm water retention area. Sport court is a hard surface play area that can be used for basketball, volleyball, tetherball, jump rope, jacks, hopscotch and similar outdoor games and activities. Sport courts aze compatible with water detention facilities and recommended by Ada County Highway District. • Lot 13 Block 8 -Natural open space, mowed turf for open play. Five foot wide asphalt pathway constructed at location shown on Preliminary Plat as magenta-colored dots for access to Ridenbaugh Canal natural azea. Item No. 8 -Variances. The Meridian Zoning Ordinance, section 9-607 encourages and allows variances to standard subdivision requirements as part of the Planned Development process. A separate variance request and public hearing is not required if the variances are part of the Planned Development proposal. Please refer to the Preliminary Plat. "The Ranch Subdivision" qualifies and declares variances to as follows: • Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 Block 1 to have reduced lot frontages as shown on Plat. Additional Information -Page 3 Bull Trout Loop, Makay Loop, W. Shorthorn Court and Pilot Peak Loop to be constructed in a 42' ROW Typical Section as shown on Plat. All interior streets to be constructed with a 5' sidewalk on one side of street only as noted on Plat. Sidewalks on one side of street are requested as part of planned development design which includes developed pathway within open space areas. If City of Meridian requires sidewalks on both sides of streets, then the pathway within the open space is not needed and will not be constructed. • Minimum residential lot size of 6,000 square feet as shown on Plat. • Non-circular lot/traffic access bulbs at S. Simmental Street and E. Shorthorn Court as shown on Plat. Item No. 9 -Covenants. Westpark Company has previously submitted proposed sample Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) to the City of Meridian. Please review these covenants to see the quality criteria and guidelines planned for "The Ranch Subdivision". Item No. 10 -Attachments. The items referred to as attachments throughout the document are found on the following pages. Additional Information -Page 4 i~F'F:- 4-'?rte THI I 1 5 : 1 f .T T HULJiiRL EtJG Z FJEERS <<=t:=: = ~.}t3v i :~ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION A parcel of land being a portion of the South 1/2 of Section 20, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: P.-~1 Commencing at the iron pin marking the corner common to Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence, N.0°44'50"E. 1327.36 feet to an aluminum cap marking the South 1116 Corner common to said Sections 19 and 20 said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, S.89°49'11"E. 2228.88 feet along the north line of the S 1/2 SW 1/4 of said Section 20 to the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal; thence along said centerline the following courses and distances: S.20°43'05"E. 111.76 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the left 168.45 feet, said curve having a delta of 12°52'06", a radius of 750.00 feet, tangents of 84.58 feet and a long chord of 168.09 feet which bears S_27°09'08"E. to a point of tangent; thence, 5.33°35'11"E. 233.60 feet; thence, 5.52°22'11"E. 44.27 feet; thence leaving said centerline, S.0°25'48"W. 206.24 feet; thence, N.89°34'12"w. 538.36 feet; thence, S.0°34'22"w. 657.14 feet to the line common to said Sections 20 and 29; thence, N.89°34'12"W. 640.00 feet to the West 1/16 Corner common to said Sections 20 and 29; thence continuing along said line, N.89°34'22"W. 38$.90 feet to the centerline of the Eight Mile Lateral; thence along said centerline the following courses and distances: N.3°04'10"W. 319.40 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the left 155.25 feet, said curve having a delta of 74°07'42", a radius of 120.00 feet, tangents of 90.64 feet and a long chord of 144.65 feet which bears N.40°08'01"W. to a point of tangent; thence, N.77°11'52"W. 523.60 feet; thence, 5.89°22'14"W. 323.49 feet to the west line of said Section 20; thence, N.0°44'50"E. 792.41 feet to the REAL PAINT OF BEGINNING, said parcel containing 56.42 acres, more or less. ~~~,~;SJfER.~rj\ c1'~57~'fi\°~O 2471 ,~ `^~, 3 ~~~s~ o f , ~P~ t_ ~ J t, - i~FR- ~-?E. WED 1~:~4 .T T H~=~WraF.'L, EtJ~;ItJEEF•S '~G_i•~3~~}E'~57~ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED L-0 ZONING FOR THE RANCU SUBDIVTSTON A parcel of land being a portion of the South 1/2 of Section 20, T.3N., R.1E., B.M.. Ada County, Idaho, said parcel being mare particularly described as follows: F•. 01 Commencing at the iron pin marking the corner common to Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence, N.0°44'50"E. 534.95 feet along the line common to said Sections 19 and 20 to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said line, N.0°44'50"E. 432.39 feet; thence, S.89°15'10"E. 45.00 feet to the west right--of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral; thence along said right-of-way the following courses and distances: S.17°37'28"E. 73.76 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the right 144.86 feet, said curve having a delta of 11°41'24", a radius of 710.00 feet, tangents of 72.68 feet and a long chord of 144.61 feet which bears 5.11°46'46"E. to a point of tangent; thence, S.5°56'04"E. 127.30 feet to a paint of curve; thence along a curve to the left 112.94 feet, said curve having a delta of 53°55'32", a radius of 120.00 feet, tangents of 61.04 feet and a long chord of 108.82 feet which bears 5.32°53'50"E. to a point of ending of curve; thence, 5.89°22'14"W. 174.76 feet to the REAL POINT OF $EGINNrNG, said parcel containing 0.97 acres, mare or less. ~, PROPERTY pESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED R-9 ZONING FOR THE RANCH SUBbTVTSION A parcel of land being a portion of the South 1/2 of Section 20, T.3N,, R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the iron pin marking the corner common to Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence, N.0°44'50"E. 1327.36 feet to an aluminum cap marking the South 1/16 Corner common to said Sections 19 and 20 said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, S.89°49'11"E. 2228,88 feet along the north line of the S 1/2 SW 1/4 of said Section 20 to the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal; thence along said centerline the following courses and distances: S.20°43'05"E. 111.76 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the left 168.45 feet, said curve having a delta of 12°52'06", a radius of 750,00 feet, tangents of 84.58 feet and a long chord of 168.09 feet which bears S.27°pg'08"E. to a point of tangent; thence, S.33°35'11"E. 233.60 feet; thence, S.52°22'11"E. 44.27 feet; thence leaving said centerline, S.0°25'48"W. 2D6.24 feet; thence, N.89°34'12"W. 538.36 feet; thence, S.0°34'22"W. 657.14 feet to the line common to said Sections 20 .and 29• thence, N.89°34'12"W. 640.00 feet to the West 1/16 Corner common to said°Sections 20 and 29; thence continuing along said line, N,89 34 22 w. 388.90 feet to the centerline of the Eight Mile Lateral; thence along said centerline the following courses and distances; N.3°04'10"W. 319.40 feet to a paint of curve; thence along a curve to the left 155.25 feet, said curve having a delta of 74°07'42", a radius of 120.00 feet, tangents of 90.64 feet and a long chord of 144.65 feet which bears N,40°08'01"W. to a point of tangent; thence, X1.77°11'52"W. 523.60 feet; thence, S,Bg°22'19"W. 148.73 feet to a point of curve an the west right-of-way of said Eight Mile Lateral; thence along said right-of-way the following courses and distances; along a curve to the right 112.94 feet, said curve having a delta of 53°55'32", a radius of 120.00 feet, tangents of 61.04 feet and a Long chord of 108.82 feet which bears N.32°53'50"W, to a point of tangent; thence, N.5°56'04"W. 127.30 feet to a point of curve; thence along a-curve to the left 144.86 feet, said curve having a delta of 11°41'24", a radius of 710.00 feet, tangents of 72.68 feet and a long chord of 144.61 feet which bears N.11°96'46"W. to a paint of tangent; thence, N.17°37'28"W. 73.76 feet; thence, N.8g°15'10"w. 45.00 feet to the line common to said Sections 19 and 20; thence, N.0°44'50"E. 360.02 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, said parcel containing 55. acres, more or less . ~~ w~INEfR.~~ _.~~ _ ter'" C r c ~'~~ 24/71 ~"1 ~3 ~`~ ,OF ~~.-P% ~ y ~G =:= :`E 1 VED FRUIYI 2083440:574 `r ~ ~ ~-~ i+i ~~ l~ ~-~ 11~ e-_aco (~1'1 {Y1 C h ~ ec~ ~E~e_ c' S e I ec+i o ~ s The following tables list additional trees which are attractive and hardy in suitable planting sites. More information concerning these species may be found in the Landscape Uses section of this guide or at a local nursery. ['lace 1 RrnarllPaf Trees - Ran>;e generally in height from 10 to 40 feet Tree Zone Characteristics Cherry, Higan 5-6 Another pink flowering species marketed in upright to weeping varieties. Prunus subhir~ 'Pendula' is probably the most noteworthy weeping variety. Fast growth rate. Cherry, Oriental 5.6 Best known for profusion of pink flowers in late April. Vase-shaped, Prunus serrulata varieties columnar and weeping varieties may be found at local nurseries. Cherry, Yoshino 5-6 Boasts fragrant, white to pink flowers depending on variety selected. Fast Prunus x yg~loensis growth to 30 feet with graceful, curving branches. Spectacular flowering. Chokecherry, Common 3-6 Attractive white flower bloom and edible red fruit. 'Canada Red' is a Prunus virginiana variety having leaves that turn from green to dark purple in the summer. Dogwood, Kousa 5-6 An unusual but beautiful tree. Appears to be hardier, more drought and disease Cornus kousa tolerant than Flowering Dogwood (~. florid ). Magnificent white spring flowers. Hawthorn, Douglas 4-6 Native western tree that produces shiny, black fruit attractive to birds and Crataegus douglasii small mammals. Pleasant white flowers appear in spring. Hawthorn, English 5-6 Showy reel or white flowers (depending on variety), scarlet fruit is usually nt r<gus laevigata sparse on the tree. Several varieties available, see your local nursery. Hawthorn, Green 5-G Attractive small tree with silvery bark that contrasts nicely with the dark ' Crataegus virdis . green, glossy leaves. Usually available under the variety name 'Winter King Hawthorn, Lavalle 5-G Small oval cmw~ned tree having lustrous dark green leaves turning bronze/ Crataegus x Iavallei red in autumn. White spring flowers give svay to red-orange fruit in the fall. Hawthorn, Singleseed 5-fi Features rich green leaves, white flowers and small red fruit. Susceptible Crataegus monogyna to tireblight and mites. Variety 'Stricta' is an excellent columnar selection. Magnolia, Star 4-6 Singte specimen or accent plant. Multi-stemmed tree with 4 inch fragrant Magnolia stellata white flowers in March. Several varieties are grown. Maple, Bigtooth 4-G This slow growing tree is native to the Rocky Mountains. Similar to Sugar Acer grandidentatum Maple (A. saccharum), but smaller in stature. Good red/orange fall leaf color. Maple, Rocky Mountain 3-G Native to the mountain regions of the northwest United States. The red color of Acer Qla rum the winged seed and new twigs contrast beautifully with the green leaves. Mountain Ash, European 4-6 An upright to oval tree having white flowers and clumps of bright red fruit which Sorbus aucuparia are eaten by I~irds. Not a true Ash, but a member of the Rose family. Plum, Purpleleaf 5-G Attractive, dark purple foliage and light pink spring flowers distinguish this small Prunus cerasifera tree from others. Certain varieties arc not cold-hardy in Idaho. Serviceberry, Saskatoon 5-6 Features white flowers, orange-yellow fall color and dark purple berries. An Amelanchier alnifolia excellent landscape and wildlife/natural choice. Native to the Great Plains. Smoketree, Common 5-6 Spreading, multi-stem habit. Usually used as a showcase plant but better Cotinus coggygria spited for mass planting. Interesting and attractive 'smoke-like' flower structure. 46 .~ddi+iov~al ~ecomw~el~ded Nee Set ec+iov~s Class II Broadleaf Trees -Range generally in height from 40 to 60 feet Tree Zone Characteristics Birch, Water 4-6 Very cold hardy, clump form tree native to the west. Coppery brown bark is Betula occidentalis unique among birches. Slender branches droop, giving a graceful appearance. Buckeye, Yellow 4-G Upright to oval crowned tree with leaf and flower characteristics similar A ~ rl • o tandra to the horsechestnut. Large, fruit bears no prickly spines. Ironwood 3-6 Very graceful pyramidal tree developing a more rounded crown in maturity. Leaf Q~ya virginiana similar in appearance to American Elm. Few insect or disease problems. Maple, Black 4-6 Very similar in appearance to Sugar Maple, except that leaf tips tend to droop. Acer nigrum Reported to be more heat and drought tolerant than Sugar Maple. Maple, Sycamore 5-6 Oval to round-headed tree, similar to Norway Maple in overall form. Reported to Acer ~doplatanus be very salt tolerant. Species is adaptable to many environnu•ntal conditions. Oak, Sawtooth S-6 This oak becomes established dune easily; supposedly adaptable to hot climates. Quercus acutissima Medium growth rate with an oval form. Good yellow fall color. Walnut, English 6 Medium-sized nut-producing tree. Fairly tolerant of pour soils. Limited cold luglans reeia hardiness. Nuts are edible. lree• may be toxic to other nearby plants. Class III Broadleaf Trees -Range generally in height from 60 to 100 feet Tree Zone Characteristics Hickory, Shagbark 4-6 Best known as the wood used to smoke meats. Compound leaves carry 5 dark Carya ovata green leaflets. Sweet nut is edible. Bark strips off, giving a shaggy appearance. Oak, Shumard 5-6 Very similar to northern red oak. Fast growing, but requires well-drained, acidic Qu r r h m~rdii soil; has a drought tolerant reputation. Good red autumn leaf color. Conifers -Range generally in height from 10 to more than 100 feet Tree Zone Characteristics _ __ _ Cedar, Alaska Chamaeeynaris nootkatensis 5.6 Blue-green scale-like leaves arranged in flat sprays from drooping branchlets.! 'Pendula' is an attractive variety hardy in zone G. Needs consistent moisture. Cedar, Eastern Red luniperus virginiana 3-6 Small; pyramidal shaped evergreen having soft, yellowish-green foliage. 'Cupressifotia' is among the better varieties available. Cedar, Western Red ~,ya olicata 5.6 Large tree with drooping sprays of bright green, scale-like leaves turning bronze in winter. Traditionally used by some Native Americans for totem poles. juniper, Chinese luniperus chinensis 4-6 'Hollywood features slightly twisted branches. leaves are scale-like and green to blue-green. Drought, heat and salt tolerant. Pine, Eastern White Pinus strobus 3-6 Tall, fast-growing tree native to northeastern U.S. Soft textured medium green needles in bundles of five. Avery beautiful evergreen tree. Pine, Himalayan Pinus wallichiana 5-6 Beautiful large tree with gracefully drooping, blue-green needles in bundles of five. Broad-headed with age, it also retains bottom branches. 47 .,~d di+iol~al T~ecow,w-e~d ed Nee Sel ec+iov~s Tree Zone Characteristics Pine, Japanese Black 5.6 Excellent heat and drought tolerance and good salt-spray tolerance make this a Pinus thunber igana tough pine for areas of Idaho. Known as a bonsai plant in Japan. Irregular form. Pine, Japanese White 5-6 Graceful, fine-textured evergreen whose small stature makes it a choice tree for i rviflora small places. Adaptable to most soils and quite salt tolerant. Pine, Lodgepole 3.6 Dark green, twisted needles in bundles of two. Long, straight trunk led to Pinus contorts frequent use by Native Americans for building tepees, hence 'Lodgepole' pine. Pine, Pinyon 5.6 Small, bushy evergreen pine with upright, spreading branches. Two-inch long Pinus edulis needles held in bundles of two. Cones produce large, edible fruit. Pine, Western White 3-6 This evergreen tree has soft textured needles and reaches 60-1OC feet at Pinus monticola maturity. This is Idaho's state tree. Spruce, Engelmann 3-6 Densely branched, spire-like growth to 100 feet. Best growth on moist, deep Picea enaelmannii soil. A hardy Rocky Mountain native. N atc~ vie by Quinn Rogers like nature, It's been good to me. From the lowest moss, To the tallest I hope to see its continued health, Give us beauty and leafy wealth. I've never been bit by a jungle vine, And I haven't been abused by a fore In my opinion a briar, Doesn't purposely snare. Violets aren't known, For their vicious glare. Cool green grass doesn't burn my fe Nothing's intimidating about rolling of wheat. No crime has been committed, By a mountain brook. Walk in its frosty waters, And take a closer look. We continue to destroy, Our massive eco-system. In so many harmful ways, I can't begin to list them. Let's make a helpful change, In destructful everyday ways. Notice how nature's grateful, And invariably repays. Is the air we breathe, And the water we consume. Not meager enough a payment, To merely give them room? 48 ASPEN HOMES " THE RETRIEVER " 1635 ~ ~T " THE SUNDANCE " NOOK I l.J J6 ` EG I MST. BEDROOM BATH ' ~>< w~ FAMILY ROOM O C] ~. : _. ~ T~ ~. _ 1 _. ^~ /'~ ~I ~ ~ I OOM II DINING ROOM ~.J ~ I I i ' BATH ~p 8 R IIV,c106 v BEDROOM t •IC` jI ~~ i rt~1T~E.ITY ~ BEDROOM II I;Ox 106 LIVING ROOM i •~ ~ - __ r l~J O ^ -__ GARAGE 20 ~ 22 1 I I I i .~~ SPEN HOMES INC. ~~6 Sc~ FT ?~Ln t:~, ,:~ p .~~~~ y, 1 u` • '• ~~ *. ",:. T r ~- ~ , , .. ~ ~ .+~ I . ~~r :~ .~ ~ _. - ~ _ ~--, ~ _ -n r ii i I ~ ~ u ~ . B r-,I I ~~~f ~ IIr,~ j`~tIIIt t{ ` / ~ I ~ ~// ' .~~ ip(k-ir f ~~~r ` ~ ; V- r~A ~ Ih i~ ~I I -lun~rml ASPEN HOMES i Si2 s~-.{t. " THE LABRADOR " ,~.~, ASPEN MOMES I.~VC. 1440 SG FT U ~ __ .~ a ~ z ~,-- c~ o ~ -- - o - -- ---- ;. , ,.. a U Z W ~ ~~ _m , 0 LL W W 2 U ^ BSO LZO ~~, O J 0 U t!" - i' ~! - _ _ - - 1fi ., ak`,; ~. T ~ ~. Application For Annexation into the City of Meridian, Idaho by Gem Park 11 Partnership to develop the Highlands Ranch Planned Community Prellminrry Plon ~~` /~~ 1HIGHLANDS R.A.NCH_ :`~ ~, Th. W-I..clt Cn.Mn. l.c ^^ll ~-~~ GniJM.w.Y.a1Mt ~IeriiY..li.r S ~•~ :emnarv: ~-r. .w~.< .n.~ ~.m ~w....-n y~/ n.urou..w .~ M Li ,,... y +,.na.~rt-wr.n.. ..r ~....~. ..iM .o-u~. ,... . .c - January 12, 1995 Submitted By: i- -- -~ ~ `~ ~ --.rte --. _ -~~ _ _- -_ ~m~ ~-a..! Developer: Gem Park II Partnership The Westpark Company, Inc., Managing Partner Development Team: J. J. Howard Engineers -Engineering Design Wayne S. Forney, AICP -Urban Planning Analysis David A. Clinger -Site Design ~: ~~~ _,~ t j N~ , 1 - ,---- ~ ----a~.- ~-- . ~.~--- _ . ~~~ ~ r i .___ ,~ ..:0 N ~/ /,~q`• . ` Vii; ~ "`~~~'' t ~~ ~s~i 'Y~ _ -. __ _._._- -- -- _ ~ i yt ~ ~~ ~f y ~ ~ a ~! 11 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ t ~ a~ .; f ` -'~L J a'~~ .. ~ 'CJ~u t_J'FO ~ • ~"..f~ T'.`T'1't r DDS~OO Q .. .~.y ,i ~ ~ ' ~' Vim s , ~ . G =, V+ ~/ / ~ ''~i . aF ., ~ ~;~ i i .t ~ s (/~'~ i / a s' i i i ~" . ~ Y _ •~ ~~ y •. .,~ • . - ~ r ~ o ti, ~ ~ i. ~ '~. . XX~ • ~. . s~ :_ Crs ~. _. „. ~ _.. r a a . r% • '~ i ~ Y ~^') • ~ i "~ '~ y ~~ r ~ i y i ~ ~ ~ a _ ~ / e 4 s i; ~ I e ; • s ,• f _. + t ,O 1 r ri X" .e ~ i ~ ' ~ ; c i' ~` ~ 1 Q1 .~ ~ lI Ppp~ ~0.~ ~ }S n701 r _ _ O J C O ~ x ,. ~. ~ ' -~;- ..., , ' r. i" ~ .._ _. 1 _~_ ~ ~~' ~ - a1. ~ ~ ` II i U c ~" ~ ~- Z -' R E a ~ ~ o~ 0 .-. ~ i~ ~ • I- y~ m ~-~ ~ z ~ ~ W ~ n 'n 2 a a. 4. ~ o c ~ c ~ ~ _ _". _ - - •- o Y N o. Y uj w o _ O 0 ~ i ~ J _ ~ 'o ~_ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z ~ ~- Q ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ N ~ ''' Z ~. Z a J ~ Z Il ~i ~ ~ a ~ !- -- ~ ~ ~ ~- _ ~ ~ oyobi 7wo~ ~s'n~o7 Z ~ a _.. Exhibit Pad ~ ~ ~~ ( ~ VICI1vITY NZAP ~.: ~:~,~ 673.0 1-54 X2675 ' Overland Road p~ X2675.4 ~ a X2575.3 ~ ~ ' 'Si .a.w...~.~. rQ X2675.8 675.7 0 • IA ~~:~ ~ :~:w ~~ Project Site f~ • X2678.4VIttory Road 677.2 X2681.2 IRRIGATION STRUCTURE C _.._.. ~.._- ' ti M T - • ~ .i~~ •iY'M - _ ~j -i y _._ fit- .r ~ !ky.~.- r4• ."/ ~~,ye9~~:~T~ ~.~ -~'C':. .,~-, :Y.... ., .r.s" }. ~ ~ : . .. , `- f ~~ ~, -~ - 1 s _ f t .a * .. r . ~ i w w a~ a. `., ~ ~... . • i a „,.~.,..: ~ ~ fy M ywr Yq w/~ , y y ~ ~. ,.~.. ~ M NY O ~ } ..» a ~ ~` .~+ d ~ - 1 ~ a1 ~ - ' ~ ~ V ~~ .~ ~ ~. 0 ~~ ~ ~ .. ~ g o ~; -~ ' ~ ~ °` ~ flG d • M ..~ ~ 3 ~ ~ `' v ?~ ~ •~ y {•) T • ~ s ~ t ~ c - i ~ t n ~ - `} ~ W , .~ Y ~ 1, ~ -8~ DRAFT MASTER DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION THIS MASTER DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION is made effective as of the day of 1996, by The Westpark Company, Inc. ("Grantor" and "Class B Member"). TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee ARTICLE f: RECITALS ................................. 1 ................................ 1.1 Property Covered ...................................................... 1 1.2 Residential Developm nt ................................................ 1 1.3 Purpose of Master Declaration ............................................ 1 ARTICLE II: DECLARATION ......---•-• ................................................ 1 ARTICLE III: DEFINITIONS ..... .1 ............................................... "Architectural Committee" 1 3.2 .............................................. "Articles" ...... . 1 3.3 ............................. "Assessments" . 2 3.4 ...................................................... "Association" .. . 2 3.5 ......................... ............................. "Association Rules" 2 . 3.6 .................................................... "B ard" ....... 2 3.7 ................................. ..................... "Building Lot .. .. 2 3.8 ...................................................... "Bylaws" .......... 2 3 9 .................................. ................' "Common Area" 2 . 3.10 .................................... .................. "Declaration" .. 2 3.11 ....................................................... "Grantor'.... 2 3.12 ......-• ................................................ "Improvement" .. 2 13 . ............................................. ....-- "Limited Assessment" 2 3.14 ........................................ . .......... "Local Association" 2 3.15 .................................................... "Local Association Board" 2 3.16 ..................................... . "Local Common Area" 2 3.17 .................................................. "Master Association" 3 3.18 ................................................... "Member" . 3 3.19 ................................................:......... "Owner" ... 3 3.20 ......................................................... "Person" .... 3 .21 ........................................................ ~~ . Plat' ....... 3 3.22 .... .................................................... "Property" ......... 3 3.23 ................... ............................... "Ridenbau~h Canal" 3 3.24 ................................................... "Regular Assessment" 3 3.25 ................................................... "Special Assessment" 3 3.26 ............. ...................................... "Supplemental Declaration" 3 3.27 .............................................. "The Ranch Common Area" 3 3.28 .................................•--..._._.__• "The Ranch Subdivision" 3 . 9 ................................................ ~~ Tract' . 4 ............................................................. 4 ARTICLE IV: GENERAL AND SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS ....................................... 4 4.1 Structures -Generally ................ . ....... ........................... 4 4.1.1 Use. Size and Height of Dwelling Structure .......................... 4 4.1.2 Architectural Committee Review ................. 4 - 4.1.3 Setbacks and Height ............................. 4 4.1.4 Accessory Structures ........................................... 4 4.1.5 Driveways ............................ . ...................... 5 4.1.6 Mailboxes ................................................... 5 4.1.7 Fencing ..................................................... 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS - i 4.1.8 Li htin ............. 4.2 ......... ............................... 5 Antennae 4.3 .................................. .......................... 5 Insurance Rates .... 4.4 ....................................... No Further Subdivision ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' S 4.5 ................................................. 5 S-~n~ .............. 4.6 ................................................. 5 Nuisances ..... 4.7 ..... ti Exterior Maintenance; Owner's Obli i 4.8 at ons .................................. 6 Drainaee ............ 4.9 ................................................ 6 ra in ........... 4.10 .................... 6 .............................. Water Supply Systems . 4.11 ................................................. 6 No Hazardous Activiti s 4.12 ....................... 7 Unsightly Articles .... 4.13 .................................................. 7 No Temporary Structures 4.14 ................................................ 7 No Unscreened Boats Campers and Other Vehicles 4.15 ..................... . ..... 7 Sewage Disposal Systems . 4.16 .......... . .................................... 7 No Mining or Drilline .. 4.17 ................................................ 7 Energy Devices Outside .. 4.18 .............................................. 7 Vehicles .......... 4.19 ...... . ............................................ 7 Animals/Pets ..... 4.20 .................................................... 7 Landscaping .. • 4.21 8 Exemption of Grantor •.•...•....~•.~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4.22 . ....................... 8 Water Ri hg is Appurtenant to Subdivision Lands 4.23 ......................... . ..... 8 Commencement of Construction .......................................... 9 ARTICLE V: THE RANCH HOMEOWNERS' (MASTER) ASSOCIATION 5.1 ............ . ............... 9 Oreanization of The Ranch Homeowners' Associati 5.2 on .......................... 9 Membership 5.3 9 Votine ..................... . .......... ......................................... 9 5.3.1 Class A Member s .............................................. 9 5.3.2 Class B Members 5.4 .............................................. 9 Board of Directors and Officers 5.5 ................................... . . . .... 10 Power and Duties of the Master Association ................................ 10 5.5.1 Powers ...... . ...... 10 5.5.1.1 Assessments ...................................... 10 5.5.1.2 Rit;ht of Enforcement .................................. 10 5.5.1.3 Dele>?ation of Powers .................................. 10 5.5.1.4 Association Rules ..................................... 10 5.5.1.5 Emer ency Powers .................................... 11 5.5.1.6 Licenses. Easements and Rights-of-Wa v ................ . 1 1 5.5.2 Duties . ............. 11 5.5.2.1 Operation and Maintenance of The Ranch Common A rea 12 .... .5.2.2 eserve Account .......... 12 5.5.2.3 Maintenance of Berms Retaining Walls and Fences ........... 12 5.5.2.4 Taxes and Assessments ......................... 12 5.5.2.5 Water and Other Utilities ............................... 12 5.5.2.b Insurance ........................................... 12 5.5.2.7 Rule Making ..... ................................... 13 5.5.2.8 Newsletter .......................................... 13 5.5.2.9 Architectural Committee ............................... 13 5.5.2.10 Enforcement of Restrictions and Rules 5.6 ..................... 13 Personal Liability . 5.7 .............................. i 3 ...................... Budeets and Financial Statements 5.8 ........................................ 14 Meetines of Master Association .......................................... 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS - ii ARTICLE VI: LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS 6.1 Creation by rancor. ............................................... ..... 14 6.2 ............................................. Manaeement Powers and Duti c . 14 6.3 . . . ..... . .... . ... . ......... . ...... . .. . „ Members of Lo al Acso iatio c 14 6.4 n .......... . . . ........ , . Votine in Local A c ciatio 14 ns ........................................... 6.4.1 Class A Members ........ 15 ..................................... 6.4.2 Oass B Member 15 6.5 ....................... . ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' Annual Meetings of Local Asso iatio 15 6.6 n ..................................... Special Meetinec ...... 15 6.7 ............................................... Quorum and Officers of Meetinec 15 6.8 ........................................ Powers and Duties ...... 15 .............................................. 16 ARTICLE VII: RIGHTS TO COMMON AREAS ... 7.1 ......... . . . . . Use of The Ranch ommon Area ... 16 7.2 .............. . . .. Designation of Common Area . 16 7.3 ................... . . . Deleeation of Ri ht to 16 7.4 se ................... ........................... Damages .............. 1b ............................................. 17 ARTICLE Vlil: PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION .. 8.1 ......... . . Irrieation District Service . 17 8.2 .......................................... No Private Sy tem .... 17 8.3 ...... .......................................... Water Master ....... 17 ................................................. 17 ARTICLE IX: ASSESSMENTS 9.1 Covenant to Pay Assessments .... ....................................... 9.1.1 Assessment Constitutes Lien . 17 ........................... . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 Assessment i Personal Obli ati n . 17 9.2 17 Regular Assessments ... .... . 9.2.1 Purpose of Regular A ssessments .................................. 9.2.2 Computation of Regular Assessments 17 .............................. 9.2.3 Amounts Paid by Owners 18 9.3 ...................................... Special Assessments . . . 18 ......................... ....................... 9.3.1 Purpose and Proced 18 ure 9.3.2 Consistent Basis of Assessment 18 9.4 .................... . . . . . . . . . . • .... limited Assessments .. 18 9.5 ................................................ Uniform Rate of Assessment .. 19 9.6 ....... . ................................... Assessment Period .... 19 9.7 .. . ............................ Notice and Assessment Due Date ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' .. 19 9.8 ...................................... Estoppel Certificate 19 9.9 Special Notice and Quorum R i 19 equ rement ................................ 19 ARTICLE X: EN FORCEMENT OF ASSESSMENTS; LIENS .... 10.1 .................................. Right to Enforce ..... 19 10.2 ................................................. Assessment Liens .... 19 ................................................. 10.2.1 Creation .. 20 ........ . .......................................... 10.2.2 Claim of Lien 20 10.3 ................................................ Method of Foreclosure . 20 10.4 ............ . . . . Required Notice .. 20 10.5 ..............................................:. Subordination to ertain Trust De d 20 10.6 e s ...................... . Riehts of Mortga ees ~ " " " " " " " 20 .................................................. 21 ARTICLE XI: INSPECTION OF ASSOCIATION'S BOOKS AND RECORDS .................... . . . . 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS -iii 1 i.l Member's Right of I~ rtinn , , , • . 2i 11.2 Rules ReQardin InspPC-tipn of Books and R cords ......... 21 .................. 11.3 Director's Rights of Inc r't;nn 21 ARTICLE XII: ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ............................. . ............... 21 12.1 Creation ......................................... 21 ................... 1 .2 Grantor's Ri hg t of ARpointment ........... . .............................. 21 12.3 Review of Proposed Constru ion ........................................ 22 12.3.1 Conditions on Approval ........................................ 22 12.3.2 Architectural Committ a Rules and F es ........................ . .. 22 12.3.3 Detailed Plans ............................................... 22 12.3.4 Architectural Committee D cisions ............................... 22 12.4 Meetines of the Ar hit tural Committee ................................... 23 12.5 No Waiver of Future Approvals .......................................... 23 12.6 Compensation of Members .. . .......................................... 23 12.7 Inspection of Work ................................... 23 12.8 Non-Liability of Ar hit ctural Committee Members .......................... . 24 12.9 Variances ........... 24 12.10 Local Architectural Committe ........................................... 24 ARTICLE XIII: EASEMENTS ............................................................ 24 13.1 Easements of Encroachm nt ............................................. 24 13.2 Easements of Access ................................................... 25 13.3 Drainage and Utility Easements 25 13.3.1 Improvement of Drainage and Utility Easement Areas .............. 25 13.4 Rights and Duties Concernin Utilit,~Easements ............................. 25 13.5 DrivewavEasements .................................................. 25 13.6 Disputes as to Sharing of Costs ........................................... 26 13.7 General Landscape Easement ............................................ 26 13.8 Overhand Easement ................................................... 26 13.9 Maintenance and Use Easement Between Walls and Lot Lines ................... 26 ARTICLE XIV: MISCELLANEOUS ....................................................... 26 14.1 Term 26 14.2 Amendment ......................................................... 26 14.2.1 By Grantor .................................................. 26 14.2.2 By Owners .................................................. 26 14.2.3 Effect of Amendment .......................................... 27 14.3 Mort~aQe Protection ................... ... • . 27 ........ .... 14.4 Notices .................................. 27 14.5 Enforcement and Non-Waiver ........................................... 27 14.5.1 Right of Enforcement .......................................... 27 14.5.2 Violations and Nuisances ....................................... 27 14.5.3 Violation of Law ......................................•,,,._, 27 14.5.4 Remedies Cumulative ......................................... 27 14.5.5 Non-Waiver ................................................. 27 14.6 Interpretation ........................................................ 28 14.6.1 Restrictions Construed To eg ther .................................. 2g 14.6.2 Restrictions Severable .....................:................... 28 14.6.3 Singular Includes Plural ........................................ 28 14.6.4 Captions ................................................... 28 14.7 Successors and Assigns ................................................ 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS - iv EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ............................................. 30 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RANCH COMMON AREA .................................................. 31 EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RANCH TRACTS ..................................... 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS - v ARTICLE I: RECITALS 1.1 Property Covered. The property potentially subject to this Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Ranch Subdivision ("Master Declaration") is the Property legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property"). Grantor intends to develop the Property in stages, which initial stage is more fully described in Exhibit C to this Master Declaration. Each development stage shall constitute a Tract, as defined herein. 1.2 Residential Dev lopment. The Ranch Subdivision is a residential development, which Grantor currently intends to develop in accordance with existing development approvals obtained by the City of Meridian and documented in Meridian City files , or any other development plan(s) for which Grantor may from time to time obtain approval. Certain portions of the Property may be developed for quality detached single-family residential homes. The Property may contain parcels of Common Area, including streams and canals, public and/or private open space, park areas, landscaping, recreational facilities, private streets, drives, and other amenities and facilities. Any development plans or schemes for the Property in existence prior to or following the effective date of this Master Declaration are subject to change at any time by Grantor, and impose no obligation on Grantor as to how the Property is to be developed or improved. 1.3 Purpose of Master Declaration. The purpose of this Master Declaration is to set forth the basic restrictions, covenants, limitations, easements, conditions and equitable servitudes (collectively "Restrictions") that will apply to the entire development and use of all portions of the Property. The Restrictions are designed to preserve the Property's value, desirability and attractiveness, to ensure a well integrated, high-quality development, and to guarantee adequate maintenance of the Common Area, and the Improvements located thereon in a cost effective and administratively efficient manner. ARTICLE II: DECLARATION Grantor hereby declares that the Property, and each lot, parcel or portion thereof, is and/or shall be held, sold, conveyed, encumbered, hypothecated, leased, used, occupied and improved subject to the following terms, covenants, conditions, easements and restrictions, all of which are declared and agreed to be in furtherance of a general plan for the protection, maintenance, subdivision, improvement and sale of the Property, and to enhance the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Property. The terms, covenants, conditions, easements and restrictions set forth herein: shall run with the land constituting the Property, and with each estate therein, and shall be binding upon all persons having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the Property or any lot, parcel or portion thereof; shall inure to the benefit of every lot, parcel or portion of the Property and any interest therein; and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon Grantor, Grantor's successors in interest and each grantee or Owner and such grantee's or Owner's respective successors in interest, and may be enforced by Grantor, by any Owner or such Owner's successors in interest, or by the Master Association or any Local Association. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no provision of this Master Declaration shall be construed as to prevent or limit Grantor's right to complete development of the Property and to construct improvements thereon, nor Grantor's right to maintain model homes, construction, sales or leasing offices or similar facilities on any portion of the Property, including the Common Area or any public right-of-way, nor Grantor's right to post signs incidental to construction, sales or leasing. ARTICLE III: DEFINITIONS 3.1 "Architectural Committee" shall mean the committee created by the Grantor or an Association pursuant to Article XII hereof. MASTER DECLARATION - 1 westpark\ranch\dec 3.2 "Articles" shall mean the Articles of Incorporation of an Association or other organizational or charter documents of an Association. 3.3 "Assessments" shall mean those payments required of Owners, Master Association Members, or Local Association Members, including Regular, Special and Limited Assessments of any Association as further defined in this Master Declaration. 3.4 "Association" shall mean the Master Association and/or a Local Association, whichever is appropriate in the context. 3.5 "Association Rules" shall mean those rules and regulations promulgated by an Association governing conduct upon and use of the Property under the jurisdiction or control of an Association, the imposition of fines and forfeitures for violation of Association Rules and regulations, and procedural matters for use in the conduct of business of an Association. 3.6 "Board" shall mean the Board of Directors or other governing board or individual, if applicable, of an Association. 3.7 "Building Lot„ shall mean one or more lots within a Tract as specified or shown on any Plat and/or by Supplemental Declaration, upon which Improvements may be constructed. The term "Building Lot" shall include single-family residential lots, but shall not include the Common Area. 3.8 "Bylaws" shall mean the Bylaws of an Association. 3.9 "Common Area" shall mean any or all parcels of The Ranch Common Area or Local Common Area, whichever is appropriate in the context, •and shall include, without limitation, all such parcels that are designated as private streets or drives, common open space, common landscaped areas. 3.10 "Declaration" shall mean this Master Declaration as it may be amended from time to time. 3.11 "Grantor" shall mean The Westpark Company, Inc., an Idaho corporation, or its successor in interest, or any person or entity to whom the rights under this Declaration are expressly transferred by River View Ventures or its successor. 3.12 "Improvement" shall mean any structure, facility or system, or other improvement or object, whether permanent or temporary, which is erected, constructed or placed upon, under or in any portion of the Property, including but not limited to buildings, fences, streets, drives, driveways, sidewalks, bicycle paths, curbs, landscaping, wildlife habitat improvements, signs, lights, mail boxes, electrical lines, pipes, pumps, ditches, recreational facilities, and fixtures of any kind whatsoever. 3.13 "Limited Assessment" shall mean a charge against a particular Owner and such Owner's Building Lot, directly attributable to the Owner, equal to the cost incurred by the Master Association or Local Association for corrective action performed pursuant to the provisions of this Master Declaration or any Supplemental Declaration, including interest thereon as provided in this Master Declaration or a Supplemental Declaration. 3.14 "Local Association" shall mean any profit or not-for-profit Idaho corporation or unincorporated association, or the successors of any of them, organized and established pursuant to the terms of this Master Declaration or a Supplemental Declaration by Grantor. 3.1 S "Local Association Board" shall mean the duly elected and qualified Board of Directors, or other governing board or individual, if applicable, of a Local Association. MASTER DECLARATION - 2 westpark\ranch\dec 3.16 "Local Common Area" shall mean all real property in which a Local Association holds an interest or which is held or maintained for the mutual use and benefit of such Local Association and its Members. Local Common Area may be established from time to time by Grantor on any portion of the Property by describing such an area on a recorded Plat, by granting or reserving it in a deed or other instrument, or by designating it as such in this Master Declaration on in any Supplemental Declaration. Local Common Area may include easement and/or license rights. 3.17 "Master Association" shall mean the Idaho profit or non-profit corporation, its successors and assigns, established by Grantor to exercise the powers and to carry out the duties set forth in this Master Declaration or any Supplemental Declaration. Grantor shall have the power, in its discretion, to name the Master Association the "The Ranch Homeowners' Association, Inc.", or any similar name which fairly reflects its purpose. 3.18 "Member" shall mean each person or entity holding a membership in the Master Association. Where specific reference'or the context so indicates, it shall also mean persons or entities holding membership in a Local Association. 3.19 "Owner" shall mean the person or other legal entity, including Grantor, holding fee simple interest of record to a Building Lot which is a part of the Property, and sellers under executory contracts of sale, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. 3.20 "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. 3.21 "Plat" shall mean any subdivision plat covering any portion of the Property as recorded at the office of the County Recorder, Ada County, Idaho, as the same may be amended by duly recorded amendments thereof. 3.22 "Property" shall mean those portions of the Property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, including each lot, parcel and portion thereof and interest therein, including all water rights associated with or appurtenant to such property. 3.23 "Ridenbaugh Canal" shall mean that certain real property in which the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District holds an interest, which real property is identified on the Plat. 3.24 "Regular Assessment" shall mean the portion of the cost of maintaining, improving, repairing, managing and operating the Common Areas and all Improvements located thereon, and the other costs of an Association which is to be levied against the Property of and paid by each Owner to the Master Association, or applicable Local Association, pursuant to the terms hereof or the terms of this Master Declaration or a Supplemental Declaration. 3.25 "Special Assessment" shall mean the portion of the costs of the capital improvements or replacements, equipment purchases and replacements or shortages in Regular Assessments which are authorized and to be paid ~by each Owner to the Master Association, or applicable Local Association pursuant to the provisions of this Master Declaration or a Supplemental Declaration. 3.26 "Supplemental Declaration" shall mean any supplemental declaration including additional covenants, conditions and restrictions that might be adopted with respect to any portion of the Property. 3.27 "The Ranch Common Area" shall mean all real property in which the Master Association holds an interest or which is held or maintained, permanently or temporarily, for the common use, enjoyment and benefit of the entire The Ranch Subdivision and each Owner therein, which real property is legally described in Exhibit 6 attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Ranch Common Area may be established from time to time by Grantor on any portion of the Property by describing it on a plat, by granting or reserving it in a deed or MASTER DECLARATION - 3 westpark\ranch\dec other instrument, or by designating it pursuant to this Master Declaration or any Supplemental Declaration. The Ranch Common Area is to be distinguished from Local Commcn Area, which mayor may not allow entry and use by those Owners who are not Members of a Local Association or who are not Owners within a particular Tract. The Ranch Common Area may include easement and/or license rights. 3.28 "The Ranch Subdivision" shall mean the Property. 3.29 "Tra "shall mean a defined portion of the Property within which the contemplated development involves a common use or compatible uses, and which may have been designed as a Tract by recorded Supplemental Declaration. Each Tract shall contain one or more Building Lots, and may be managed to the extent permitted herein by a Local Association. Each Tract is legally described on Exhibit F, attached hereto and made a part hereof. ARTICLE IV: GENERAL AND SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS 4.1 Structures - General. All structures are to be designed, constructed and used in such a manner as to promote compatibility between the types of use contemplated by this Master Declaration. 4.1.1 Use. Size and Height of Dwelling Structure. All Building Lots shall be used exclusively for single-family residential purposes. No Building Lot shall be improved except with a single-family dwelling unit or structure. No business or home occupation shall be conducted from said dwelling unit or structure. Each one-story single-family dwelling unit or structure shall have a minimum of ( )square feet of livable space. Livable space shall not include garages, car ports, patios, breezeways, storage rooms, porches or similar structures. Dwelling units or structures located on Lot ,Block _, Lot _, Block ,and Lots ,Block ,shall be considered corner lots (referred to herein individually as "Corner Lot" or collectively as "Corner Lots") and shall be not exceed one (1) story or thirty (30) feet in height. 4.1.2 Architectural Committe Revi w. No Improvements which will be visible above ground or which will ultimately affect the visibility of any above ground Improvement shall be built, erected, placed or materially altered on or removed from the Property unless and until the building plans, specifications, and plot plan have been reviewed in advance by the Architectural Committee (and, if required, by an applicable Local Architectural Committee pursuant to paragraph 12.10) and the same have been approved in writing. The review and approval or disapproval may be based upon the following factors: design and style elements, mass and form, topography, setbacks, finished ground elevations, architectural symmetry, drainage, color, materials, physical or aesthetic impacts on other properties, including Common Areas, artistic conformity to the terrain and the other Improvements on the Property, and any and all other factors which the Architectural Committee, in its reasonable discretion, deem relevant. Said requirements as to the approval of the architectural design shall apply only to the exterior appearance of the Improvements. This Master Declaration is not intended to serve as authority for the Architectural Committee to control the interior layout or design of residential structures except to the extent incidentally necessitated by use, size and height restrictions. 4.1.3 Setbacks and Height. No residential or other structure shall be placed nearer to the Building Lot lines or built higher than permitted by the Pfat for the Tract in which the Building Lot is located, by any applicable zoning restriction, by any conditional use permit, or by a building envelope designated either by Grantor or the applicable Architectural Committee whichever is more restrictive. 4.1.4 Accessory Structures. Detached garages shall be allowed if in conformity with the provisions of this Master Declaration, and as approved by the applicable Architectural Committee. Garages and storage sheds shall be constructed of, and roofed with, the same materials, and with similar MASTER DECLARATION - 4 westpark\ranch\dec colors and design, as the residential structure on the applicable Building Lot. No playhouses, playground equipment, pools, pool slides, diving boards, hot tubs, spas, or similar items shall extend higher than five (5) feet above the finished graded surface of the Building Lot upon which such item(s) are located. Basketball courts, tennis courts or backboards shall be allowed in the back yard of any Building Lot, provided that such courts or backboards are not visible from any street, and do not promote noise or other nuisance that is offensive or detrimental to other property in the vicinity of the Building Lot or offensive or detrimental to the occupants of such other property. 4.1.5 Driveways. All access driveways shall have a wearing surface of asphalt, concrete, or other hard surface materials, and shalt be properly graded to assure proper drainage. 4.1.6 Mailboxes. All mailboxes will be of consistent design, material and coloration and shall be located on or adjoining Building Lot lines at places designated by Grantor or the Architectural Committee. 4.1.7 Fencing. No fence, hedge or boundary wall situated anywhere upon a Building Lot shall have a height greater than six (6) feet above the finished graded surface of the Building Lot or Common Area upon which such fence, hedge, or boundary wall is situated. Any fence or boundary wall constructed on or near the lot line common to one or more Building Lots shall be constructed as a "good neighbor" fence or wall. No fence shall be constructed so as to extend toward the front of the Building Lot past the front plane of the dwelling structure constructed thereon, or closer than ten (10) feet to any side Building Lot line of a corner of a Building Lot adjacent to a dedicated street. No fence, hedge, or boundary wall which obstructs site lines at an elevation between four (4) and eight (8) feet above any street shall be placed or permitted to remain on any Corner Lot. All fencing and boundary walls constructed on any Building Lot shall be of compatible style and material to that other fencing constructed adjacent to or abutting Common Areas, public and private streets, and shall otherwise be as approved by the applicable Architectural Committee. 4.1.8 Li htin .Exterior lighting, including flood lighting, shall be part of the architectural concept of the Improvements on a Building Lot. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories shall be harmonious with building design, and shall be as approved by the applicable Architectural Committee. lighting shall be restrained in design, and excessive brightness shall be avoided. 4.2 Antennae. No exterior radio antenna, television antenna, satellite dish antenna or other antenna of any type shall be erected or maintained on the Property unless it is located or screened in a manner acceptable to the applicable Architectural Committee. 4.3 Insurance Rates. Nothing shall be done or kept on any Building Lot which will increase the rate of insurance on any other portion of the Property without the approval of the Owner of such other portion, nor shall anything be done or kept on the Property or a Building Lot which would result in the cancellation of insurance on any property owned or managed by any such Association or which would be in violation of any law. 4.4 No Further Subdivision. No Building Lot may be further subdivided. 4.5 Si ns. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view without the approval of the applicable Architectural Committee, except: (1) such signs as may be used by Grantor in connection with the development of the Property and sale of Building Lots; (2) temporary signs naming the contractors, the architect, and the lending institution for a particular construction operation; (3) such signs identifying The Ranch Subdivision, or informational signs, of customary and reasonable dimensions as prescribed by the Architectural Committee may be displayed on or from the Common Area; and (4) one (1) sign of customary and reasonable dimensions as prescribed by the Architectural Committee as may be displayed by an Owner other than Grantor MASTER DECLARATION - 5 westpark\ranch\dec on or from a Building Lot advertising the residence for sale or lease. A customary "for sale" or "for lease" sign not more than three (3) feet by two (2) feet shall not require Architectural Committee approval. Without limiting the foregoing, no sign shall be placed in the Common Area without the written approval of the applicable Architectural Committee. 4.6 Nuisances. No rubbish or debris of any kind shall be placed or permitted to accumulate anywhere upon the Property, including Common Area or vacant Building Lots, and no odor shall be permitted to arise therefrom so as to render the Property or any portion thereof unsanitary, unsightly, offensive or detrimental to the Property or to its occupants, or to any other property in the vicinity thereof or to its occupants. No noise or other nuisance shall be permitted to exist or operate upon any portion of the Property so as to be offensive or detrimental to the Property or to its occupants or to other property in the vicinity or to its occupants. Without limiting the generality of any of the foregoing provisions, no exterior speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices (other than security devices used exclusively for security purposes which have been approved by the Master Association), flashing lights or search lights, shall be located, used or placed on the Property without the prior written approval of the Master Association. 4.7 Exterior Maintenance• Owner's Obli ations. No Improvement shall be permitted to fall into disrepair, and each Improvement shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair. In the event that any Owner shall permit any Improvement, including trees and landscaping, which is the responsibility of such Owner to maintain, to tall into disrepair so as to create a dangerous, unsafe, unsightly or unattractive condition, or damages property or facilities on or adjoining their Building Lot which would otherwise be an Associations' responsibility to maintain, the Board of the Local Association of which such Owner is a Member (or the Board of the Master Association if the Local Association fails to act), upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice to the Owner of such property, shall have the right to correct such condition, and to enter upon such Owner's Building Lot for the purpose of doing so, and such Owner shall promptly reimburse the Local or Master Association, as the case may be, for the cost thereof. Such cost shall be a Limited Assessment and shall create a lien enforceable in the same manner as other Assessments set forth in Article IX of this Master Declaration. The Owner of the offending property shall be personally liable, and such Owner's property may be subject to a mechanic's lien for all costs and expenses incurred by the Association in taking such corrective acts, plus all costs incurred in collecting the amounts due. Each Owner shall pay all amounts due for such work within ten (10) days after receipt of written demand therefor, or the amounts may, at the option of the Board, be added to the amounts payable by such Owner as Regular Assessments. Each Owner shall have the remedial rights set forth herein if the applicable Associations fail to exercise their rights within a reasonable time following written notice by such Owner. 4.8 Drainaee. There shall be no interference with the established drainage pattern over any portion of the Property, unless an adequate alternative provision is made for proper drainage and is first approved in writing by the applicable Architectural Committee. For the purposes hereof, "established" drainage is defined as the system of drainage, whether natural or otherwise, which exists at the time the overall grading of any portion of the Property is completed by Grantor, or that drainage which is shown on any plans approved by the Architectural Committee, which may include drainage from Common Area over any Building Lot in the Property. 4.9 Grading. The Owner of any Building Lot within the Property in which grading or other work has been performed pursuant to a grading plan approved under applicable provisions of Meridian City Code or by the Master or Local Association, shall maintain and repair all graded surfaces and erosion prevention devices, retaining walls, drainage structures, means or devices which are not the responsibility of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, or other public agency, and plantings and ground cover installed or completed thereon. Such requirements shall be subject to Regular, Special, and Limited Assessments provided in Article IX herein, as may be applicable. 4.10 Water Supplv Systems. No separate or individual water supply system, regardless of the proposed use of the water to be delivered by such system, shall be permitted on any Building Lot unless such MASTER DECLARATION - 6 westpark\ranch\dec system is designed, located, constructed and equipped in accordance with the requirements, standards and recommendations of the Board of the Master Association and all governmental authorities having jurisdiction. 4.11 No Hazardous Activiti No activities shall be conducted on the Property, and no Improvements constructed on any property which are or might be unsafe or hazardous to any person or property. 4.12 Unsightly Arti les. No unsightly articles shall be permitted to remain on any Building Lot so as to be visible from any other portion of the Property. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, refuse, garbage and trash shall be kept at all times in such containers and in areas approved by the applicable Architectural Committee. No clothing or fabrics shall be hung, dried or aired in such a way as to be visible to other property, and no equipment, heat pumps, compressors, containers, lumber, firewood, grass, shrub or tree clippings, plant waste, metals, bulk material, scrap, refuse or trash shall be kept, stored or allowed to accumulate on any Building Lot except within an enclosed structure or as appropriately screened from view. No vacant residential structures shall be used for the storage of building materials. 4.13 No Temporary Structures. No house trailer, mobile home, tent (other than for short term individual use), shack or other temporary building, improvement or structure shall be placed upon any portion of the Property, except temporarily as may be required by construction activity undertaken on the Property. 4.14 No Unscreened Boats Campers and Oth r Vehi les. No boats, trailers, campers, all-terrain vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, bicycles, dilapidated or unrepaired and unsightly vehicles or similar equipment shall be placed upon any portion of the Property (including, without limitation, streets, parking areas and driveways) unless the same are enclosed by a structure concealing them from view in a manner approved by the applicable Architectural Committee. To the extent possible, garage doors shall remain closed at all times. 4.15 Sewa e Disposal Systems. No individual sewage disposal system shall be used on the Property. Each Owner shall connect the appropriate facilities on such Owner's Building Lot to the Boise City Sewer System and pay all charges assessed therefor. 4.16 No Mining or Drilling. No portion of the Property shall be used for the purpose of mining, quarrying, drilling, boring or exploring for or removing water, oil, gas or other hydrocarbons, minerals, rocks, stones, sand, gravel or earth. This paragraph 4.16 shall not prohibit exploratory drilling or coring which is 'necessary to construct a residential structure or Improvements. 4.i 7 Enerey Devices Outside. No energy production devices, including but not limited to generators of any kind and solar energy devices, shall be constructed or maintained on any portion of the Property without the written approval of the applicable Architectural Committee, except for heat pumps shown in the plans approved by the Architectural Committee. This paragraph 4.17 shall not apply to passive solar energy systems incorporated into the approved design of a residential structure. 4.18 Vehicles. The use of all vehicles, including but not limited to trucks, automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles and snowmobiles, shall be subject to all Association Rubs, which may prohibit or limit the use thereof within The Ranch Subdivision. No on-street parking shall be permitted except where expressly designated for parking use. No parking bays shall be permitted in any side, front or backyard. Vehicles parked on a driveway shall not extend into any sidewalk or bike path or pedestrian path. 4.19 Animals/Pets. No animals, birds, insects, pigeons, poultry or livestock shall be kept on the Property unless the presence of such creatures does not constitute a nuisance. This paragraph 4.19 does not apply to the keeping of up to two (2) domesticated dogs, up to two (2) domesticated cats, and other household pets which do not unreasonably bother or constitute a nuisance to others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, consistent and/or chronic barking by dogs shall be considered a nuisance. Each dog in The Ranch Subdivision shall be kept on a leash, curbed, and otherwise controlled at all times when such animal is off the MASTER DECLARATION - 7 westpark\ranch\dec premises of its owner. Such owner shall clean up any animal defecation immediately from the Common Area or public right-of-way. Failure to do so may result, at the Board's discretion, with a Limited Assessment levied against such animal owner. The construction of dog runs or other pet enclosures shall be subject to applicable Architectural Committee approval, shall be appropriately screened, and shall be maintained in a sanitary condition. Dog runs or other pet enclosures shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the side and/or rear Building Lot line, shall not be placed in any front yard of a Building Lot, and shall be screened from view so as not to be visible from Common Area or an adjacent Building Lot. 4.20 Landscaping. The Owner of any Building Lot shall sod the front and the side yards and shall seed the back yard and landscape such Building Lot in conformance with the landscape plan approved by the Master or Local Association, and as approved by the applicable Architectural Committee, within sixty (60) days after said Owner shall occupy the dwelling structure on said Building Lot, weather permitting. Prior to construction of Improvements, the Owner (or any Association to which such responsibility has been assigned) shall provide adequate irrigation and maintenance of existing trees and landscaping, shall control weeds, and maintain the Owner's (or Association's) property in a clean and safe condition free of debris or any hazardous condition. All trees located on common Building Lot lines shall be the joint responsibility of the adjoining Building Lot owners. All landscaped Common Areas shall be irrigated by an underground sprinkler system. The Board and/or applicable Architectural Committee may adopt rules regulating landscaping permitted and required. In the event that any Owner shall fail to install and maintain landscaping in conformance with such rules or shall allow such Owner's landscaping to deteriorate to a dangerous, unsafe, unsightly or unattractive condition, the Board, or the Board of the Local Association of which such Owner is a Member, upon fifteen (15) days' prior written notice to such Owner, shall have the right to correct such condition and to enter upon such Owner's property for the purpose of doing so, and such Owner shall promptly reimburse the Master Association or Local Association for the cost thereof. Such cost shall be a Limited Assessment and shall create a lien enforceable in the same manner as other Assessments as set forth in Article IX. Following commencement of any construction of any Improvement, construction shall be diligently pursued and completed as soon as reasonably practical. All landscaping on a Building Lot, unless otherwise specified by the applicable Architectural Committee, shall be completed as soon as reasonably practical following completion of the residential structure on such Building Lot. 4.21 Exemption of Grantor. Nothing contained herein shall limit the right of Grantor to subdivide or resubdivide any portion of the Property, to grant licenses, to reserve rights-of--way and easements with respect to Common Area to utility companies, public agencies or others, or to complete excavation, grading and construction of Improvements to and on any portion of the Property owned by Grantor, or to alter the foregoing and its construction plans and designs, or to construct such additional Improvements as Grantor deems advisable in the course of development of the Property so long as any Building Lot in the Property remains unsold. Such right shall include, but shall not be limited to, erecting, constructing and maintaining on the Property such structures and displays as may be reasonably necessary for the conduct of Grantor's business of completing the work and disposing of the same by sales lease or otherwise. Grantor shall have the right at any time prior to acquisition of title to a Building Lot by a purchaser from Grantor to grant, establish and/or reserve on that Building Lot additional licenses, reservations and rights-of-way to Grantor, to utility companies, or to others as may from time to time be reasonably necessary to the proper development and disposal of the Property. Grantor may use any structures owned by Grantor on the Property as model home complexes or real estate sales or leasing offices. Grantor need not seek or obtain Architectural Committee approval of any Improvement constructed or placed by Grantor on any portion of the Property owned by Grantor. The rights of Grantor hereunder may be assigned by Grantor to any successor in interest in connection with Grantor's interest in any portion of the Property, by an express written assignment recorded in the Office of the Ada County Recorder. 4.22 1Nater Riehts Aoourtenant to Subdivision Lands. Within 120 days of the date of the recording of this Master Declaratron, Grantor shall transfer from the Property subject to this Master Declaration, and within MASTER DECLARATION - 8 westpark\ranch\dec the boundaries of an irrigation entity, as defined in said Section 31-3805, Idaho Code, all water rights and assessment obligations appurtenant to the Property to the Master Association. 4.23 Commencement of Construction. Any Owner of a Building Lot shall, within a period of one (1) year following the date of purchase of a Building Lot from Grantor, commence the construction of a dwelling structure in compliance with the restrictions herein, and such construction shall be completed within six (6) months thereafter. The term "commence the construction" as used in this paragraph 4.23, shall require actual physical construction activities upon such dwelling structure upon such Building Lot. In the event such Owner shall fail or refuse to commence the construction of a dwelling structure within said one (1) year period, Grantor may, at Grantor's option, following the expiration of said one (1) year period, repurchase said Building Lot from such Owner or the then Owner of such Building Lot at a repurchase price equivalent to the money actually paid to Grantor, less any amount equivalent to ten (10) percent thereof. In the event Grantor shall exercise Grantor's option to repurchase such Building Lot, upon tender of said repurchase price, Owner or the then Owner of such Building Lot shall make, execute and deliver to Grantor a deed reconveying said Building Lot, tree and clear of all liens, which deed shall be binding upon all persons who may, at any time hereafter, own or claim any right, title, or interest in such Building Lot, and the successors in title thereto, whether acquired by voluntary act or through operation of law. ARTICLE V: THE RANCH HOMEOWNERS' (MASTER) ASSOCIATION 5.1 Organization of The Ran h Homeowners' Association. The Ranch Homeowners' Association, Inc. ("Master Association") shall be initially organized by Grantor as an Idaho non-profit corporation under the provisions of the Idaho Code relating to general non-profit corporations and shall be charged with the duties and invested with the powers prescribed by law and set forth in the Articles, Bylaws and this Master Declaration. Neither the Articles nor the Bylaws shall be amended or otherwise changed or interpreted so as to be inconsistent with this Master Declaration. 5.2 Membership. Each Owner, by virtue of being an Owner and for so long as such ownership is maintained, shall be a Member of the Master Association and no Owner shall have more than one membership in the Master Association. Memberships in the Master Association shall be appurtenant to the Tract, Building Lot or other portion of the Property owned by such Owner. The memberships in the Master Association shall not be transferred, pledged, assigned or alienated in any way except upon the transfer of Owner's title and then only to the transferee of such title. Any attempt to make a prohibited membership transfer shall be void and will not be reflected on the books of the Master Association. 5.3 Votine. Voting in the Master Association shall be carried out by Members who shall cast the votes. attributable to the Building Lots which they own, or attributable to the Building Lots owned by Grantor. The number of votes any Member may cast on any issue is determined by the number of Building Lots which the Member, including Grantor, owns. When more than one person holds an interest in any Building Lot, all such persons shall be Members but shall share the votes attributable to the Building Lot. For voting purposes, the Master Association shall have two (2) classes of Members as described below. 5.3.1 Class A Members. Owners other than Grantor shall be known as Class A Members. Each Class A Member shall be entitled to cast one (1) vote for each Building Lot owned by such Class A Member on the day of the vote. 5.3.2 Class B Members. The Grantor shall be known as the Class B Member, and shall be entitled to five (5) votes for each Building Lot of which Grantor is the Owner. The Class B Member shall cease to be a voting Member in the Master Association when the total cumulative votes of the Class A Members equal or exceed the total votes of the Class B Members provided that the Class B MASTER DECLARATION - 9 westpark\ranch\dec membership shall not cease before the expiration of ten (10) years from the date on which the first Building Lot is sold to an Owner. Fractional votes shall not be allowed. In the event that joint Owners are unable to agree among themselves as to how their vote or votes shall be cast, they shall lose their right to vote on the matter being put to a vote. When an Owner casts a vote, it will thereafter be presumed conclusively for all purposes that such Owner was acting with authority and consent of all joint Owners of the Building Lot(s) from which the vote derived. The right to vote may not be severed or separated from the ownership of the Building Lot to which it is appurtenant, except that any Owner may give a revocable proxy, or may assign such Owner's right to vote to a lessee, mortgagee, beneficiary or contract purchaser of the Building Lot concerned, for the term of the lease, mortgage, deed of trust or contract. Any sale, transferor conveyance of such Building Lot to a new Owner shall operate automatically to transfer the appurtenant voting right to the Owner, subject to any assignment of the right to vote to a lessee, mortgagee, or beneficiary as provided herein. 5.4 Board of Directors and Officers. The affairs of the Master Association shall be conducted and managed by a Board of Directors ("Board") and such officers as the Board may elect or appoint, in accordance with the Articles and Bylaws, as the same may be amended from time to time. The Board of the Master Association shall be elected in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Master Association Bylaws. 5.5 Power and Duties of the ti1aster Association. 5.5.1 Powers. The ti1aster Association shall have all the powers of a corporation organized under the general corporation laws of the State of Idaho subject only to such limitations upon the exercise of such powers as are expressly set forth in the Articles, the Bylaws, and this Master Declaration. The Master Association shall have the power to do any and all lawful things which may be authorized, required or permitted to be done by the Master Association under Idaho law and under this Master Declaration, and the Articles and Bylaws, and to do and perform any and all acts which may be necessary to, proper for, or incidental to the proper management and operation of the Common Area and the Master Declaration's other assets, including water rights when and if received from Grantor, and affairs and the performance of the other responsibilities herein assigned, including without limitation: 5.5.1.1 Assessments. The power to levy Assessments on any Owner or any portion of the Property and to force payment of such Assessments, all in accordance with the provisions of this Master Declaration. 5.5.1.2 Right of Enforcement. The power and authority from time to time in its own name, on its own behalf, or on behalf of any Owner who consents thereto, to commence and maintain actions and suits to restrain and enjoin any breach or threatened breach of this Master Declaration or the Articles or the Bylaws, including the Association Rules adopted pursuant to this Master Declaration, and to enforce by injunction or otherwise, all provisions hereof. 5.5.1.3 Delegation of Powers. The authority to delegate its power and duties to committees, officers, employees, or to any person, firm or corporation to act as manager, and to contract for the maintenance, repair, replacement and operation of the Common Area. Neither the Master Association nor the members of its Board shall be liable for any omission or improper exercise by the manager of any such duty or power so delegated. 5.5.1.4 Association Rules. The power to adopt, amend and repeal by majority vote of the Board such rules and regulations as the Master Association deems reasonable. The Master Association may govern the use of the Common Areas, including but MASTER DECLARATION - 10 westpark\ranch\dec not limited to the use of private streets by the Owners, their families, invitees, licensees, lessees or contract purchasers; provided, however, that any Association Rules shall apply equally to all Owners and shall not be inconsistent with this Master Declaration, the Articles or Bylaws. A copy of the Association Rules as they may from time to time be adopted, amended or repealed, shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to each Owner. Upon such mailing or delivery, the Association Rules shall have the same force and effect as if they were set forth in and were a part of this Master Declaration. In the event of any conflict between such Association Rules and any other provisions of this Master Declaration, or the Articles or Bylaws, the provisions of the Association Rules shall be deemed to be superseded by the provisions of this Master Declaration, the Articles or the Bylaws to the extent of any such inconsistency. 5.5.1.5 Emereencv Powers. The power, exercised by the Master Association or by any person authorized by it, to enter upon any property (but not inside any building constructed thereon) in the event of any emergency involving illness or potential danger to life or property or when necessary in connection with any maintenance or construction for which the Master Association is responsible. Such entry shall be made with as little inconvenience to the Owner as practicable, and any damage caused thereby shall be repaired by the Master Association. 5.5.1.6 Licenses. Easements and Rights-of-W~. The power to grant and convey to any third party such licenses, easements and rights-of--way in, on or under the Common Area as may be necessary or appropriate for the orderly maintenance, preservation and enjoyment of the Common Area, and for the preservation of the health, safety, convenience and the welfare of the Owners, for the purpose of constructing, erecting, operating or maintaining: 5.5.1.6.1 Underground lines, cables, wires, conduits or other devices for the transmission of electricity or electronic signals-for lighting, heating, power, telephone, television or other purposes, and the above ground lighting stanchions, meters, and other facilities associated with the provisions of lighting and services; and 5.5.1.6.2 Public sewers, storm drains, water drains and pipes, water supply systems, sprinkling systems, heating and gas lines or pipes, and any similar public orquasi-public improvements or facilities. 5.5.1.6.3 Mailboxes and sidewalk abutments around such mailboxes or any service facility, berm, fencing and landscaping abutting common areas, public and private streets or land conveyed for any public orquasi-public purpose including, but not limited to, bicycle pathways. The right to grant such licenses, easements and rights-of--way are hereby expressly reserved to the Master Association and may be granted at any time prior to twenty-one (21) years after the death of the issue of the individuals executing this Master Declaration on behalf of Grantor who are in being as of the date hereof. 5.5.2 Duties. In addition to duties necessary and proper to carry out the power delegated to the Master Association by this Master Declaration, and the.Articles and Bylaws, without limiting the generality thereof, the Master Association or its agent, if any, shall have the authority and the obligation to conduct all business affairs of the Master Association and to perform, without limitation, each of the following duties: MASTER DECLARATION - 1 1 westpark\ranch\dec 5.5.2.1 Operation and Maintenan P of Th Ranh ommon Ar a. Operate, maintain, and otherwise manage or provide for the operation, maintenance and management of The Ranch Common Area (other than Local Common Area), including the repair and replacement of property damaged or destroyed by casualty loss. Specifically, the Master Association shall, at Grantor's sole discretion, operate and maintain all properties owned by Grantor which are designated by Grantor for temporary or permanent use by Members of the Master Association. Such properties may include those lands located near the Boise River and other lands intended for open space uses. 5.5.2.2 Reserve Account. Establish and fund a reserve account with a reputable banking institution or savings and loan association or title insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Idaho, which reserve account shall be dedicated to the costs of repair, replacement, maintenance and improvement of the Common Area, and enforcement of the terms of the Conservation Agreement as defined below. 5.5.2.3 Maintenance of B rm Retaining Walls and Fences. Maintain the berms, retaining walls, fences and water amenities within and abutting Common Area and abutting the Ridenbaugh Canal. Maintain the water amenities constructed by Grantor or Master Association located in that certain easement in, over and through Building Lots as shown on the Plat. 5.5.2.4 Taxes and Assessments. Pay all real and personal property taxes and Assessments separately levied against The Ranch Common Area or against The Ranch Subdivision, the Master Association and/or any other property owned by the Master Association. • Such taxes and Assessments may be contested or compromised by the Master Association, provided, however, that such taxes and Assessments are paid or a bond insuring payment is posted prior to the sale or disposition of any property to satisfy the payment of such taxes and Assessments. In addition, the Master Association shall pay all other federal, state or local taxes, including income or corporate taxes levied against the Master Association, in the event that the Master Association is denied the status of a tax exempt corporation. 5.5.2.5 Water and Other Utilities. Acquire, provide and/or pay for water, sewer, garbage disposal, refuse and rubbish collection, electrical, telephone and gas and other necessary services for The Ranch Common Area, and to manage for the benefit of The Ranch Subdivision all water rights and rights to receive water held by the Master Association, whether such rights are evidenced by license, permit, claim, stock ownership or otherwise. 5.5.2.6 Insurance. Obtain insurance from reputable insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of Idaho, and maintain in effect any insurance policy the Board deems necessary or advisable, including, without limitation the following policies of insurance: 5.5.2.6.1 Fire insurance including those risks embraced by coverage of the type known as the broad form "All Risk" or special extended coverage endorsement on a blanket agreed amount basis for the full insurable replacement value of all Improvements, equipment and fixtures located within The Ranch Common Area. 5.5.2.6.2 Comprehensive public liability insuranceinsuringthe Board, the Master Association, the Grantor and the individual grantees and agents and employees of each of the foregoing against any liability incident to the MASTER DECLARATION - 12 westpark\ranch\dec ownership and/or use of The Ranch Common Area. Limits of liability of such coverage shall be as follows: Not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per person and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence with respect to personal injury or death, and One Million Dollars {$1,000,OOOj per occurrence with respell to property damage. 5.5.2.6.3 Full coverage directors' and officers' liability insurance with a limit of at least Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000). 5.5.2.6.4 Such other insurance, including motor vehicle insurance and Workmen's Compensation insurance, to the extent necessary to comply with al! applicable laws and indemnity, faithful performance, fidelity and other bonds as the Board shall deem necessary or required to carry out the Master Association functions or to insure the Master Association against any loss from malfeasance or dishonesty of any employee or other person charged with the management or possession of any Master Association funds or other property. 5.5.2.6.5 The Master Association shall be deemed trustee of the interests of all Owners in connection with any insurance proceeds paid to the Master Association under such policies, and shall have full power to receive such Owner's interests in such proceeds and to deal therewith. 5.5.2.6.6 Insurance premiums for the above insurance coverage shall be deemed a common expense to be included in the Regular Assessments levied by the Master Association. 5.5.2.7 Rule Makine. Make, establish, promulgate, amend and repeal such Association Rules as the Board shall deem advisable. 5.5.2.8 Newsletter. If it so elects, prepare and distribute a newsletter on matters of general interest to Master Association Members, the cost of which shall be included in Regular Assessments. 5.5.2.9 Architectural Committee. Appoint and remove members of the Architectural Committee, subject to the provisions of this Master Declaration. 5.5.2.10 Enforcement of Restrictions and Rules. Perform such other acts, whether or not expressly authorized by this Master Declaration, as may be reasonably advisable or necessary to enforce any of the provisions of the Master Declaration, or of the Articles or Bylaws, including, without limitation, the recordation of any claim of lien with the Ada County Recorder, as more fully provided herein. 5.6 Personal Liability. No Member of the Board, or member of any committee of the Master Association, or any officer of the Master Association, or the Grantor, or the manager, if any, shall be personally liable to any Owner, or to any other party, including the Master Association, for any damage, foss or prejudice suffered or claimed on the account of any act, omission, error or negligence of the Master Association, the Board, the manager, if any, or any other representative or employee of the Master Association, the Grantor, or the Architectural Committee, or any other committee, or any officer of the Master Association, or the Grantor, provided that such person, upon the basis of such information as may be possessed by such person, has acted in good faith without willful or intentional misconduct. MASTER DECLARATION - 13 westpark\ranch\dec 5.7 Budgets and Finan ial tat m nt . Financial statements for the Master Association shall be prepared regularly and copies shall be distributed to each Member of the Master Association as follows: 5.7.1 A pro forma operating statement or budget, for each fiscal year shall be distributed not less than sixty (60) days before the beginning of each fiscal year. The operating statement shall include a schedule of Assessments received and receivable, identified by the Building Lot number and the name of the person or entity assigned. 5.7.2 Within thirty (30) days after the close of each fiscal year, the Master Association shall cause to be prepared and delivered to each Owner, a balance sheet as of the last day of the Master Association's fiscal year and annual operating statements reflecting the income and expenditures of the Master Association for its last fiscal year. Copies of the balance sheet and operating statement shall be distributed to each Member within ninety (90) days after the end of each fiscal year. 5.8 Meetings of Master Association. Each year the Master Association shall hold at least one meeting of the Members, according to the schedule for such meetings established by the Bylaws; provided, that such meeting shall occur no earlier than April 15 and no later than May 31 each year. Only Members shall be entitled to attend Master Association meetings, and all other persons may be excluded. Notice for all Master Association meetings, regular or special, shall be given by regular mail to all Members, and any person in possession of a Building Lot, not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days before the meeting and shall set forth the place, date and hour of the meeting and the nature of the business to be conducted. All meetings shall be held within the Property or as close thereto as practical at a reasonable place selected by the Board. The presence at any meeting in person of the Class B Member where there is such a Member, and of the Class A Members representing Owners holding at least thirty percent (30%) of the total votes of all Class A Members, shall constitute a quorum. If any meeting cannot be held because a quorum is not present, the Members present may adjourn the meeting to a time not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days from the time the original meeting was scheduled. A second meeting may be called as the result of such an adjournment, provided notice is given as provided above. At any such meeting properly called, the presence of any Member shall constitute a quorum. ARTICLE VI: LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS 6.1 Creation by Grantor. Grantor shall create Local Associations as profit or non-profit corporations under the provisions of the Idaho Code relating to corporations, or Grantor may create such Local Association as any unincorporated entity which Grantor deems appropriate. Grantor may, in it discretion, create a Local Association by means of a Supplemental Declaration, or create such Association by means of separate instruments. 6.2 Mana eg ment, Powers and Duties. Each Local Association shall be managed in the same manner specified in the applicable Supplemental Declaration or other instrument and/or in the Articles and Bylaws of the Local Association, shall have the same powers, rights, obligations and duties and be subject to the same limitations and restrictions including levying Assessments, adopting rules and regulations, granting easements and licenses, managing property and water rights, paying expenses, taxes, Assessments, utility charges, insurance premiums and preparing budgets and financial statements as are provided for herein for the Master Association, except as modified herein or by a Supplemental Declaration. The Board Members, officers, managers and Grantor shall be free of personal liability as to the Local Association in the same manner as described herein with respect to the Master Association. 6.3 Members of Local Associations. Where a Local Association is created, the Members thereof shall be all the Owners of Building Lots, including Grantor while it remains an Owner, in the respective Tracts designated in the applicable Supplemental Declaration. Memberships may be transferred only as specified in paragraph 5.2 for the Master Association. MASTER DECLARATION - 74 westpark\ran ch\dec 6.4 Votin>? in Lo al Asso ration . Each Local Association shall have two (2) classes of voting memberships as described below. The number of votes each Member may cast on a single vote will be determined according to the number of Building Lots existing on that portion of the Property the Member owns, in the same manner and amounts as votes are allocated to Members in paragraph 5.3. When more than one person holds an interest in any Building Lot, all such persons shall be Members but shall share the vote attributable to the Building Lot. 6.4.1 Class A Members. Class A Members shall be all Owners, except Grantor, owning portions of the Tract covered by the Local Association. The Grantor shall become a Class A Member when the Class 6 membership ceases, as described in paragraph 6.4.2, with Grantor remaining an Owner. Each Class A Member shall have one (1) vote for each Building Lot such Owner owns in that Tract. 6.4.2 Class B Member. The Class B Member shall be the Grantor. The Class B Member is entitled to five (5) votes for each Building Lot which Grantor owns in that Tract. The Class B membership in such Local ,Association shall cease when the total cumulative votes of the Class A Members for that Tract equal or exceed the total votes of the Class B Member, provided that the Class B membership shall not cease before the expiration of ten (10) years from the date on which the first Building Lot in the Trad covered by the Local Association is sold to an Owner. Fractional votes shall not be allowed. In the event that joint Owners are unable to agree among themselves as to how their vote or votes shall be cast, they shall lose their right to vote on the matter being put to a vote. When an Owner casts a vote, it will thereafter be presumed conclusively for all purposes that such Owner was acting with authority and consent of all other joint Owners of the Building Lot(s) from which the vote derived. The right to vote may not be severed or separated from the ownership of the Building Lot to which it is appurtenant, except that any Owner may give a revocable proxy, or may assign such Owner's right to vote to a lessee, mortgagee, beneficiary or contract purchaser of the Building Lot concerned, for the term of the lease, mortgage, deed of trust or contract. Any sale, transfer or conveyance of such Building Lot to a new Owner shall operate automatically to transfer the appurtenant voting right to the new Owner, subject to any assignment of the right to vote to a lessee, mortgagee or beneficiary as provided herein. 6.5 Annual Meetings of local Association. There shall be an annual meeting of the Members of each Local Association at least ten (10) days but no more than sixty (60) days before every annual meeting of the Master Association. The first annual meeting of the Members in such Local Association shall be held on or before April Sth of the year following the first sale of a Building Lot in the Tract covered by such Local Association. Such meeting shall be held on the Tract which the Local Association covers, or at such other convenient location in or near the Property as may be designated in the notice of such meeting. Written notice of the time, place and purpose of each annual meeting shall be sent to each Member of the Local Association, and any person in possession of a Building Lot in the appropriate Tract, no fewer than ten {10) days and no more than thirty (30) days before the meeting as provided in the Local Association's Bylaws or Articles. 6.6 Special Meetings. A special meeting of the Local Association Members may be called at any reasonable time and place by written notice delivered to all other Members not less than ten {10) days nor more than thirty (30) days before the date fixed for such special meeting, specifying the date, time and place thereof and the nature of the business to be conducted. Such notice shall be delivered in the manner specified in the Local Association's Articles or Bylaws. 6.7 Quorum and Officers of Meetings. The presence at any regular or special meeting, in person or by written proxy, of the Members entitled to vote at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total votes within such Local Association shall constitute a quorum. If any meeting cannot be held because a quorum is not present, the Owners or Members present, either in person or by proxy, may adjourn the meeting to a time not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days from the time the original meeting vas scheduled. At such second MASTER DECLARATION - 15 westpark\ranch\dec meeting a quorum shall constitute the number of members specified in the Local Association's Articles or Bylaws. The Members present at each meeting shall select a chairman to preside over the meeting and a secretary to transcribe minutes of the meeting. 6•$ Powers and Duties. Each such Local Association shall be managed by a Board of Directors and officers in the same manner as specified in paragraph 5.4 for the Master Association, shall have the same powers and duties with respect to its Members or the property owned, managed or maintained by it, including levying Assessments, adopting rules and regulations, granting easements, licenses and rights-of--way, payment of expenses, taxes, Assessments, utility charges, insurance premiums and the preparation and distribution of budgets and financial statements as are provided in paragraph 5.5 for the Master Association. Each such Local Association may certify to the Master Association the amount of such Assessments and charges for collection. The Board, Member, committee, officers, managers and Declarant shall be free of personal liability as to the Local Association in the same manner as described in paragraph 5.6 for the Master Association. ARTICLE VII: RIGHTS TO COMMON AREAS 7.1 Use of The Ranch Common Area. Every Owner shall have a right to use each parcel of The Ranch Common Area, and to the extent permitted by the appropriate Supplemental Declaration or other instrument, shall have a right to use each parcel of Local Common Area owned and/or managed by a Local Association of which such Owner is a Member, which right shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Building Lot, subject to the following provisions: 7.1.1 The right of an Association holding or controlling such Common Area to levy and increase Assessments; 7.1.2 The right of such Association to suspend the voting rights and rights to use of, or interest in, Common Area by an Owner for any period during which any Assessment or charge against such Owner's Building Lot remains unpaid; and for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days for any infraction of the Association Rules; and 7.1.3 The right of an Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be permitted by the Articles and Bylaws and agreed to by the Members. No dedication or transfer of said Common Area shall be ettective unless an instrument agreeing to such dedication or transfer signed by Members representing hvo-thirds (2/3) of each class of Members has been recorded. 7.1.4 The right of such Association to prohibit the construction of structures or Improvements, Improvements on all Common Areas. 7.1.5 The right of such Association to prohibit structures, Improvements, including manicured lawns and nursery plants. 7.2 Desienation of Common Area. Grantor shall designate and reserve The Ranch Common Area, and Local Common Area in the Master Declaration, Supplemental Declarations and/or recorded Plats, deeds or other instruments and/or as otherwise provided herein. 7.3 Delegation of Right to Use. Any Owner may delegate, in accordance with the respective Bylaws and Association Rules of the Master Association or any Local Association, as the case may be, such Owner's right of enjoyment to the Local Common Area, or The Ranch Common Area, to the members of such Owner's family in residence, and such Owner's tenants or contract purchasers who reside on such Owner's Building Lot. Only Grantor or an Association shall have the right to delegate the right of enjoyment to the Local MASTER DECLARATION - 16 westpark\ranch\dec Common Area, or The Ranch Common Area, to the general public, and such delegation to the general public shall be for a fee set by Grantor or Association. 7.4 Damas?es. Each Owner shall be fully liable for any damage to any Common Area which may be sustained by reason of the negligence or willful misconduct of the Owner, such Owner's resident tenant or contract purchaser, or such Owner's family and guests, both minor and adult. In the case of joint ownership of a Building Lot, the liability of such Owners shall be joint and several. The cost of correcting such damage shall be a Limited Assessment against the Building Lot and may be collected as provided herein for the collection of other Assessments. ARTICLE VIII: PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION 8.1 Irrigation District Service. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District provides pressurized irrigation water service to all Lots in the Project. Lot Owners shall be required to pay an assessment based on Lot area to the District whether or not water is actually used. Lot Owners are prohibited from making any cross connection or tie in between the irrigation water system and their domestic water systems. WATER FROM THE IRRIGATION WATER SYSTEM IS NOT DRINKABLE; EACH LOT OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT IRRIGATION WATER WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH OWNER'S LOT IS NOT CONSUMED BY ANY PERSON OR USED FOR CULINARY PURPOSES. 8.2 No Private System. Lot Owners shall not construct any ditch, drain, well or water system upon any Lot or Common Area for domestic use or irrigation purposes. 8.3 Water Master. The Association shall elect or may contract for hire a Water Master to designate any rotation schedule required for the delivery of irrigation water. The Water Master shall serve as the liaison to Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for•all matters of The Ranch Subdivision. ARTICLE IX: ASSESSMENTS 9.1 Covenant to Pay Assessments. By acceptance of a deed to any property in The Ranch Subdivision, each Owner of such property hereby covenants and agrees to pay when due all Assessments or charges made by the Master Association and/or a Local Association, including all Regular, Special and Limited Assessments and charges made against such Owner pursuant to the provisions of this Master Declaration or other applicable instrument. 9.1.1 Assessment Constitutes Lien. Such Assessments and charges together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees which may be incurred in collecting the same, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon the property against which each such Assessment or charge is made. 9.1.2 Assessment is Personal Obligation. Each such Assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonably~attorneys' fees,. shall also be the personal obligation of the Owner of such property beginning with the time when the Assessment falls due. The personal obligation for delinquent Assessments shall not pass to such Owner's successors in title unless expressly assumed by them but shall remain such Owner's personal obligation regardless of whether he remains an Owner. 9.2 Regular Assessments. All Owners, including the Grantor, are obligated to pay Regular Assessments to the treasurer of the Association on a schedule of payments established by the Board. 9.2.1 Puroose of Regular Assessments. The proceeds from Regular Assessments are to be used to pay for all costs and expenses incurred by an Association, including legal and attorneys fees and other professional fees, for the conduct of its affairs, including without limitation the costs and MASTER DECLARATION - 17 westpark\ranch\dec expenses of construction, improvement, protection, maintenance, repair, management and operation of the Common Areas, including all Improvements located on such areas owned and/or managed and maintained by such Association, and an amount allocated to an adequate reserve fund to be used for repairs, replacement, maintenance and improvement of those elements of the Common Area, or other property of the Association that must be replaced and maintained on a regular basis (collectively "Expenses"). 9.2.2 Computation of Regular Ass ssment . The Association shall compute the amount of its Expenses on an annual basis. The Board shall compute the amount of Regular Assessments owed beginning the first day of the third month following the month in which the closing of the first sale of a Building Lot occurred in The Ranch Subdivision for the purposes of the Master Association's Regular Assessment, and in the applicable Tract for the purposes of a Local Association's Regular Assessment ("Initiation Date"). Thereafter, the computation of Regular Assessments shall take place not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days before the beginning of each fiscal year of an Association. The computation of the Regular Assessment for the period from the Initiation Date until the beginning of the next fiscal year shall be reduced by an amount which fairly reflects the fact that such period was less than one year. 9.2.3 Amounts Paid by Owners. The Board can require, in its discretion or as provided in the Articles or Bylaws, payment of Regular Assessments in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual installments. The Regular Assessment to be paid by any particular Owner, including Grantor, for any given fiscal year shall be computed as follows: 9.2.3.1 As to the Master Association's Regular Assessment, each Owner shat I be assessed and shall pay an amount computed by multiplying the Association's total advance estimate of Expenses by the fraction produced by dividing the Building Lots attributable to the Owner by the total number of Building Lots in the Property. 9.2.3.2 As to any Local Association, each Owner who is also a Member of such Association, including Grantor while it is such an Owner, shall be assessed and shall pay an amount computed by multiplying such Association's total advance estimate of Expenses by the fraction produced by dividing the number of Building Lots in the applicable Tract attributable to such Owner by the total number of Building Lots in such~Tract. 9.3 Special Assessments. 9.3.1 Purpose and Procedure. In the event that the Board of an Association shall determine that its respective Regular Assessment for a given calendar year is or will be inadequate to meet the Expenses of such Association for any reason, including but not limited to costs of construction, reconstruction, unexpected repairs or replacement of capital improvements upon the Common Area, attorney's fees and/or litigation costs, other professional fees, or for any other reason, the Board thereof shall determine the approximate amount necessary to defray such Expenses and levy a Special Assessment against the portions of the Property within its jurisdiction which shall be computed in the same manner as Regular Assessments. No Special Assessment shall be levied which exceeds twenty percent (20%) of the budgeted gross Expenses of such Association for that fiscal year, without the vote or written assent of the Owners representing a majority of the votes of the Members of such Association. The Board shall, in its discretion, determine the schedule under which such Special Assessment will be paid. 9.3.2 Consistent Basis of Assessment. Every Special Assessment levied by and for an Association shall be levied and paid upon the same basis as that prescribed for the levying and payment of Regular Assessments for such Association. MASTER DECLARATION - 18 westpark\ranch\dec 9.4 Limited As a sm nts. Notwithstanding the above provisions with respect to Regular and Special Assessments, a Board may levy a Limited Assessment against a Member as a remedy to reimburse the Association for costs incurred in bringing the Member and/or such Member's Building Lot into compliance with the provisions of the governing instruments for The Ranch Subdivision. 9.5 Uniform Rate of Assessment. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, Regular and Special Assessments shall be fixed at a uniform rate per Building Lot for all Members of the Association. 9.6 Assessment P rind. Unless otherwise provided in the Articles or Bylaws, the Assessment period shall commence on January 1 of each year and terminate December 31 of the year in which the Initiation Date occurs. The first Assessment shall be pro-rated according to the number of months remaining in the fiscal year and shall be payable in equal monthly installments. 9.7 Notice and Asse sment Due Date. Ten (10) days prior written notice of Regular and Special Assessments shall be sent to the Owner of every Building Lot subject thereto, and to any person in possession of such Building Lot. The due dates for installment payment of Regular Assessments and Special Assessments shall be the first day of each month unless some other due date is established by the Board. Each monthly installment of the Regular Assessment or Special Assessment shall become delinquent if not paid within ten (10) days after the levy thereof. There shall accrue with each delinquent installment payment a late charge equal to ten percent (10%) of the delinquent installment. In addition, each installment payment which is delinquent for more than twenty (20) days shall accrue interest at eighteen percent (18%) per annum calculated the date of delinquency to and including the date full payment is received by'an Association. An Association may bring an action against the delinquent Owner and may foreclose the lien against such Owner's Building Lot as more fully provided herein. Each Owner is personally liable for Assessments, together with all interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and no Owner may exempt such Owner from such liability by a waiver of the use and enjoyment of the Common Areas, or by lease or abandonment of such Owner's Building Lot. 9•$ Estoppel C_ ert_ificate. The Association, upon at least twenty (20) days prior written request, shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to the party making such request, a statement in writing stating whether or not, to the knowledge of the Association, a particular Building Lot Owner is in default under the provisions of this Master Declaration, and further stating the dates to which any Assessments have been paid by the Owner. Any such certificate delivered pursuant to this paragraph 9.8 may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser or mortgagee of the Owner's Building Lot. Reliance on such Certificate may not extend to any default as to which the signor shall have had no actual knowledge. 9.9 Special Notice and Ouorum Requirements. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in either the Bylaws or the Articles, written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of levying a Special Assessment, or for the purpose of obtaining a membership vote in connection with an increase in the Regular Assessment, shall be sent to all Members of an Association and to any person in possession of a Building Lot in the applicable Tract, not less than fifteen (15) days nor more than thirty (30) days before such meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of Members or of proxies entitled to cast sixty percent (60°I°) of the total votes of the Association shall constitute a quorum. If such quorum is not present, subsequent meetings may be called subject to the same notice requirement, and the required quorum at the subsequent meetings shall be fifty percent (50%) of the quorum required at the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than thirty (30) days following the preceding meeting. ARTICLE X: ENFORCEMENT OF ASSESSMENTS; LIENS 10.1 Right to Enforce. The Master Association has the right to collect and enforce its Assessments pursuant to the provisions hereof. Each Owner of a Building Lot, upon becoming an Owner of such Building Lot, shall be deemed to covenant and agree to pay each and every Assessment provided for in this Master Declaration and agrees to the enforcement of all Assessments in the manner herein specified. In the event an attorney or MASTER DECLARATION - 19 westpark\ranch\dec attorneys are employed for the collection of any Assessment, whether by suit or otherwise, or to enforce compliance with or specific performance of the terms and conditions of this Master Declaration, each Owner agrees to pay reasonable attorney's fees in addition to any other relief or remedy obtained against such Owner. The Board or its authorized representative may enforce the obligations of the Owners to pay such Assessments by commencement and maintenance of a suit at law or in equity, or the Board may exercise the power of foreclosure and sale pursuant to paragraph 10.3 to enforce the liens created hereby. A suit to recover a money judgment for an unpaid Assessment shall be maintainable without foreclosing or waiving the lien hereinafter provided. . 10.2 Assessment Liens. 10.2.1 Creation. There is hereby created a claim of lien with power of sale on each and every Building Lot to secure payment of any and all Assessments levied against such Building Lot pursuant to this Master Declaration together with interest thereon at the maximum rate permitted by law and all costs of collection which may be paid or incurred by the Association making the Assessment in connection therewith, including reasonable attorneys' fees. All sums assessed in accordance with the provisions of this Master Declaration shall constitute a lien on -such respective Building Lots upon recordation of a claim of lien with the Ada County Recorder. Such lien shall be prior and superior to all other liens or claims created subsequent to the recordation of the notice of delinquency and claim of lien except for tax liens for real property taxes on any Building Lot and Assessments on any Building Lot in favor of any municipal or other governmental assessing body which, by law, would be superior thereto. 10.2.2 Claim of Lien. Upon default of any Owner in the payment of any Regular, Special or Limited Assessment issued hereunder, the Association may cause to be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder a claim of lien. The claim of lien shall state the amount of such delinquent sums and other authorized charges (including the cost of recording such notice), a sufficient description of the Building Lot(s) against which the same have been assessed, and the name of the record Owner thereof. Each delinquency shall constitute a separate basis for a notice and claim of lien, but any number of defaults may be included within a single notice and claim of lien. Upon payment to the Association of such delinquent sums and charges in connection therewith or other satisfaction thereof, the Association shall cause to be recorded a further notice stating the satisfaction of relief of such delinquent sums and charges. The Association may demand and receive the cost of preparing and recording such release before recording the same. 10.3 Method of Foreclosure. Such lien may be foreclosed by appropriate action in court or by sale by the Association establishing the Assessment, its attorney or other person authorized to make the sale. Such sale shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho Code applicable to the exercise of powers of sale permitted by law. The Board is hereby authorized to appoint its attorney, any officer or director of the Association, or any title company authorized to do business in Idaho as trustee for the purpose of conducting such power of sale or foreclosure. 10.4 Required Notice. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Master Declaration to the contrary, no action may be brought to foreclose the lien created by recordation of the notice of delinquency and claim of lien, whether judicially, by power of sale or otherwise, until the expiration of thirty (30) days after a copy of such claim of lien has been deposited in the United States mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, to the Owner of the Building Lot(s) described in such notice of delinquency and claim of lien, and to the person in possession of such Building Lot(s), and a copy thereof is recorded by the Association in the Office of the Ada County Recorder. 10.5 Subordination to Certain Trust Deeds. The lien for the Assessments provided for herein in connection with a given Building Lot shall not be subordinate to the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage except MASTER DECLARATION - 20 westpark\ranch\dec the lien of a first deed of trust or first mortgage given and made in good faith and for value that is of record as an encumbrance against such Building Lot prior to the recordation of a claim of lien for the Assessments. Except as expressly provided in paragraph 10.6 with respect to a first mortgagee who acquires title to a Building Lot, the sale or transfer of any Building Lot shall not affect the Assessment lien provided for herein, nor the creation thereof by the recordation of a claim of lien, on account of the Assessments becoming due whether before, on, or after the date of such sale or transfer, nor shall such sale or transfer diminish or defeat the personal obligation of any Owner for delinquent Assessments as provided for in this Master Declaration. 10.6 Rights of Mortgagees. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Master Declaration, no amendment of this Master Declaration shall operate to defeat the rights of the Beneficiary under any deed of trust upon a Building Lot made in good faith and for value, and recorded prior to the recordation of such amendment, provided that after the foreclosure of any such deed of trust such Building Lot shall remain subject to this Master Declaration as amended. ARTICLE XI: INSPECTION OF ASSOCIATION'S BOOKS AND RECORDS 11.1 Member's Right of Inspection. The membership register, books of account and minutes of meetings of the Board and committees of an Association shall be made available for inspection and copying by any Member of the Association or by such Member's duly appointed representatives, at any reasonable time and for a purpose reasonably related to such Member's interest as a Member at the office of the Association or at such other place as the Board of such Association shall prescribe. No Member or any other person shall copy the membership register for the purposes of solicitation of or direct mailing to any Member of an Association. 11.2 Rules Regardine Inspection of Books and Records. The Board shall establish reasonable rules with respect to: 11.2.1 Notice to be given to the custodians of the records by the persons desiring to make the inspection. 11.2.2 Hours and days of the week when such an inspection may be made. 11.2.3 Payment of the cost of reproducing copies of documents requested pursuant to this Article XI. 11.3 Director's Ri,;hts of Inspection. Every director shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect all books, records and documents of the Association, and the physical properties owned or controlled by the Association. The right of inspection by a director includes the right to make extracts and copies of documents, ARTICLE XII: ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 12.1 Creation. Within thirty (30) days of the date on which the Grantor first conveys a Building Lot to an Owner, Grantor shall appoint three (3) individuals to serve on The Ranch Architectural Committee ("Architectural Committee"). Each member shall hold office until such time as such member has resigned or has been removed, or such member's successor has been appointed, as provided herein. A member of the Architectural Committee need not be an Owner. Members of the Architectural Committee may be removed by the person or entity appointing them at any time without cause. 12.2 Grantor's Right of Appointment. At any time, and from time to time, prior to ten {10) years after the recording date of this Master Declaration in which Grantor is the Owner of at least ten percent (10%) of the aggregate Building Lots, Grantor shall have the exclusive right to appoint and remove all members of the MASTER DECLARATION - 21 westpark\ranch\dec Architectural Committee. At all other times, the Master Association Board shall have the right to appoint and remove all members of the Architectural Committee. If a vacancy on the Architectural Committee occurs and a permanent replacement has not yet been appointed, Grantor or the Board, as the case may be, may appoint an acting member to serve for a specified temporary period not to exceed one (1) year. 12.3 Review of Proposed Construction. The Architectural Committee shall consider and act upon any and all proposals or plans and specifications submitted for its approval pursuant to this Master Declaration, and perform such other duties as from time to time shall be assigned to it by the Board, including the inspection of construction in progress to assure its conformance with plans approved by the Architectural Committee. The Board shall have the power to determine, by rule or other written designation consistent with this Pvlaster Declaration, which types of Improvements shall be submitted for Architectural Committee review and approval. The Architectural Committee shall have the power to hire an architect, licensed with the State of Idaho, to assist the Architectural Committee in its review of proposals or plans and specifications submitted to the Architectural Committee. The Architectural Committee shall approve proposals or plans and specifications submitted for its approval only if it deems that the construction, alterations or additions contemplated thereby in the locations indicated will not be detrimental to the habitat of the Common Areas, or appearance of the surrounding area of the Property as a whole, that the appearance of any structure affected thereby will be in harmony with the surrounding structures, and that the upkeep and maintenance thereof will not become a burden on either the Master Association or any Local Association. 12.3.1 Conditions on Approval. The Architectural Committee may condition its approval of proposals or plans and specifications upon such changes therein as it deems appropriate, and/or upon the agreement of the Owner submitting the same ("Applicant") to grant appropriate easements to an Association for the maintenance thereof, and/or upon the agreement of the Applicant to reimburse an Association for the cost of maintenance, and may require submission of additional plans and specifications or other information before approving or disapproving material submitted. 12.3.2 Architectural Committee Rules and Fees. The Architectural Committee also may establish rules and/or guidelines setting forth procedures for and the required content of the applications and plans submitted for approval. Such rules may require a fee to accompany each application for approvals or additional factors which it will take into consideration in reviewing submissions. The Architectural Committee shall determine the amount of such fee in a reasonable manner. Such fees shall be used to defray the costs and expenses of the Architectural Committee, including the cost and expense of hiring an architect licensed by the State of Idaho, as provided above, or for such other purposes as established by the Board, and such fee shall be refundable to the extent not expended for The purposes herein stated. Such rules and guidelines may establish, without limitation, specific rules and regulations regarding design and style elements, landscaping and fences and other structures such as animal enclosures as well as special architectural guidelines applicable to Building Lots located adjacent to public and/or private open space. 12.3.3 Detailed Plans. The Architectural Committee may require such detail in plans and specifications submitted for its review as it deems proper, including, without limitation, floor plans, site plans, landscape plans, drainage plans, elevation drawings and descriptions or samples of exterior material and colors. Until receipt by the Architectural Committee of any required plans and specifications, the Architectural Committee may postpone review of any plan submitted for approval. 12.3.4 Architectural Committee Decisions. Decisions of the Architectural Committee and the reasons therefor shall be transmitted by the Architectural Committee to the Applicant at the address set forth in the application for approval within twenty (20) days after filing all materials required by the Architectural Committee. Any materials submitted pursuant to this Article XII shall be deemed approved MASTER DECLARATION - 22 westpark\ranch\dec unless written disapproval by the Architectural Committee shall have been mailed to the Applicant within twenty (20) days after the date of filing said materials with the Architectural Committee. 12.4 Meetines of the Architectural ommitt e. The Architectural Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perform its duties hereunder. The Architectural Committee may from time to time by resolution unanimously adopted in writing, designate a Architectural Committee representative (who may, but need not be one of its members) to take any action or perform any duties for and on behalf of the Architectural Committee, except the granting of variances pursuant to paragraph 12.9. In the absence of such designation, the vote of any two (2) members of the Architectural Committee, or the written consent of any two (2) members of the Architectural Committee taken without a meeting, shall constitute an act of the Architectural Committee. 12,5 No Waiver of Future Approvals. The approval of the Architectural Committee of any proposals or plans and specifications or drawings for any work done or proposed, or in connection with any other matter requiring the approval and consent of the Architectural Committee, shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right to withhold approval or consent as to any similar proposals, plans and specifications, drawings or matter whatever subsequently or additionally submitted for approval or consent. 12.6 Compensation of Members. The members of the Architectural Committee shall receive no compensation for services rendered, other than reimbursement for expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties hereunder and except as otherwise agreed by the Board. 12.7 Inspection of Work. Inspection of work and correction of defects therein shall proceed as follows: 12.7.1 Upon the completion of any work for which approved plans are required under this Article XII, the Owner shall give written notice of completion to'the Architectural Committee. 12.7.2 Within sixty (60) days thereafter, the Architectural Committee or its duly authorized representative may inspect such Improvement. If the Architectural Committee finds that such work was not done in substantial compliance with the approved plans, it shall notify the Owner in writing of such non-compliance within such sixty (60) day period, specifying the particular noncompliance, and shall require the Owner to remedy the same. 12.7.3 If upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of such notification, or any longer time the Architectural Committee determines to be reasonable, the Owner shall have failed to remedy such noncompliance, the Architectural Committee shall notify the Board in writing of such failure. Upon notice and hearing, as provided in the Bylaws, the Board shall determine whether there is a noncompliance and, if so, the nature thereof and the estimated cost of correcting or removing the same. If a noncompliance exists, the Owner shall remedy or remove the same within a period of not more than forty-five (45) days from the date of the announcement of the Board ruling unless the Board specifies a longer time as reasonable. If the Owner does not comply with the Board ruling within such period, the Board, at its option, may either remove the noncomplying improvement or remedy the noncompliance, and the Owner shall reimburse the Master Association, upon demand, for all expenses incurred in connection therewith. If such expenses are not promptly repaid by the Owner to the Master Association, the Board shall levy a Limited Assessment against such Owner for reimbursement pursuant to this Master Declaration. 12.7.4 If for any reason the Architectural Committee fails to notify the Owner of any noncompliance within sixty (60) days after receipt of the written notice of completion from the Owner, the work shall be deemed to be in accordance with the approved plans. MASTER DECLARATION - 23 westpark\ranch\dec 12.8 Non-Liability of Archit mural mmitt e Memb rs. Neither the Architectural Committee nor any member thereof, nor tts duly authorized Architectural Committee representative, shall be liable to any Association, or to any Owner or Grantee for any loss, damage or injury arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of the Architectural Committee's duties hereunder, unless due to the willful misconduct or bad faith of the Architectural Committee. The Architectural Committee shall review and approve or disapprove all plans submitted to it for any proposed improvement, alteration or addition, solely on the basis of aesthetic considerations and the overall benefit or detriment which would result to the immediate vicinity and to the Property generally. The Architectural Committee shall take into consideration the aesthetic aspects of the architectural designs, placement of building, landscaping, color schemes, exterior finishes and materials and similar features, but shall not be responsible for reviewing, nor shall its approval of any plan or design be deemed approval of any plan or design from the standpoint of structural safety or conformance with building or other codes. 12.9 Variances. The Architectural Committee may authorize variances from compliance with any of the architectural provisions of this Master Declaration, including restrictions upon height, size, floor area or placement of structures, or similar restrictions, when circumstances such as topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic or environmental considerations may require. However no variances will be granted for construction of structures or Improvements, including without limitation manicured lawns, in the Common Areas. Such variances must be evidenced in writing, must be signed by at least two (2) members of the Architectural Committee, and shall become effective upon recordation in the office of the County Recorder of Ada County. If such variances are granted, no violation of the covenants, conditions or restrictions contained in this Master Declaration shall be deemed to have occurred with respect to the matter for which the variance was granted. The granting of such a variance shall not operate to waive any of the terms and provisions of this Master Declaration for any purpose except as to the particular Building Lot and particular provision hereof covered by the variance, nor shall it affect in any way the Owner's obligation to comply with all governmental laws and regulations affecting such Owner's use of the Building Lot, including but not limited to zoning ordinances or requirements imposed by any governmental or municipal authority. 12.10 Local Architectural Committee. The Grantor may, at its option, create a three (3) member Local Architectural Committee for the Property contained in any Tract designated by a Supplemental Declaration. Upon its formation, all proposals, plans and specifications for Improvements within the Tract requiring approval of the Architectural Committee described above must be submitted to the local Architectural Committee for approval, rather than being submitted to the Architectural Committee. Thus, all proposals, plans and specifications for Improvements require the approval of either the Architectural Committee or the Local Architectural Committee, if such has been created, but not both such Committees. Each provision of this Article XII shall apply to the Local Architectural Committee as if it were the Architectural Committee and to the Local Association as if it were the Master Association, except to the extent that such interpretation would be in conflict with the provisions of this Article XII. ARTICLE XIII: EASEMENTS 13.1 Easements of Encroachment. There shall be reciprocal appurtenant easements of encroachment as between each Building Lot and such portion or portions of the Common Area adjacent thereto or as between adjacent Building Lots due to the unwillful placement or settling or shifting of the Improvements including but not limited to structures, walkways, bike paths, sidewalks and driveways constructed, reconstructed or altered thereon in accordance with the terms of this Master Declaration. Easements of encroachment shall be valid only so long as they exist, and the rights and obligations of Owners shall not be altered in any way because of encroachments, settling or shifting of the Improvements; provided, however, that in no event shall a valid easement for encroachment occur due to the willful act or acts of an Owner. In the event a structure on any Building Lot is partially or totally destroyed, and then repaired or rebuilt, the Owners of each Building Lot agree that minor encroachments over adjoining Building Lots that existed prior to the encroachment may be reconstructed pursuant to the easement granted by this paragraph 13.1. MASTER DECLARATION - 24 westpark\ranch\dec 13.2 Easements of Access. Grantor expressly reserves for the benefit of all the Property reciprocal easements of access, ingress and egress for all Owners to and from their respective Building Lots for installation and repair of utility services, for drainage of water over, across and upon adjacent Building Lots, and Common Areas, resulting from the normal use of adjoining Building Lots or Common Areas, and for necessary maintenance and repair of any Improvement including fencing, retaining walls, lighting facilities, mailboxes and sidewalk abutments, trees and landscaping. Such easements may be used by Grantor, and by all Owners, their guests, tenants and invitees, residing on or temporarily visiting the Property, for pedestrian walkways, vehicular access and such other purposes reasonably necessary for the use and enjoyment of a' Building Lot or Common Area. 13.3 Drainage and Utility Easements. Notwithstanding anything expressly or impliedly contained herein to the contrary, this Master Declaration shall be subject to all easements heretofore or hereafter granted by Grantor for the installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities that are required for the development of the Property. In addition, Grantor hereby reserves for the benefit of any Association the right to grant additional easements and rights-of-way over the Property and/or a Tract, as appropriate, to utility companies and public agencies as necessary or expedient for the proper development of the Property until close of escrow for the sale of the last Building Lot in the Property to a purchaser. 13.3.1 Improvement of Drainage and Utility Easement Areas. The Owners of Building Lots are hereby restricted and enjoined from constructing any Improvements upon any drainage or utility easement areas as shown on the Plat of The Ranch Subdivision or otherwise designated in any recorded document which would interfere with or prevent the easement from being used for such purpose; provided, however that the Owner of such Building Lots and the Grantor, Master Association or designated entity with regard to the landscaping easement described in this Article XIII, shall be entitled to install and maintain landscaping on such easement areas, and also shall be entitled to build and maintain fencing on such easement areas subject to approval by the Master Association Architectural Committee, so long as the same would not interfere with or prevent the easement areas from being used for their intended purposes; provided, that any damage sustained to Improvements on the easement areas as a result of legitimate use of the easement area shall be the sole and exclusive obligation of the Owner of the Building Lot whose Improvements were so damaged. 13.4 Rights and Duties Concernin Utility Easements. The rights and duties of the Owners of the Building Lots within the Property with respect to utilities shall be governed by the following: 13.4.1 Wherever utility house connections are installed within the Property, which connections or any portions thereof lie in or upon Building Lots owned by an Owner other than the Owner of the Building Lot served by the connections, the Owner of the Building Lot served by the connections shall have the right, and is hereby granted an easement to the full extent necessary therefor, to enter upon any Building Lot or to have their agent enter upon any Building Lot within the Property in or upon which said connections or any portion thereof lie, to repair, replace and generally maintain the connections as and when it may be necessary. 13.4.2 Whenever utility house connections are installed within the Property, which connections serve more than one Building Lot, the Owner of each Building Lot served by the connections shall be entitled to full use and enjoyment of such portions of said connections as service such Owner's Building Lot. 13.5 Drivevvay Easements. Whenever a driveway is installed within the Property which in whole or in part lies upon a Building Lot owned by an Owner other than the Owner of the Building Lot served, or installed to serve more than one Building Lot, the Owner of each Building Lot served or to be served by such driveway shall be entitled to full use and enjoyment of such other Building Lot as required to service such Owner's Building Lot or to repair, replace or maintain such driveway. MASTER DECLARATION - 25 westpark\ranch\dec 13.6 Disoutes as to Sharine of Costs. In the event of a dispute between Owners with respect to the repair or rebuilding of utility connections or driveways, or with respect to the sharing of the cost therefor, upon written request of one of such Owners addressed to the Master Association, the matter shall be submitted to the Board which shall decide the dispute and, if appropriate, make an appropriate Assessment against any or all of the Owners involved on behalf of the prevailing Owner(s), which Assessment shall be collected and enforced in the manner provided by this Master Declaration for Limited Assessments. 13.7 General Landscape Easement. An easement is hereby reserved to each appropriate Association, its contractors and agents, to enter those portions of Building Lots, for the purpose of installing, maintaining, replacing and restoring exterior landscaping, and natural vegetation and habitat. Such landscaping activity shall include, by way of illustration and not of limitation, the mowing of lawns, irrigation, sprinkling, tree and shrub trimming and pruning, walkway improvement, seasonal planting and such other landscaping activities within the Property as such Association shall determine to be necessary from time to time. 13.8 Overhang Easement. There shall be an exclusive easement appurtenant to each Building Lot over the Common Areas for overhanging eaves, and for any projections from the buildings, which projections shall not extend beyond the eave line. 13.9 Maintenance and Use Easement Between Walls and Lot Lines. Whenever the wall of a structure, or a fence or retaining wall, constructed on a Building Lot under plans and specifications approved by the Architectural Committee is located within three (3) feet of the lot line of such Building Lot, the Owner of such Building Lot is hereby granted an easement over and on the adjoining Building Lot (not to exceed 3 feet from the Building Lot line) for purposes of maintaining and repairing such wall or fence and eaves or other overhangs, and the Owner of such adjoining Building Lot is hereby granted an easement for landscaping purposes over and on the area lying between the lot line and such structure or fence so long as such use does not cause damage to the structure of fence. ARTICLE XIV: MISCELLANEOUS 14.1 Term. The easements created hereunder shall be perpetual, subject only to extinguishment by the holders of such easements as provided by law. The covenants, conditions, restrictions and equitable servitudes of this Master Declaration shall run until December 31, 2016, unless amended as herein provided. After December 31, 2016, such covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each, unless amended or extinguished by a written instrument executed by Members holding at least three-fourths (3/4) of the voting power of the Master Association and such written instrument is recorded with the Ada County Recorder. Further provided that the Master Association shall not be dissolved without the prior written approval of the City of Meridian and Ada County Highway District, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld provided that a responsible successor organization shall agree to perform those maintenance responsibilities arising from applicable city and county governmental requirements. 14.2 Amendment. 14.2.1 By Grantor. Except as provided in paragraph 14.3 below, until the recordation of the first deed to a Building Lot in the Property, the provisions of this Master Declaration may be amended, modified, clarified, supplemented, added to (collectively, "amendment") or terminated by Grantor by recordation of a written instrument setting forth such amendment or termination. Any amendment affecting only a particular Tract may be made by Grantor by an amendment to this Master Declaration at any time up to the recordation of the first deed to a Building Lot in such Tract. 14.2.2 By Owners. Except where a greater percentage is required by express provision in this Master Declaration, the provisions of this Master Declaration, other than this Article XIV, any MASTER DECLARATION - 26 westpark~ranch\dec amendment shall be by an instrument in writing signed and acknowledged by the president and secretary of the Master Association certifying and attesting that such amendment has been approved by the vote or written consent of Owners representing more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes in the Master Association, and such amendment shall be effective upon its recordation with the Ada County Recorder. Any amendment to this Article XiV shall require the vote or written consent of Members holding ninety-five percent (95%) of the voting power of the Master Association. 14.2.3 Effect of Amendment. Any amendment of this Master Declaration approved in the manner specified above shall be binding on and effective as to all Owners and their respective properties notwithstanding that such Owners may not have voted for or consented to such amendment. Such amendments may add to and increase the covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements applicable to the Property but shall not prohibit or unreasonably interfere with the allowed uses of such Owner's property which existed prior to the said amendment. 14.3 Mortgage Protection. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Master Declaration, no amendment of this Master Declaration shall operate to defeat or render invalid the rights of the beneficiary under any first deed of trust upon a Building Lot made in good faith and for value, and recorded prior to the recordation of such amendment, provided that after foreclosure of any such first deed of trust such Building Lot shall remain subject to this Master Declaration, as amended. 14.4 Notices. Any notices permitted or required to be delivered as provided herein shall be in writing"and may be delivered either personally or by mail. If delivery is made by mail, it shall be deemed to have been delivered seventy-two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to any person at the address given by such person to the Master Association for the purpose of service of such notice, or to the residence of such person if no address has been given to the Master Association. Such address may be changed from time to time by notice in writing to the Master Association, as provided in this paragraph 14.4. 14.5 Enforcement and Non-Waiver. 14.5.1 Rieht of Enforcement. Except as otherwise provided herein, any Owner of any Building Lot shall have the right to enforce any or all of the provisions hereof against any property within the Property and Owners thereof. 14.5.2 Violations and Nuisances. The failure of any Owner of a Building Lot to comply with any provision hereof, or with any provision of the Articles or Bylaws of any Association, is hereby declared a nuisance and will give rise to a cause of action in the Grantor, the Association or any Owner Building Lot(s) within the Property for recovery of damages or for negative or affirmative injunctive relief or both. However, any other provision to the contrary notwithstanding, only Grantor, the Master Association, the Board, or a duly authorized agent of any of them, may enforce by self-help any of the provisions hereof only if such self-help is preceded by reasonable notice to the Owner. 14.5.3 Violation of Law. Any violation of any state, municipal or local law, ordinance or regulation pertaining to the ownership, occupation or use of any property within the Property is hereby declared to be a violation of this Master Declaration and subject to any or all of the enforcement procedures set forth in this Master Declaration and any or all enforcement procedures in law and equity. 14.5.4 Remedies Cumulative. Each remedy provided herein is cumulative and not exclusive. 14.5.5 Non-Waiver. The failure to enforce any of the provisions herein at any time shall not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce any such provision. MASTER DECLARATION - 27 westpark\ranch\dec r 14.6 Interpretation. The provisions of this Master Declaration shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of creating a uniform plan for the development and operation of the Property. This Master Declaration shall be construed and governed under the laws of the State of Idaho. 14.6.1 Restrictions Constru d Together. All of the provisions hereof shall be liberally construed together to promote and effectuate the fundamental concepts of the development of the Property as set forth in the recitals of this Master Declaration. 14.6.2 Restrictions S verable. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing paragraph 14.6.1, each of the provisions of this Master Declaration shall be deemed independent and severable, and the invalidity or partial invalidity of any provision or portion thereof shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision herein. 14.6.3 Sineular Includes Plural. Unless the context requires a contrary construction, the singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular; and the masculine, feminine or neuter shall each including the masculine, feminine and neuter. 14.6.4 Captions. All captions and titles used in this Master Declaration are intended solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect that which is set forth in any of the provisions hereof. 14.7 Successors and A siens. All references herein to Grantor, Owners, any Association or person shall be construed to include all successors, assigns, partners and authorized agents of such Grantor, Owners, Association or person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has set its hand this day of WESTPARK COMPANY, INC., an Idaho corporation, BY= STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) Greg Johnson, President 1996. On this day of , 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared GREG JOHNSON, known or identified to me to be the President of WESTPARK COMPANY, INC., the corporation that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS.WHEREOF, (have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Idaho MASTER DECLARATION - 28 westpark\ranch\dec v' ~~ Residing at Boise, Idaho My commission expires: MASTER DECLARATION - 29 westparkUanch\dec v` .~ EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTIOV OF PROPERTY MASTER DECLARATION - 30 westpark\ranch\dec V' ~, ~ v EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RANCH COMMON AREA LOTS ,BLOCK _, AND LOTS ,BLOCK ,AND LOT ,BLOCK OF THE RANCH NO. 1 SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF AS FILED IN BOOK OF PLATS AT PAGES ,RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. MASTER DECLARATION - 37 westpark\ranch\dec . , EXHIBIT ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RANCH TRACTS ALL OF THE RANCH NO. 1 SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION, RECORDED ON , 1996, AS PLAT NUMBER ,RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. MASTER DECLARATION - 32 westpark\ranch\dec MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: FEBRUARY 14. 1995 APPLICANT: GEM PARK 11 PARTNERSHIP AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 14 REQUEST:PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8 R 15 AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: 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: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 33 ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15 AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Wayne Forrey and I am working with Gem Park II Partnership which is Westpark Company, Greg Johnson right here on the front row. Greg lives in Melba, Idaho and has developed property in Meridian for several years. Most recently his project is Sportsman Park Subdivision which is very near the comer of south Locust Grove Road and Overland Road. I think he is on phase 2 or phase 3 construction on that project right now. The Westpark Company has watched development happen in Meridian for several years. A lot of projects happen by 20 acres at a time or 40 acres at a time. The Westpark Company and their directors decided that it might be a good idea to try and assemble several parcels of land to get maybe 150 or 200 acres to do a neighborhood project, a planned community rather than just chip away at 20 or 30 or 40 acres at a time. So, Greg and his company looked at the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, looked at the growth plans of the City, the Area of Impact, the Urban Service Planning Area where growth was projected to occur, where it is occurring and went out and started to assemble some property. I am going to take 3 or 4 minutes and go through some slides quickly. I know it is late and we have a lot of folks have waited to get to this public hearing. So I will be concise Mr. Chairman to acquaint you with the project. Can we dim maybe one or 2 lights would that be possible? Thank you, this is a slide of the adopted 1983 Meridian Comprehensive Plan generalized land use map. This property that is requested for annexation is between Locust Grove Road and South Eagle Road but on the north side of Victory. You see quite a few symbols in that area. If you see the words Nine Mile Trunk right below that green circle that is the future alignment of the Nine Mile Trunk Sewer project which has been already planned by the City. That green circle tha# you see and the little school symbol with the flag on it means that is an area where the school district and the City have anticipated a future school and park site. The little triangular symbol that you see right by the S on South Eagle Road that is an anticipated future satellite fire station. The little half circle right below the triangle and that is at the intersection of Eagle Road and Victory Road, that is a symbol meaning a future well site for the City. The orange that you see at the intersection of Victory and Locust Grove and also on the north side of Overland and on both sides of South Eagle Road is anticipated for Mixed Use Development meaning a variety of integrated planned land uses from commercial to residential to office. The red circles that you see on the north and south side of that interchange are generally meaning commercial. So there is a lot of activity occurring there. The yellow that you see is a designated mixed residential in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 34 Comprehensive Plan. The application submitted by Gem Park Partnership includes several groups. I am one of the planning team members working with David Clinger, who is an urban planner from Denver, Colorado. My role in this is to make sure that all of the agency comments, planning and zoning comments, citizen comments in particular get boiled down into a good preliminary plat. We did not submit a preliminary plat, we have taken the position that this is such a major project that we wanted to submit an annexation request and run this project up the flag pole so to speak. Get the reaction and input and ideas and take all of that and make a good preliminary plat based on everyone's input. Here is the concept master plan that David Clinger has v~rked on and it is a starting spot with Westpark. A lot of different types of home sites would occur in the area along south Locust Grove Road and Victory Road in that comer would be much like any of the other subdivisions that you see around the community except as you notice as we get into this there is a lot of green space. Trails, parks, a lot of landscaping, nice entrances on the other side of Ridenbaugh, which would be east of Ridenbaugh canal a lot of nice cudesacs, parks, pathways, some cluster homes which fills a market need in Meridian. And also proposed multi-family up near Eagle Road and the Ridenbaugh canal. This is a starting spot that we have taken to approach this annexation request. First of all there are some zoning constraints, the R-4 zoning requires an 80 foot lot width by 100 foot depth which referred to generally is an 8,000 square foot lot. The city has a regulated size of a 1400 square foot minimum house size. Everyone that we have researched with, the banks, the housing agencies, realtors, builders tell us that there is a big market out there in Meridian and the agencies put it at about 73% of potential home buyers that cannot afford that R-4 type housing. There is a great need we feel for some housing that fits a big need in the market, something in the 1000 square foot size, 1200 square foot, 1400 square foot, 1600 square foot and larger. There are a lot of vacant R-4 lots on the market, in fact the City estimates about 1300 lots right now in Meridian that are available that are vacant. There are a lot of R-4 projects already approved and in the City. Johnson: Those aren't atl R-4 for the record. Forrey: According to the City staff we have been told they are, but there could be some R-8. Johnson: Yes, there is some R-8 in that 1300 figure, if you are going to use that figure. Forrey: Okay, here is one approach, the solution as we see it. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan indicates mixed residential for that area of the community so we took the approach of an R-8 and an R-15 zoning request with a density development agreement. That would accomplish basically 2 things, the R-8 and R-15 allows lot widths to be down in the 50 to 65 foot width. The R-4 requires a minimum of 80 foot, if we can get down to 50 and 65 foot wide lot there is creativity there that we can meet with different Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 35 housing styles and different costs. So our request for R-8 and R-15 was not based on getting 8 or 15 units to the acre but rather to get the flexibility that the City has right now in your ordinance to get a 50, 55, 60, 65 foot wide lot. The overall density in this project is 682 units or an overall project of 3.94 units to the acre. Johnson: Could you go back to that slide for a second? I will come back to that with my question. Forrey: Here are the properties involved in this annexation request, it involves about 173 acres assembled by Westpark Company. The little sliver of property on Locust Grove Road owned by the Schaffer family requested for Limited Office. That is a triangular piece of property, there are some very nice homes on the west side of Locust Grove Road. Westpark Company proposes to build a nice office there and would like to use that for their office. The rest of the Schaffer property is proposed R-8, Killgore property R-8, the Record property is R-8. Then on the east side of Ridenbaugh Canal is the Sally Martin property proposed R-15 and then the Nixon property up next to Eagle Road would also be R-15. Johnson: Wayne would you go to the map and point out the various properties. I can't read the green from here and maybe the public can't either. Forrey: The triangular parcel right here is owned by the Schaffer family, it is up next to the Eight Mile Lateral. This is the area we think will be good for a small professional office building. The Schaffer ownership here would be R-8. This is the Killgore ownership requested for R-8, the Record property requesting R-8. This parcel and this parcel next to the canal. Johnson: What are the names on those 2 I can't read that? Forrey: Martin family, and this large parcel right here is also the Martin property requesting an R-15. And the Nixon property here requesting R-15. I would like to point out the indication here of R-15 is because your current ordinance allows a more flexible lot dimension those zones than it does in the Rte. The objective was to get some lots that are not 80 feet wide. So that is the reason for this type of zoning request. In that area, there are several approved subdivisions already annexed into the City and about ready to start construction. The brown at the top of that map is Sundance Subdivision, the yellow is Los Alamitos Subdivision and the green that you see there is the proposed Meridian Highlands Ranch project. The blue in the center is a proposed school park site, Sundance Subdivision has committed to donate a portion of that site to the City and the school district. The same with Los Alamitos, Meridian Highlands Ranch would also donate I think 4.9 acres to the City of Meridian to be donated to the school. r~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 36 Johnson: I am sorry, maybe you said this, how large is that blue area there? Forrey: I am not sure of the exact, at development 15 acres. Its a combination of elementary school site and City park. Of that 15 acres Meridian Highlands Ranch is donating 4.9 and I am not sure exactly how many acres Sundance or Los Alamitos has agreed to contribute to the school district, but they have made a commitment to provide land in those general locations. Okay, project features, elementary school site 4.9 acres, neighborhood greenbelt and open space there is actually 7.8 acres over and above the school and park contribution. An additional 7.8 acres that would be donated to the homeowners association for recreation use and maintenance. There is a full pedestrian path along the Ridenbaugh.Canal that is over a mile, 6,000 linear feet, 2 pedestrian bridges to connect the neighborhoods and the school. An additional 4,000 feet of green belt paths just within the neighborhood itself outside of the Ridenbaugh canal pathway. A homeowners association for paid professional maintenance of the grounds and 7 neighborhood mini-parks, open space areas within that entire project. Now there is proposed to be 6 integrated housing choices, lots A would be the luxury home sites somewhere between 9,000 and 9,700 square foot lot size, 1600 square foot sized homes and larger. The next would be the executive home sites, 8140 to 8800 square foot lot size and the homes would be 1400 square foot. The greenbelt home sites would be on a little smaller lot and this is where we need the R-8 and the R-15 but it would allow 6000 square foot lots to maybe 7700 and there would be a variety through the project and we could build a 1000 square foot home or larger. The keyhole home sites would go down a little smaller now to 5000 to 6000 square foot lot and a 900 square foot or larger home. There are lifestyle homes, 1400 square feet and up, you would own the home it would be single family detached but you would not have to do any yard maintenance. It would be done by the homeowners association. Johnson: Have you broke that down by projected number of units for each category? Forrey: Yes, I have that to hand out, then the multi family would be 2 story apartment units. Johnson: While the slide is on there 1 would like to see that or have you address the number of units. Forrey: Okay, I can tell you, the A lots there would be 51 units of luxury home sites, the B lots would be 112, the C lots which is the green belt home sites would be 196, the keyhole home sites would be 93 lots, the lifestyle homes which some people would call a town house is 52 and multi family apartments is 178 for a total of 682 units. The overall density of the project would be 3.94 units per acre and if you remove the multi family then the overall density would be 3.07 units to the acre. There would be an on site sales Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 37 pavilion, a large water pond, extensive landscaping. All the entryway would be landscaped prior to any lot sales. A landscaped berm on Eagle Road as a buffer, attractive street entrances, a small professional office building, attractive design on Locust Grove Road. We have also incorporated traffic calming design, ACHD and APA have been promoting anon-continuous collector design features and we have included that in this project, I will show you here in a moment. A safe traffic access, every home would have linkage to at least 2 arterials be it Eagle and Victory or Victory and Locust Grove. The non-continuous collector format that I talked about, if you look, Ada County Highway District has looked really hard at neighborhood traffic issues and the complaint has been cut through traffic. So the concept here is that all of the traffic in this portion of the project would feed to 2 arterials, Victory Road or Locust Grove and would not be cutting through to impact these neighborhood this piece of the project. The same with this development, access to either Eagle or Victory Road and minimize that cut through traffic by automobiles, but there would be a pedestrian bridge here and a pedestrian bridge here so that school kids and people that are walking in the neighborhood can certainly walk and link and not have the cars and the cut through traffic. This is the area for the keyhole homes, the D that I referred to. This is the area for the lifestyle homes which is E on the list. And then the greenbelt homes are through here, the executive lots up on this ridge. And just nice single family detached homes throughout the balance of the project. David Clinger designed the project in Ketchum, Idaho called the Pines. And it includes keyhole homes, cluster homes and the same type of design format, in fact this was the inspiration for the Highlands Ranch. Our project team has looked at this and this is the feeling that we are trying to bring into this project. This happens to be the entrance of the Pines, this would be characteristic of the same type of entrance we would have coming into the Meridian Highlands Ranch. Now here is an example of the keyhole lot, the lot on the left, the house has anorth-south orientation, but it is wider at the rear so the yard is actually wider. So it is narrow at the front and wider at the back. Typically lots are rectangular or square and you end up with a lot of wasted space. The house on the right has more of an east west orientation. The owner maybe wants a wide type of house so the lot is wide at the front and narrow at the back. Also, that means you have to look pretty close at the fencing. That area D that you see right there up against the multi-family and Eagle Road is the area we anticipate for the keyhole lots. Johnson: Both D's? Forrey: Yes, the tan that you see there. And that is the 93 units that I referred to. Here is looking at keyhole lots in the Pines project in Ketchum. This is identical to the type of keyhole development we envision right here at Meridian Highlands Ranch. You see the fence and the angular construction of that fence. At the time that lot is developed and the home is built the fence is also built at the same time and landscaped so when the buyer comes in to buy the keyhole lot and home the home is there, the yard is already 1'\ r'y. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 38 landscaped, the fence is already constructed. It gives someone room in the backyard but it is not a lot of yard. It is low maintenance, lower cost housing, it is affordable housing but it is very nice. Johnson: Back to that slide, are these permanent residents? Forrey: Yes, these are not summer homes. In this portion of the project we envision the lifestyle home. All of that area, in fact the folks that live out there will recognize this where Sally Martin has her pine grove. We want to use those pine trees and not displace those. Any that would come out as a result of roadwork would be used somewhere in the project. One of the advantages of submitting an annexation request without a preliminary plat is that we get a chance to meet with fire departments, citizens, police, ACRD and take all of their ideas and try and tum it into something better. We met with the fire department, the Fire Chief said I just don't like these culdesacs here can we loop those streets right through here. That is an excellent suggestion and on the preliminary plat you will see that we will not have these dead end culdesacs but rather loop that through. Tonight perhaps we may hear from some property owners that want a different kind of treatment through here a buffer. We are willing to look at that. The highway district likes this type of entrance, this will be heavily landscaped, but it may mean that we need to make some adjustments or changes based on citizen testimony. So we are open to good design. Here is an example of the sales area in the Pines project in Ketchum. This would be similar to the sales ofFce that is built at Highlands Ranch, but here is the important things here is one of the lifestyle homes in the Pines project. This home is over 1400 square feet, this is the type of unit that is envisioned in the lifestyle home section I just referred to on the Sally Martin property. And all of the green space that you see there will be maintained by a homeowners association, paid professional staff. So you would own the home and have the privacy of a patio but not have to worry about the yard maintenance. And that is quite frankly that is niche in the market, they would like to buy a home like that. This is another lifestyle in another project (End of Tape) there will be water in the project and it will be in the lifestyle home area. Again this would all be maintained by the professional paid staff. And you would just have to take care of your own home. This is the last photograph Mr. Chairman. This is the Pines again, we used the same concept, a lot of .landscaping, curvilinear streets, trying to blend all of these good things into a good project and with testimony tonight I think we can do an even better job. I do have a list, the citizens that we have talked to and also that provided comments had some very good ideas. I noted 14 comments that came out of the information 1 received. First of all citizens want a density of about 4 units per acre in this area. I am here tonight to state that is perfectly acceptable to Westpark. There is no need for us to go over 4 units to the acre overall on this project. Citizens want to see a preliminary plat and what we would like to do is send a copy after this meeting after we get all of this information boiled down and make sure we have a good project let's make sure we put a preliminary plat together and /'1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 39 send it to everyone within 300 feet or whoever is one the mailing list. Screening fences, definitely we will put that in the project. tt was asked that we have single story level homes on the perimeter. Westpark says that is find, if that is a concern of citizens we can live with the single story level homes on the perimeter. Water impacts was mentioned a lot by citizens, City of Meridian has a policy of taking their municipal wells very deep. I think most of the wells are around the 600 to 700 foot depth and that is to avoid impacts to the shallow separate water aquifer above that level to minimize impacts to the rural wells that are definitely out in this area. The City has asked for a well site on the east end of the project, Westpark is committed to donate a well site to the City. Another concern was adequate police and fire service, this area is in the Urban Service Planning area of Meridian, it has been in the Meridian impact area since 1978. The fire department asked that we provide and donate to the City a 160 foot square satellite fire station on the east end of the project next to Eagle Road. Westpark Development will commit to that and you will see that in the preliminary plat. It has been suggested that we have a berm and a pine tree screen buffer. Greg and I spoke about this at length with some property owners and I think one thing we can commit to is the lifestyle homes along Victory Road, the multi- family along Eagle Road and then wherever the project touches Eagle Road, Victory Road or Locust Grove road we would install a berm with pine trees. It was also suggested that we use the pine trees if possible on the Sally Martin property. We wall definitely use those trees they won't be destroyed they will be used in the project. Strong covenants was another concem and what Westpark will do is submit with the preliminary plat and submit it to the citizens everyone that gets the plat with get a copy of the covenants, conditions and restrictions so they can get a chance to comment on that as well. Retain and the ditches, several property owners were concerned about continuing their irrigation water. All the ditches will remain and they wall be tiled. A school site will be donated to the city and made available to the school district. Another concem was impacts to septic sewers, this entire project would be connected to the Nine Mile Trunk sewer, there would be no septic systems on the property. Transition buffers, Johnson: Excuse me, while you talk could you go back to the diagram, to the plat. Forney: Transition buffers to adjacent homeowners, we would design this preliminary plat with input from any property owner that is next to the project and- try to work out some type of transition, whatever buffer they feel is best for them. As far as development controls, one gentleman asked that there be development controls to prevent a trailer park. In the R-8 and R-15 zoning the city may allow a trailer park, that is certainly not what Westpark is proposing. But if you feel there needs to be a contract zoning approach here that is perfectly fine to Westpark or the development agreement to list the uses that are not allowed or could not be developed as part of the R-8 or R-15 request that is certainly reasonable and we would help do that. After we get all of the comments we want to sit down again and work with property owners and design a good preliminary plat, this is a ~ n Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 40 major project it will probably take 10 years for Westpark Company to build this out. We think this neighborhood has everything that everyone has always said Meridian neighborhoods should have. It has pedestrian paths, access to a school park, parks within the development, no cut through traffic, we are meeting a variety of housing needs, lots of pathways. We think it is a good project and hope it is approved. The last thing Mr. Chairman, I have a list of conditions that we would suggest that could be added to any future conditions that your commission might develop for this project. We generated a list for you. Johnson: Okay, we would like to have those for the record, you also have a list of the people you talked to, you mentioned 14, or those comments you read to us. Forrey: It came from the City staff packet, there is I think a petition. Johnson: We have the petition, is that the same list you are talking about? Forrey: Yes Johnson: Could you show me where the proposed fire station and well site are? Forrey: The Meridian Comprehensive Plan map has a symbol about right here for a fire station and well site symbol approximately here. Those are general locations, when we met with the Fire Chief he asked that right in this corner here closest to Eagle Road that there be a 160 foot square site donated to the City. We also talked about the possibility of putting it up here at this entrance to the subdivision as part of the multi-family development and the Fire Chief doesn't have a problem with that. Either site is acceptable to the City. Johnson: I guess I am confused, what can you possibly do with a 160 square foot site? Forrey: The City of Meridian right now is negotiating with Steiner Development company to acquire a 160 square foot site on North Ten Mile Road. Oh excuse me 160 foot by 160 feet. Johnson: Oh, okay I was thinking maybe the size of my house jumped up. Forrey: This site may actually be bigger because we want to dove tail in with that a well site and that takes 100 foot by 100 foot piece of property. So this will be a combination satellite fire station and city well site right in this location on Eagle Road. Johnson: Thank you ~ /'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 41 Alidjani: Wayne 1 have a question, I see on the comments that Chief of Fire Kenny Bowers has he has some concerns about those cluster homes on the bottom end. And then you said later on you had met with him and took care of some of that. If you can point it how did you go through those culdesac and reopen them or make a circle that he was happy with that idea? Forrey: (Inaudible) This is just a concept, so if we get to the preliminary plat stage we will sit down with the fire department and make sure that these are looped all the way through here an not have these type of hammerhead T arrangements for the fire trucks. This is something that the chief just said he couldn't live with. We have to do a little better design for the fire truck. It would be-easy to (inaudible) a personal vehicle in there but and you would to with a garbage truck I think. So we are going to redesign this area. Alidjani: So I guess if I may continue there are 3 culdesacs, all of those are going to be looped from the upper portion of the entrance comes all the way down below, gets other there and the other 2 will also be connected. Forrey: At this point that is the input we have received that says that is the best way to do it. Alidjani: Thank you Hepper: Where would the water from the pressurized irrigation system come from? Forrey: It would come from either the wells on site or existing irrigation water, irrigation water rights on site. It would not come from the City of Meridian, it would comply with your ordinance. Hepper: What would be the depth of those wells, would there be any concern for the neighbors that have mentioned about their wells drying up? Forrey: I don't know the depths. Greg mentions there are 2 existing domestic wells that would charge the irrigation system. Johnson: Okay, then maybe to answer Tim's question in depth, how deep are those wells? Do we know at this point? Forrey: They are on the Sally Martin property, I don't know Mr. Chairman. Johnson: Okay, I thought maybe you had that information. /'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 42 Forrey: A lady in the audience indicates 150 feet deep. Johnson: Any other questions of Wayne? Hepper: Is the area of the canal is that figured in as part of the common area of the project? Forrey: No, it is not, that is easement area. Shari Stiles has been a real stickler on that, that you can't include the easement area as part of your open space calculation. Hepper: You also stated there was 1300 lots in Meridian that are on the market right now,. is that lots that are developed ready to build on or is that lots that have been approved by the City but not developed? Forrey: According to the Knipe report and that is what I got it out of, the Knipe Real Estate Report, there are 1300 approved, ready to build on lots in the City of Meridian. Hepper: Within City limits? Forrey: Well, it said City of Meridian, that are still vacant, no construction on them yet. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Forrey at this time? I will give you an opportunity to come back Wayne. This is a public hearing, is there someone from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Herbert Papenfuss, 2680 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Papenfuss: Well, I am not one of those that they contacted because if they had contacted me it wouldn't have been very favorable. 1 have 3 acres right across the street from where this is going to be. Johnson: Where would that be on that map there? I guess we lost the map, if we could keep that up Wayne it gives us a reference point. Papenfuss: The property would be right here across from the Nixon property. They say they are going to put a fire station right here and that is almost across from me because I am right in here. I can't see that is going to help my property values any. The traffic will increase, in fact when they put that interchange on Eagle Road it increased the traffic unbelievably. In the morning it is almost bumper to bumper down that road. People come over even though it means going out of their way 2 miles, people come over from Cloverdale and that area to hit the free way, this wilt add a number of cars to that. This Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 43 /'~ access on Victory Road, they will just come down Victory Road and hit Eagle and go right on down Eagle Road. Several years ago when I had to face medical bills that I didn't have insurance for I borrowed money on my home so I had to have an official evaluation before I could borrow the money and the evaluator deducted $5,000 for the evaluation on the basis of traffic. So increased traffic certainly isn't going to increase the valuation of my property in any way that you could imagine. Then you are putting homes there with a high density, low income homes, that is what he said, that isn't going to increase property values in any way at all. What that means is that I am stuck with a home that if I try to sell and go somewhere else and find a comparable home I am going to have to make substantial payments. When I moved out there 25 years ago, I moved out there because I wanted to be on a quiet road. I bought an acreage because I wanted an acreage. This whole set up will increase traffic, it will increase the number of people there. And low income housing certainly won't help. I am not opposed to development, I am not, but I would sooner see development of the acreage comparable to what we have on the other side of the road, all of them are acreages. I would much sooner see that sort of a development, that would help our values not decrease them. When I look around this place and we have looked around I see a lot of acreages for sale, in fact there is almost a premium on them. You go out to the Eagle area and you will pay a substantial amount of money for 1 or 2 acre lot. So, I don't see the people really hard up for property and I don't see the need to impact this area with that much housing. Not with what housing is already there. That is basically all I have for right now. I am opposed to it as it is because it is not going to benefit my valuation whatsoever, it is going to decrease it. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shipley: Let me show you where my property is. (Inaudible) this border line here (inaudible). Johnson: For the record Mr. Shipley's property is on the northwest corner of this development. Shipley: It is my south border line. I believe I would be for the development because if I am allowed to do with my property what I would like to do would be either build some low level town houses or to just make a parking lot for people's campers and boats that they won't really have enough room for in this other development. If the developer would stub me in a sewer line up the back side on the drain ditch it would leave me open to do either thing. Either build some low level type town houses or a nice little parking lot for hundreds of peoples boats and campers and things like that, that they don't have proper place for and it is close to where they are going to be living so they would be able to get in and out /'1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 44 /'1 of there. It might not be aesthetically beautiful, I am sure the advantages would be a lot better than the disadvantages for the people that are living there. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, yes sir. Wes Garve, 2590 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Garve: I said that 20 years ago and I am stilt paying for it. Johnson: Wes, we don't normally let people testify with their hat on but yours is so beautiful I don't know. Garve: I am not responsible for the glare when I take it off. My residence is right here on the east side of South Eagle Road directly across. You can see where the majority of saturation of the planned housing is. I roughly just figured it out and right there, I can be corrected, I don't mind be corrected I am a substitute teacher so I get corrected quite often by students, but we are looking right there and the D's and F area 271 dwelling units, that is multiple family and single dwelling units. Before I go on let me address something about irrigation water, I am the ditch manager for our lateral. Our irrigation water is supplied for this whole area on the east side of the Ridenbaugh canal is supplied by the Boise Board of control projects. Domestic wells by law are not allowed to be used for irrigation, the domestic wells in this area normally do not go below 250 feet. In the last 4 years with the droughts a vast majority of the acreages of the homes have had to re-drill wells because of the drought they have been going dry. The water table continues to drop, if this, if somehow they do get permission to use these domestic wells for irrigation we will all be re-drilling our wells to a deeper level. The cost of drilling a well today just for domestic use ranges from $6,000 to $10,000 and you are waiting up to 6 months just to get a company to come and drill it. So if that helps you on where you are going to get your irrigation water. Pressurized system on domestic wells right now isn't allowed by law. So that will help you out. Johnson: Sir, could you enlighten me as to how deep the re-drilling of the wells has gone, the new wells? Garve: Four years ago I had to re-drill my well and it went from 100 feet to 264. I went about 70 feet below the existing water table at that time. 1 and a good, upstanding republican, ditto head which probably doesn't really matter, but 1 am for progress. But 8 years ago my family and I moved from Boise out to South Eagle Road because it was a nice quiet area, we bought over 5 acres where we could farm. I have been accused of being a gentleman farmer, I don't know as if I like that term but it holds pretty true. I raise livestock, beef, sheep, pigs, chickens, kids, more the kids than I can afford most the time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 45 /'\ We had some very beautiful areas out there, lot a wildlife, wildlife is diminishing rapidly. We have had partridge, quail, pheasant, fox, even mule deer run around our areas. As 1 see the development moving closer and closer to us, our wildlife dwindles more rapidly. But even that is not my major concern because I can raise all the fowl I want. But what does concern me is what Herb said is traffic. When we moved out there in 1987 Eagle Road was a nice quiet 2 lane country road. My family and I enjoyed a nice leisurely walk in the evening al{ year round. Then in 1988 they opened up the Eagle interchange since that time I have lost 2 dogs, 3 cats and almost every member of my family. Eagle Road now is not safe to walkup and down. We are not going to stop this development, but we might be able to change and you might be able to change some of it. This many units in this small of area gentlemen is just pure saturation that is not needed. You check with ail major realtors in Boise you will find that rental units, apartment buildings today there have been so many built we are no longer short. There is no need now for 2 story apartment complexes. Not only will this give us more of a saturation of people that we need the aesthetics and the lifestyle that we bought into and that Herb and Cathy they have raised their whole family in their home, that will be gone for us. Berms and pine trees, we will never see another sunset, 1 would like to borrow the lady earlier pictures of the sunrise and just shirt it to the west. We have some of the most beautiful in Ada County from our front lawn. I can sit out there my wife and I in the evenings in the summer time and actually listen to our grass grow after dark. 1 won't be able to anymore. Where the road empties onto Eagle Road that empties right directly into my bedroom, every headlight that comes out there it won't matter how many berms and pine trees there are those lights are going to be shining right into my bedroom. That is going to be 24 hours a day because people in this vaNey work 24 hours a day. This gentleman has built some very nice homes, I have been through some of his homes out here, I looked at them. There is no yard with them, a lot of people like that. Myself I have a riding lawn mower 1 have that much lawn, but that is the lifestyle I like. This is a development coming in and taking away what I have had for years. I will have no choice in it, but you can have a choice on how much of that comes in. Like I said there is not a need today for all of the condominiums out here and for all the apartment complexes. It is bad enough we get that many people living that close together. I like waking up in the morning and I stretch my arms I don't want to hit my neighbor in the eye. Herb lives far enough south of me that can't happen. Basically the gentleman already answered my concerns about the wells and sewage, they will hook up that won't affect me any as long as it is not for irrigation. But for that much traffic that is a major concern. It takes very little research to find out the need for the apartment complex is not necessary. The need for the condominiums is not necessary. We don't have that many people that are going to be coming into this valley. Just in Sunday's paper there was a listing in there by area on home homes have been sold in 1994. And the vast majority of homes in the Meridian area were preexisting homes, not new construction. That is if you can believe the Statesman. Gentlemen there is not much else t can say, except you can't control what Ada County Highway District is going to do because they are going to do it /'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 46 n anyway. They have a plan of building in my living room which is on the opposite side of the house. Basically that is it, thank you for your time. Johnson: I appreciate your comments, any questions? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to come forward at this time? Torie McAlvain, 1975 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. McAlvain: I live right off of Victory Road just across where this is going to dump onto Victory Road and I live quite a ways back in about 1200 feet. I just built a new home in there. I am concemed about the size of the homes they are going to put in there. My home is not small, it is not overly huge but 1 built it to have some value and I am worried about the value of my home falling if they build smaller homes in there. I am not sure where they are going to start this development at. He stated it was over a 10 year period if the market falls flat here where does it start. Are they going to start and go for so long and when it falls flat they are going to (inaudible) I am just really concerned about the traffic again like everybody else. I know there is nothing we can do about it, but more so the impact it is going to have on the value of my house. Johnson: Thank you Jim Allen, 3040 East Victory, was sworn by the City Attorney. Allen: I will give you an idea of where I am at, right here. Unfortunately I am not within 300 feet so nobody contacts me but 1 am in an area that will be impacted by traffic. I am in an area that has been impacted by drought. Neighbors on both sides of me wells went dry last year, I furnished water for them. I hope I don't have to do it again. If you are looking at what you can do with water for irrigation check with the Water Resources Board you already know that. Ada County Highway is going to do it to us, we are going to have traffic out there. We are losing a lifestyle, what we are really losing though is farm ground. You can raise houses cheap, you can turn the ground under but you are not going to be able to eat houses. Johnson: Thanks Jim, I saw a lady over here. Diane Beaulieu, 1895 Star Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Beaulieu: My concern is what happens between the presentation and the reality. Igo back to a subdivision that is near and dear to my heart and it was presented that the homes would start at $130,000 and then you discover that their advertising in the paper for $90,000. That is over $30,000 difference, so what is going to keep the subdivision that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 47 they are going to have the mix. They are not all going to be the lower end of houses. I am really concerned because when you are presented something and you believe that is going to happen and it doesn't and you call the office and Shari Stiles says huh we can't hold them to it. That is really disappointing. Johnson: What we can do and our ordinances say, we go by square footage, we don't go by value. Normally a developer will give us a range, but our ordinances and everything we do are geared towards square footage and then we put limitations on certain subdivisions for square footage. We don't address values because values are not as constant as square footage. Beaulieu: Well, you know that is quite a big difference in value, but I think it is very mis- leading to the people who don't come here all the time and see what happens. Johnson: Well, I am trying to clear it up for you. Beaulieu: I understand that is what happens, but the people don't understand that happens. They expect that houses are going to be a certain type of house. I think people need to be aware of that. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? David Lombardy, 277 North 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lombardy: I represent James Griffen, Mr. Griffen owns the 80+ acre parcel to the north of this project, north of the Ridenbaugh Canal. My primary reason for appearing on behalf of Mr. Griffen today is to advise Mr. Forrey and his colleagues that Mr. Griffen is present he is an adjacent property owner and would very much like to speak with you concerning your plans, particularly in light of the suggestion in the Ada County Highway District's report that they might wish to place a road across the Ridenbaugh Canal at the area where afoot bridge is presently planned by the developer. We have no objections to this property being annexed and we have no objections to the zoning s proposed with the understanding clearly stated by Mr. Forrey today that there is no preliminary plat before you at this point that they are only seeking the annexation and zoning. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Lombardy, any questions? Anyone else that would like to come forward? Bonnie Glick, 2860 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Glick: I submitted a letter, which I guess Mr. Forrey received because he addressed a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 48 number of my concerns. My property is 2.2 acres adjacent to Sally Martin's property where if you will notice at the bottom he has all the green trees and he talks about putting the lifestyle homes in there that are going to be maintained by a professional lawn service etc., I live right next to that. I have 2.2 acres that run up the east boundary of that green area there at the bottom on Victory Road. Along with the concerns 1 expressed in my letter, I also want to raise tonight just that I think why are we looking at this kind of density in Meridian. Micron isn't coming, they are not doing their developing here, we just rejected a library bond in Meridian. Pretty soon we are going to have another school bond I am sure, which who knows if that will be approved. They don't seem to have very good luck getting approved so I have a concern about this density being proposed here well the development at afl. I agree with my good neighbor here in the cowboy hat that we all are out there enjoying a wonderful rural lifestyle that ,many of us have enjoyed for many years. I have lived there for 13 years, most of my neighbors, the lady next to me has lived there 25 years. We all have acreages that are, I think I am probably the smallest at 2.2 and then right along Victory Road where I am up to Eagle Road there are just acreage, acreage, acreage. Mr. Allen is one of them, I don't know how what he has, 2.11, Vernetta next to me has about 6 or 7, Rex Young has 2, these guys have 2 and then on the corner Teddy 1 think you know her, Teddy Hepper has an acre up there. Anyway we watch the fox run through the trees, I sit on my couch and look out my front window and I look at the fox in Sally's little forest. My kids, she mows little paths through there in the summer and my kids play in there. It is a hiding place, it is like an enchanted forest, the deer come through there. So the lifestyle we have enjoyed all these years and that we are raising our children to enjoy is very threatened. It feels like their are invading us. I appreciate Mr. Forrey's interest in working with us, I don't think that I can stop development, but I do question the density that is being proposed here. I really, really question and I want to know about this proposal they have to use Sally's irrigation, her domestic well for irrigation. I know what Sally's well is, it is 150 feet deep, hers is one of the deepest ones up there. Vernetta my neighbor had to re-drill her well, hers was 60, she re-drilled it 110. Mine is at 110, her neighbor re-drilled from 60 to 110, Mr. Allen is at 197, his is deep. If they start using her domestic well for irrigation we are all going to be wiped out. I would like in writing that they are going to pay to re-drill my well. I can't afford $6,000 to $10,000 to re-drill my well if they are using her domestic well for irrigation or for any reason to support this kind of density in a housing development. Other points as far as me being right adjacent to these lifestyle homes, if that is what goes in there. Yes, I prefer lower level homes there because I view now the Owyhee mountains, the whole range, it is breath taking and it just kills me to think about looking at these monstrosity homes standing out there in front of my window. I would like to see the plat and have us be able to put some input into that. I appreciate like I said their efforts in wanting to work with us as homeowners that are adjacent to and around this property. But I would like some kind of assurance that step by step we do know what is going on so that we don't have any surprises like this lady was bringing up. tt is hard to know how we can trust this process that is happening. My other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 49 questions are he talked about the R-4 vacancies in this area and I am saying 1 am wondering if it is because there isn't enough growth to meet this development. He says it is because people can't afford the houses but my golly is it because we don't have the growth to meet it. The other question is when will the school open to accommodate this growth. Do we do all the growth and then we open the school and in the mean time Mary McPherson is sitting over there, they have already used up their music room and health room for class rooms. They have no more room, they are busting at the seams and all these kids are in that school district. I don't know I have a million concerns and I guess I would just like to talk with the developer as things go on. But basically the density and the irrigation the water issue is a huge one. 1 don't want to have to re-drill my well. Thank you. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Matt Caris, 6161 North Drake Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Caris: I am more or less representing my father who is away he and my mom go down south every winter. So, his property, I can show you (inaudible). We had some concerns, we are generally in favor of the annexation mainly because my dad has always felt that a person should be able to do what he wants to do with his property. We have always vwrked that field, I grew up there, been there for over 30 years. We run a small landscape business out of that property and did some farming throughout the whole area. All the trees that everybody talks about over at Sally's my family planted along with the Martin's we have been real good friends with the Martin's for years. One of our main concerns is the density, at least over there on Nixon's property. I know my mom and dad won't be crazy about having apartments along that property if it is, I guess I was confused as far as what kind of housing that is. I am not really sure as far as the keyhole and that sort of thing, so I would like some more input on that, I know my mom and dad would. I am more or less representing them tonight. The fire station, I don't think they are going to want that right on the comer, if that can be shoved down towards Ridenbaugh, the closer the better tot he Ridenbaugh where they can use the canal as some buffer for the sound and the lights and stuff. I guess that is about it. Johnson: Thanks Matt (End of Tape) Would anyone else like to come forward? Nancy Hanson, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attomey. Hanson: I will show you where my property is (inaudible). I wrote a letter also and 1 think the developer has addressed quite a few of the concerns that I had in the letter that my husband and I both voiced. But I also had some other questions that I am thinking of tonight. They talked about the land they wanted to donate for a school and they said they r1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 50 /'~ would donate some acreage, but I am wondering who donates the furnishing for the schools and pays for the teachers salaries and the other expenses that go along with an added school. I am still concerned with the zoning, he said that it would be less than R-4 after you took out the apartment buildings. But I don't know exactly what the apartment buildings, they are in that property, so it would be R-4 after the apartment buildings are taken out. Johnson: Correct me if I am wrong Wayne, didn't you say 3.94 with and 3.0 without? Forrey: (Inaudible) Johnson: And that would be R-4 also. Forrey: (Inaudible) Hanson: Then, mainly, I agree with the other concems of the water issues, we have a well and I would worry about have to drill deeper on our water. And then, I mainly would like the annex not be approved until you can look at a detailed plan and actually look at. A general plan does not seem a real good think to approve to me. That is all. Johnson: Thank you Nancy, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Marvin Hanson, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I will show you where 1 live, (inaudible) one of my concerns is the high density in that area. We have the wildlife, it will be gone. We see the foxes and deer they will all be gone. We have lived there 4 years, we have 4 acres that we really enjoy and it is all going to be gone. I am concerned about the traffic, the water level. Our well is 60 feet deep. I have checked the water level when we had the well drilled it was, the water level was 13 feet. I checked it last year and it was down to 40. It won't be long if they put that in we are going to have to re-drill. Another thing that I am concerned about, we border the canal and then on the other side of that is the high density. Our property sits probably 20 feet lower than the property on the other side of the canal. If they build 2 story apartments there that is going to be really high. We won't be able to see anything except apartments and this is one of my concerns. I really would push for the R-4, or R-8 to be developed in that section of land. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to talk to us? Mary Creech, 2310 East Victory, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 51 Creech: I have 6 acres and my concerns are all the traffic and water and what have you. Our property backs up to the proposed area and my question is I understood it is going to be an R-8 or R-15, doesn't that mean 8 or 15 houses an acre? Johnson: Yes, maximum. Creech: And now they are saying it is three point something per acre. Johnson: Well, the zoning doesn't give you anything except parameters. Creech: I didn't want to go through at 8 to 15, and see it lower and then they put in 8 to 15. Johnson: It is kind of a tricky mathematical thing. As Mr. Forrey indicated earlier if gives them flexibility on lot size because along with the zoning of R-4 or R-8 there are other restrictions such as lot sizes, not just the density. It is just a way of designating the zoning and then there are other conditions beside the number of units per acre with each zoning. Creech: Thank you Johnson: Is there anyone else? Lydia Aguire, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Aguire: I have the same concerns I think that have been voiced by everybody else. I live on South Locust Grove and I have about 3 acres there. I question the density, I look at Meridian Greens, I look at Los Alamitos, we have R-4 zoning there, it makes some sense. There are some nice homes going in there, 1 think they will have some concern probably if we have R-8, R-15. If the citizens report is telling us that people want R-4 that makes some sense to just don't zone it R-4 instead of R-8 or R-15. Irrigation, I irrigate my 3 acres along with my neighbors. I think that irrigation is going to become a problem, water is going to become a problem not only on domestic wells but also irrigation. I am concerned about how much water can be supplied with that much density. Also, traffic, South Locust Grove and Victory, they are 2 lane roads. With all the subdivisions going in, the density and the traffic I think are going to be pretty thick. The other thing I am concerned about, when we talk about lower income we talk about John Shipley possibly putting in storage units, lower income homes, smaller homes, that affects the property values of everybody. So those are my concerns. Questions? Johnson: No questions, thank you. Anyone else? r'~ 1'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 52 Clifford Babbitt, 11881 West Amity, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Babbitt: I have the property just south of (inaudible) Johnson: For the record that is the northwest area adjacent to the property. Babbitt: I am in favor of the R-8 down there, I would like to see an R-6 really something like that where they have about 4 to 5 houses per acre. But I am in favor of the parcel down there. My well I did not have to drill this year, have not had to drill for 15 to 20 years. The water level is still the same and I know my brother's is, Gene Babbitt is also the same level roughly. There is a buffer between Lillian and the subdivision with John Shipley and me which is my property is approximately 275 feet wide there and Shipley's is 195 feet wide. It is a pretty good buffer between Lillian and this subdivision, she is bordering the R-4 there subdivision. The foxes, well, we love foxes, we have foxes in the back of our property. They raised 3 last year, but they also eat the pheasants they also eat the cats and so on. The deer do cross from one range to the other. And we can't do anything about the foxes. Johnson: For the record sir how deep is your well? Babbitt: 1 don't know for sure, I think it is about 120, but I only pump out of 40. The water table is 19 feet and I pump 40 - 42, the pump itself if 42. But the water table when it comes up in the pipe is about 19 feet from the top. Any other questions? Johnson: Apparently not, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to discuss this application with us? Have you been up once before? (Inaudible) Johnson: Well, not necessarily, you got a fresh idea? And don't repeat what somebody else has said. McAlvain: My question is the quality of the homes that was shown in Ketchum were quite high, is this the quality of homes they are going to put in here as they showed in the pictures. I just built on 5 acres and I just drilled a well and I was at 120 feet but it was silty and sandy and I had to go down to 250 to get out of all that before 1 could have a good well. Johnson: Is there anyone else? Would you like to answer some questions presented by the testimony Wayne? Mr. Forrey /'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 53 Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to thank everyone for the letters, the petition, the input that they provided tonight. I noted 4 things that we have to do. One we do definitely need to include properties formally as we get this preliminary plat put together. Let them be part of the platting process and look at their property and ways to blend a good project next to their property. And let them look at covenants and help us write the covenants. Second thing, I think it is real obvious that we have a water problem so the best thing we can do to help our neighbors is not use the domestic wells on the property to charge the pressurized irrigation system. We will use the canal water, the existing irrigation water right that Westpark Company has. But when the water is out of the canal then what we need to do is to make sure the City of Meridian will allow us to use City water as the back up. That may take some negotiation with the City engineer that way we don't use those domestic wells and then we don't impact the neighbors wells. I think that is the solution to it is we don't use them. The third thing I wrote down is that we need to get a mailing list of all the property owners and several of them said we want to know what is going on so let's put a newsletter together. Have a regular mailing to them so they know where we are at in the process. What the decision process is, ask for their input, have some informal meetings. And then the fourth thing, 1 think we need a very strong development agreement so that what comes out of this preliminary plat what we all think should happen does in fact happen and gets build on the ground. So that the things that several people brought up, well the the developer said this and a couple years later it is not built we don't want that to happen. This is a project that Greg and his company will build over a 10 year period so it has to be a good solid project and I think a good strong development agreement is a way to approach that. That is it Mr. Chairman. Johnson: 1 have one question, it has probably been answered. This late at night 1 have forgotten. Do you have a plan for phasing the development at this point? Forrey: Yes, the portion of the project, Greg you can point it out there. Right next to Locust Grove Road, at the extreme west end would be phase 1. Then the project would move toward the Ridenbaugh canal westward and then move into the interior and onto Eagle Road. The last phase would be the multi-family probably 10 years out. Westpark Company has an agreement with the Nixon property there that they are going to continue to operate their dairy for at least 5 years. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, any questions for Mr. Forrey from the Commission? Not at this point I guess. I will now close the public hearing. You have heard the testimony, what would you like to do Commissioners? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application. /'~ /'1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 54 Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Does anyone need an explanation as to what that is, since some of you don't come here all the time? Wayne Crookston will you explain what that is please? He is the one that gets paid for doing it let him explain it. Crookston: I take all of the evidence that has been presented, all the ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, which are basically the laws that the City has to follow, I then apply them to the facts that have been submitted. I call individually the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and ask for their input, what they want to see in the findings. And then I prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law. They are then presented to the Commissioners and they have the right to modify them or change them or make whatever recommendations they want to make. Then they adopt those either as they have been written or as they have changed them. Then they are presented to the City Council and they review those. There will be another public hearing before the City Council, if the City Council, if there is different testimony they think is significant enough to change the findings they will that new findings be prepared. And they the same thing, and I do as I just suggested that the Commission does. Then they approve findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ultimately the City Council decision as to what is done. Johnson: Thanks Wayne, that concludes item #14. ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR CAPITAL PARK DEVELOPMENT, 2 LOTS BY FRED LOTRIDGE: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if the applicant or his representatives here would he please come forward and address the Commission at this time. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey. Merkle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am here on behalf of Fred Lotridge the applicant. Earlier this evening, item #10 was the findings of fact and conclusions with a favorable recommendation onto the City Council for the approval of the Conditional use, this is basically the same project. What I am here for tonight is just the public hearing for the preliminary plat to create 2 lots out of one over the top of that conditional use planned commercial development that you recommended approval on earlier. This is the piece of ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WESTPARK COMPANY GEMPARK II PARTNERSHIP ANNESATION AND ZONING PORTION OF SECTION 20, T. 3N, R. lE, BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO ` FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing February 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30. o'clock p.m., Wayne Forrey, representing the Petitioner, appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of a public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for February 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 14, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and sLbmit evidence; and copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is approximately 180.9 acres; that the property is located near and adjacent to the City of Meridian and that the Applicant is not the owner of the property; that the owners are: Dale A. or Pamela G. Nixon, Harold Killgore and GEMPARK II - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 1 ~ ^ Rayelene Allen, Clayton or Susan Record, Richard S. or Linda E. Schaffer and Sally D. Martin; that each of the above mentioned parties are the titled owners of certain parcels and each have granted their permission for this application and to be annexed. 3. That the Application requests annexation and zoning of R- 8 Medium Density Residential, R-15, Medium High Density Residential and L-O, Limited Office, to be developed for future land use of mixed residential, a school, park, pathway, public and limited office. At the Public Hearing Wayne Forrey explained the proposed development. He discussed the various planning in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; he stated that they wanted to only submit an annexation request, and not a plat so they could put all the comments together and come up with a good preliminary plat; that a lot of different types of home sites would occur in the area along south Locust Grove Road; that there would be a lot of green space, trails, parks, landscaping, nice entrances and cul-de-sacs, pathways, and some cluster homes which would fill a market need in Meridian; that there would be a multi-family portion in the subdivision near Eagle road and the Ridenbaugh Canal; he stated that there are some zoning constraints in the R-4 zoning because it requires an 80 foot frontage, a 100 foot depth, and at least a 1,400 square foot home; that his research indicated that 73$ of potential home buyers cannot afford that R-4 type of housing; that there is big market for homes in the 1,000 square foot size; that there a lot of vacant R-4 lots in Meridian. Mr. Forrey went on to state that the Meridian Comprehensive GEMPARK II - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 2 r~ Plan indicates mixed residential for the area where the subdivision is located so they took the approach of an R-8 and an R-15 zoning request with a density development agreement; that the R-8 and R-15 allows lot widths to be 65 and 50 feet-and with those sizes they can creatively meet different housing styles and costs; that their R-8 and R-15 request was not to get 8 and 15 units per acre, but to get the flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance that allows 50, 55, 60, and 65 foot wide lots; that the overall density would be 3.94 units to the acre; he stated that the Schaffer property would be L-O and R-8, the Killgore property R-8, the Record property R-8, with the property on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal, the Nixon and Martin properties, being R-15; he stated that the R-15 was to allow a more flexible lot dimension. He also stated that the project amenities included 4.9 acres for a school site, 7.8 acres for neighborhood greenbelt and open space, an additional 7.8 acres that would be donated to the home owners association for recreation and maintenance, a full pedestrian path along the Ridenbaugh Canal that is over a mile long, two pedestrian bridges to connect the neighborhoods and the school, 4,000 feet of green belt paths, a home owners association for paid professional maintenance of the grounds and seven neighborhood mini-parks and open space areas. He later stated that a well site and a 160 X 160 foot square site for a fire station, would be donated to the City, and that there would be a berm with pine trees placed along Locust Grove, Victory, and Eagle Road; that the ditches would be tiled, a school site would be donated to the GEMPARK II - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 3 City and made available to the School District. He stated there were six integrated housing choices, which would be luxury homes with lots between 9, 000 and 9, 700 square feet and 1,600 square foot sized homes and larger; the next choice would be executive home sites with 8,140 to 8,800 square foot lots and homes would be 1,400 square feet; then green belt home sites would be on a little smaller lot and that this where we need the R-8 or R-15 but it would allow 6,000 square foot lots to maybe 7,700 and they would build a 1,000 square foot home or larger; the next was the keyhole home sites which would be down to 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots and a 900 square foot home; then there were lifestyle homes of 1,400 square foot single-family detached homes with the owner owning the home but the yard maintenance would be done by the home owners association; that there would be 51 Luxury home sites, 112 Executive, 196 Greenbelt, 93 Keyhole, 52 Lifestyle and 178 Multi-family (Apartments). He further stated that all entryways would be landscaped prior to any lot sales, that there would be a landscaped berm on Eagle Road as a buffer, that a traffic calming design with every home having linkage to two arterials; he showed slides of the Pines Subdivision in Ketchum, Idaho, which he stated their subdivision would be similar to; he also stated that there would be transition buffers to adjacent home owners and they would design the plat with input from any property owner that is next to the project; that it was not their intent to develop a trailer park and if the City felt that contract zoning was desirable that was fine with them and they GEMPARR II - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 4 would enter into a development agreement listing the possible uses; he stated that water for pressurized irrigation would come from either wells or existing irrigation water rights on the site. Mr. Forrey also submitted a list of development conditions, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 4. That most of the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T, Rural Transition, with a two acre parcel in the northeast portion of the land zoned as R-2; that the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8, R-15 and L-O; the land is adjacent and abutting to Sundance Subdivision which has been annexed into the City of Meridian. 5. The general area is used for farming with a few home sites. 6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of. Meridian. 7. 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. 8. That the R-8 and R-15 Residential Districts and the L-O Districts are described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4, 5 ~:nd 7, as follows: (R-81 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable GEMPARK II - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 5 land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. (R-151 Medium High Density Residential District - The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian . The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses, apartment buildings and condominiums. ~L-O) Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L-O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The (L-O) District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 9. At the hearing Herbert Papenfuss testified that his property, containing three (3) acres, is right across the street from the Nixon parcel; that he was not contacted regarding this application; that he is opposed to this proposed application.; that the traffic increase, since the Eagle Road Interchange, has devalued his property; that he does not see the need to impact this area with that much housing. 10. That John Shipley gave testimony regarding that his property is at the northwest corner of this development; that he is not opposed to the application; that if the developer would stub in a sewer line up to the back side of the drain ditch it would allow GEMPARK II - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 6 him to, some time in the near future, develop his property by either building some low level town houses or an RV parking facility. 11. Mr. Wes Garve testified that he has lived for eight (8) years on better than five ( 5 ) acres located on the east side of Eagle Road, across from the project; that he sees no need for the saturation of more housing in this area; that he is the ditch manager for the lateral; that domestic wells cannot be used for irrigation for this would cause wells to be lowered and many have had to redrill at a cost between $6,000 and $10,000.00. 12. Torie McAlvain testified regarding his concerns as to the type and size of homes proposed; he questioned whether the homes will be as Mr. Forrey indicated that they would be, similar to the Ketchum Pines project; that he, too, is concerned about the traffic and the impact of home values. 13. Jim Allen, Marvin Hansen, Mary Creech, Lydia Aguire all testified with the common concern over traffic increase; Ms. Aguire also questioned the density, irrigation and property values being affected. 14. Mac Harris, representing his father and Bonnie Glick, offered testimony regarding treir concerns over the density being too high; that the lifestyle in this rural area has been enjoyable; that Ms. Glick questions domestic wells for irrigation; that they will have to drill deeper and they can't afford to incur that cost; that lower level homes would be preferred; that the quality of life would certainly change the enjoyable rural lifestyle they now all GEMPARR II - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 7 ~ ~ enjoy; that the schools are already busting at the seams; that Mr. Harris stated that the proposed fire station should not be on the east end of the project at Eagle Road, but that he is in favor of the annexation because the developer favors people doing what they want with their property. That Mr. and Mrs. Glick submitted a letter which also stated they did not want more than four houses per acre, that they wanted a berm with a solid screen of pine trees and a high quality fence and that the covenants be in place for this development so there are no junk cars and trash. 15. Diane Beaulieu offered testimony regarding her concern as to what is going to make the developer comply with what they've represented and reality. 16. That David Lombardy, representing James Griffen, who owns the 80 acre parcel to the north of this project, north of the Ridenbaugh Canal, testified that Mr. Griffen has no objection to this property being annexed and that the Ada County Highway District has suggested putting a road across the canal with the developer planning afoot bridge; that the understanding is clearly that there is no preliminary plat of this application to this point. 17. Matt Caris, representing his parents, testified regarding the density, at least on Nixon's property; that his folks would not be crazy about having apartments along that property; that the proposed fire station would be better closer towards the Ridenbaugh canal rather than the corner. 18. Nancy Hanson offered testimony regarding that she had GEMPARK II - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 8 ~ ~ sent a letter to the developer addressing her concerns; that the donating of some acreage for a school is great but she questioned who donates the salaries, furnishings and other expenses that go along with an added school; that she also has a concern with the well water issue. 19. That written testimony was received by Vernetta Hastings regarding many things, the biggest concern being the ground water that supplies well water to her home; she also stated that she hoped that her irrigation drain does not end up in somebody's basement; she also stated that some quality of life could be preserved; that Marvin and Nancy Hansen and Jon and Bonita Glick submitted written comment; that a petition was submitted which was signed by fifteen people, of which many testified at the public hearing; that all written comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; those people stated that they strongly. object to the R-8 and R-15 zoning, that they wanted an accompanying plan showing what was going to be developed there, that there would be stress on ground water, that sewage be properly disposed of, they questioned whether there was enough police and fire protection for the development, and had concerns about the adverse affects of the population increase on the schools; that one of the signers of the above petition was Rex E. Young and he had sent an individual letter to the City stating that he strongly objected to the project because the R-8 and R-15 would be detrimental to himself and other property owners in the area who live on small acreages, but stated that approval of R-4 zoning would not be objectionable; he stated GEMPARK II - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 9 ~ ~ that the proposed subdivision would adversely effect the ground water, he had concern over septic systems being able to handle the sewage, concerns over property values and the quality of life, concerns over only a concept plan being submitted, and he questioned whether the City would be able to provide police and fire protection. 20. Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, commented that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9- 605 M unless a variance application is submitted; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed; that a City well site would be required near the easterly boundary of the proposed annexation area; that sewer service would be via an extension of the Eight Mile Lateral Sewer Trunk Line and domestic water service would be from an extension of the existing mains located in S. Locust Grove Road near the south boundary of Salmon Rapids and the developer would be responsible for extending the water and sewer; that a well site will be required near the easterly boundary of the area; that the Applicant is to enter into a development agreement and that the Applicant refine the requested zoning to more accurately portray what is being proposed and present the project as a planned unit development under the conditional use permit process; and that 2.5 elementary schools would be required for this development based on 1 elementary school for every 900 units. GEMPARK II - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 10 ri. 21. That comments were received from the City Fire and Police Departments, Central District Health, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and Idaho Power; that such comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the Fire Chief indicated that all of the cul-de-sacs would cause an emergency response nightmare 22. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comment and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the District had many site specific requirements. 23. That the Applicant did not submit a subdivision plat application showing how the property would be developed but did, at the public hearing, present a plan of how the subdivision might be developed. 24. That the portion of the property which is the northeast part of the land, the two acre portion zoned R-1 by Ada County, is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development area; that portion of the property which is south of the east-to-west half section line and east of the north-to-south half section line, is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map as being in a Mixed Residential area; and that portion of the property which is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north-to- south half section line is shown as being in a single family residential area. 25. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Comprehensive Plan Map, it does state in various sections, in part, as follows: GEMPARK II - ANNERATION FF ~ CL Page - 11 "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. 26. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 1. GENERAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas. 1.8U Promote the development of high quality and environmentally compatible residential areas that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods." 1.12U Support regional agricultural/agribusiness by protecting productive agricultural operations when requested by agribusiness land owners. 27. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 2.5U Encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods. 28. 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. GEMPARK II - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 12 29. That also in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, RURAL AREAS, it odes state as follows: "6.7U Existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural area by innovative land use planning techniques. 6.8U residential densities. (Emphasis added. 6.9U Proposed urban density development which abuts or is proximal to existing rural residential development shall be subject to development review committee approval. 30. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 31. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 32. 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." 33. 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." 34. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF ~ CL Page - 13 with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the ~-. n "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;" 35. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "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." 36. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new devel~.pments 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 Planning and Zoning Commission 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. 37. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the QEMPARK II - ANNEXPITION FF & CL Page - 14 ~ ~ previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could 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; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 38. 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 residents 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 GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 15 provide for school services to current and future students. 39. 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. 40. 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 GEMPARK II - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 16 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 the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant and 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 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; 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 inclusion into the subdivision of the GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 17 ~ ~ requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L, M, and 11-9-606 b. 14; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, 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 were not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized Land Use Map as follows: The two acre parcel in the northeast corner as being in the Mixed/Planned Use Development area that is north of the east/west half section line; that portion of the project that is south of the east/west half section line and east of the north/south half section line as being in a Mixed Residential area; and that portion of the project that is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north/south half section line as being in a Single Family Residential area; that development of the land in a residential capacity would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. However, that since the Comprehensive Plan states that: 1) there is an importance to maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, 2) encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density GEMPARK II - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 18 development in outlying areas, 3) support regional agricultural/agribusiness by protecting productive agricultural operations when requested by agribusiness land owners, 4) protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, 5) improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, 6) encouraging compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, 7) new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide transitional densities-with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities; the development concept does not meet the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 12. The Limited Office proposed by the Applicant is not a residential zone and where the Applicant proposes to have land zoned L-O is in the Single Family Area. 13. The R-8 Residential zone could fall in line with the Mixed Residential depicted in the 1eridian Comprehensive Plan for the area that is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north/south half section line as being in a Single Family Residential area, but that zone also allows two family dwellings and the R-8 zoning would not meet the Meridian Comprehensive Plan goals of encouraging compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, protecting and maintaining residential neighborhood property values, improving each neighborhood's condition and enhancing its quality of .life for residents, reinforcing the City's present development pattern of GEMPARK II - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 19 ~;,~ ~ higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas, maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, and having transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the rural residential land from urban land development. 14. That the above comments in paragraph 13 are equally applicable to the proposed R-15 development in the Mixed Residential area, shown in the Comprehensive Plan. 15. That if the land was. annexed the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, would have to be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 16. That all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled, if the land were annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property would be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant would be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 17. That if the property were annexed, these conditions would run wi+:h the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 18. That it is concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the City of Meridian to annex the land due to the facts found above and the conclusions stated herein. GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 20 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 VOTED ;!'" COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) RECOMMENDATION VOTED A. `~ VOTED VOTED '~'~t~t I VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny he annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described for the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law which are based on the Findings of Facts. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: GEMPARR II - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 21 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissior, July 11, 1995 Page 16 (End of Tape) Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we pass a recommendation onto the City as read, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: Johnson: What would you like to do regarding the preliminary plat? (Discussion Inaudible) Crookston: In the annexation findings it says the plat would stay at P & Z so you need to table it to a date certain. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until August 8 which is our next regularly scheduled meeting as stated in the findings of the previous annexation and zoning request. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table the preliminary plat for Highlands Ranch Subdivision until the next regularly scheduled meeting August 8, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we table that also until August 8. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that this item also be tabled until August 8, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 10 ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-4 AND L-O FOR 180 ACRES FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to come. forward and address the Commission at this time. Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I need about 30 to 45 seconds to pull the overhead projector over here and set it up. Johnson: That would be a new record for you Wayne. Forrey: My name is Wayne Forrey and I am here tonight representing Westpark Company. Greg Johnson is the owner of Westpark, he couldn't be here, he is at a family reunion tonight. We submitted the Highland's Ranch project probably, I think back in March or April to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. It went through a public hearing process and it has evolved 1 think into a much better project. We have received some very good citizen input, we had good findings of fact and conclusions of law which pointed us in a different direction then we were initially headed. We made some changes and we re- submitted anew application and that is the reason we are here tonight for the public hearing. I would like to read into the public record a letter from Greg Johnson that we sent to everyone within 300 feet of the project. Greg asked me to do that, it is on Westpark Company letterhead and it is individually addressed to people but it starts like this, "My name is Greg Johnson, I am purchasing property from the Shaffer, Killgore, Record, Martin and Nixon families in the Locust GroveNictory Road/Eagle Road area. This combined property totals about 180 acres. Over the years I have developed dozens of high quality subdivisions in the Treasure Valley and in Anchorage, Alaska. I am very proud of each project. My company, the Westpark Company Inc. wants to develop this 180 acres as a high quality residential and office community with parks, bike paths, a school site, quality housing and strong covenants to ensure a high quality neighborhood for the community. Right now my company is developing Sportsman Point Subdivision near Locust Grove and Overland Road in Meridian. If you drive through Sportsman Point you will see that we take pride in our work and commitment to good, positive development. On February Johnson: Excuse me Wayne, just in the interest of time, we all have this letter and have a comparison, is there someone from the public that would like this letter read since he started it? Those of you within 300 feet I am sure have received it. So if you have some highlights that you would like to point out rather than read it word for word because we all have it right here in front of us. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 11 Forrey: Okay, if you have it and as long as it gets into the public record. Let me proceed then to show an overhead transparency and explain a few of the changes. Our initial zoning request and annexation request was for R-8 and R-15 zoning and a small piece of limited office along South Locust Grove Road. Given the direction that we felt the findings of fact were headed as well as discussing possible changes with citizens in the area with city officials and with public agencies involved in the development process we have revised the application to an R-4 zoning with a conditional use for a planned development. We submitted a preliminary plat along with planned development information, and also I guess the most significant change would be the Nixon property which is the 37 acres along Eagle Road on the west end of this site. Johnson: Wayne, if you roll that forward a little would we get the whole thing on the screen maybe? So we can see Eagle Road and Locust Grove Road. Forrey: East end not west end, that is proposed for a campus office park instead of the R- 15 in our original proposal. Other comments included thoughts on how to deaf with the water on the site, buffers, moving the cluster homes, increasing lot sizes, taking a second look at more open space, increasing house sizes and all of those things that we pointed out in the letter. The major change in addition to the office park proposed on the Nixon property is we did move the' cluster homes more to the center of the project. This is the location of the cluster homes right here, it used to be down here at Victory Road and they have been located more into the interior of the project. All of the lots that you see highlighted in blue are at least 8,000 square feet and many are larger. That is one of the things that citizen input they convinced us that they wanted larger lots where possible. And also for screening, 8,000 square foot lot is the entry level lot size in the R-4 zone in the City of Meridian. Because this is a planned development we feel and we are asking for the opportunity to have some lots that are less than 8,000 square feet. Now all of the green that you see there comprises right at 10% of the total ownership. In a planned development a 10% open space is required. When Greg developed Sportsman Point he has 2 acres of private open space in Sportsman Point. It was $160,000 to develop that 2 acres, when you take the school and park site out which he won't develop but he is donating that ground to the City and the school the balance that he would develop as open space is 10.5 acres. When you take that times the 80,000 well there is $840,000 in just development of open space, the green that you see there. That doesn't include the cost of the pathway along the Ridenbaugh canal. That is over and above the $840,000 that he would expend in the private open space. Now the trade off in your ordinance is that when a developer takes that commitment and puts that type of money and commitment and land into a project the trade off is that there is some flexibility in lot sizes and in home sizes. In the letter that we submitted in the back there was a summary of development features. You will notice that what we are asking for in some cases is homes that would be at a minimum of 900 square feet and larger. That is on some of the keyhole lots that are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 12 shown on the north end of this project. Most of the homes would be much larger than that. There would certainly be homes in excess of the City's standard of 1400 square feet minimum. But there are some homes anticipated at 1000 square feet, 1100 square feet, 1200 square feet and 1300 square feet, etc. Johnson: Do you have any numbers on those? Forrey: I do Johnson: Are the numbers there, oh I see them, excuse me Wayne I see them now. Forrey: As we pointed out in the letter we also increased the number of lots that would have larger homes. In the original submittal we had 163 units with 1200 square foot size lots and larger and we now have 213 units out of the 450 so almost half of the units in the entire project would be at least 1200 square feet and larger. Now, it is a little bit of a struggle here because Meridian has in your R-4 zone a minimum of 1400 square feet house size. In your ordinance excuse me in your Comprehensive Plan it talks about in a planned development having some flexibility in terms of housing standards, both house size and lot size. Now, policy, it is in the Comprehensive Plan it is in the housing chapter, policy 1.18 and this is a policy that has been in effect since 1978 in the City of Meridian, it was in the 1978 Comprehensive Plan. It talks about allowing 25% variation in housing standards in a PD, if we apply that policy to this project that would, let's just theoretically take 1400 square feet as the minimum, if a planned development is granted as we have applied for, a 25% flexibility could get doom to a 1050 square foot minimum house size. And you can apply that also to an 8,000 square foot lot a 25% reduction. So we are asking for that, in the case here where we have asked for 900 square feet perhaps that is too small and that is something we would appreciate hearing ftom citizens and the Commission. But if we evoke that Comprehensive Plan policy that is long standing in this community and we would ask for that 25% flexibility and get down to a minimum of 1050 square foot house size. Regarding the change ftom the R-15 to the L-0, some citizens had pointed out that may or may not be appropriate. The reason that has occurred is as we met with City officials it came very clear to us that the recent legislative change putting a 3% cap on revenue expansion in the city there was an advantage to annexing commercial and office and industrial properties and a disincentive at times to annex pure residential projects. So the comment came back to us, balance the project. Make sure there is revenue producing income or revenue producing property in your project as well as residential. Citizens indicated that there was too much residential in the first application. So that is why and also the comprehensive plan goal number 9 talks about balancing and different land uses to create the balance between revenue and expenditure. In the land use it is policy 1.5U and 1.2 gives the City the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority and directs you to help balance to get those differing land uses P:~~eridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 13 to balance the revenues and expenditures so that is what made us decide and change the L-O. Also we think it is a pretty good buffer to the mixed planned use development that is on the north side of the Ridenbaugh canal that abuts this property and it is right next to Eagle Road which is the Highway District and the State tell us is not scheduled right now but in the future as development expands in that area would go to a five lane roadway. I have some house plans also that I want to hand out because the citizens that we talked to wanted a commitment from Westpark on the types of homes that would be built. Greg is a developer and he is also a homebuilder, the home building side of his business is Aspen Homes and Greg has given me some floor plans of homes and square footage sizes that his company will commit to, to build in this project. Many of them are the types that are under construction or already built in Sportsman Point right now. One of the things that City staff commented on was they wanted to see a commitment in terms of the types of homes that would be constructed and the square footage. So here is that documentation and I would also like to say that we have read the staff comments and Westpark Company has no problem at all with any of the comments from the City, city staff or the agencies with one clarification. And that is that the City asked for a bridge to be constructed to link this project with Los Alamitos Subdivision. That may be necessary and I am not saying that we would not do that, we would ask that allow the Highway District to make that determination and that gets bads to a traffic study and I would like Pat Dobey a trafFc engineer that is working with Westpark Company, one of our team members to just briefly address the status of the traffic study and working with the highway district. He will just take a moment. Pat Dobey, 777 Hearthstone Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dobey: I prepared a traffic study in July 1994 for the previous site plan. That study was reviewed by the Highway District and served as the basis for findings and conditions of approval. Since that time there have been some changes made to the site plan specifically the multi family housing was deleted and some office use has been added. I briefly reviewed the changes, I attended the technical committee review meeting with ACRD staff approximately 2 weeks ago and walked through with them what their concerns were and reviewed the basis of an update to the traffic study to address these changes and concerns the Highway District has raised. That study is in process, it should be completed within a week or so to be submitted to the Highway District by this time next week and will be reviewed at their subsequent meeting. The changes that result from the addition of the office space primarily affect traffic on Eagle Road. The recommendations of the previous plan were to widen Eagle Road, at least onto Overland from a 2 lane section to a 3 lane section. That was a (End of Tape) I think that is obvious to most people. But in my opinion with the addition of the third lane the center turn lane the capacity of that improved Eagle Road will be sufficient to accommodate the change that is being reviewed by this board tonight. So, I don't think that the conclusions and the recommendations of this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 14 revised study will significantly alter the conclusions of the Highway District. In addition to that this project will generate in excess of a half a million dollars in highway impact fees. It could be used to fund improvements and (inaudible) then those improvements will cost. As I said before the study is in process, it will be completed this time next week. It will be submitted to the Highway District, the Highway District will then review those recommendations and findings and incorporate them into their conditions of approval. Now, since this is a subdivision, ACRD has the right and authority to sign the subdivision plat, so they have more than adequate leverage to make sure that their concerns are addressed and I understand that a letter was sent recommending that this item be tabled until that study, until my revised study is complete. I advise you that I don't think the changes to my study are going to be significant enough to change the conclusions that were previously reached by the Highway District. I think that delaying action tonight by this board would serve the development very well or would serve the needs of the community. I think the Highway district can address those and I think their issues can be resolved. If you have any questions I would be happy to address them. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Dobey? Thank you Forrey: Just a couple of closing comments, some of the citizens that we talked to and also in the comments that they have submitted that we have read indicate that this is a rural area and that we should be sensitive to the rural lifestyle there and we are. We will continue to work with any neighbor that says this lot needs to be larger or place a house here or a berm or a fence or screen, that is not only required in the Comprehensive Plan but I am committing and indicating that Westpark will do that. But there is one thing that we all need to understand. Since 1989 this area has been in the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area boundary. It has been an area where the City has planned utilities, planned on growth, the Comprehensive Plan states policy 6.4 and 6.8U any property within the Urban Service Planning Area is where development is supposed to occur. So to take a rural policy and say let's keep this as farm ground well that is something that maybe should happen out on Amity Road or Columbia Road or up on Chinden outside the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area boundary. I know there is some discussion about expanding that boundary but at least right now this property is within the current negotiated established Urban Service Planning Area boundary. So we are following through and extending utilities, counting on the availability of those utilities to develop this ground but that doesn't mean we are going to ignore what the neighbors want. I believe it was Mrs. Glick that indicated she wanted larger lots next to her property and more than happy to consider that. If the Commission says work with Mrs. Glick or double the size of those lots we will do it. She has a large lot and it would not be fair and I understand that to take small lots right up next to her property. The spirit of the Comprehensive Plan is that you work those micro-management issues out but still allow development to proceed. And we hope that is what happens. I would be happy to answer any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 15 Johnson: Thank you Wayne, are there any questions for Mr. Forrey? Crookston: Would you go back to the green and blue map? As I remember your statement, the cluster homes would be to the left of the blue marked lots that are on the right. What are the lots up above those cluster homes. What designation are those? Forrey: From the south of the entrance into the site up to this top culdesac right here all of this between these single family homes here and the open space parkway this is the cluster homes. Every other lot in the project is a single family detached for a single family detached structure or home. The keyhole lots are around this culdesac and around this large loop street near the park and the school site. Crookston: What is the L-0 designation that you have in the southwest (inaudible) Forrey: The west side of the project along Locust Grove Road there is a, I think it is about 1.7 acres in a triangular shape along the canal and we are requesting Limited Office zoning to allow a single office building. There would be a berm along Locust Grove Road shown in green on that transparency. The rest of the project would be R-4 planned development with the exception of the Nixon property of L-O. Crookston: Thank you Johnson: Thank you Mr. Forrey we will give you an opportunity to address some comments and questions the public might have. This is a public hearing, is there anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Cindy Woodington, 2955 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Woodington: I have a couple of questions for the developer's representative. The L-0 that is on Locust Grove there that they have Limited Office that you are going to be putting on there, that is triangular shaped and if they are going to put a berm between the road and the actual office to begin with the north side of the property is so narrow that it is wasted space so probably a 1/5 of the lot will be used for nothing because it is so narrow, it actually does come to a point. So they have the rest of the lot of there to put the office building parking and the berm. My question to him is are these people going to come over and want to parkin my garage because there is not going to be room for them to park over there. Also I had heard that at one point they were going to put a temporary sales office up there for the subdivision before they built the actual office building. I want to make sure they are not going to put one of those tacky trailer house deal over there that a lot of developments use for sales offices. My next question is that he has it down to an R-4 but yet when you put all the figures together, 369 out of the 450 homes are less than 1400 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 16 square feet. I don't understand how that works to be R-4 if that many of the 450 homes are under the minimum 1400 square feet for R-4. I think that is it, those are the only questions that I have for the developer. Johnson: Thank you Cindy, anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Karen Gallagher, ACRD, 318 E. 37th, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gallagher. As the applicant has stated we have not yet received the updated traffic study for this application. We do have some concerns, some minor concerns that probably won't affect the layout of the subdivision as Pat Dobey stated. Some of those would be right of way widths. The access on Locust Grove Road that alignment, we need to discuss that with the applicant, there may be a shift there. We have a bridge at that location that needs to be re-constructed and with their access coming in with the angle of the canal at that location we may be doubling the size of the bridge. We may want to avoid that. In general as I said we don't see most of our comments affecting the layout. The southern road that does come out of the corporate park into the residential next to the cluster development. We have some concerns there and until we receive the traffic study we are not sure of the amount of traffic on there and what type of road that will need to be or if the alignment will need to be maybe altered. 'But as I stated for the most part we don't see any major problems here to some technical details to be worked out but until we see the traffic study I don't have a guarantee that they wouldn't be significant changes. Our preference would be that it would be tabled until you have received our comments to make sure that there were not any major changes made so the process would need to be, they would need to go through P & Z again. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks Karen, any questions of Karen from the Commission? Anyone else from the public that has questions that would like to come forward? John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shipley: I have a little question about where the, when she said they need to widen the bridge right there. There is a weir that we get our irrigation water right about exactly where they might come in with the new road. That goes north of that property and the people that are still living there are have to be serviced through that weir because it is the only place that they can pick it up unless they get with the canal company and make some other kinds of arrangements and come underneath the road or something else. So, that becomes a problem at that comer right there where that one road enters, it is right on my border line of my property at the comer of Locust Grove and where the canal comes across there. It is a kind of a hodge podge right there. It works the way it is now but they will have to do something to get that straight then so that canal water continues to service the other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 17 properties which goes on north. Johnson: Okay, I appreciate the input, sir you had your hand up. Trevor Roberts, 3895 Girdner Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Roberts: I have 3 questions, all dealing with Eagae Rot know t but theresisua trise n the northeastern part of the property. Some people m y ground right here, right around the Ridenbaugh Canank thatra'IS ht is going to be needed a traffic problem or a dangerous problem. So, I th 9 where the L-O goes into Eagle Road. I didn't heaink twou d be worthwhee to get ome have any access to the school district site so I th comment about how does that connect with the main artery. If that is going to be Eagle road then that is going to be another traffic problem there. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, yes sir. Jim Allen, 3040 East Victory, was sworn by the City Attomey. Allen: Wayne could you move your map to where you u sdi~ion or youglcomment area. where it says R-1 so I am about 100 feet out of your ~ My concern is Victory Road, where Victory comes to Eagle Road we've had several bad accidents there. It was alleviated a little bit when thean bustehs. Anothe~questioln that I but we still have people that run that stop sign like g g e of school and what type, would have would be concerning the school area. What typ how much ground do you need for the school that you aroe'rpr {poo~ng. f omwl might have kids going to go to school and where are the teachers g 9 something after a while. Johnson: That is fine Mr. Allen, we probably won't be able to address your school, I know we won't be able to answer the questions on the type of school that would be up the school district. They do want to site in this area it is my understanding and then they would proceed forward with (inaudible) architectural don'tg hink anyonetis heref from9 he believe they are only looking at this as an elementary, I school district that can confirm that though tonight. I don't see anyone here. Anyone else that would like to come forward? Rex Young, 2950 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Young: I have lived at 2950 East Victory Road for ave somee real concerns aabout the area develop and son on and so forth and I h Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 18 subdivision. Now when I received the first information and they were talking about R-8 and R-15 I said I am not against growth. R-4 would be acceptable of course being a layman and not being involved in the planning and zoning business R-4 means to me that you can have one house on each 1/4 acre. Now I see that due to my ignorance apparently that for instance in my own case where t have a two acre lot and a 3200 square foot home that I can take the back acre of my lot and I can subdivide that and I could put seven homes on that and have my home on the front lot and still be living within the R-4 zoning. I think on this project I think it would be a good project except that t think we need to stay with the lot sizes being larger, I think we need to have the homes 1400 square foot or larger. On this particular project I think there is in the neighborhood of say around 450 plus homes and over 1 /3 of those will be 1000 square feet or less. I am concerned about the areas that buffer up against this because based on the 6.8U of the Comprehensive Plan which Mr. Forrey has indicated that they really don't think applies, there needs to be some kind of a transitional arrangement there with the density being shifting with the larger lots. In my case I have 2 acres I am not abutted up against the property but I am in the approximate area of the subdivision. I have a concern about my well, 2 years ago my well went dry, I had to drill a new well that went, the old one being in the 60 foot area, to 170 foot. I read their comments about that they didn't intend to pump the area but as we all know there are a couple of things that affect the underground water table and one of the things that affects the underground water table is not re-charging it and another thing that affects it is pumping. I have a real concern that is an expensive process to have to replace your well. The land use goal of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that to protect and maintain residential property values and enhance the quality of life of the residents. I think that if the residential values of my property are going to be preserved I think that has something more than cluster homes that I am going to be looking out my window into that area. As I said before I am not opposed to development and I am not opposed to R-4. I am not opposed to 1 /4 acres lots, but when you start playing games with the thing and end up with a project where over a 1/3 of it is under 1000 square feet then I am opposed to that. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, we have your written testimony too and we appreciate that. Anyone else? Bonnie Glick, 2860 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Glick: The first matter I want to bring to the Commission is I received a call this morning from Betty Bermensuelo of the Southwest Ada County Alliance, she gave me a letter that she wanted me to read to the Commission. I don't know if you have that in your packet. Johnson: If it is dated June 12 and looks like this we all have it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 19 Glick: Can that be entered into the public record? Johnson: It already has been. Glick: My first concern that I want to talk about tonight is that at the last hearing Mr. Forrey made a point of saying that the developer would like to meet with all of the neighbors, discuss their plan, come up together with a development plan that would please everyone and that we could all work with, live with and enjoy. And that would be the way we would do this process. Unfortunately I keep hearing him talk about speaking to the neighbors but I have never been called by the developer to talk about this to give my input. The only input the developer has for me is my testimony and my letter from the last hearing in February. My property does abut this development. I would say that 1 am probably one of the most impacted residents. So for him to say he is talking to the neighbors and he hasn't called me is puzzling to me. The letter where Westpark developed their new proposal, their most recent proposal that you have in front of you I just received 5 days ago. So now 1 am asking to respond to you to a new proposal that I haven't had any personal face to face input on. I feel strongly that we do need to sit down. He has indicated again tonight that he wants to talk to me work with me on lot sizes next to my property and I do desire that also. I feel strongly this needs to be tabled until that can be done with all of these neighbors. I have talked fo 6 residents up and down Victory Road who abut this development and none of them have heard from the developer since the last hearing. So this new proposal does not have fact to face input from at least those of us on Victory Road that I know. Secondly, although he has made some I think good adjustments in the new proposal, for instance in my personal experience he had town houses down by Victory Road by my property, I have 2.2 acres and if you notice down in the very southeasterly corner where its the culdesac and all the little blue lots going around there. They have moved the cluster homes up like he said and moved the what he calls larger lots, well they are larger lots than what was there. I guess I would site also the Comprehensive growth plan for Meridian 6.8U says that transitional densities need to be looked, need to be done, need to be considered. I don't consider even this 6 or 7 houses up next to me 2.2 acres as an adequate transitional density. I personally feel like if I have 2 acres 1 to 2 acres lots right next to me abutting me would be more appropriate and more in line with the land use section which states that if subdivisions abut or approximate to existing rural residential land uses they provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes. Comparable to me is an acreage not 6 houses lined up next to me. I also, I think I stated this in my letter, I do want to talk to the developer about screening. We look right now at a pine forest on Sally Martin's land right there and it is important I think to and it is suggestive that they do need to do screening. I think the house sizes bothers me too, all of us along Victory up there have homes that are 2500 square feet to 3200 square feet and they are talking about coming in with 1300, 1100, 1000 square feet homes. Again in the Comprehensive Plan is says that property values are. to be maintained. I don't know how Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 20 you can maintain property values when you are putting little 1000 square foot homes next to 2500 to 3200 square foot homes. I think I am like Rex Young I am really concerned about my well water, I think the Planning and Zoning Administrator suggested in the findings of fact and conclusions of law last time said that they should be capped. But I think this dense of a population is going to have an impact on our water. I would like the Commission to consider that strongly. The schools again, I think we can't overestimate the impact this will have on our school system. Mary McPherson has closed their enrollment to all new subdivisions and they have even closed out some existing subdivisions. I think new people coming into Sportsman Point which they have developed can't even go to Mary McPherson. So how will we according to the Comprehensive Plan when they say not that they won't cause additional expense to existing people in the community, how will we do that if we will most probably have to have another bond election and pay more money out of our pockets for the new residents coming in. Those are my concerns, thank you. Johnson: Thank you, we also have your written testimony. Is there someone else? Herbert Papenfuss, 2680 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Papensfuss: Well, as the lady said who just spoke no one approached me either about this. That was also indicated at the last meeting that we had. Another interesting thing too and I can't affirm this because I haven't had time to do it but in talking to one of my neighbors who is a little further away from this project and therefore wouldn't have been noted he said that he had tried to do some get some rezoning of his area and do some subdividing and he was told that before a project like this goes to the City planning and zoning it has to go the Ada County planning and zoning because we are in the County. If that happened I was never notified and I should have been notified. It would seem to me that would be the proper way to go. One reason being that we may in the impact area but we have no say about what goes on in Meridian, absolutely none. I think there is a problem there. The second thing is that I see problems with strain on police and fire services. I know they want to put a fire station there which I admit I object to because it is kitty comer from where my home is. I would not be appreciative of a siren at 2:00 in the morning when I am trying to sleep to go put a fire out. Another problem is with the location of the school and I think they indicated foot paths across the canal. I talked to one of the elected officials of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and he tells me they have not talked to them about this. He said there would be concerns with putting a foot bridge across there. He said that if they were going to tie into Meridian sewer and the sewer had to go under the canal he said that would be a very real concern for them. The idea of using irrigation water as a secondary source for watering fawns he said was no problem but these other two would be very serious problems. And apparently they haven't addressed that yet because he said they have not talked to the district on that. Another thing has Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 21 been addressed the traffic being a problem, it goes right by my home. And I can tell you that it has cost me the valuation of my home. The reason I tell you that definitely is because I had my home evaluated to get a loan and they specifically took off $5000 because of the traffic going down through there. If we add more traffic they will take more off. Then if we widen the road if they widen the road and take some of my property I will be able to reach out my window, my front window and shake hands with the drivers that are going down the road. But I would be wiling to make a bet that they wouldn't want to buy my house and so I would have a house sitting right on the road and I know that can be a reality because I have been in Salt Lake where they widen seven feet and those homes if you are not careful walking out the door you get hit with a car. 1 am serious, it is real close. I don't know how they ever got by with that. I see that as a part of it. There is another thing too that has been mentioned and that is the bridge there on the canal on Eagle Road. That is a blocked in place right there, I back out sometimes to go south and more than once I have had cars come up over that, that I couldn't see at the time 1 backed out because it is a blind area. You can't see them at all there I think that is a concern if you are going to put office buildings in there. I guess that bothers me too, I can't see how that is going to benefit my property if there are office buildings there. I can tell you if I were looking for another home I wouldn't be looking for a home that was right next door to some offices even if they are what they call limited offices. I feel like the lady who just addressed us that acreage would be better and more in keeping with what we have there. I think I can even deal with a half acre lots but these pint sized lots that you can walk across in about 5 steps I just can't see that type of a lot being next to acreage which surround the whole thing almost all the way around. They are surrounded by acreage. And then of course another real thing and I realize you can't address that as has been indicated because there is no one here from the school district but there will need to be buses for teachers or for students and of course cars for teachers which is going to add a lot more to the traffic there. As now stands Eagle Road in my opinion is inadequate right now. Before you even put these in Eagle Road is inadequate for the traffic that is coming down since they put that freeway entry there. I sat a morning or two in the early morning around 6:30 to 8:00 and the cars are almost bumper to bumper as it is right now going down through there. That is all I have to say thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there someone else that would like to come forward? Wes Garvin, 2590 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Garvin: I will let Mr. Johnson know that this time I removed my hat before I came up. I would like, before 1 get started, I would like to remind Mr. Forney where I reside. If you will look at the map there on the L-O I reside exactly across the street from that is my bedroom window. At the last public hearing I brought that point up that their entrance and exit would be in my bedroom. Once again they will have that exiting into my bedroom window, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 22 apparently they like to shine lights in on me. I put together some brief information based on County profiles of Idaho in 1992. Based on 450 homes and 900, approximately 3 weeks ago there was an article in the newspaper that stated for that square mile area they have planned 900 homes. Right now in Ada County 1 to 2 person homes is 58.1 % that would equate to 261 of those houses would be 1 to 2 people, 37.9% would be 3 to 5 people of 170 homes, 3.9% for 19 would have 6 or more people. That equates in 261 houses there would be zero children. In the 170 homes there would be 3 children for a total of 510, that is age 18 and below. In the 19 homes there will be 4 children which would be 76, that is a total of 586 children for those houses. For 900 you can double it, it is 1167 children. Right now we don't have a place to educate those children. We have right now facing a bond issue coming up and I know you are not the school district but you impact the school district by what you do impacts all of us. We are looking in the near future at 586 more children who are not planned for. That is another elementary school, it is also overcrowded. There is no middle school in our school district that can handle that. There is no high school unless we bus them to Eagle. Eagle is going to open up less than capacity. So maybe we can send them all to Eagle High School. That is what we are looking at right there. Let's look at traffic for a moment. For 450 houses we have really a minimum of houses in this County 2 car household minimum. The majority of the men and women that live in that house work. That is 900 automobiles, just talking about the 450. On my side that is going to equate to 285 units, on the east side of Ridenbaugh canal or 570 acres twice a day going in front of my house. Now there is a gentleman that lives on Girdner Lane I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him personally yet but I will be that suggested a traffic light right there. That might be one solution but Ada County, if you want to know about the safety of that road come ask me. Six weeks ago I was out in front of my property with an over turned vehicle, maybe you were fortunate to read my letter that I sent to the newspaper titled the good, the bad and the ugly are residing in Ada County. Even with an over turned vehicle in the middle of the road people want to drive past it. Weil I am not a hero I was scared to death because people were trying to run over us. That bridge right there is so unsafe we have 3 to 4 terrible accidents right in front of my house every year. And that is with the traffic we have right now. That has to be seriously considered. I agree with Mrs. Glick, whatever Mr. Forrey says about his developer making an effort to talk to the people around this area, I would like to know who they are. I did talk to Mr. Johnson, I talked to him after I received his letter in the mail which was last week. I called him to ask him about what kind of commercial he had envisioned there. He told me doctor's offices and that was primarily. We are not going to recoup an awful lot of tax dollars off of doctor's offices out of there. It is just not going to happen, most of the doctor's, Mrs. Papenfuss here is a nurse for St. AI's and those doctors aren't going to be looking out here unless St. Luke's moves out there. They are going to be transient, they are going to stay at their own offices. They are not going to be looking at coming out here. So what really are they going to look, they have no idea what they want to use that commercial for. Talking to Mr. Johnson I said that, I tried to address my concerns to him Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 23 and especially about the berms they want to put up there and everything I will never see anything west again because they will put high rise mounds of dirt and put trees on them and I can't see anything now. I really enjoy a beautiful sunset. That is why we bought out there, I was raised in this valley, we have some of those most beautiful in the world. But his statement to me was that he sold his dairy and moved to Melba, and I could do that. That might be some people's solutions but I bought where I did because it is a beautiful area to live in. I am like Mr. Papenfuss, that road gets widened to five lanes 1 can reach out and touch the drivers. I've approximately 600 foot of frontage along the road, I will lose about 30 foot of that, 30 feet deep, 600 feet long. I've got 5 foot pine trees in my yard, those pine trees would have to come out because the road would have to be right up next to the thanks. None of this, my main point here gentlemen is what Mr. Forney is telling you and how great an idea this is, is not the facts. They have not talked to the people, we have not been involved in any of this. They don't care about our input. They say they do but they prove something totally different. We do not need this kind of saturation in our valley, right now our economic growth is slowing down. You can check with any economist at BSU and l'm a business major. Our growth is slowing down. We don't have the need, we don't have a lot of factories coming in here where we are going to be able to supply all of these thousands of jobs. Actually our infrastructure gentlemen is not going to be able to handle to the levels that a lot of these developers want today. I think I have just about covered the whole gamete, 1 do appreciate your time. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Wes, someone else had their hand up. Marvin Hansen, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hansen: May I show where I live on the plot up there? My property border the canal, I am on this little triangle right through here and the canal is right here. My house is approximately right in this area (inaudible). Johnson: How much of that land is yours? Hansen: Four acres. I have not been contacted by anybody and I haven't spoken to anybody that has. My concern is the canal there all have eight houses overlooking my backyard. From my property the canal raises I would say 15 to 20 feet and then the property on the other side of the canal also raises. So these houses are going to be way above my house. I would like to request the houses in that are be single dwelling houses so they raise quite so much. The lots, 8 houses in my backyard that is quite a bit. I haven't been contacted about that or I wouldn't have approved it at all. The greenbelt path along the canal that is like opening a freeway through my backyard to people, dogs, bicycles and if it is along the canal there is no way to put berms in there to block me, trees and shrubs, everybody is going to be looking down into my backyard. I moved out there to have some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 24 privacy. Other concerns I have are like everybody else says I won't go into it, the water, the roads, the traffic, schools. If this does go through I don't know if it is up to you or the highway department but I think the speeds limits on these roads should be dropped down from 50 to 35 or something like that to make them a little safer. Victory Road right now I would say half the cars going down Victory Road (inaudible) on and off but I suggest they put this in and the water table starts dropping that the developer be financially responsible for around the area to drill people's wells deeper. Those are my main concerns, thank you. Johnson: Mr. Hanson, I have written testimony from you and a copy of a letter addressed to you by the developer, but you said you had never been contacted? Hansen: I have never been contacted to give my input. Johnson: But you got the letter right, this letter is addressed to you. Hansen: I have a letter like that but nobody has ever contacted me to get my input back to the developer. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Mary Creech, 2310 East Victory, was sworn by the City Attorney. Creech: I live at 2210 East Victory and the proportions aren't right, so I don't know exactly where I am. But my concern is the Ridenbaugh Canal right of way, you can't have property off of it and drive up it to get to your property. How are they going to have a greenbelt along that and what is to keep the kids from falling in the canal. There is so much concern about the kids in the canal, that is a real fast moving canal and all of those houses and kids, next they are going to want to cover the canal. The traffic on Victory, I agree is really fast. My mother lives next door and she is almost afraid to go out and get the mail or the paper because cars go by so fast. So the traffic is a big concern plus all the traffic from what they are proposing to put in there. If they widen my road I agree I am going to be touching people too. And my house is fairly new I don't want to have to build another one. I have 6 acres, that is all I have to say thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Bill Clark, 479 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Claris: 1 represent James Griffen who owns the 80 acres on the north side of this property above the L-0 area there approximately. It goes all the way out to Overland Road and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 25 ftonts on Eagle. I am necessarily opposed to this project but are suffering from a lack of information. We have not been contacted by the owner there representative until a letter came in the mail at the end of last week and wasn't able to get attention until yesterday and the owner is out of town. We would request that kind of consideration. Also, have some questions again, not necessarily in opposition to the idea of the low office development there. It appears to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and we would just like to learn more. That is it thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Allen: I get to looking at the roadways that are in the project down in the culdesacs is there room enough to get fire 1'Ighting equipment in and out? Johnson: There would have to be, one of our ordinances requires proper turn around and access and we do get the input from both law enforcement and the fire department on that. The City of Meridian has followed those guidelines stringently. We haven't done any recent developments at all that have impaired the ability for those units to turn around. They have certainly guidelines that will have to be me in terms of the street width and that sort of thing. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward before I close the public hearing? Nancy Hansen, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hansen: Mostly my concerns have been addressed by everyone. My husband and I presented them in a letter. We did receive a letter from the developers on June 9th and have not had a chance to give our input. In the letter he said that he had contacted neighbors but he hadn't, he hadn't contacted us at least. Also, my husband pointed out that there are 8 lots that abut our property and Mr. Forney said that they were willing to make larger lots on the neighboring lots. If that happens before anything is approved I would like to look at the size of those and see and not just take this conditional use stuff at their word. Another thing is they say it is R-4 zoning with conditional use and when you figure that 369 of the 450 units do not meet the R-4 zoning that is 80% of the homes are not really R-4, I just don't know why they bother saying R-4. 1 would much prefer to have acreage out there. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Hams. Gordon Harris, 2825 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Harris: I don't have any major concerns with the few of the things that have been brought up here tonight might be a concern. We are in favor of the project as a whole and we do Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 26 like the limited office next to us rather than the homes. It would give us more open space on the north side of our property. Johnson: Where is your property Mr. Harris if you could show us, or tell us if you can? Harris: We are right where the fire station, my drive come out right where the fire station is going to be. I hope the fireman doesn't tum on his alarm until he goes down the road a bit. Johnson: I can pretty well assure that he will. Anyone else that would like to come forward? Lydia Aguere, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Aguere: I just want to voice some concerns for the record. I feel like this density is too dense, when they talk about cluster homes I feel like that is aptly named. When you look at that whole area you are looking at Los Alamitos, you are looking at Salmon Rapids, you are looking at the Sportsman Point. When you look at Sportsman Point and the way they are selling they are not really selling that quickly right now, I think we need to be concemed about that density' just because the market right now has softened a bit. I feel like that is dense, I have concems about water. I have a well as do a lot of the people that are naval out there and that concems me quite a bit as it does those folks. I am concerned about property values, when you look at some of these houses and 900 square foot homes that diminishes the property values for those homes that area 2400 square feet such as mine or better or even less than that. That is a concern to me. Also, when you look at some of these homes one third of these homes are going to be under 1000 square feet, it is very small. When you look at that whole area and the demographic of that whole area those are very small homes compared to what that demographic is in that area. Those are my concems. Johnson: Thanks Lydia, anyone else have anything new to add? Wayne would you like to address some of the comments now, you are not obligated to. Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I took some notes, I wrote down some questions and I will try to answer them the best I can. Mrs. Woodington asked a question about the use of the triangular L-0 property on Locust Grove. The office would be small, the parking lot would be probably small because it is a very awkward size piece of ground but it would meet City standards. However, it would be built to meet the L-0 standards and if it has a site limitation then it would be a small development. Greg wants to build himself an office there and if there is room in it for a tenant or another business I am sure he would want that to happen. It is not going to be a trailer for a sales office, it would be Westpark Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 27 Company's office and from that he would do the selling of the project. Mr. Roberts talked about traffic to the school. There is a pedestrian bridge and we have met with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, as a matter of fact with their engineers and their maintenance people. They tell us it is not a problem to have a pedestrian bridge to the school. The question he did ask though was I think oriented more to auto traffic than pedestrian traffic. We are not proposing a car bridge over to the school site. That I think needs to be determined by the highway district. Pat Dobey spoke about completing that traffic study, if the highway district says there is enough of an impact to the school or to Eagle Road that we want a bridge then we have to live with that requirement. So my answer to Mr. Roberts would be let's work with the highway district and find out. Mr. Allen questioned the schools, at this point, the Meridian school district does not have an impact'fee to help pay for schools. But the one thing they do is they ask developers to donate ground through the city. So through this process we are donating a school a portion of a school site. Now the Sundance Subdivision and I think Salmon Rapids, Marty Goldsmith's project in that area, those 2 subdivisions plus this proposed subdivision would contribute somewhere between 3 to 4 to 5 acres a piece. The school district says they would like to have a 17 acre site for a combination elementary school and a city park. Between these 3 projects that I mentioned we are getting very close to that 17 acres. The concept has been that when the I think if the Griffen property comes in for development there is another piece of that puzzle that gets solved. So we have worked with the school district and this is the area they say they want the school site and they are happy with this donation. The vehicular access though is coming through Sundance Subdivision and not anticipated through here, would be pedestrian only at this point. Mrs. Glick deserves a big apology and all of the neighbors. I think Greg did make an attempt to meet with the neighbors but it didn't get done. I think that is probably why the letter went out. Let me apologize on behalf of Westpark Company and myself. I think I dropped the ball as well. The best thing we can do is send another letter, set some times and get some appointments and let's meet with anyone that wants to and we will do that. We will get a letter back to everyone and in terms of Mrs. Glick's request absolutely let's put it in the public record. Let's increase the size of those lots next to the Glick property. I don't know how large at this point we wouldn't want rural acreage, this is in the Urban Service Planning area, maybe they could be double that size, 16000 to 18000 square foot almost half acre size lots. Maybe that would be palpable. We will work that out. Mr. Papenfuss mentioned the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, I don't know who he spoke to but we talked to their people in charge of land development. We are working on the pathway design and approval for that and also the bridge to the school. Mr. Garvin is correct and we will adjust the entrance in the L-0 and that is just shown in a preliminary plat configuration. Again that gets back to the traffic study whether or not there would ever be a signal. And everyone is correct about the bridge both on Victory Road and on Eagle Road. They are humps there, there are some blind spots and that is going to be a real issue down the road to have to develop and keep that traffic safety. But that road can certainly be adjusted so that Meridian Planning & 7.oning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 28 he doesn't have to live with a nuisance like that. He also talked about the schools and I think the L-O helps the schools in that it generates more tax revenue for the City and it does decrease the number of school children that would be in the project. Mrs. Creech talked about greenbelt safety, the Ada County pathway plan addresses safety, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has a standard that the pathway will be designed too, it includes a chain .link fence between a path and the canal. That will be constructed as part of the project. Bill Clark indicated a concern over the L-O, I would like to point out that the property that is client owns on the north side of the L-O the Nixon property is anticipated as mixed development. We think the L-O there would be a compatible use next to the L-0, we have asked for the type of development they anticipate and they have never come back and indicated what they plan. So, at this point we think the need to balance the land use, this is a good alternative. Mr. Allen's comment about the capability of fire department we would all the culdesacs would be built to city standard and highway district standards. I hope that answers most of the questions. Johnson: I appreciate that Wayne, I appreciate you acknowledging the fact that the one, there are several common threads but the one that is near the top as far as sensitivity goes is the lack of contact with the neighbors. 1 think a project of this size certainty would warrant that. Any questions of Mr. Forrey? Thank you Wayne (Inaudible) Johnson: Any question have to be addressed to the Commission. If you have an additional question that you want on the public record now is the time to do it because I am about ready to wind it up. Do you have another question that wasn't raised? (Inaudible) Papenfuss: The person I talked to at Nampa Meridian Irrigation District was Mr. Wyke who's is an elected official. He also called one of the other elected officials. My understanding is that anything that goes through has to get their approval not the engineers approval. So if they have talked to the engineers have said fine the people that really count haven't said fine because they don't even know about it because I talked to him personally he is a personal friend of mine and I asked him if this had been none and he said not to my knowledge. He is active on the board, so I just want to clarify that. Johnson: Their agency has been contacted, one of the things we do with an application is we have a check list of agencies that we are obligated to contact. In this specific case in the irrigation district with jurisdiction in this PUD and this planned development would have been contacted by letter and we invite their comments. They usually send it back on the same form letter form. So someone there has been contacted, maybe not about the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 29 specifics that you are talking about. They have been contacted about the project and how it will impact them. They get copies of the application. Papenfuss: Maybe the top people haven't been contacted and they are the ones that count. Johnson: The fellow that normally responds is Bill Henson, I don't know who did in this case I would have to look at the record, it is Mr. Henson it is right here and he just says, this is kind of a standard answer you have to understand, it says,"Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on this request." Signed Bill Henson, Assistant Water Superintendent, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. This is pretty much what we normally get unless there is something that they can see readily that is going to impact their district like moving a ditch or something like that. That is a pretty standard comment. Papenfuss: Well that is the reason I was concerned because he said there would be some concerns. Johnson: Sure, I understand where you are coming from. Anything further before I close the public hearing? Aguere: My question is what are the average prices of the homes for example when you are talking about the 69 units that were half were going to be 900 square feet what is the average price of those? Johnson: Is that your only question? Aguere: Yes Johnson: I don't know if the application gives us a range, did anybody pick up on that? Wayne do you have an answer? (Inaudible) Johnson: That is a standard question on the application (inaudible) we will look and see if that was answered. Usually we just get an range on something like that. (Inaudible) Johnson: There is not a specific answer, market driven to PD approach which is probably away of saying there is going to be such a wide range it is probably not meaningful to type down. Not a very good answer but it is the only one we got. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis~jion June 13, 1995 Page 30 Dobey: Mr. Chairman my name is Pat Dobey I spoke earlier, there were several traffic questions raised and I might be able to provide some information on those. The first question was concerning the need for a signal at the project entrance on Eagle Road. In my earlier analysis I concluded that a signal wasn't warranted. Although the addition of office space may change that. Generally signals are required where high volumes of left tuming trafFc exists. There would be traffic that is northbound on Eagle Road tuming left into the project. Because of the demographics of the community it is unlikely that you would get a significant amount of traffic going that way. So I doubt if a signal would be needed. The second issue though with the bridge across the Ridenbaugh Canal into the school. If you constructed a road across the Ridenbaugh to that school in my opinion what you would do is divert the traffic, the flow of traffic from Orientation to Eagle Road to an orientation through the Sundance Subdivision. Right now most of these lots are within walking distance of the school and parents may take their children up to that upper loop and drop them off there so they can watch them go to school. If you give them a road connection they will drive over there and it would load all of the traffic through the Sundance Subdivision. The next question or concern that was raised was the safety at the Eagle RoadNictory Road intersection. The highway district has installed all way stop control and installed a beacon at that intersection which is about the extent of the safety improvements that they do. Also, they commissioned a traffic safety study of all of the arterial roads on this system'recently. (know that a recommendation of that study was to reduce the speed limit primarily on Eagle Road and the high speed limit was also mentioned as a concern on Victory Road. I am not sure the action that the Highway District will take but in my opinion the speed limits are much too high on both of those roads and it would be in the public's safety to lower them. That ends my comments. Johnson: I appreciate that thank you. Would you have anything to add at this time Karen? Thank you, I will close the public hearing at this time. Any discussion, what would you like to do gentlemen? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have findings of fact and conclusions prepared on this application. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion for the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for Highlands Ranch Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOT10N CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: The next 2 items go with the same application, I would like to take those at this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 13, 1995 Page 31 time, these are both public hearings. All the comments taken at the last public hearing will be incorporated in this. These will be treated together so it wouldn't be necessary to give the same comments over and over. ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, are there any further comments you wish to make Mr. Forrey? Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: No further comments from Westpark Company, prior comments would be included in the testimony for items 12 and 13 I believe on your agenda. Johnson: Correct, thanks. Is there anyone from the public that would like to provide us with some additional input? This is a public hearing. For the record we will incorporate all of your previous testimony into item #12 and 13 as well. Seeing no one then I will close this public hearing. This is a preliminary plat. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we table action on this item until we have findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion to table this until the findings of fact and conclusions come in on item #11, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, do you have any additional comments Mr. Forrey? Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: No further comments Mr. Chairman. /'~ /'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 5 Shearer: I would assume that we would want to hold this and get the corrections back for the next meeting at what time we have. Johnson: Is that a motion? State your motion. Shearer: I request that this be tabled and brought back before the Commission at the next meeting when we, after the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor of Mr. Shearer's motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15 AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: You have the findings of facts and conclusions of law before you, are there any corrections, deletions or discussion regarding these findings of facts? What is your pleasure, we need a motion on the findings. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopt and approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as presented, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea: MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described for the reasons /'~ /"~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 6 stated in the conclusions of law which are based on the findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to recommend denial of the annexation and zoning request, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: Johnson: Again, you have these findings are there any comments or corrections you would like to make at this time? We need a recommendation, a motion. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of facts. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation for the City Council gentlemen? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 5 Shearer: I would assume that we would want to hold this and get the corrections back for the next meeting at what time we have. Johnson: Is that a motion? State your motion. Shearer. I request that this be tabled and brought back before the Commission at the next meeting when we, after the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor of Mr. Shearer's motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15 AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: You have the findings of facts and conclusions of law before you, are there any corrections, deletions or discussion regarding these findings of facts? What is your pleasure, we need a motion on the findings. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopt and approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as presented, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea: MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described for the reasons Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 6 stated in the conclusions of law which are based on the findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to recommend denial of the annexation and zoning request, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: Johnson: Again, you have these findings are there any comments or corrections you would like to make at this time? We need a recommendation, a motion. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of facts. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared, roll call. vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation for the City Council gentlemen? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., +.;ity Clerk JANICt L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS. Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES. P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL. DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS. Fire Chief W.L. "BILL' GORDON. Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HU13 OF TRE~`~. `' 'RE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CIT'E' OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Depatttnent (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivea License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE M3jrOf COUN~_MEMBErS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P i£ Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON. Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUNO MALCOLM MACCOY TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PRO.T'ECTS 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: Februa 6 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/18/96 HEARING DATE: 2/13/9~EcE~vE~ REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for the Ranch ubdivision ~IA N 2 9 1996 BY: The Westnark Comaanv ~;' , ~ ~; r 7~ERIG . _ , ~ LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT:_ East of S Locust Grove Road North of E. Victory Road, West of South Eagle Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM A FINAL PLA JIM SHEARER, P/Z ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ~~~'~~I~,~~ GREG OSLUND, P2 ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P2 CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ~A~ 2 ~ ig~~ BOB CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT Meridian City CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) Water ~uperi~ltsrr(3erit WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKSShe M r; r;; an Water Department POLICE DEPARTMENT recommends these chances CITY ATTORNEY 1.On Locust Grove, have an entrance to the CITY ENGINEER Subdivision 2 A 12" water main be installed CITY PLANNER from south boundary of Salmon Rapids on Locust V' or Rd. then a 12" water main east on Victory Rd. to EaylE Rd then north to overland across north under I-84 to 12" stub from St. Lukes. 3. Also on Overland R east end of The Pla round install 12" water main east to Earle Rd this Ives us a loop s stem without a dead end lines. Pressure uantit , and Qualit~ are im roved. 4. Delete Water Main from E. Shorthorn Ct. to Macka Pl. on Easement. 5. Delete Water Main on rout Dr. to Lot 65 in to future school this should feed off of Eagle Road. 6. Review of plans on subdivision shall be done at time of Plan review submittal. 1~~%C WILI,IAAQ G.~BERG, JR., ClryClerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOMN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor 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 I~VIERIDIAN 33 EAST IDA,HQ MERIDIAN, IDAHO>33642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (~) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Deparoment (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers Iicease (208j 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor t COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. fuORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIN HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUNO MALCOLM MACCOY TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENT'S 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 Cleric by:~ebruarv 6 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/18/96 HEARING DATE: 2/13/96 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for the Ranch Subdivision BY: The West~ark Company LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of S. Locust Grove Road. North of E, Victory Road, West of South Eagle Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P2 JIM SHEARER, P2 GREG OSLUND, P2 TIM HEPPER, P2 BOB CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE~DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER t^_ITV PI LINNFR 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 1RRlGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PREUM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTI~IlN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: Y~O;~UR CONCISE REi/DARKS: (/'. ~^tc:.!/!1P<<st~( ~['f~/riitiYirt ~/_i«S7[~G~p .$~G~ .dflD yon, sM.at[_ ~c2 Txfis TYf't o~ `!//~ir'.~C--ctlssr` `~CV<roi°.wE.kr. ~~~ V ~~ EE B - 7 1996 CI1Y OF MERIDI~ Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Ridenbaugh Canal courses through the piddle of the project. The right-of-way of the Ridenbaugh Canal is 100 feet: 50 feet from the center each way. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Ninemile Drain courses through the middle of the project. The right-of-way of the Ninemile Drain is 60 feet: 30 feet from the center each way. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Eightmile Lateral courses through the western portion of the project.The right-of-way of the Eightmile Lateral is 80 feet: 40 feet from the center each way. See Idaho Code 42-1208. RIGHTS-OF-WAY NOT-SUBJECT TO .ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John Anderson or Bill Henson at Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, 466-0663 or 345-2431, for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District 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 developments within this District. ~~~ ~ Bill enson, Assistant Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk JANICE L. LASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATNA. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VAI.I.F.Y A Good Place to Live CITY OF I~IERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorlcsBuildinS Department (ZOS) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License. (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor r0 N .u ticti.BERa WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P_ & Z COMMI SION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY 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 Hafl, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by:_February 6 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/18/96 HEARING DATE: 2/13/96 REQUEST:_Preliminarv Plat for the Ranch Subdivision BY:_ The Westpark Comaanv LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT:- East of S Locust Grove Road North of E. Victory Road West of South Eaale Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z GREG OSLUND, P2 TIM HEPPER, P/Z BOB CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE~DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES J~aN .~ . C3 i Y ~F it~iE?71D{,~N WILLi ;~e ;;, gF_RG, 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. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES. P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Plane to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivastiaease (208) ggg~443 ROBERT D. CORRIE •~ a t~ L or1 wpb ~ f}K~e~a s 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: February 6. 1996 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/18/96 HEARING DATE: 2/13/96 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for the Ranch Subdivision BY: The Westpark Comu anv LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: East of S Locust Grove Road North of E. Victory Road West of South Eaale Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PI~Q ADA COUNTY ~cEt v ' GREG OSLUND, P2 E~ HIGHWAY DISTRICT 1 ~ ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION TIM HEPPER, P/Z BOB CORRIE MAYOR CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH JAN 2 ~ 1996 , RONALD TOLSMA, C/C NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CITY O+~ l'vIERIDIAt~I CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. wEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT S W BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) E ER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: ~~ a 3 ~ 9 FIRE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY S¢r .¢.-~ /`/' ..1 e ~/ . W;LL ~Jz~ ~, Be CITY ENGINEER CITY PL A NNER I ~ jare ~c;/ irva is C`t„ f~~ ~-t.. ~ ~~a.. t >?~ . ~ ~ ` " '~' ! ` n ~'~ ~¢ ~- r I'G i N A T nJ 7 C, s.<, [... D.Q '" S.~r" ~" ~e ~ q~w fS us r L C. /L' Q,F 7`D ,r3.e S, ftCC:'=S w:LL N~a2 ~D iai w~ ~ ZG~ e ms. Lt,~~ f; L L f=K.~{u r~ ~ p w~ ~ s ~. . s~ h~l err s~o.,, s . i {~. ¢ i..t.) ~ ~ CDs . COUNCIL ti~Fti~B RS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R.TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMI SION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY ;L -. rv.- ~•y nr.~..i ~'~~3 RLSC )`ham ~el.~ .~~f0 subd~;vi si~.~s ~`1 1 it I ~.~ Iv~~t(~../ -~-- ,i: ~ r,Z~ ~~i~!1. V"..LT ~.17CN5~~~~ OFFICIALS HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer MAX YERRINGTON GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer ~ ROBERT D. CORRIE BRUCE D. ~.TUART, Water Worka Supt. ITY OF I~ IER IDLAN WALT W. MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. P 3 Z COMMISSION DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO JIM JOHNSON Chairman SHARI S.3TILES, P a zAam. KENNET MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 , MOE AUDJANI H W. BOWERS, Flrs Chief , JIM SHEARER W. L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 CHARLIE ROUNTREE WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attomsy Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER 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 ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: June 6, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/16195 HEARING DATE: 6113195 REQUEST:Annexation/ZoninglPreiiminarv Plat for Highlands Ranch BY: Gen'>I Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between South Locust Grove and Eagle Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P2 GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILD{NG DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER n MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ~ ~ ~' - ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION `~'~~~"`~"° '~z ~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ~,~-~ ~ ~ ~,~~;I NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT ~~"~ Y ~~. ~~dl-~~~P~.,~;r IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES ~ / ~ r ~5-- OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: wQ r ~ i R-,--~ i` R rL• ~n ms's sy:~ f ~ y ~ /~- f'!~ '~`~-- W ~ ~ fly fh ~ f' i9~/1/e x /-1- ~i d .-1 ~~- F ~~ 2E r.~ ,,, ~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ L ~1^ r Jam- S~O~~~ Aye f ~~c ~r i vr~- f .~ i ~ lQ~l, ~3/ ~®, S"CI, .~ S? w;GL iV~e~~ ~4Gc~ ~s ~o ~ ~ sc:a ~ ~ ~ C1,.~-~'~- OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk JANK:E L GASS, Clty Tresaurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer LRUCE D. STUART, Wetsr Worka Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waets Watsr Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Perka Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P b Z Adm. KENNETH W. t30WERS, Fln Chief W. L "BILL" CORDON, Pollee Chlst WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Dtpartme:nt (208) 887-221 I GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P 6 Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE AUDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARUEROUNTREE TIM HEPPER 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: June 6. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5116195 HEARING DATE: 6113195 REQUEST:Annexation/Zonina/Preliminary Plat for Highlands Ranch BY: Gem Park II Partnershl,p LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between South Locust Grove and Eagte toad JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P2 CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P2 GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, CIC MAX YERRINGTON, C!C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILD{NG 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 8~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'{ ~ ~ E~:~;. ~..~ .: HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF 1~~RIDIAN OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., City Clsrk JANICE L GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Sups. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. OENNISJ. SUMMERS, Parke Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P b Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, FlreChlef W. L "BILL" GOROON, Pollcs Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 8884433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 88'7-221 l GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALO R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P 6 Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE AUDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARUEROUNTREE TIM HEPPER 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: Wilt Berg, City Clerk by: June 6. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5!16195 HEARING DATE: 6!13/95 REQUEST:Annexation2oning/Preliminary Plat for Highlands Ranch BY: Gem Park II PartnershiQ ' LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between South Locust Grove and Eagle Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE AUDJANi, P2 JIM SHEARER, P2 CHARLES ROUNTREE, PIZ TIM HEPPER, PIZ GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, CJC BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C!C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILD{NG DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PREUM & 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 8t FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ncr+t=lid,=T) HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN ~'?f~~F ~ j F~'~ OFFICIALS WIIJJAM G. BERG, Jr., City Clerk JANK:E L GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Enplneer BRUCE 0. STUART, Water Wors Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. OENNIS J. SUMMERS, PaHcs Supt. SHARI 8. STILES, P d Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief W. L "BILL" GORDON, Police CAlef WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attomsy 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 88811433 • FAX (ZO8) 887813 Public Works/Building Department (206)887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P d Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER 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: June 6. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/16/95 HEARING DATE: 6!13/95 REQUEST:Annexation2oning/Preliminary Plat for Highlands Ranch BY: Gem Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between South Locust Grove and Eagle toad _ JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P2 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 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELlM 8 FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT} CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: D tc~'t=7iY1'1. t fl.~ ~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN r: ., OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk JANICE L. GASS, Clty Troasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Watsr Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Perks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P 8 Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chtst W. L "BILL" GORDON, Police Chlsf 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) 8884433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Pubfic Works/Building Department (Z08) 887-2211 COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P d Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chalrrnan MOE AUDJANI (~ r.~ _ JIM SHEARER 3 ~ ~ ~ t i~_ Ij- CHARUEROUNTREE u "~-= ~-~ :~~ ~ 'y } TIM HEPPER GRANT P.KINGSFORD t ~ ~.~ Mayor a~,, f :~ > ,'_!'•.; is ,.. ,:. ~`," !~; r.:.~ ...: 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: 'vViii Berg, City Clerk by: June s, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/16!95 HEARING DATE: 6113/95 REQUEST:Annexation/Zoning/Preliminary Plat for Highlands Ranch BY: Gem Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between South Locust Grove and Eagle Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE AUDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, P2 CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P2 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 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PREUM 8~ FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PREUM ~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PREUM 8~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on this request. CITY PLANNER Bill Henson; Assistant Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District .i .~ i ~ ~ ! ,..:... OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clark JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Enplneer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waats Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Puka Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P 8 Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chlef W. L. "BILL" GORDON, Pollee Chlef WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS A Good Place to Live RONALDR.TOLSMA MA7t YERRINGTON CITY OF MERIDIAN ROBERTD.CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P S Z COM M ISSION 33 EAST IDAHO JIM JOHNSON, Chalm,sn MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 MOE ALIDJANI + JIM SHEARER Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 8871813 CHARLIE ROUNTREE Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER 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: June 6. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/16!95 HEARING DATE: 6!13/95 REQUEST:Annexation/Zoning/Preliminary Plat for Highlands Ranch BY: Gem Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between South Locust Grove and Eagle Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P2 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 (`ITV ~TT~1CiAIGV 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 S FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: F3'. ~..s ~.ri," 's' ~R...'. We requi>~e a permanent 10-foot wide public utilities ~~.:~ L ~ ;~3~N easement along all lots adjacent to a road right-of-way dedicated to public or private use. Tim Adams --rye ~'~'~` s Idaho Power 5~ Z(-'~~ 322-2047 OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk JANICE L GASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Enplneer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P b Z Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chlef W. L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887.4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor _r COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P ti Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER ~' 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 Hail, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: June 6, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/16/95 HEARING DATE: 6/13/95 REQUEST:Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Residential BY: Gem Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between South Locust Grove and Eagle Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P2 CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, P2 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 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8 FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: to ~/ V ~'7 r~ w1 ..~.~bt HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN ,r t. . , . .; . . A OFFICIALS HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., Clty Clerk A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA JANICE L. GASS, Clty Treasurer MAX YERRINGTON GARY 0. SMITH, P.E. Clty Engineer ~^~ ROBERT D. CORRIE BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. ( ~.,/ITY OF MERIDIAN WALT W. MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. P b Z COMMISSION DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parka supt. SHARI S. STILES P e, z Aam 33 EAST IDAHO JIM JOHNSON, Chairman , . KENNETH W. 80WERS, FireChlef MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 MOE ALIOJANI JIM SHEARER W. L "BILL" GORDON, Pollce Chief Phone (208) 888~i433 • FAX (208) 887813 CHARLIE ROUNTREE WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER 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: June 6. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5116195 HEARING DATE: 6113195 REQUEST:Conditional Use Permit for Planned Development Residential BY:_ Gem Park it Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between South Locust Grove and Eagle Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P2 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 8t 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 8 FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ? ~ 1 I ~ ' ' -i 3 ~ " ~ ~ .....I t ~ ~ n a ~~ . f .11 ..Z -~ . v e= ~~~~~ ~ ~,~Ir t:I~;~L~t `"~ y ~~?-~~? ~ AY 1 7 i9~5 ~ -° ~;,., ~.. 'mi'l . ~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good PIBCE t0 L1Ve COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk RONALD R. TOLSMA GARIY D SM THS P.E. City Engeneer CITE OF MERIDIAN OBERT D.ICORR E BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WALT W MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 Planner a Zoning Administrator W.L. "BILL" GOROON, Police Chief ' JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887.4813 Chairman ~ Planning R Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 11 p ~g GRANT P. KINGSFORD .i A 3'A ~^~~p~t~ ~~*~~ Mayor `°~'~ ~F Pl~l11L~A~ 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: February 7. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/23/95 HEARING DATE: 2/14/95 REQUEST: Annexation and zoning for Highlands Ranch Planned CommunitX BY: Gem Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between S. Locust Grove and Eagle Road. North of Victory Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 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 8 FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ~_CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~ ~ ~ ~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk GARIY D. SM THS P.E. City Eng veer CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA ROBE T O.ICORR E BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WALT W. MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water s~Dt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief " MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 Planner & Zoning Administrator W.L. "BILL GORDON, Police Chiet + WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 JIM JOHNSON Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 Chairman -Planning & Zoning 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 & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: February 7, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/23/95 HEARING DATE:__ 2/14/95 REQUEST: Annexation and zoning for Highlands Ranch Planned Community BY: Gem Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT:- Between S. Locust Grove and Eagle Road. North of Victory Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, P/Z -CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 -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 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU ECLAMATIO PRELIM & FINAL PLAT} CITY FILE OTHER: YOUR CONCISE R RKS: ~~"`, ~ ~~ r.. ~$ ~) ~ w, i~d ~. d--- ~' r"rs~' ~ i~ f ' '~' d-'l~ 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. 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) 888433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 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 & Zoning Administrator 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: February 7, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/23/95 HEARING DATE: 2/14/95 REQUEST: Annexation and zoning for Highlands Ranch Planned Community BY: Gem Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between S. Locust Grove and Eagle Road. North of Victory Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 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 8t FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES ~y OTHER: ~ vS_(~ YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: o ~~- w '-f-h. fie h/'/V r2 ~tf%Oa1 .AND ZD~tli~yGi « $~- 'f' iS Dc}~¢s No C.osK Li~.e e y' ~..._~ JAN 3 0 ~~~~ ~i'CY ur n~iLr~r~jA Y' ti ~ "Sty rv1 ~ P L a h! r ~ ti ~ D ~~ B-2 ~o ~ a2 ~' OFFICIALS n HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk R RONALD R. TOLSMA I CITY OF MERIDIA GA Y D. SM THS P.E. City Eng veer CORR E N ROBERT D. BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WALT W. MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief " " MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 Planner & Zoning Administrator W.L. BILL GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney ' JIM JOHNSON Phone (208) 888-0433 • FAX (208) 8874813 ~ ~, ' ~ ffi Chairman ~ Planning d Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KtNGSFORD ~ ~ ~ _ 7 ~~~~ Mayor CITY (~~ E~tD~At~ 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: February 7, 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/23!95 HEARING DATE: 2/14/95 REQUEST: Annexation and zoning for Highlands Ranch Planned Community BY: ('em Park II Partnership LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Between S Locust Grove and Eagle Road. North of Victory Road 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 OTTf1f~1\I<=V 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 PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ 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 2-? -~''~ 322-2047 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,ldaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on April 18, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Gem Park II Partnership, for annexation and zoning of approximately 180.9 acres of land located in the S 1/2 of Section 20, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located between S. Locust Grove and Eagle Road, north of Victory Road. The Application requests annexation with zoning of R-8, R-15, and L-O. 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 27th day of March,1995. ,~~~,~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK n 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 June 13, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Gem ?ark II Partnership, for annexation and zoning of approximately 181 acres of land located in the S 1 /2 of Section 20, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located on Between South Locust Grove and Eagle Road, North of Vistory Road. The Application requests annexation with zoning of R-4 and L-O. Further Applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 450 residential lots and 2 Limited Office lots for Highlands Ranch. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City HaN, 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 shalt be herd at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 22nd _ day of May, 1995. ~~~ ~~ zG` WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., C RK NOTICE 01= HEARING r. of Meridian and GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City's of the City of NOTICE IS HEREBY and honing Commis the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planr~ 9 eridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, ublic hearing at the for the purpose of Meridian will hold a P on February 14, 1995, Meridian,ldaho, at• the hour of 7.3~ p n of Gem Park II Partnership, for annexation and and considering the Applicatio T.3N R.1 E, reviewing ' I 180.9 acres of land located in the S 1!2 of Section 2 ~ between S. zoning of aPProx~mate Y ert ,s generally located Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which prop Y I~cation requests and Eagle Road, north of Victory Road. The App Locust Grove annexation with zoning of R-8, R-15, and L-O. tion of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's A more particular legal descrip 'dian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during office at Men 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 23rd day of January,1995. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CLERK ~OG°'~ WESTPARR COMPANY GEMPARR II PARTNERSHIP ANNEXATION AND ZONING PORTION OF SECTION 20 T. 3N R. lE BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing June 13, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Wayne Forrey, representing the Petitioner appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT p,. That notice of a public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 13, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15 ) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 13, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express coxmnents and submit evidence; and copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. g. The property is approximately 180.9 acres; that the property is located near and adjacent to the City of Meridian and that the Applicant is not the owner of the property; that the HIG$T.7~NDS RANCH - p,NNEXATION FF & CL Page - 1 owners are: Dale A. or Pamela G. Nixon, Harold Killgore and Rayelene Allen, Clayton or Susan Record, Richard S. or Linda ~• Schaffer and Sally D. Martin; that each of the above mentioned parties are the titled owners of certain parcels and each ha-~e granted their permission for this application and to be annexed. C. That the Application was initially submitted requesting annexation and zoning of R-8 Low Density Residential, R-15 Medium High Density Residential and L-O Limited Office to be developed nor future land use of mixed residential, a school, park, pathway, public and limited office. That in the letter accompanying this Application, Greg Johnson, President of Westpark Company, Irc. stated that the Applicant amended its annexation and development approach to include a corporate office park and planned development residential community and is requesting R-4 zoning with a conditional use permit for planned development residential and limited office zoning to develop a corporate office park. Mr. Johnson also stated the Application had been revised and updated to achieve several planned development objectives, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. He stated that the design was done to minimize the impact to adjoining properties and achieve compatible land uses in the neighborhood. D. At the Public Hearing Wayne Forrey explained the proposed development as follows: He stated that the project was high quality residential and offices; that they had changed from an application for R-8 and R-15 to L-0 and R-4 with a campus office park, some R-4 decausemsome lot are lessethan 81000 squaretfeet u that there be gIGgI,ANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 2 was 10.5 acres of common open space which did not incluof thle path along the Ride-ibaugh Canal; he showed a summary development features; that there would be 900 square foot ad larger homes but that many would be larger; that the Meridian, Comprehensive Plan talks about "flex" size homes; that there is to be 25~ variation in a planned development; that a 250 reduction, due to the planned development, would mean that the homes could be 1,050 square feet in the R-4 zone, or 25% of the required 1,400 square foot requirement in the R-4 zone; that this would provide for mixed use development along Eagie Road; he showed pictures of a development in Retchum. Idaho. He also stated that the Applicant had no problem with the comments of the City, except for the comment about having a bridge to Los Alamitos Subdivision, but with regard to that they would allow the Ada County Highway District to decide that issue. He also stated that this was a community rural area and that they would work with the neighbors; that under the Comprehensive Plan, Section 6.4 and 6.8U, the land was to be developed as an urban area, but they would not ignore the neighbors comments, such as those made by Mrs. Glick. Mr. Forney also testified after the public testified in rebuttal of some of the co~uaents and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. In regard to the testimony being that the people were not contacted by the developer about the development, Mr. Forney stated that the developer, Greg Johnson, did make an attempt to meet with the neighbors but it did not get done; he stated that he dropped the ball as well; that the best thing that can be done now is to send another letter and meet with anyone that wants to and we will do that; then in response to Mrs. Glick's request, which was that six or seven houses on an acre next to her 2.2 acres is not an adequate transitional density and having one to two acre lots abutting her would be more transitional and in line with the land use section which requires comparable lot sizes be adjacent to rural residential, he stated as follows: "Let's increase the size of those lots next to the Glick property. I don't know how large at this point. We wouldn't want rural acreage. This is in the Urban Service Planning area. Maybe they could be double that size, 16,000 to 18,000 square foot , almost half acre lots. Maybe that would be palpable. We will work that out." E. Pat Dobey also testified on behalf of the Applicant and he stated as follows: That he had prepared a traffic study in July of 1994 for the previous plan; that it had been revised as a result of the changes to delete the previous multi-family that was included HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 3 in the plan and the addition of some office use added; t'rat traffic study is in t thatrtheschangeshfrom the add do of completed in two weeks, effect Eagle Road and the the office space primarily recommendations of the previous traffic plan were to widen Eagle Road from a 2 lane to a 3 land road onto Overland Rcad; that the changes made in the plan should not significantly alter the concldevelo mentCVery well orlwould serve the needs would serve the p of the community. g. In the Annexation and Zoning Request, it is stated, ir. part, as follows: 7. That the present land use is farm land. 9. That the proposed use is planned development residential, school, park, pathway, public and limited office; that the proposed districts are R- 4, Planned Development Residential (PD-R) and L-0 Limited Office. 10. That the characteristic of the property which make the zoning amendment desireable is that the property is that the property is adjacent to the City and located in an area where the comprehensive Plan directs future land use to be mixed residential, single family residential and mixed planned development. G. That there were people at the hearing that testified; that a summary of there testimony is as follows: 1. Cindy Woodington testified that she had a question about the L-O zone on Locust Grove Road because of the shape of the parcel and therefore there would be no use for the land; she wondered about a temporary office; she stated that it was an R-4 development but that 369 lots out of 450 are less than 1,400 square feet. 2. Karen Gallagher of ACHD testified that ACHD had not yet received the updated traffic study; that they do have concerns, that as Pat Dobey would probably not affect the layout of the subdivision; that there may be an alignment problem for access on Locust Grove Road; that there is a bridge at that location that needs to be re-constructed and the bridge may need to be doubled in size; that there HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 4 are concerns about the southern road that comes out of the corporate park into the residential next to the cluster development and until we receive the traffic study we are not sure of the amount of traffic and type of road that will be needed or the alignment may need to be altered; that ACHD's preference is that the matter be tabled until the Commission has received the comments from ACHD. 3. John Shipley testified that had a question about where they need to widen the bridge; that there ~s a weir where they might come in with the new road; it is right on my border line at the corner of Locust Grove Road; that canal water is needed to continue to provide service to the other properties which go north. 4. Trevor Roberts testified that he had three questions dealing with Eagle Road and the traffic situation of the northeast part of the property; that there is a rise in the ground there around the Ridenbaugh Canal; that there will be a traffic problem there; that a light is going to be needed where the L-O goes into Eagle Road; that he does not see that they are going to have any access into the school. 5. Jim Allen testified that his concern was Victory Road where it comes into Eagle Road due to the accidents that have been there; that wanted to know what type of school was going there and how much ground was needed. He also later question whether there was enough room in the cul-de-sacs to get fire equipment in and out. a,.lsv su.6~n~~2`ctG urY~`~'K f~lhm~ J Mr. and Mrs. Allen ~nd such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 6. Rex Young testified that he had concerns about the subdivision; that R-4 was acceptable if it was four units to the acre; that the project would likely be a good project but the lots needed to be larger and the homes need to be larger than 1,400 square feet; that over 1/3 of the homes would be 1,000 square feet of less; that there needs to be a transitional area arrangement with the density being shifted with larger lots; that he had concern over his well going dry and with development, the ground water may not get recharged; that the land use goal of the com plan is to protect and maintain residential property values and enhance the quality of life of HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 5 the residents and cluster homes is not going to do that; that he is opposed to having over 1/3 of it under 1,000 square feet. '7. Bonnie Glick testified that she wanted a letter from Betty Bermansolo entered into the record, which the Board Chairman said had been done; that Wayne Forrey had stated that the developer was going to contact the neighbors to see what they wanted, but that had not been done; that she would like to talk to the developer and the matter should be tabled; that six or seven houses on an acre next to her 2.2 acres is not an adequate transitional density; that having one to two acre lots abutt~.ng her would be more transitional and in line with the land use section which requires comparable lot sizes be adjacent to rural residential; that the house sizes bother her; that these small houses would not maintain her value; that she was concerned about her well water; that the schools would be severely impacted. Mr. and Mrs. Glick also submitted written testimony and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. $. Herbert Papenfuss testified that no one approached him about the matter; that he had been informed that should have gone to Ada County before it went to the City; that they are in the Meridian Impact Area but they have no say in what happens; that he objects to the placement of the fire station; that he had concerns with a foot bridge being used to get to the school; that traffic is a problem and it causes a loss in value; that where the canal crosses Eagle Road is a blind area; that acreages would be more in line with what is already there, but the pint sized lots should not be next to acreages. g. Mr. Wes Garve testified about facts that showed this development would have a significant impact on the schools; that it would add 900 automobiles; that the bride is unsafe; that the offices would not be high property tax generators; that the berms along Eagle Road would cause hiun not to be able to see west; that the developer has not talked to the people in the area; that we do not this kind of saturation in the valley; that our infrastructure is not going to be able to handle the levels these developers want. gIGgLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 6 10. Marvin Hansen testified that he had rooec band contacted by anybody; that he abuts the p j he does not want eight houses in his back yard; the greenbelt along the canal is like opening a freeway through his back yard; that his concerns are like the other that have testified regarding the water, roads, traffic, and schools; that the speed limit should be dropped from 50 to 35; he also had submitted written testimony that is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Mr. and Mrs. Hansen also submitted written testimony and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. Mary Creech testified that her concern was the Ridenbaugh Canal and children being around it and the green belt would only attract them; that traffic was of concern to her. 12. Bill Clark testified that he represented James Griffin who owns 80 acres on the north side of this property; that he was not necessarily opposed to the project but is suffering from a lack of information; that they had not been contacted 13. Nancy Hansen testified that she and her husband had not had been contacted and not had a chance to give their input to the developer; that~Mr. forrey said that they were willing make larger lots near the neighboring lots, and if that is done she wants to look at them; that with 369 lots out of 450 not meeting the R-4 requirements then it is not R-4; that she much prefers acreages. 14. Gordon Harris testified that they are in favor of the development and they likes the limited office next to them rather than the homes. 15. Lydia Aguerre testified that the density was too high, that she had concerns over water and property values, that 900 square foot homes diminishes the values of homes that are 2,400 square feet or better; that 1/3 of the homes are going to be less than 1,000 square feet. g. That Marleen Morgener submitted written comment stating as follows: That twareto do th ttwould be top deve op lacreageslof1from 2 and a y HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNRBATION FF & CL Page - 7 to 10 acres to preserve the open, rural way of li~h teshe7had that.she was concerned about the domestic welleo le who have concerns over taxes and what expensfor pub 1 c services and lived in the area will have to PaY and that she would like schools for these people moving in; the land further out of different choices to be made regarding the city. I. That most of the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T, Rural Transition with a two acre parcel in the northeast portion of the land zoned as R-2; the land is adjacent and abutting to Sundance Subdivision which has been annexed into the City of Meridian. ,7. The general area is used for farming with many of the properties containing home sites. K. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. L. 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. M. That the R-4 and the L-O zoning districts are described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. and 7., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or 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) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. (L O1 Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L-O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 8 clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offenDistrict tis overall purpose of this district. The (L-O) designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. N. That Planned Development and Planned Residential Development are defined in the Zoning Ordinance, at page 20, as follows: Planned Development (PD) - An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, commercial or a mixture of compatible A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, uses. density, lot coverage required, open space or type o residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts of this Ordinance. Planned Residential Development (PD-R) - Any development which is predominantly residential including those accessory purposes customarily relating to residential uses with the balance of such area, if any, being intended for such uses as reasonably relate to the support or convenience of the residential uses of other occupants. O. That the City does have a Mixed Use Review Area District which is set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in 11-2-408 B 17. and reads as follows: (MUR) Mixed Use Review Area - Those areas which, because of their unique location and varied potential need to be planned as a whole, have been designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as Mixed Use Review Areas. These areas shall be developed as Planned Development General (PDG), and must be approved as a conditional use. p. The comments of Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of her principal conmtents were that any existing HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 9 irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M unless a variance application is submitted; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed; that the Applicant is to enter into a development agreement; that a bridge needs to be built over the Ridenbaugh Canal to connect to the proposed stub street in Los Alamitos No. 3 subdivision and that traffic should not have to be routed to Eagle Road and Victory Road before getting to the school site; that ACRD has not approved the traffic study or configuration at this time; that pedestrian walkways shall be provided; that easement shall be provided; that perimeter fencing is to be in place prior to obtaining building permits for housing; provide public sites and open spaces; that Applicant is to provide the City with a deed for transfer of the school/park site property prior to obtaining building permits for housing; that buffering of adjacent low-density residential property is required; and that Applicant shall provide and maintain planting and reserve strips. Q. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, and his Assistant, Bruce Freckleton, commented and those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of their principal comments were that a perimeter legal description needs to be submitted for each proposed zone, that the legal description shall include 1/2 of adjacent public right-of-ways, that the description shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor licensed by the State of Idaho, and it shall conform to Meridian Resolution No. 158; that all irrigation and drainages laterals and ditches shall Page - 10 HIGHLANDg gANCg - ANNEXATION FF & CL be tiled; that existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed but wells may be used for in-domestic purposes; that a drainage plan is required; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on nearby residential areas; that the seasonal high ground water elevation shall be determined; that water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City computer model; that the Public Works Department shall be informed of anticipated waste water flows and anticipated fire flows and domestic water requirements; that a 100 X 100 well site shall be donated to the City at the proposed site near the easterly boundary; that sanitary sewer service will be via an extension of the Nine Mile Creek Sewer Trunk Line and domestic water could be from an extension of the mains located in South Locust Grove Road and Applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sewer lines to and through the property. R. That comments were received from the Meridian Fire and Police Departments, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Ada County Street Name Committee, US West and Idaho Power; that such continents are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. S. The Meridian Fire Chief indicated that they will need water for hydrants, afire station, including the land and firemen, and that many lots will need better access for fire equipment. T. That the Meridian Police Chief commented that there would HIGgLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 11 be a problem with serving a high density area this far from town with the officers that he has now. U. That the Meridian School District commented that this area is in the attendance zones of Mary McPherson Elementary, Lake Hazel Middle School and Meridian High School and that Mary McPherson Elementary is at 117 of capacity. p. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments, dated February 6, 1995, that it made for the first Application from the Applicant and stated that its report had not been updated; District then gave a submittal dated June 5, 1995, which stated that the proposed modification of the Highlands Ranch Subdivision is of sufficient size, and/or is expected to generate traffic impacts that the District requests deferral of the public hearing for this application until an updated traffic study has been approved by the Dist'rict's Traffic Services Department; that the comments submitted on the initial application, dated February 6, 1995, in response to that application are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. W. That the Applicant submitted a subdivision plat application showing how the property would be developed and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. g. That the portion of the property which is south of the east-to-west half section line and east of the north-to-south half section line, is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map as being in a Mixed Residential area; and that portion of the property which is south of the east/west half Page - 12 HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL section line and west of the north-to-south half section line is shown as being in a single family residential area. Y. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Comprehensive Plan Map, it does state in various sections, in part, as follows: "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. Z. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 1. GENERAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower ,density development in outlying areas. 1.8U Promote the development of high quality and environmentally compatible residential areas that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods." 1.12U Support regional agricultural/agribusiness by protecting productive agricultural operations when requested by agribusiness land owners. AA. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 2.5U Encourage compatible infill development which will HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 13 improve existing neighborhoods. AB. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land ir. agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activit~~ until urban services can be provided. AC. That also in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, RURAL AREAS, it odes state as follows: "6.7U Existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall ne buffered from urban development expanding into rural area by innovative land use planning techniques. 6.8U 6.9U Proposed urban density development wl-.ich abuts or is proximal to existing rural residential development shall be subject to development review committee approval. 6.10U New urban density development should provide perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties." AD. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. AE. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. AF. That Section 11-9-645 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 14 blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, p~.rks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." AG. 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." AH. 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;" AI. That Section 11-9-fi05 R states as follows: "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 HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 15 recreation facilities." AJ. That Section 11-9-505 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within ne~a 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 provides throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. Tre Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District] when reviewir_g bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. AK. That Section 11-9-605 M states, in part, as follows: Tiling of irrigation ditches, laterals or canals. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, 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. The City may waive this requirement for covering such ditch, lateral or canal if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. Any covering program involving the distribution system of any irrigation district shall have the prior approval of that affected irrigation dist=ict. No subdivision plat shall be approved where the subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to any waterway, irrigation ditch, lateral or canal to which it would otherwise be naturally adjacent or which it would otherwise naturally include. AL. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under HOUSING, states, in part, as follows: 1.10 Local residents and organized community groups should be encouraged to participate in neighborhood and community planning in order to give direction to environmental, housing, transportation, recreation, oper_ space, park, and other public facility needs. 1.18 As Planned Development methods and standards are implemented by the City of Meridian, variations pertaining to planned development - maximum density, dimensional standards and other requirements - shall not exceed 25~ of the existing requirements, and shall be recommended when one or more of the Planned Development design and developmental objectives are met. HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 16 1.19 High-density development, where possible, should be located rear open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, and near major access thoroughfares. 1.20U Density transfers will be allowed in exchange for school sites, open space dedications, or for access easements to linear open space corridors, which contain bicycle and pedestrian pathway systems. AM. That Section 11-9-607, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, speaks tc that subject; that of import to this Application the above section states, in part, as follows: E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be ctoverned by the reQUl ati nnG of ---- (Emphasis added.) The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district signs, and other regulations (emphasis added) as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section. F GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT . . Bonus Density - Developer is responsible for documentation of change.• The following bonus density may be granted within a Planned Development, but shall not be treated as cumulative: a. Provision for private, common open space in a PD shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%); b. Character, identity, and siting variatior. incorporated in a PD shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed twenty-five percent (25~). Factors which are deemed to make a substantial contribution to such character, identity and siting variation include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) Landscaping - Streetscape, open space and HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNE%ATION FF ~ CL Page - 17 plaza use of existing landscape; pedestrian anc bicycle ways and recreational areas; 2) Siting - Visual focal points, use of existing physical features such as topography, creeks, view, sun and wind orientation, circulation pattern, physical environment, variation in building setbacks, building groups such as clustering; and 3) Design Feature - Street sections, architectural styles, harmonious use of materials, parking areas broken by landscape features, and varied use of dwelling types and heights; c. Publicly dedicated land in a PD shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed twenty- five percent (25~) for facilities such as school, library, fire station, park, recreational facility; and d. Density increases, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25$), shall be considered when environmentally sensitive areas (creeks, wetlands, wooded areas) have been preserved in their natural state. AN. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the previous Zoning Administrator had commented that annexation could 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; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. AO. 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 HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 18 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 ar 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 residents 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. AP. 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. AQ. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 19 CONCLUSIONS A. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridiar. have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. B. 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. C. 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 rer_ord submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. D. 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. E. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual .conditions existing within the City and State. F. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 20 H. 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, i05 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comp~y with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant shall be required .o connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; 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 11-2-41? 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 11-9-606 b. 14; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, 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 were not met. J. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 21 Land Use Map as follows: That portion of the project that is south of the east/west half section line and east of the north/south half section line, including the two acre parcel in the northeast corner, as being in a Mixed Residential area; and that portion cf the project that is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north/south half section line is in a Single r^amily Residential area; that development of the land in a residential capacity would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. R. That in the presentation by Mr. Forrey he indicated that the planned development in an R-4 district would allow a 25% reduction in the R-4 house size requirement of 1,400 square feet; that the Planned Development Ordinance in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, in 11-9-607 E, F 1., and F 7., state in part, as follows: "A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section."; "Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance."; and "Developer is responsible for documentation of change. The following bonus densities may be granted within a Planned Development, but shall not be treated as cumulative: ." and since the provisions of 11-9-607 do not specifically speak to HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 22 square footage reduction and since the 25~ deduction is spoken to regarding density and not square footage, it is concluded that the 25~ reduction is not applicable for the square footage designations in 11-2-411 D. L. Since the Comprehensive Plan states that there is an importance to maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life,. encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying area s, protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to Pxisting rural residential land uses shall provide transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities, the development concept does not meet the residential goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. M. That it is concluded that the requested zoning of Limited Office along Eagle Road south of the east/west half section line and east of the north/south half section line, including the two acre parcel in the northeast corner, is in a Mixed Residential area, as shown on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; that the idea of Limited Office Zoning along Eagle Road is not objectionable to the Commission and the Comprehensive Plan is HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 23 only a guide, but it is concluded that if Limited Office is desired at that location a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required for the Commission to allow that; that it would be desireable that the Limited Office not extend so far west from Eagle Road. N. The Limited Office proposed by the Applicant along Locust Grove Road is likewise contrary to the Generalized Land i7se Map of the Comprehensive Plan, which shows that area as being a Single Family Residential area; that Limited Office in that area is objectionable to the Commission. 0. That since the Comprehensive Plan indicates that land next to rural land should be developed with lots compatible with the rural areas, protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, and the importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, and because that 6.8U states that new. urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities, and because Mr. Forrey stated, when considering the comment of Mrs. Glick that she wanted larger lots that were more compatible to her 2.2 acres, as follows: "Let's increase the size of those lots next to the Glick property. I don't know how large at this point. We wouldn't want rural acreage. This is in the Urban Service Planning HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 24 area. Maybe they could be double that size, 16,000 to 18,000 square foot , almost half acre lots. Maybe that would be palpable. We will work that out."; it is concluded that the Developer should comply with the statement of its representative and increase the size of the lots that are next to other property owners who own an acre or more. After the placement of the increased size lots, which should be at least one- half acre in size, R-4 lots would be acceptable. P. That the above statement is equally applicable to the land which is in the Single Family Residential area west of the north-south half section line. Q. That it is concluded that the annexation and zoning of the land at the present time with the development plan, as shown and represented, is not in the best interest of the City at this time; that the development of Limited Office along Eagle Road not as far west as is presently shown would be in the best interest of the City after a Comprehensive Plan amendment; that if larger lots were placed next to the existing land with homes on the land and then having some R-2 or R-3 lots with R-4 development adjacent to the R-2 or R-3, even under a planned development with the 25% reduction in lot size but a reduction in the square footage requirements, would be in the City's best interest. R. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, would have to be met and addressed in a development Agreement. HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 25 S. That with the continents of the Meridian Fire and Police Departments, as a condition of annexation, the satellite fire station should be constructed before the first seventy-five lots have been sold and a satellite police station should also be constructed along with the satellite fire station. T. That all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled, if the land were annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. U. That if the property were annexed, these conditions would run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. V. That it is concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the City of Meridian to annex the land at this time due to the facts found above and the conclusions stated herein, but if the changes suggested herein are made, annexation, and zoning required to meet the suggestion made herein, would be in the best interest of the City. 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 VOTED ~ COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED 1~ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 26 COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED "~'~ / VOTED ~ Y~ S~-w~r VOTED RECO~+IIKENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the Annexation and Zoning proceed on to the City Council; that the Applications for a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a planned development remain at the Planning and Zoning Commission until action is taken on the annexation and zoning by the City Council; that if the Applicant does not make the changes suggested by the Commission before the City Council hearing, it is recommended that the City Council deny the annexation and zoning application based on the reasoning in tf~e above Findings and Conclusions; that if the changes suggested herein are made, annexation, and zoning required to meet the suggestion made herein, would be in the best interest of the City and the annexation and zoning would then be recommended; that the Applicant would be required to meet these Findings and Conclusions and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. ,.,~ MOTION: APPROVED: ~~~ . DISAPPROVED: HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 27 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL WESTPARK COMPANY GEMPARK II PARTNERSHIP ANNEXATION AND ZONING PORTION OF SECTION 20, T. 3N, R. lE, BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing June 13, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., before the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and on August 15, 1995, before the Meridian City Council, Wayne Forrey, representing the Petitioner, appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter .and having submitted its recommendation to the Meridian City Council, and the Meridian City Council having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT A. That notice of a public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior both public hearing before the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, scheduled for June 13, 1995 and August 15, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that notices of the public hearings on the request for annexation and zoning were published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing before the Meridian HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 1 Planning and Zoning Commission and the Meridian City Council, the first publications of which were fifteen (15 ) days prior to the hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 13, 1995 and August 15, 1995, hearings; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence at both public hearings; and copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. B. The property is approximately 180.9 acres; that the property is located near and adjacent to the City of Meridian and that the Applicant is not the owner of the property; that the owners are: Dale A. or Pamela G. Nixon, Harold Killgore and Rayelene Allen, Clayton or Susan Record, Richard S. or Linda E. Schaffer and Sally D. Martin; that each of the above mentioned parties are the titled owners of certain parcels and each have granted their permission for this application and to be annexed. C. That the Application was initially submitted requesting annexation and zoning of R-8 Low Density Residential, R-15 Medium High Density Residential and L-O Limited Office to be developed for future land use of mixed residential, a school, park, pathway, public and limited office. That in the letter accompanying this present Application, Greg Johnson, President of Westpark Company, Inc. stated that the Applicant amended its annexation and development approach to include a corporate office park and a planned development residential community and is requesting R-4 zoning with a conditional use permit for the planned development, residential, and limited office zoning to develop a corporate HIQHLANDS RANCB - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 2 office park. Mr. Johnson also stated the Application had been revised and updated to achieve several planned development objectives, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. He stated that the design was done to minimize the impact to adjoining properties and achieve compatible land uses in the neighborhood. D. At the Public Hearing before the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, Wayne Forrey explained the proposed development as follows: He stated that the project was high quality residential and offices; that they had changed from an application for R-8 and R-15 to L-O and R-4 with a campus office park, some R-4 development, and a planned development with cluster homes because some lots are less than 8,000 square feet; that there was 10.5 acres of common open space which did not include the path along the Ridenbaugh Canal; he showed a summary of the development features; that there would be 900 square foot and larger homes but that many would be larger; that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan talks about "flex" size homes; that there is to be 25~ variation in a planned development; that a 25$ reduction, due to the planned development, would mean that the homes could be 1,050 square feet in the R-4 zone, or 25~ of the required 1,400 square foot requirement in the R-4 zone; that this would provide for mixed use development along Eagle Road; he showed pictures of a development in Ketchum. Idaho. He also stated that the Applicant had no problem with the comments of the City, except for the comment about having a bridge to Los Alamitos Subdivision, but with regard to that they would allow the Ada County Highway District to decide that issue. He also stated that this we that they would work with the Comprehensive Plan, Section 6.4 developed as an urban area, bu neighbors comments, such as thof Mr. Forrey also testified rebuttal of some of the commen herein as if set forth in full. being that the people were not about the development, Mr. Forre Greg Johnson, did make an attemF but it did not get done; he state s a community rural area and neighbors; that under the and 6.8U, the land was to be they would not ignore the e made by Mrs. Glick. fter the public testified in .s and such is incorporated In regard to the testimony contacted by the developer y stated that the developer, t to meet with the neighbors 3 that he dropped the ball as HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 3 well; that the best thing that can be done now is to send another letter and meet with anyone that wants to and we will do that; then in response to Mrs. Glick's request, which was that six or seven houses on an acre next to her 2.2 acres is not an adequate transitional density and having one to two acre lots abutting her would be more transitional and in line with the land use section which requires comparable lot sizes be adjacent to rural residential, he stated as follows: "Let's increase the size of those lots next to the Glick property. I don't know how large at this point. We wouldn't want rural acreage. This is in the Urban Service Planning area. Maybe they could be double that size, 16,000 to 18,000 square foot almost half acre lots. Maybe that would be palpable. We will work that out." E. At the hearing before the City Council Mr. Forney stated, in substance, as follows: That Westpark Company can develop this project within the ground rules that have been specified in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission]; that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are very clear about retaining natural vegetation, and they will be doing that; that they have a chance to place some R-2 lots next to the Glick property and would have a 24 foot landscape strip and a nice fence that meets their approval; that near the Marvin Hanson property instead of having ten 8,000 square foot lots there would be 5 R-2 type lots with a one-story level restriction and the trees would be retained and additional trees planted so that people would not be looking down at his backyard. In response to the testimony of Rex Young and a question from Councilman Morrow, Mr. Forney stated that they acknowledge that the smallest home constructed in the Highlands Ranch would be 1,400 square feet in size and every home would be at least that size. Also, in response to questions by Councilman Morrow, Mr. Forney testified that since they are doing a planned development that they qualify for a 25$ reduction in lot size so the minimum lot size would be 6,000 square feet; that the lot sizes would be 6,000 square feet except where they have the R-2 and R-3 and then transition down to the 6,000 square feet. In Response to a question from Councilman Yerrington he stated that he did not know the percentage of lots that would be of the 6,000 size. F. Greg Johnson, the President of Westpark Company testified HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 4 as follows: They were planning on staying with about the same percentage [of lot sizes] as they had on the original plan; they had some luxury lots, some larger lots used as buffering; that a portion of the lots would be for retired type individuals; that the number of 6,000 square foot lots would not exceed what they were requesting in the previous application and there would be some larger lots; that the luxury lots would be about 40 in number, the executive lots 41, and the lifestyle. lots 46; that the previous lots shown as greenway and keyhole lots would be the portion that would be re-designed into the smaller 6,000 square foot lots. Mr. Johnson also submitted a letter dated June 7, 1995, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full G. Pat Dobey also testified on behalf of the Applicant and he stated as follows: That he had prepared a traffic study in July of 1994 for the previous plan; that it had been revised as a result of the changes to delete the previous multi-family that was included in the plan and the addition of some office use added; that traffic study is in the process of change and should be completed in two weeks; that the changes from the addition of the office space primarily effect Eagle Road and the recommendations of the previous traffic plan were to widen Eagle Road from a 2 lane to a 3 land road onto Overland Road; that the changes made in the plan should not significantly alter the conclusions of ACRD; that delaying action tonight would serve the development very well or would serve the needs of the community. H. In the Annexation and Zoning Request, it is stated, in part, as follows: 7. That the present land use is farm land. 9. That the proposed use is planned development residential, school, park, pathway, public and limited office; that the proposed districts are R- 4, Planned Development Residential (PD-R) and L-O Limited Office. 10. That the characteristic of the property which make the zoning amendment desireable is that the property is that the property is adjacent to the City and located in an area where the comprehensive Plan directs future land use to be mixed HIQrHLAND3 RANCH - ANNE%ATION FF ~ CL Page - 5 residential, single family residential and mixed planned development. I. That there were people at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing that testified; that a summary of there testimony is as follows: 1. Cindy Woodington testified that she had a question about the L-O zone on Locust Grove Road because of the shape of the parcel and therefore there would be no use for the land; she wondered about a temporary office; she stated that it was an R-4 development but that 3fi9 lots out of 450 are less than 1,400 square feet. 2. Karen Gallagher of ACRD testified that ACHD had not yet received the updated traffic study; that they do have concerns, that as Pat Dobey would probably not affect the layout of the subdivision; that there may be an alignment problem for access on Locust Grove Road; that there is a bridge at that location that needs to be re-constructed and the bridge may need to be doubled in size; that there are concerns about the southern road that comes out of the corporate park into the residential next to the cluster development and until we receive the traffic study we are not sure of the amount of traffic and type of road that will be needed or the alignment may need to be altered; that ACHD's preference is that the matter be tabled until the Commission has received the comments from ACRD. 3. John Shipley testified that had a question about where they need to widen the bridge; that there is a weir where they might come in with the new road; it is right on my border line at the corner of Locust Grove Road; that canal water is needed to continue to provide service to the other properties which go north. 4. Trevor Roberts testified that he had three questions dealing with Eagle Road and the traffic situation of the northeast part of the property; that there is a rise in the ground there around the Ridenbaugh Canal; that there will be a traffic problem there; that a light is going to be needed where the L-0 goes into Eagle Road; that he does not see that they are going to have any access into the school. HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 6 5. Jim Allen testified that his concern was Victory Road where it comes into Eagle Road due to the accidents that have been there; that wanted to know what type of school was going there and how much ground was needed. He also later question whether there was enough room in the cul-de-sacs to get fire equipment in and out. Mr. and Mrs. Allen submitted written testimony and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full . 6. Rex Young testified that he had concerns about the subdivision; that R-4 was acceptable if it was four units to the acre; that the project would likely be a good project but the lots needed to be larger and the homes need to be larger than 1,400 square feet; that over 1/3 of the homes would be 1,000 square feet of less; that there needs to be a transitional area arrangement with the density being shifted with larger lots; that he had concern over his well going dry and with development, the ground water may not get recharged; that the land use goal of the com plan is to protect and maintain residential property values and enhance the quality of life of the residents and cluster homes is not going to do that; that he is opposed to having over 1/3 of it under 1,000 square feet. 7. Bonnie Glick testified that she wanted a letter from Betty Bermansolo entered into the record, which the Board Chairman said had been done; that Wayne Forrey had stated that the developer was going to contact the neighbors to see what they wanted, but that had not been done; that she would like to talk to the developer and the matter should be tabled; that six or seven houses on an acre next to her 2.2 acres is not an adequate transitional density; that having one to two acre lots abutting her would be more transitional and in line with the land use section which requires comparable lot sizes be adjacent to rural residential; that the house sizes bother her; that these small houses would not maintain her value; that she was concerned about her well water; that the schools would be severely impacted. Mr. and Mrs. Glick also submitted written testimony and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 8. Herbert Papenfuss testified that no one approached HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF ~ CL Page - 7 him about the matter; that he had been informed that should have gone to Ada County before it went to the City; that they are in the Meridian Impact Area but they have no say in what happens; that he objects to the placement of the fire station; that he had concerns with a foot bridge being used to get to the school; that traffic is a problem and it causes a loss in value; that where the canal crosses Eagle Road is a blind area; that acreages would be more in line with what is already there, but the pint sized lots should not be next to acreages. 9. Mr. Wes Garve testified about facts that showed this development would have a significant impact on the schools; that it would add 900 automobiles; that the bride is unsafe; that the offices would not be high property tax generators; that the berms along Eagle Road would cause him not to be able to see west; that the developer has not talked to the people in the area; that we do not this kind of saturation in the valley; that our infrastructure is not going to be able to handle the levels these developers want. 10. Marvin Hansen testified that he had not been contacted by anybody; that he abuts the project and he does not want eight houses in his back yard; the greenbelt along the canal is like opening a freeway through his back yard; that his concerns are like the other that have testified regarding the water, roads, traffic, and schools; that the speed limit should. be dropped from 50 to 35; he also had submitted written testimony that is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Mr. and Mrs. Hansen also submitted written testimony and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. Mary Creech testified that her concern was the Ridenbaugh Canal and children being around it and the green belt would only attract them; that traffic was of concern to her. 12. Bill Clark testified that he represented James Griffin who owns 80 acres on the north side of this property; that he was not necessarily opposed to the project but is suffering from a lack of information; that they had not been contacted 13. Nancy Hansen testified that she and her husband had HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 8 approval of only R-4 and L-O should not be approved; that she accepts the one-half acre lots only reluctantly because her position was that a transitional lot was of a size comparable to those lots already existing and her lot was 2.2 acres; that she would like to see acres, but Mr. Forney had told her that was not possible; that Mr. Forney also stated that the 1/2 acre lots would be placed next to their property from Victory Road back to Leslie Street, the homes would be one storey dwellings, that there would be a 20 foot landscape strip planted with pine trees, the developer would not use Salley Martin's domestic well to irrigate landscaping or for pressurized irrigation; she stated that she was concerned about her well water and wondered whether the ground water and aquifer can handle all this; that Forney told her the wet well that will be built for irrigation will be placed away from her property so that the noise is not right there and then when it was built they would be consulted; that an adequate storm water management area be provided so the water would not be contaminated; that hoods be placed on lighting close to her property; that an attractive open fence be placed on her property line sturdy enough to contain animal; and that they had agreed that they can view the covenants. She also testified that she was concerned about the schools. She later questioned whether they could see the preliminary plat. 5. Jim Lee testified that he was concerned about the John Shipley property because he understood that the road was going to be brought down below the canal. There was discussion between Mr. Forney and Mr. Lee about the Shipley property. 6. Nancy Hanson testified that she wanted to see the preliminary plat; that she was concerned about the greenbelt along the canal; that traffic was a major concern of hers; that fencing was also of concern and she was not familiar with vinyl fencing. K. That Marleen Morgener submitted written comment stating as follows: That there is a need to preserve farmland with good irrigation and a way to do that would be top develop acreages of from 2 to 10 acres to preserve the open, rural way of life we enjoy; that she was concerned about the domestic wells; that she had HIGHLANDS RANCB - ANNEXATION FP' & CL Page - 10 concerns over taxes and what expenses the people who have lived in the area will have to pay for public services and schools for these people moving in; and that she would like different choices to be made regarding the land further out of the city. L. That most of the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T, Rural Transition with a two acre parcel in the northeast portion of the land zoned as R-2; the land is adjacent and abutting to Sundance Subdivision which has been annexed into the City of Meridian. M. The general area is used for farming with many of the properties containing home sites. N. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. O. 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. P. That the R-4 and the L-O zoning districts are described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. and 7., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or 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 ) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. (L-O1 Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L-O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 11 any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The (L-O) District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. Q. That Planned Development and Planned Residential Development are defined in the Zoning Ordinance, at page 20, as follows: Planned Development (PD) - An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts of this Ordinance. Planned Residential Development (PD-R) - Any development which is predominantly residential including those accessory purposes customarily relating to residential uses with the balance of such area, if any, being intended for such uses as reasonably relate to the support or convenience of the residential uses of other occupants. R. That the City does have a Mixed Use Review Area District which is set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in 11-2-408 B 17. and reads as follows: (MUR) Mixed Use Review Area - Those areas which, because of their unique location and varied potential need to be planned as a whole, have been designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as Mixed Use Review Areas. These areas shall be developed as Planned Development General (PDG), and must be approved as a conditional use. S. The comments of Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of her principal comments were that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and included in HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNE7CATION FF & CL Page - 12 this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M unless a variance application is submitted; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed; that the Applicant is to enter into a development agreement; that a bridge needs to be built over the Ridenbaugh Canal to connect to the proposed stub street in Los Alamitos No. 3 subdivision and that traffic should not have to be routed to Eagle Road and Victory Road before getting to the school site; that ACRD has not approved the traffic study or configuration at this time; that pedestrian walkways shall be provided; that easement shall be provided; that perimeter fencing is to be in place prior to obtaining building permits for housing; provide public sites and open spaces; that Applicant is to provide the City with a deed for transfer of the school/park site property prior to obtaining building permits for housing; that buffering of adjacent low-density residential property is required; and that Applicant shall provide and maintain planting and reserve strips. T. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, and his Assistant, Bruce Freckleton, commented and those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of their principal comments were that a perimeter legal description needs to be submitted for each proposed zone, that the legal description shall include 1/2 of adjacent public right-of-ways, that the description shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor licensed by the State of Idaho, and it shall conform to Meridian Resolution No. 158; that all irrigation and drainages laterals and ditches shall be tiled; that existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 13 have to be removed but wells may be used for in-domestic purposes; that a drainage plan is required; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on nearby residential areas; that the seasonal high ground water elevation shall be determined; that water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City computer model; that the Public Works Department shall be informed of anticipated waste water flows and anticipated fire flows and domestic water requirements; that a 100 X 100 well site shall be donated to the City at the proposed site near the easterly boundary; that sanitary sewer service will be via an extension of the Nine Mile Creek Sewer Trunk Line and domestic water could be from an extension of the mains located in South Locust Grove Road and Applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sewer lines to and through the property. U. That comments were received from the Meridian Fire and Police Departments, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Ada County Street Name Committee, US West and Idaho Power; that such comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. V. The Meridian Fire Chief indicated that they will need water for hydrants, afire station, including the land and firemen, and that many lots will need better access for fire equipment. W. That the Meridian Police Chief commented that there would be a problem with serving a high density area this far from town HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 14 with the officers that he has now. X. That the Meridian School District commented that this area is in the attendance zones of Mary McPherson Elementary, Lake Hazel Middle School and Meridian High School and that Mary McPherson Elementary is at 117$ of capacity. Y. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments, dated February 6, 1995, that it made for the first Application from Applicant and stated that its report had not been updated; the District then gave a submittal dated June 5, 1995, which stated that the proposed modification of the Highlands Ranch Subdivision is of sufficient size, and/or is expected to generate traffic impacts that the District requests deferral of the public hearing for this application until an updated traffic study has been approved by the District's Traffic Services Department; that the comments submitted on the initial application, dated February 6, 1995, in response to that application are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Z. That Applicant submitted a subdivision plat showing how the property would be developed, but it did not go to the City Council, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. AA. That the portion of the property which is south of the east-to-west half section line and east of the north-to-south half section line, is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map as being in a Mixed Residential area; and that portion of the property which is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north-to-south half section line is HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 15 shown as being in a single family residential area. AB. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Comprehensive Plan Map, it does state in various sections, in part, as follows: "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. AC. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 1. GENERAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas. 1.8U Promote the development of high quality and environmentally compatible residential areas that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods." 1.12U Support regional agricultural/agribusiness by protecting productive agricultural operations when requested by agribusiness land owners. AD. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 2.5U Encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods. HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBPlTION FF ~ CL Page - 16 AE . 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. AF. That also in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, RURAL AREAS, it odes state as follows: "6.7U Existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural area by innovative land use planning techniques. 6.8U 6.9U 6.10U New urban density development should provide perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties." AG. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. AH. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. AI. 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; HIGSLANDS RANCB - ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 17 Proposed urban density development which abuts or is proximal to existing rural residential development shall be subject to development review committee approval. the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." AJ. 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." AK. 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;" AL. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: "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." HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 18 AM. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission 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. AN. That Section 11-9-605 M states, in part, as follows: Tiling of irrigation ditches, laterals or canals. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, 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. The City may waive this requirement for covering such ditch, lateral or canal if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. Any covering program involving the distribution system of any irrigation district shall have the prior approval of that affected irrigation district. No subdivision plat shall be approved where the subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to any waterway, irrigation ditch, lateral or canal to which it would otherwise be naturally adjacent or which it would otherwise naturally include. AO. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under HOUSING, states, in part, as follows: 1.10 Local residents and organized community groups should be encouraged to participate in neighborhood and community planning in order to give direction to environmental, housing, transportation, recreation, open space, park, and other public facility needs. 1.18 As Planned Development methods and standards are implemented by the City of Meridian, variations pertaining to planned development - maximum density, dimensional standards and other requirements - shall not exceed 25~ of the existing requirements, and shall be recommended when one or more of the Planned Development design and developmental objectives are met. 1.19 High-density development, where possible, should be HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 19 located near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities, and near major access thoroughfares. 1.20U Density transfers will be allowed in exchange for school sites, open space dedications, or for access easements to linear open space corridors, which contain bicycle and pedestrian pathway systems. AP. That Section 11-9-607, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, speaks to that subject; that of import to this Application the above section states, in part, as follows: E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the reaulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. (Emphasis added.) The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governina use, density, area, bulk, parkina, sians, and other reaulations (emphasis added) as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section. F GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT . . Bonus Density - Developer is responsible for documentation of change. The following bonus density may be granted within a Planned Development, but shall not be treated as cumulative: a. Provision for private, common open space in a PD shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed twenty-five percent (25~); b. Character, identity, and siting variation incorporated in a PD shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed twenty-five percent (25~). Factors which are deemed to make a substantial contribution to such character, identity and siting variation include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) Landscaping - Street scape, open space and plaza use of existing landscape; pedestrian HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 20 and bicycle ways and recreational areas; 2) Siting - Visual focal points, use of existing physical features such as topography, creeks, view, sun and wind orientation, circulation pattern, physical environment, variation in building setbacks, building groups such as clustering; and 3) Design Feature - Street sections, architectural styles, harmonious use of materials, parking areas broken by landscape features, and varied use of dwelling types and heights; c. Publicly dedicated land in a PD shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed twenty- five percent (25$) for facilities such as school, library, fire station, park, recreational facility; and d. Density increases, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25~), shall be considered when environmentally sensitive areas (creeks, wetlands, wooded areas) have been preserved in their natural state. AQ. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the previous Zoning Administrator had commented that annexation could 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; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. AR. 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 HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF Sc CL Page - 21 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 residents 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. AS. 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. AT. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 22 A. 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. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. E. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. F. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. e. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 23 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). I. 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; 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 inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L, M, and 11-9-606 b. 14; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, 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 were not met. J. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized Land Use Map as follows: That portion of the project that is south HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 24 of the east/west half section line and east of the north/south half section line, including the two acre parcel in the northeast corner, as being in a Mixed Residential area; that portion of the project that is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north/south half section line is in a Single Family Residential area; that portion along Locust Grove Road which is requested to be zoned Limited Office appears to be in the Mixed/Planned Use Development area at the intersection of Locust Grove Road and .Victory; that since the property for the Liunited Office district is on the west side of the Eight Mile Lateral and would be separated from the residential development on the east side of the Lateral, to have that property zoned as Limited Office is not objectionable to the Council. K. That it is concluded that the requested zoning of Limited Office along Eagle Road south of the east/west half section line and east of the north/south half section line, including the two acre parcel in the northeast corner, is in a Mixed Residential area, as shown on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; that the idea of Limited Office Zoning along Eagle Road is not objectionable to the City Council and the Comprehensive Plan is only a guide, but it is concluded that if Limited Office is desired at that location a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required for the Council to allow Limited Office in a Mixed Residential area; that it would be desirable that the Limited Office not extend so far west from Eagle Road. L. That in the presentation by Mr. Forney he indicated that HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 25 the planned development in an R-4 district would allow a 25$ reduction in the R-4 house size requirement of 1,400 square feet; that the Planned Development Ordinance in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, in 11-9-607 E, F 1., and F 7., states in part, as follows: "A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, grovided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section."; "Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance."; and "Developer is responsible for documentation of change. The following bonus densities may be granted within a Planned Development, but shall not be treated as cumulative: ." and since the provisions of 11-9-607 do not specifically speak to square footage reduction and since the 25$ deduction is spoken to regarding density and not square footage, it is concluded that the 25~ reduction is not applicable for the square footage designations in 11-2-411 D. M. That development of that portion of the project designed for residential development would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation of that portion of the land would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and could be in the best interests of the City of Meridian if an acceptable plat is presented and approved. N. Since the Comprehensive Plan states that there is an HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 26 importance to maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas, protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities, the development concept, as known to the City Council, does not meet the residential goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. O. That since the Comprehensive Plan indicates that land next to rural land should be developed with lots compatible with the rural areas, protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, and the importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, and because that 6.8U states that new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 27 densities, and because Mr. Forrey stated, when considering the comment of Mrs. Glick that she wanted larger lots that were more compatible to her 2.2 acres, as follows: "Let's increase the size of those lots next to the Glick property. I don't know how large at this point. We wouldn't want rural acreage. This is in the Urban Service Planning area. Maybe they could be double that size, 16,000 to 18,000 square foot , almost half acre lots. Maybe that would be palpable. We will work that out."; it is concluded that the Developer should comply with the statement of its representative and increase the size of the lots that are next to other property owners wha own an acre or more. P. That the above statement is equally applicable to the land which is in the Single Family Residential area west of the north-south half section line. Q. That it is concluded that the annexation and zoning of the land at the present time with the development, as known only to the City Council based on the verbal representations at the public hearing, is not in the best interest of the City; that it was represented that larger lots would be placed next to the existing acre or larger lots with homes on them and that there would be some R-2 or R-3; that the City Council would like to see the plat of the subdivision before taking action on the annexation and zoning. R. That the City Council does not desire to plan the residential layout, but for the benefit of the Applicant the City Council states that to make the plat more acceptable the lots that the Applicant stated were planned development lots, the 6,000 square foot lots, should be towards, or in, the middle of the HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 28 Subdivision, then there should be R-4 lots that meet the 8,000 square foot guideline, then R-3 lots, that meet that designation, and then R-2 lots, or larger, should be placed adjacent to the existing acreages as stated at the public hearing; that the Council believes that there is enough land for the Applicant to provide buffering of the acreages that already exist; the existing, and planned, subdivisions to the north of this land should also have standard R-4 lots in the Highlands Ranch Subdivision adjacent to them; that all houses on the various lots would have meet to meet City Ordinance. S . That if a plat is presented that is acceptable to the City Council, the annexation and zoning of the property designed for residential development would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian; that no action should be taken on the annexation and zoning of the property to be zoned residentially until, or at the same time,- an acceptable plat is approved by the City Council. T. That the Applicant shall be required to meet, or better, the representations that his representative stated at the public hearing. U. That as stated in the Public hearing, the planned use development theory does not entitle the developer to have a reduction in the square footage requirements of the house sizes that are to be placed on the various lots. V. That the development of Limited Office along Eagle Road would be in the best interest of the City after a Comprehensive Plan amendment; the property is shown on the General Land Use Map HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 29 as being in a Mixed Residential area and to have Limited Office there, there should be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; that the City is not sure whether the Limited Office area along Bagle Road is the appropriate size since it is a little more than a quarter of a mile long, east to west, but the size would be totally up to the Applicant. W. That the annexation and zoning of the property along Locust Grove Road, designed to be Limited Office, would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian; that this property, however, should not be annexed and zoned until the entire parcel meets the suggestions made herein. X. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, would have to be met and addressed in a development Agreement. Y. That with the comments of the Meridian Fire and Police Departments, as a condition of annexation, the satellite fire station would have to be constructed before the first seventy-five lots have been sold and a satellite police station would also have to be constructed along with the satellite fire station. Z. That all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled, if the land were annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject 8I(~HLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 30 to de-annexation. AA. That if the property were annexed, these conditions would run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. AB. That if the property is annexed and zoned the Applicant, and the property, shall meet all of the Ordinances of the City and the Applicant shall enter. into a Development Agreement. AC. That it is concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the City of Meridian to annex the land at this time due to the facts found above and the conclusions stated herein, but if the changes suggested herein are made, annexation and zoning required to meet the suggestions made herein would be in the best interest of the City; that if the Applicant is not agreeable to meet the suggestions made herein the property shall not be annexed. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 31 i DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby decides that the Annexation and Zoning shall not proceed at this time but shall be table until October 3, 1995; that the Applicant shall be given an opportunity to make the changes suggested herein and apply for approval of a new plat and approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment; that if the Applicant does not send a written statement to the City by October 3, 1995, at 5:00 P. M., stating that it agrees with these suggestions and will meet these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Application shall be denied, based on these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION : ,~ J~/~ APPROVED:_~~ DISAPPROVED: HI(3HLANDB RANCH - ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 32 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. 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: To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer~~C'_~ Shan Stiles, P&Z Administrator ~~°~- Re: Request for Annexation and Zoning of L-O, R-8, and R-15 Concept Plan for Highlands Ranch Planned Community Gem Park II Partnership COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW SHARI STILES Planner & Zoning Administrator JIM JOHNSON Chairman -Planning & Zoning February 10, 1995 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 unless a variance application is submitted and approved by the City Council. Development plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape imgation. SITE SPECIFIC -PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Please submit one exterior boundary description for each requested zone. Descriptions shall include one-half of adjacent roadway rights-of--way. Legals must be prepared by a Licensed Professional Land Surveyor per Resolution 158. 2. Sanitary sewer service to this subdivision will be via an extension of the Eight Mile Lateral Sewer Trunk Line. Domestic water service will be from an extension of the existing mains located in S. Locust Grove Road near the south boundary of Salmon Rapids Subdivision. Developer will be responsible for extending water and sewer lines to and through the property. 3. A City well site will be required near the Easterly boundary of the proposed annexation area. Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission February 10, 1995 Page 2 SITE SPECIFIC -PUNNING DEPARTMENT /"~ 1. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; the development agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C., G., H.2., K. and L, and the goals expressed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 2. As no preliminary plat has been submitted, it is only possible to review the requested zoning. Based on the numbers listed below and the Meridian School District's assumption of 1 elementary school for every 900 units, 2.5 elementary school sites would be required for this development alone. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF REQUESTED ZONING Potential Zone/Pronertv Owner Acreage Units R-8 Schaffer Property 30.23 Killgore 19.61 Record 6.5g Total Acreage of R-8 56.42 Allowed Units if R-8 is Granted 451 R-15 Martin 4.61 M~ 75.92 M~ 3.77 Nixon 37.60 Total Acreage of R-15 121.90 Allowed Units if R-15 is Granted 1 g2g L-O Shaffer 1.71 TOTAL UNITS ALLOWED IF REQUESTED ZONING IS GRANTED 2,279 Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission February 10, 1995 Page 3 ~"~ 3. I would recommend that the Applicant refine their requested zoning to more accurately portray what is being proposed and present the project as a planned unit development under the conditional use permit process. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 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. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Pubtic Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW SHARI STILES Planner & Zoning Administrator JIM JOHNSON Chairman ~ Planning R Zoning GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor April 17, 1995 Mr. Wayne Forrey 52 West Franklin Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Highlands Ranch Applications Dear Mr. Forrey: This letter is to inform you that the above-referenced applications were not received in time to be included on the May 9, 1995 agenda. I would suggest you pick up your applications to correct errors and address items that were needed from our previous review; i. e., legal descriptions, etc. We also need a letter from Gem Park II Partnership formally requesting that their previous application be withdrawn. Please .call if you have questions or need clarification on our application process. Sincerely CITY OF MERIDIAN ~.~ ~ :.:- `~ t~ Shari Stiles Planning & Zoning Administrator cc: Greg Johnson OFFICIALS Vi:LLIAM G. BERG, Jr., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Worka Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parka Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P 6 2 Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chlef W. L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chlef 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) 888433 • 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 P 6 2 COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIEROUNTREE TIM HEPPER MEMORANDUM: June 7, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning rr''~~~~~~~ From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer~j'v'''~ Re: HIGHLANDS RANCH - (Annexation & Zoning /Preliminary Plat) HIGHLANDS RANCH - (Conditional Use Permit for PDR) I have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: ANNEXATION & ZONING 1. Submit an annexation perimeter legal description for each proposed zone, in lieu of the individual property descriptions. The legal description shall include one half (1 /2) of all adjacent Public Rights-of--Ways. The legal description shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. CONDITIONAL USE • GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Any existing irrigation/dlainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605. M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements. HIIAND.P&Z Mayor, Council and P&Z June 7, 1995 Page 2 4. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections 11-2-414. D.4 and 11-2-414. D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 5. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas and shall be approved by the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91}. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on- site. 6. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414. D. 3. 7. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. 8. .Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 9. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review and approval. 10. Provide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 11. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 12. All commercial construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. • SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 1. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated wastewater flows from the proposed site. This information is very critical for determining the Sanitary Sewer serviceability of this proposal. 2. Please provide the Public works department with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site. This information is very critical for determining the water serviceability of this proposal. At a minimum, the well proposed for construction in Los Alamitos Subd. will need to be operating prior to development of this subdivision. HIIAND.P&Z Mayor, Council and P&Z June 7, 1995 Page 3 3. A 100'x10Q' well site shall be donated to the City of Meridian at the proposed site near the easterly boundary of the annexation area. The Well site shall meet all of the criteria of the State of Idaho Department of Water Resources, Division of Environmental Quality and City of Meridian. The well site must be exclusively reserved for a municipal well, and can't be a shared site with the Satellite Fire Station. 4. Sanitary sewer service to this subdivision will be via an extension of the Nine Mile Creek Sewer Trunk Line. Domestic water service could be from an extension of the existing mains located in S. Locust Grove Road near the south boundary of Salmon Rapids Subdivision. Developer will be responsible for extending water and sewer lines to and through the property. 5. Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process. In addition to these assessments, water and sewer "Late Comers" fees will also be charged against this parcel to help reimburse the parties responsible for installing the water and sewer mains to their current points. 6. Forty (40) foot wide street right of ways do not allow for on-street parking and would need to be signed "No Parking" with enforcement from our Police Department. Is this realistic? 7. Only a 48 inch length of this preliminary plat drawing was reviewed since that is all the longer our table is. HIL.AND.P&Z OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, Jr., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Clty Engineer BRUCE 0. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Perks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P b 2 Adm. KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W. L "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MEMORANDUM HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council FROM: Shari L. Stiles, Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: June 8, 1995 COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, CAatrman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER SUBJECT: Annexation and Zoning with a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Planned Residential Development for Highlands Ranch by Gem Park Partnership The request for annexation and zoning of R-4 and L-O is in general compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The area shown as being developed into an office park is shown as a Mixed Residential area in the Comprehensive Plan. The following comments are 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property, 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 prior to signature on final plat. 2. Any changes to existing natural features (i.e., Nine Mile Drain, existing vegetation) shall meet the approval of the City of Meridian and the appropriate public agency prior to any construction activity taking place. 3. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District reports their easement on the Eight Mile Lateral as being 80 feet, not 60 feet as shown. Show X11 easements on the plat. 4. Abridge needs to be built over the Ridenbaugh Canal to connect to the proposed stub street in Los Alamitos No. 3 Subdivision. Traffic should not have to be routed to Eagle Road and Victory Road before getting to school site. 5. Pieces of Sundance Subdivision, Los Alamitos, and Highlands Ranch proposed for school/park site do not match up and yield property that is not readily usable for a school or park. Coordinate configuration with School District and Zoning Administrator. 6. ACHD has not approved the traffic study or configuration at this time. P&Z Commission, Mayor and Council June 9, 1995 Page 2 7. The numerous 40' streets will undoubtedly pose a problem for emergency vehicles and the Police Department. Because parking cannot be accommodated on these narrow streets, they will have to be posted and the City responsible for enforcement. I believe this will cause ongoing conflicts and put an undue burden on the Police Department. 8. Screened parking for RV vehicles needs to be incorporated within the development. 9. 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. 10. Letter submitted from the Ada County Street Name Committee does not approve subdivision name, and numerous streets require renaming. 11. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions. 12. Add name, address and telephone number of owner and/or subdividers to the face of the plat (shows Westpark Company, not Gem Park II Partnership). I3. Show X11 utilities on the plat including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainage, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, streetlights, pressurized irrigation, etc. 14. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in accordance with City Ordinance 11-9-605.C. 15. Easements shall be provided as required by City Ordinance Section 11-9-605.D. 16. Perimeter fencing is to be in place beyond right-of--way/easements prior to obtaining building permits for housing. Non-combustible fencing is to be provided along irrigation/drainage easements. 17. Provide public sites and open spaces in accordance with 11-9-605. H. 18. Submit protective covenants for subdivision in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-605 . I. 19. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-41b.L. and 11-2-417.D.; the development agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C., G., H.2., K. and L, and the goals expressed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. P&Z Commission, Mayor and Council June 8, 1995 Page 3 20. Provide chord data for all lots. I would also request a listing of lot square footages exclusive of easements. 21. Please provide calculation of open space exclusive of easement/right-of--way area 22. Roadway widths and culdesac radii need to be included on the plat. 23. Applicant is to provide City with deed for transfer of school/park site property prior to obtaining building permits for housing. 24. Acceleration/deceleration lanes would need to be constructed near all entrances if ACHD does not require improvements at this time. 25. Buffering of adjacent low-density residential property is required. 26. Provide and maintain planting and reserve strips in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-605.x.1. 27. Applicant needs to submit more detailed information for Conditional Use Permit. Ordinance requires the developer to provide the Council with a colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed development that will include at least the following: a. Architectural style and building design; b. Building materials and color; c. Landscaping; d. Screening; e. Garbage areas; f. Parking; and g. Open space. L-O area could be addressed through later conditional use permits, but I believe details on areas of variance need to be provided at this time for residential. Blanket variances for every ordinance of the City of Meridian (block lengths, setbacks, frontages, lot sizes, house sizes, etc.) should not be given, and these variance items need to be pinned down. 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. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P & Z Adm. PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL' CORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MEMORANDUM GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council FROM: Shari es, Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: August 15, 1995 SUBJECT: Council Meeting of August 15, 1995 The following are my recommendations for the items on the agenda tonight: COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE T1M HEPPER Item 1 - Bews Annexation and Zoning -This item should be tabled as ACHD has still not received or acted on a traffic study for the new configuration submitted (L-O park}. In addition, the School District has expressed an interest in the L-O park site as a new high school site, but I have heard nothing from the Applicant on further development of that concept. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 2 - Bews Conditional Use Permit -Same as Item 1, plus the fact that the information submitted for a conditional use permit is incomplete and does not meet the requirements of Section 11-9-607 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance. Item 3 - No comment. Item 4 - Waterbury Park No. 5 Variance -The public hearing for a variance on tiling the Cresson Lateral needs to be held and Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law ordered if sufficient information is available at this time. From a visit to the site today, it seems that a 48" pipe would not accommodate the flow through this lateral. Item 5 - Waterbury Park No. 5 Preliminary Plat -This item should be tabled to wait for FF/CL on the variance and to ensure roadway alignment issues are worked out with Joe Simunich. The stub street to the west has been moved from the north to the south. Item 6 - Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5 & 6 - If no new FF/CL are required as a result of public testimony given tonight, I would recommend that the request for annexation and zoning to R-4, Rte- ,and R-15 be approved and that an ordinance be prepared. Council will hold public hearing on plats HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council August 15, 1995 Page 2 on 9/19/95. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 7 - Los Alamitos No. 3 Annexation & Zoning - I would recommend that the FF/CL be amended to specify connection to eastern boundary of property and to incorporate any new public testimony. These FF/CL should be carefully reviewed prior to approving them and authorizing an annexation ordinance. The development agreement has not been revised at this time. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 8 - Los Alamitos No. 3 Preliminary Plat -Having just received a new plat ~c any, one which has changed significantly from the plat approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission, I would recommend that the plat be denied as presented and/or sent back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In particular, the stub street that formerly would have connected via a bridge to the Highlands Ranch project has been turned into a cul-de-sac. This is not acceptable. There must be a connection via roadway across the Ridenbaugh Canal, not only for neighborhood connection, but for emergency vehicles and to allow vehicle travel to the elementary school without utilizing major arterials. ACRD has recommended the cul-de-sac in lieu of the connection to Highlands Ranch; I believe it neither prudent nor in the public safety to remove this connection. Fire Department staff has also been quite specific in this requirement. In addition, staff has not had time to review this revised plat. Item 9 - .Salmon Rapids No. 3 Annexation & Zoning - If no new FF/CL are required as a result of public testimony given tonight, I would recommend that the request for annexation and zoning to R-4 approved and that an ordinance be prepared. These FF/CL should be carefully reviewed prior to approving them and authorizing an annexation ordinance. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 10 - Salmon Rapids No. 3 Preliminary Plat -Having just received a new plat I would recommend that the plat be tabled until staff has had adequate time to review the new submittal and make additional comments if required. In addition, we continue to have problems with construction debris and I have had promises from the developer to take care of this. Developer has also installed fencing within the 20-foot landscape strip along Locust Grove Road, which he has been instructed to move to the appropriate place. As of 11:30 this morning, nothing has been done. Developer assured the City this would be complete by today. The existing Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council August 15, 1995 Page 3 fence is falling down. Property buyers within the subdivision claim the Developer has "sold" them the 11' ± to add to their lot. Item 11 - Whitestone Estates Subdivision Annexation and Zoning -Comments have not been addressed in any form, either verbally or in writing. Although I did receive a telephone call from Mirazin Shakoori, the owner of 120 acres to the west, I have not received a signed waiver from him. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 12 - Whitestone Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat -Comments have not been addressed in any form, either verbally or in writing. Details of pathway along Ten Mile Creek have not been received. Variances would be required to accept the preliminary plat in its present configuration. Item 13 - Franklin Grove Commercial Center -Initial findings asked for a tabling of the annexation request until further information was provided. This information was provided to the Commissioners on an individual basis. If approved, I would recommend that very specific requirements be included in the annexation ordinance. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 14 - Highlands Ranch Subdivision Annexation & Zoning - FFJCL prepared by the P&Z Commission would require extensive changes in both the "preliminary plat" and "conditional use permit" applications submitted. P&Z is not prepared to act on the plat or CUP until Council has acted on the annexation. Information submitted does not meet the requirements for a preliminary plat or a conditional use permit, and is very conceptual in nature. L-O request would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Item 15 - Avest Plaza Conditional Use Permit -Lot 2, Block 1 -During the public hearing process, Applicant's representative stated that uses along Locust Grove Road would be "low impact"; two drive-thrus that will operate until midnight every night are not at all low impact. Applicant should have considered switching uses for Lots 2 and 5. I concur with P&Z's recommendation that the conditional use permit be denied. Item 16 - Avest Plaza Conditional Use Permit -Lot 5, Block 1 -Comments have been addressed and a revised site plan has not been submitted. Item 17 - Harry's Bar & Grill -YES!! I want to go to lunch there tomorrow and sit outside. Council may want to consider limiting seating to daylight hours only instead of a 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. limit. Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council August 15, 1995 Page 4 Item 18 - Jack Miller Request to Amend Comprehensive Plan -Jack Miller has an interest in the 80 acres east of Dave Lewis's 80 acres at the southeast comer of Overland/Eagle Road. A strip of his property is shown as Mixed/Planned Use Development; the remainder as Single-family Residential. When first approached about this last year, I felt confident that no Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required. After conversations with several different planners, with several different opinions, I am unsure of the need for a Comp. Plan change and would appreciate any thoughts you have on the subject, along with Counsel's opinion. Item 19 - Danbury Fair Subdivision No. 5 Development Agreement -Recommend approval -Wayne Crookston and I have both reviewed and approved this document. Item 20 - Finch Creek Non-development Agreement -General Comment -Bike path improvements along developed portion and at least temporary fencing should be installed prior to obtaining building permits. Item 21 - CC&R's for Salmon Rapids - I have not had time to fully review these changes and would defer to Counsel's opinion. Item 22 - CC&R's for Los Alamitos - I have not had time to fully review these changes and would defer to Counsel's opinion. Item 23 - A.1 -Recreation Program Grant Funds - I would be happy to assist with grant application if needed, as long as I do not have to do the administration. If I am not needed, go for it. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 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. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Shari Stiles FROM: Gary Smith RE: The Ranch Subdivision December 18, 1995 After a quick look at this preliminary/master plan I note the following deficiencies: ('OUNGIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MOE ALIDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER I . According to our ordinance, only non-continuous streets can be considered for less than 50 foot right of way. I believe ACRD will require a 42 foot wide right of way as a minimum anyway. 2. Nine Mile Creek doesn't show up. What is their intention with this ditch since it is not to be piped? 3. What happened to the fire station site and the domestic well site shown in previous plans? 4. Sidewalks need to be shown on both sides of the 50 foot wide right of ways. 5. Contour lines, fire hydrant placement, street light placement, and the connection of sanitary sewer and domestic water lines to the point of existing lines need to be shown. 6. Narrower than 50 foot right of ways need to be approved by our fire department, school district for bus access and police department for enforcement of no parking on one side, if that is required by the fire department and school district. ?. Pressurized irrigation lines and source of water for the imgation system. 8. Phase lines for construction of the development unless it is to be constructed in its entirety at one time. This information is not provided as a complete review. It is intended as your information only. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 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. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor MEMORANDUM: To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City En ineer'z~~ Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator Kenny Bowers, Fire Chief '~;~ Re: THE RANCH SUBDIVISION (Preliminary Plat - By The Westpark Company) COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY February 8, 1996 ~`~ 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. The ditches to be piped are to be shown on the Preliminary Plat. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for our review. 5. Provide 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of the proposed streets in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 6. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Supply and distribution mains will be addressed pending the results of the analysis. C \WPW7Nti0\GENERAL\RANCH.P&Z Mayor, Council and P&Z February 8, 1996 Page 2 7. Sewer service to this development is contingent upon positive results from computer model analysis. 8. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Many of the proposed street names are duplications of existing streets. Make necessary corrections to the Preliminary Plat map prior to resubmittal to the City. Street signs are to be in place, Water system shall be. approved and activated, and road base to be approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to any building permits being issued. 9. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent. 10. Indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries on the Preliminary Plat Map, and/or any plans to reduce said boundaries. 11. Submit a master street drainage plan, including the method of disposal & approval from the affected imgation/drainage district. 12. Respond in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum, and submit with copies of the revised Preliminary Plat Map to the City Clerk's Office prior to the scheduled hearing. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS The legal description submitted with this preliminary plat application appears to meet the criteria of the City of Meridian (it does describe the proposed plat boundary). However, correct legal descriptions for the annexation request (now tabled at City Council) have been submitted. The additiona150~ acres has not been submitted for platting, nor have any detailed plans been provided for this additional area. 2. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via an extension of the Nine Mile Sewer Trunk. At this time, the Nine Mile Thank is in Phase 1 of the Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2. A non-development agreement has been approved by Council for Phase 2 of Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2 (the southern portion). This trunk line would need to cross not only Phase 2 of Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2, but a property over which neither Marty Goldsmith nor Greg Johnson has control (Frank Stopello property). Without the extended trunk line, this proposed development is not serviceable. The treatment capacity of the Meridian Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. The subdivision designer is to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Meridian Public Works C:\WPW IN60\GENERAL\RANCH. P&Z Mayor, Council and P&Z February 8, 1996 Page 3 Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of roadway centerlines. This Preliminary Plat submittal does not show how the proposed development will be served. Until the sewer line routing is proposed, this development should not be considered. 3. Water service to this site shall be via an extension of water mains currently in Phase 1 of the Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2 as well as any other main lines deemed necessary by our computer model. Anon-development agreement has been approved by Council for Phase 2 of Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2 (the southern portion). This water line would need to cross not only Phase 2 of Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2, but a property over which neither Marty Goldsmith nor Greg Johnson has control (Frank Stopello property). Without the extended water line, this proposed development is not serviceable, unless alternate routes are approved and constructed. Applicant previously depicted a well site within this preliminary plat as required by the Public Works Department's February 10, 1995 Comments. As that area has not been included in this revised preliminary plat, no well is being provided as part of this proposal. The subdivision designer is to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Meridian Public Works Department. Water lines shall be located on the north and east sides of roadway centerlines. This Preliminary Plat submitta! does not show how the proposed development will be served. Until water line routing is proposed, this development should not be considered. 4. Subdivision designer to coordinate stub streets with the approved Los Alamitos preliminary plat. Extension of Time Zone Drive over the Ridenbaugh Canal more or less aligns with a cul de sac in Los Alamitos Subdivision (not the approved stub street). The network of streets proposed for this development does not make good safety or planning sense. There is only one way in and one way out for the western side of this subdivision (170f units), as well as the eastern side of the subdivision (260 units). Access to Locust Grove Road should be provided, as well as east to Eagle Road. Although being proposed as a Planned Development, no variance should be given for reduction in required street widths. Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5 proposed one cul-de-sac with less than 50' right-of--way which was rejected by Council. Council must approve any private roadways. 5. Revise the Preliminary Plat Map to show ~ adjacent land use and existing zoning of properties surrounding the proposed development, including existing or approved proposed streets and lots. Revise the Preliminary Plat to include all proposed and existing utilities including pressurized irrigation, with proposed source, and addressing all other comments contained herein. Resubmit the Preliminary Plat with the revisions. 6. Submit a master street grading and drainage plan including method of disposal & approval from the ai~ected irrigation/drainage district. C:\W PWIN60\GENERAURANCH.P&Z Mayor, Council and P&Z February 8, 1996 Page 4 7. Provide 250-watt and 100-watt high pressure sodium streetlights at locations designated by the Meridian Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 8. Provide 50-foot radius paved temporary turnarounds at all proposed stub streets more than one lot in depth. 9. Provide statements of dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location, dimension and purpose of such. 10. A list of lot closures to determine exact square footages of X11 lots has been requested from the subdivision designer. The minimum square footages listed on the proposed preliminary plat are not accurate. Some lots along the Eight Mile Lateral are less than 6,000 square feet. Right-of--way/easement areas cannot be included as part of the square footage of lots. 11. 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. Applicant shall provide a statement as to the ownership of and operation and maintenance for the pressurized irrigation system. 12. Permanent perimeter fencing is to be provided prior to obtaining building permits for housing. Non-combustible fencing shall be provided outside of existing easements/rights-of--way for irrigation and drainage. 13. No easement for the Nine Mile Drain is shown, nor have any details been provided for relocation of this drain. Approvals will be required from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, the Bureau of Reclamation and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any relocation/tiling of this ditch. A proposal to pipe this drain in Los Alamitos Subdivision was rejected. Before this application proceeds any further, these details should be provided. 14. The Meridian School District has indicated that negotiations to acquire a future high school site are not proceeding satisfactorily. Without a high school site, the increased density proposed by this development is probably not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. Although these comments address the preliminary plat, details required in accordance with Ordinance Section 11-9-607 have not been provided; i.e., architectural style and building design, building materials and color, landscaping, screening, garbage areas, parking areas and open space. The location of fencing and any proposed gates must also be reviewed and approved. 16. No storage areas are provided in accordance with Ordinance Section 11-9-607.H.1; parking space as required by Ordinance Section 11-9-607.H.2 has not been provided; and no C:\WPWIN60\GENERAI.\RANCH. PBcZ Mayor, Council and P&Z February 8, 1996 Page 5 maintenance building or approved area has been set aside as required by Ordinance Section 11-9-607.H.3. 17. Open space provided does not seem adequate to justify variance on lot size. For the 63 lifestyle units alone, 7.95 acres should be required to offset minimum lot size requirements. 18. The Fire Department needs detailed information on all cul-de-sac landscaping and parking, and driveway locations for "lifestyle homes" need to be detailed to determine accessibility. 19. Applicant's representative indicated that all lots adjacent to land currently developed as rural residential would be bordered by minimum half-acre lots. Although some larger lots have been proposed east of the Ridenbaugh Canal, Lot 21, Block 8, contains 8 "townhouse" lots which are not compatible with existing development, nor have other rural residential lots been buffered in a like manner as requested by P&Z. 20. Applicant still shows a limited office lot on Locust Grove Road, which was not desirable to P&Z. As there is no access to this lot from within the subdivision, this L-O space does not serve a logical or desirable use for the development. 21. Application indicates acquisition of fire station site and well site is to be determined by the City and the School District. Donation of the fire station site and well site should be dealt with by this developer, not proposed for negotiation with some future owner. C:IWPWIN60\GENERAL\RANCH.PBcZ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. LASS, Clty Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. OENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P 8 Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL' GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Worlcs/Building Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission Members From: Will Berg, City Clerk Date: April 5, 1996 `/~ RE: The Ranch Subdivision, Item # 2 & 3 on Agenda GOUNGIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z GOMMI ION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY On April 5, 1996, Wayne Forrey brought in 12 copies of the revised preliminary plat for The Ranch Subdivision. We have not sent them out to the agencies for their review and comments. City staff may not have had sufficient time to review this revised plat. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 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. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor June 3, 1996 Mr. Greg Johnson Westpark Company, Inc. P. O. Box 344 Meridian, ID 83680 Re: The Ranch Subdivision Annexation, PUD CUP, Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Johnson: COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman TIM HEPPER JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY As a follow-up to our meeting of May 30, 1996, the following is a list of items needed to re- notice your proposed project for a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission: Revised annexation and zoning application; 2. Revised preliminary plat application incorporating all changes discussed and updated, current information (checklist attached); Please review all staff and agency comments when updating your plat and associated applications. Your review of the minutes for P&Z would also be helpful; contact Anna Doty of the City Clerk's office for assistance. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the annexation and zoning of this property will change substantially. Therefore, we would like to notice the annexation and zoning with a preliminary plat and CUP on the same notice, for the same meeting. I would suggest that you address some of the concerns of the P&Z at their next meeting (6/11/96) so you can offer a complete package at the next public hearing that meets their criteria. If complete, revised information is received by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 14, 1996, the City can schedule a public hearing for July 9, 1996. The next application cutoff date would be July 12, 1996. Mr. Greg Johnson June 3, 1996 Page Two You will be billed for the cost of publication and certified mailings. The comments we made at the 5/30/96 meeting were in no way complete, as these are normally done as part of our application review process, so additional items may need to be addressed as a result of that review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF MERIDIAN . ~,'/ ~S x' Shari L. Stiles Planning & Zoning Administrator Attachment cc: Mayor Robert D. Come Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. CITY OF MERIDIAN PRELIMINARY SUBDVISION PLAT CHECKLIST INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED P&Z MEETING. 1. Pre-application submittal meeting held 2. Thirty (30) copies of the completed and executed written application form 3. Proof of current ownership of the real property included in the preliminary plat and consent of recorded owners 4. Name and address of party to receive billings/correspondence 5. Legal description of subdivision prepared and stamped by Registered Land Surveyor 6. Thirty (30) copies of the preliminary plat with dimensions of not less than 24" x 36", drawn to a scale suitable to insure clarity of all lines, dimensions and other data. Preliminary plats shall include: a. Proposed Subdivision Name b. Drafting date c. Sectional location of plat -County d. North arrow e. Scale of plat (not smaller than 1"=100') f. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of owner, subdivider or subdividers and engineer, surveyor or planner who prepared the preliminary plat; g. Statement of intended use of the proposed subdivision (i.e., residential single-family, two-family and multiple housing, commercial, industrial, recreational or agricultural) h. Sites proposed for parks, playgrounds, schools, churches or other public uses i. Streets, street names, rights-of--way and roadway widths, including adjoining streets or roadways; PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST Page 2 of 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/DATE j . Lot lines and blocks showing scaled dimensions and numbers of each; k. Legend of symbols 1. Minimum residential house size m. Contour lines, shown at 5' intervals where land slope is greater than 10 % and at 2' intervals where land slope is 10% or less, referenced to an established benchmark, including location and elevation; n. Any proposed or existing utilities, including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainage, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, streetlights, pressurized irrigation and their respective profiles o. Any dedications to the public and/or easements together with a statement of location, dimensions and purposes of such p. Master street drainage plan including method of disposal and approval from the affected drainage district q. Floodplain boundary as determined by FEMA or measures to amend this boundary r. Stub streets to provide access to adjacent undeveloped land or existing roadways (block lengths do not exceed 1,000') s. Cul-de-sac lengths not in excess of 450' 7. A statement as to whether or not a variance will be requested with respect to any provision of the Ordinance describing the particular provision, the variance requested, and the reason therefor 8. A statement of development features 9. A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent development PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST Page 3 of 3 ~~ DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/DATE 10. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map showing a minimum 1/2-mile radius from exterior boundaries of plat, including land use and existing zoning of proposed subdivision and adjacent land (scale optional) 11. Thirty (30) copies of a 1 " = 300' scale map on 81h" x 11 " paper indicating all adjacent development and/or lots of record within 300' of any boundary of the proposed development, with the layout of the proposed development in bold outline. 12. A statement of traffic impact on existing adjacent roadways and intersections 13. Four (4) sets of conceptual engineering plans, including respective profiles 14. Fee Paid - $300.00 + Lots @ $10.00/Lot certified mailings @ $1.42/mailing 15. Proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions 16. A site report for establishment of the highest seasonal groundwater elevation 17. Other Information as Requested by Administrator, City Engineer, Planning & Zoning Commission, or City Council REVIEW BY: Shari S 'le ~ Planning & Zoning Administrator Ciasv D. Smith, P-E- ~~.~ngineer APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE DATE: n CENTRAL •• DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # Conditional Use # ~ ~,>,.;~. Return to: ~~ ~ ~ Z "'~ ^ Boise ~.w 2 ~.~ 6 ~ `~~' I~~s:2~;,ra'f'~!`~ ^ Eagle ^ Garden city eridian ^ Kuna Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ ACZ ~~~~ L~r~ds ,~Q,~~ ~~~~~~ Ca,~r~r r;,/o Ty ^ 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: ~'~central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines central water 9. 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. ~i3r,.!`1 REVIEW SHEET ~ j, :.;u , Y; Environmental Health Division M C7'vb~9--1o.~S Date: ~/ /~~ Reviewed By: ~ CDHD 10/91 rcb, rev. I I/93 jll CENTRAL CEN1 IZAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT •• DISTRICT Environmental Health Division ~' N EA LT H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ Return to: ^ Boise DEPARTMENT I _: ~; ~ (~ ?~~~j ^ Eagle Rezone # ^ Garden city '..~c y. ~ ei> ,~i ,~'leridian Conditional Use # reliminary Final /Short Plat ~ ^ ACZ ^ I . We have No Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth o ^ 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. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. ,~ 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ~ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage ,® central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: .central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines ,~ central water ,~ 10. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ I I. Stormwater disposal systems shall be reviewed by relative to: ^ Waste Disposal ^ Injection Well rule: ^ Groundwater Protection ^ 12. ^ 13. ^ 14. ,® 15. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store ^ child care center a Date: ` / ~~ /~ Reviewed By: Review Sh ee CDND 10/91 rcb, rev. I/9S CENTRAL ~~• DISTRICT 'HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Environmental Health Division Return to: _.. _.~._ .v.: _ . ^ Boise ~_ ~~ °°,) ~~ :_ .. , ^ Eagle ^ Garden city r ~ Meridian Conditional Use # ~L~-~w~ ~~~~= ~-O~"~C-~ /C~csiDr~n.~rt.. ^ Kuna Preliminary /Final /Short Plat ^ ACZ ^ I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of ^ high seasonal ground water ^ 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. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. ~` 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ~-central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage ~ central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water ,~ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines central water .~- 10. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ 11. ^ 12. ^ 13. Stormwater disposal systems shall be reviewed by relative to: ^ Waste Disposal ^ Injection Well rules ^ Groundwater Protection This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 14. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store ,~, 15. S'~v w +tt~- rt - c,K.:t ~,rlti4 js -l~ . Date: ~ 1 3 ~ l cl ~ S'i-rco~+$ts~ K-~CArU,,~*^~ MoNN'~~~G G~JN ~~~ 1~~»*-N~ - Reviewed By: EM3EY~[99.~ - - Review hee fDHD 10191 «b, rev. I/9S CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # ~ •'- ~ ^ Garden city ~; ~ = ~- Meridian Conditional Use # , ^ Kuna Preliminary Final /Short Plat /9~ C.i~n/.~cS ~,4,~c~ ~'fJf~afVtS~on~ ^ ACZ •• DISTRICT Environmental Health Division ~1t'HEALTH ~.~,.Retur^n Boise DEPARTMENT • • ~ ~ ''' A '~ ' ~.i ^ Eagle J'is ty 3J 's .. ^ I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of ^ high seasonal ground water ^ 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. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Deparcment of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ~ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water ,~ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Deparcment of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines ~-central water ~- 10. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ II ^ 12. ^ 13. Stormwater disposal systems shall be reviewed by relative to: ^ Waste Disposal ^ Injection Well rules ^ Groundwater Protection This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 14. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store ~.. 15. S~Orth+~ ,.~. ~'^~,•~w-r~...~-,,n- r~ n ~rFv~~d 1 c a~t~t1~+ED V'IE S-R4~f*W Date: .~ l 3a / R5 ~;rtaM~fl MoNfl'oR.U+lr~ 7i,C G/y,/Nd uM•nax ~Vly .. c~/C-nf3ri2 Reviewed By: T. .SchMAIZ Review Shee CDND 10191 rcb, rev. I/95 CENTRAL •~ DISTRICT 'tt'HEALTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE • 101 N. ARMSTRONG PL • 801SE. ID. 83104.0825 • (208) 315-5211 • FAX: 327-85G To prevent and !real disease and duabiiity; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our environmen~ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RECOMNI~NDATIONS 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 PRACTICE 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 Ado ! 8ois~ Courtly OtBea WIC 8osa . MMi~an E4non Cour~r A8>u Elmore County OAfc~ VdNr Canh 018es 707 K Wnutrong p. 1606 Robert St. 520 E. 8th Sleet N. of Enrirgmxdaf Nraeh P.O. Box 1448 Bose. ID. 83104-0825 Bose. ID. 83705 Morntan Home.10. 190 S 4th She't E. McCd. ~. 83638 Envro. tieatlh: 321.7494 Ph. 334.3355 83641 Ph 5874407 Mountain Home. ID. ~ 634.1194 frnW Plornrr¢ 327-7600 324 Meridian Rd. 83647 Ph. 581.9215 Irnmun¢atbrtt 321.1450 Meridian, iD. 83642 Nutrition: J27.1460 Ph. 888525 'MC:321.7488 T H .208 375.5211 • FAX: 327-8500 ENT MAIN OFFICE • 107 N. ARMSTRONG PL BOISE, ID. 83104 ( ) 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 RECONIlViENDATIONS 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) GUIDELINES FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF STORMWATER RUN OFF. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Southwest Idaho Regional Office, September 1995. 2) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND, State of Washington Department of Ecology, February 1992. 3) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT. Serving Valley, Elmore. Boise, and Ada Counties Aea ~ eois. Caniy OMke wIC eas. • Mraridan mars ~y OIAce 18mora cowry Oflfee Valley Counh Oldce Box 1448 P O 707 N. Artfutrong p. 1606 Roberts 520 E. 81A Sheet N. d Ernrarrwrrd Hearth 4th Sheet E 190 S . . McCol. ID. 83638 Boisee. ID. 83104 Heatlh: 321-1499 Env~o Base, ID. 83105 Ph.334-3355 Mountain Home. ID. 83641 Ph. 58I-4401 . . Maintain Home. ID. Ph. 634.7194 . famiy Plau>ing: 327.7400 324 tvleri~ian, ID. 83647 Ph. 587-9225 Immun¢ations: 321.7450 83642 ~• ~8~` 5 - Nutrition:327.7460 CENTRAL ~~• DISTRICT ~THEAL DEPARTM /'~ CrNTRAL ~~ ~ D..I~STRICT ~•~ ~~ G l ~11 1 ~~~ a~ ~~- DEPARTMENT h1AIN OFFiCc • 107 K ARMSiRCNG ?L • 8015'c.10.837Cd • (2~ 375:211 Fi1X: 327 ..,,,0 To pr+~~tt attd treat disease and disaa~ity; to promote healthy lifestyles: and to protec and promote the health artd quality of our ermirortutenG STORMWATER MANAGIIKENT RECOMI~NDATIONS We recammend that the first one half inch of storawater be pretreated through a grassy Swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impac~ to groundwater and surface water cuality. The engineers and architec~..s involved with the design of this project should obtain c~.irrent best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventi.*:q groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: 1) STORMWATER MANAG"'MENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND, State of Washington Department of Ecology, February 1992 2) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE MANAG~YT 3) CALIFORNIA BEST MANAG~NT PRAC+I~ HANDBOOK ' Prepared by Camp Dresser and Mc.~ee, Lar.:y Walker Assoc. , IIribe and Assoc., Resources Planning Assoc., for the Stormwater , Quality Task Forces 4} IIRBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITER2A MANUAL Volume 3, Best Management Practices Starmwater Quality IIrban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, Colorado 9aliey. EtrncrG Boise and Bda Cormtia AaallaeKaua+~Oma WICEoe~•bl~o~ 6:+ar~Gour1~~ Bn+anCoossl~~ dlsniauo~dFFe~ YaN--~~~ PA.Batle~ ;J7N.Ammiangtl 1600Rcoaa SpEaCt~aetN. I~Fiort+~iD. I 190~Ctf9RatE 8A~^ ~:D.S'i~'A 9c~.10..t3704 6H.axaa~e~aav4 8oe~.D. ~I70Siti~ , xl6a7PIts87•+em Mouu~hlome.d. R~bsattsi ~rP~.,.~~~~a s~aa~.a easratsr•~ ~:,m~~a~ a~a~n.aeaass Kmu~ ~ Teea . ~ ~1 ~~ 27 January 1995 Meridian Planning & Zoning Page 2 of 2 All laterals and wasteways must be protected. All municipal storm surface run-off must be retained on site. Please feel free to contact me if you care to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, ~~~~ ohn P. Anderson, Water Superintendent JPA/dnm cc: File Each Director Secretary/Treasurer Bill Henson Rider #4 ~~C;~~~ ~I~"Y' ~~ A~~T~~~IAI~ ~~ February 1, 1995 ~~ i ~ Mr. Jim Johnson a,r Chairman, Meridian Planning and Zoning commission '~D_ ~~ ~S~ 33 E. Idaho Ave Meridian, ID 83642 ~ Dear Mr. Johnsons I am writing this letter in response to a notice of hearing which was mailed to my home at 2950 E. Victory Rd, Meridian. This notice of hearing was regarding the application of Gem Park II Partnership for annexation and zoning of approximately 180.9 acres of land for the Highlands Ranch subdivision. The application requests annexation with zoning of R-8, R-15, and L-0. I strongly object to the approval of their zoning request. While I am not opposed to growth and the subdivision of property, the approval of R-1$ and maybe R-8, would be very detrimental to myself and the other property owners in this area who live on small acreages. The approval of R-4 zoning would not be objectionable. Mr. Johnson, I have lived on my property since May 1971 and. have watched growth and change for nearly 24 years. The proposed. rezoning concerns me in many ways, some of which are: a. In late 1992 my domestic well went dry requiring me to drill a new well. The previous well had served me £or over 21 years. The old. well was approximately 60 ft. with the new well being 170 ft. Such a subdivision as proposed would adversely impact on the underground water. b. I have a concern on the impact of the septic systems being able to handle the quantity that would be introduced. c. I have concerns about the property values of my home and other existing home in this area. d. I have concerns about the quality of life changing from a rural environment to a city type environment with in excess of 3,000 residents on the 1.80.9 acres. e. I have concerns ~th~only a concept plan submitted that if the R-15 is approved, the lack of controls could result in a 180 acre trailer park next door to me. f. I have concerns that the city would be unable to provide the necessary services such as police and fire protection and the crime rate could dramatically increase. Although this does not list all of my concerists, please enter this into the official record to indicate m ob'e 'o to the proposal. Sincerely: ~_ 50 E. Yict d eridian, ID $36 HP: 888-2230 February 11, 1995 Mr. Jim Johnson Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mr. Johnson, ~s.• R /~. t ~ F....e r> ~~ I ~ ~~ :~al~~°~i~ltt~!' I have lived on my property at 2910 E. Victory Rd. far 25 years. I have raised my children in this rural setting and enjoyed the rural lifestyle it provides. My husband died a year after we moved here and I have felt safe as a woman alone with children in this rural community. My property is adjacent to the 180.9 acres of land that Gem Park II Partnership has applied to have annexed and zoned for residential. This kind of development is such a lifestyle change for me that I feel the necessity to let you know my concerns. Firstly, I desire to stay on my property in my retirement and I fear this development will make my place unaffordable for me, causing my taxes and insurance to raise unreasonably. I am very much concerned about my safety as a woman alone if the R15 and R8 zoning is approved, bringing in such a high density population. This high density will also completely remove the rural feeling of my lifestyle, which I said before, is important to me. I also fear it will raise the crime rate, and bring an increase in dogs running the neighborhood. One of my biggest concerns is my ground water that supplies well-water to my house. Last year I had to redrill a new well after my oid one went dry. This development, especially such high- density development, will sap the already-low water levels in our area causing those of us with domestic wells to incur large expense to redrill again. I am concerned about the development running along my 4 acres where I irrigate and the drain goes into Sally Martin's field. How will this be taken care of so that my irrigation water doesn't end up in someone's basement? I respectfully submit to you my desires that this development not be approved at such a high density level. I would think approving 1/4 acre development would be more in line with the lifestyle we enjoy out here. I also would ask that the developer place, at their cost, a high quality fence along with some pine trees to block the view of houses stashed next to each other along my 4 acres. My children may desire some day to build a place on this acreage and I want to preserve a sense of the rural lifestyle for them and myself. Plese enter my concerns on the record and consider my requests at the hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Vernetta Hastings j/ ~~ F~~1~i~ CITY OF l~F~I~-~A~d To: Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian, Idaho From: Rural homeowners and residents surrounding the 180.9 acres of land located in the S i of Section 20, T.3N, R.lE, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho We respectfully submit our signatures to the Planning and Zoning Commission to make known the following concerns regarding the Application of Gem Park II Partnership for Annexation and Zoning of the above property: 1. We strongly object to the request for R15 and R8 zoning, feeling it will have a detrimental affect on our small acreage property values and way of life. 2. We strongly oppose zoning this property without an accompanying specific plan from the developer showing exactly what they propose (ie: type of housing, landscaping, roads, etc.) 3. We are concerned that this development will stress the already-stressed ground water levels in our area, causing our wells to dry up (which many of us have already experienced.) 4. We are concerned about how sewage will be disposed of safely. 5. We are concerned about the City of Meridian having enough police and fire department personnel and equipment to keep our area safe. 6. We are concerned about the adverse affect of this population increase on the already-full Meridian schools. Those of us rural property owners who are adjacent to or near this proposed development have chosen to live "in the country" and value the lack of congestion and traffic in our area. We do not want to view a trailer park or high density development out of our back windows. Our. rural lifestyle is of utmost importance to us and, although we realize we can't stop development, we do hope the Commission will preserve some of_ our rural ambiance by zoning this area for low density development. Thank you. .-~ ~ ~. ~~TY ®F lN~li~i,~~ IGNATURE ADDRESS ~~fi"iL-~-~~ ~--~~(P c. .y ~~ ? ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ lL..-- ~ .3~~~ `.. ---~ _ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~~ ?~~1 ~ ~Z ~.~. ~~ < ~~~ ~~ ,~3~~-~. :~" ~_e._._ ~.P~_, ~., ~~ ~' !~"~'~ ,~ ~.:,:~~' ~ `fit='`a February 12, 1995 To: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 From: Jon and Bonita Glick 2860 E. Victory Road Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Application of Gem Park II Partnership for annexation and zoning of approx. 180.9 acres of land located in the S112 of Section 20, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho We wish to submit for your consideration our concerns regarding this future development adjacent to our property. We have lived at the above address for 13 years. We purchased 2.2 acres at this location because we value space, quiet, and openness around us. We have enjoyed this lifestyle but now see it threatened by the proposed development. Our first concern is the request for zoning at R15 and R8. This type of high- density development would completely destroy our lifestyle as we know it. We understand that development is probably inevitable, but request that you consider lower density zoning with 4 houses per acre being the maximum. This would preserve more our rural way of life and, especially where the development borders our property, we would ask that you consider more open, rural development. Whatever the zoning, we would request that the developer put up, at their cost, a berm along with a solid screen of pine trees and ahigh-quality fence the length of our property adjacent to theirs to block the view of the houses and yards and to maintain the rural feeling of our place. Presently, Sally Martin has a pine tree forest on this area and we are mourning the loss of this beautiful, serene little refuge where we view wildlife of all kinds and our children romp and play among the bushes and trees. Our preference would be for the developer to keep the trees as they are and convert it into a park for the entire development's use. We request that covenants be in place for this development so that we don't end up with junk cars and trash along our property, which will probably be the back yard of the houses to be built. As we said previously, our view now is of pine trees and mountains and we dread looking out of our front picture window and seeing multi-family or high density dwellings with all the junk that accompanies this kind of low-income housing. We are very concerned about the ground water level in this area since our domestic well is our supply of drinking water. Five residents an Victory Road in this mile have had to re-drill their wells in the last two years. This would indicate a low water table and, even though the developer is supposedly going to put this development on city water , we understand that means they will drill a big well for the entire development. This will have to impact our domestic well and we don't want to incur the cost of digging a new well. We were under the impression Ada County was limiting the number of wells being drilled anyway, so why would the approval be given for this huge well? We are also concerned about the irrigation ditch behind our place that runs onto Sally Martin's place. What will be done with this ditch and will it impact us in any way? We would ask to be informed and to be able to give imput on this matter. We are concerned about police and fire protection for this large of a development. Can Meridian departments handle this additional responsibility? Can the Meridian Schools handle this growth? Mary McPherson is already busting at the seams and we fear this rampant development without plans for schools included will result in our children receiving an inferior education. How will the sewage for this large of a development be dealt with? Where will it go? Who can assure us this will not contaminate our ground water, the source of our drinking water? We strongly oppose the Commission approving zoning until the developer submits a specific plan along with the request for zoning so that we can know exactly what they propose. We realize that we cannot stop growth and development in the Treasure Valley, but we submit that it is reasonable for our rural lifestyle to be considered when granting zoning for this proposed development. Our view of the mountains to the north and the south is breathtaking and the quiet lifestyle we have enjoyed contributes to the value of our property. We ask that your Commission consider protecting what has made this area attractive to so many by keeping the rural feeling intact. Sincerely, ~~~ .. f .. _ ~.~ `. ADDENDUM: The high "Quality of Life" we have all enjoyed in Idaho over the years has been one of the key drawing points for people moving into the Gem State. The request for rezoning to R-8 and R-15 in this location is, first of all, not consistent with keeping this "Quality of Life" that makes Idaho so attractive, and secondly, it is unnecessary at this time. With the recent building moratorium in Meridian in order to more effectively plan to retain a high "Quality of Life", the rejection last week of the Library Bond, and another projected School Bond in the very near future, a request for this type of density does not seem to be responsible planning. Maintaing a more open, expansive, and rural flavor in the area will undoubtedly guarantee the Idaho way of life while, at the same time, accomodating reasonable growth. !t is reported that the multiple family dwellings in the Boise area are currently experiencing an increasing vacancy rate. Marketing strategies are being developed to try to fill these existing openings. Your consideration of a more balanced and responsible zoning plan that will ensure Idaho's Quality of Life will be appreciated. Respectfully, /. l -: February 12, 1995 Mr. Jim Johnson Chairman of Meridian Planning and Zoning 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho Dear Mr. Johnson: A y r: CITY l~~ ~~~°~~~~a This letter is to let you know we plan to attend the meeting Tuesday, February 14 at 7:30 p.m. We will be there to voice concern about the application of Gem Park II Partnership for annexation and zoning of 181 acres north of Victory Road between Eagle Road and Locust Grove Road (S 1/2 of Section 20, T.3N, R.1E, Boise Meridiar-, Ada County, Idaho). You probably are aware that, although development is getting closer, this area is still very rural. We have lived on Victory Road for over four years and have enjoyed this picturesque, rural area. We have already signed a group letter along with our neighbors in which we voice our concerns with the proposed very high-density development regarding property values, water usage, sewage treatment, increased crime and vandalism, and increased traffic volume. We feel very strongly that if development occurs, it should be a lower-density development (no more than R4) which would not have as high an impact on us and on Meridian as a whole. We also feel the Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee should carefully review a detailed plan of the proposed development. It is very scary that R8 to R15 zoning would result in a minimum of 1,448 to 2,715 units on this vacant farmland. If only four people live in each unit, that increases the population of this rural 181-acre area by 5,792 to 10,860 people! Does the Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee feel Meridian has the core services to handle this major increase in Meridian's population? What about schools, library, police, and fire protection? Regarding our specific property, we wish to be sure any development behind (across the canal) and adjacent to our property have screening fences. The trees across the canal should be left in place. If possible, it would be nice if they could be limited to single--story buildings. We also do not want to be annexed into the Meridian City Limits. Cont i rued ... . Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Feb. 12, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for considering our issues and concerns as property owners near the proposed development. Sincerely, Marvin R Hansen and Ci/ "`" Nancy J . ~H"ansen 2460 East Victory Road Meridian ID 83642 ~~ ,~ `~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~J June 6, 1995 To: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 From: Jon and Bonita Glick 2860 E. Victory Road Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Application of Gem Park Il Partnership for a Conditional Use Permit and for annexation and zoning of approx. 180.9 acres of land located in the S1l2 of Section 20, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. We respectfully submit for your consideration our concerns regarding this request for future development which will run the length of our 2.2 rural acres. We have lived at the above address for 13 years and value the space, quiet and rural feeling around us. Since our property is adjacent to Sally Martin's farm, located on Victory Road in the southeast corner of the proposed development site, we will be among those most significantly impacted by this development. Consequently, we were most encouraged when the developer stated at the first public hearing that they would be pleased to include us and others adjacent to this site in the plat process, in developing covenants, even suggesting a mailing list or newsletter to keep us abreast of new developments. Unfortunately, we were never approaced in the planning process by this developer regarding any detail of this proposed development which will impact us so significantly. In fact, only 5 days prior to the Public Hearing did we receive a letter stating the developer's new, revised plan, based only on information from the first public hearing, not individual input face to face, as they allude in their cover letter. We have found no neighbor that has been approached directly by the developer for personal input prior to the development of this new proposal. In looking over the application we note that, in spite of lowering their request for zoning (from R15 and R8 down to R4},the high density housing is stilt on the drawing boards. We feel this newly proposed R4 density is a ruse considering the high density still proposed under the development plan made possible by a Conditional Use Permit and is still not consistant with the Land Use section of the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, sited in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the first hearing by Planning and Zoning. Under the Land Use Goal Statement, the City of Meridian encourages °...higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas...protect(ing) and maintain(ing) residential neighborhood property values, improv(ing) each neighborhood's condition and enhanc(ing) its quality of life for residents...compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods." In the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan it states that ..."existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural area by innovative land use planning techniques...new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities." (Their emphasis added.) They also state proposed urban density development which abuts or is proximal to existing rural residential development shall be subject to development review committee approval " We submit that this present proposal is not yet consistent with these goals stated in the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, next to our acreage, along with our neighbors' acreages of 2-6 acres, it seems one house per 1-5 acres, at the most, would be a more fitting "transitional density". Especially with the existence of areas closer to Meridian where infill could absorb these high densities, we submit that the areas further out, like our area, be developed in lot sizes comparable to the existing acreages. For instance, even with the developer's latest concessions, our 2.2 acre lot will be abutted by 6 houses and the Hansens' place will abut about 8 homes. This is hardly a transitional density of "comparable lot size". In addition to the issue of density, we are concerned about the capacity of our schools to handle this development. The Meridian School District has closed Mary McPherson Elementary Schoo! to receiving children from any new developments. Their capacity is already at around 117°r6. (n '1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act which, in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, basically stated subdivision development is to be measured according to 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 accomodate the subdivision " In light of the recent defeat of a library bond and the current mood regarding further school bonds, we question the ability of the City to achieve the above goal in approving this high density development in this area, especially since the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing the wide range of public services needed (ie: fire, police, water, sewer, parks and recreation, emergency medical care) above and beyond the school services. And we question whether the developer's change from residential to corporate in the section by Eagle Rd. will offset these costs adequately. Our third, but not the least, concern is for our domestic well water. Originally, Gem Park 11 Partnership proposed to use the existing domestic wells to pressurize irrigation for the subdivision. We ask the Commission's consideration in following the Planning and Zoning Administrator's recommendation in the original Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the existing wells and/or septic systems be . removed. We, as well as ail the acreages in close proximity to this proposed development site, have domestic wells around 100' deep. We fear that allowing use of existing domestic wells in the new development would jeopardize our water supply and create possible high expenses for us in digging new wells. Around five households in this area have already dug new wells in the past 2 years , so the water supply is obviously not unlimited. We wonder how a new city well would affect our domestic wells too, since one is proposed at the eastern boundary of this development. Additional concerns are the screening between our property and the new development. V11e request a berm running the ienyth cf our proper~,r with a thick screen of pine trees, consistent with the pine forest already there on Sally Martin's place (the Comprehensive Plan states..:'new...subdivisions whici7 abut ...existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening... ). Depending upon the thickness of the trees, we would additionally need a`high quality, attractive fence to buffer the noise and congestion. We request single story homes be built along our properly line, whatever the density, to retain a more open atmosphere. We would like to have covenants in place to avoid junk vehicles, etc. accumulating along the boundaries. We also request these homes be compatible with homes in the area regarding square footage and cost. The new proposal states homes of 1200 sq. ft. will be built, but our home and most others here are 2400 sq. ft. or more. If ponds are developed, we suggest a means far mosquito control be in place. Again, we don't necessarily want to stop growth and development in the Treasure Valley, but we submit that it is reasonable for our rural lifestyle to be considered when granting zoning for this proposed development. Vile appreciate some of the concessions the developer has made in this new proposal, and feel it is a good start toward reaching a compromise we could all be happy with. it is by no means, however, acceptable for the final solution, in light of our receiving it only a few days before the hearing and without any face to face input other than the first public hearing, where most of us were in shock from the sheer force of what this developer was proposing. The quality of life that we ail enjoy here depends on leaving ample open space in the areas further out and developing higher density areas in town. 1f we fail to do this, the very thing that attracts people to our area will be gone and we will be one big, rambling suburb from Boise to Nampa, no longer inviting to those seeking an open, rural-feeling lifestyle. Thank you for your consideration. a s Sincerely, Jon W. Glick and Bonita J. Glick / l~ ~ June 9, 1995 TC: I~•ieridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 L. Idaho Ave Meridian, ID 83642 FRCM: Rex T. and riaxla H. Young 2950 E. Victory Rd i~ieridian, ID 83642 ~~~ ' ~ ~~ RE: Application of Gem Park II Partnership for Annexation and Zoning and a Conditional Use Permit to Develop Approximately 181 Acres as the Highlands Ranch Development. We have obtained additional information on the above project which will be north and west of our two acres of land. We have lived on this property for over 24 years. Although our property is not immediately adjacent to the proposed development, it will be in full view from our living room window. We have strong concerns that it will have a detrimental effect upon our rural life style. We have a 3,200 sq. ft. home, the value of which could be seriously impacted when it would be adjacent to a subdivision with over 1~3 of the total homes being 1,000 sq, ft. or smaller. ode have many concerns with the proposal, some of which are: a. Change of zoning request from the original request for R-15, R-8, and LO to R-4 and IA is, as far as we are concerned, is not a good faith change. The apartments have been eliminated from the original requests but no really significant change, only some rearranging. The lots in most cases are very small with extremely high density on some acres. fur earlier letter concerning this subject indicated that R-4 zoning would not be objectionable. Our interpretation of R-4 zoning is that each residential lot size should be a minimum of 1~4 acre. Any lot sizes less than 1~4 acre is objectionable. b. The type of development proposed is not consistent with the Rural Area Section of the Comprehensive Plan which applies to this area. c. The developer has not acted in good faith by making neighbors a part of the planning process as he suggested in the initial hearing. I know of no one who was contacted by the developer for input. We did recieve a letter on June 8th from the developer suggesting all of the concessions he had made when in reality it was only smoke and mirrors. d. During late 1992 our well failed which required us to drill a replacement. The original well was 60 ft., the new well is 170 ft. Ye are concerned that further developrent in this area at the density suggested will further deplete the underground water table and ir:pact adversly on our existing wells. e. The rural quality of life will be further degraded. f. The road system is not designed to handle the traffic flow which would result from such a development. Roads on all sides are only two lanes. g. Mill the city of I~eridian be able to provide the necessary services to the area if that area is annexed into the city. H. ;tihat will be the impact on other home owners in the area who are on the fringes of the proposed development -- will we be annexed into the city also? i. Will the school system be capable of absorbing the student growth into the present system or are we looking at more bond elections and more taxes? It would appear that there was significant wisdom displayed by those who prepared the comprehensive plan for this area. Under the Land Use Goal Statement, it suggests -- higher density development within the Cld Town area and lower density development in outlying areas -- protect and maintain residential property values and enhance the quality of life for residents. LET S FOLLOtid TIC PLAP+. ~rle strongly object to the proposal of Gem Park II Partnership for annexation and zoning and a ccnc'itional use permit to develop approximately 181 acres as the Highlands Ranch Development. 'ale urge the Planning and Zoning Commission t~ deny their request. S l REX T. & MARIA H. YO NG ~~~~:i~: .~ ~~ ~~ 1 ~ ;~~ CITY (~~ ~~R~~I~: June 9, 1995 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Sirs, I have lived nn my approximately 74 acres for 50 years at 201 <5 E. Victory Rd., Meridian. The new development being proposed next to me is troubling. I feel strongly that we need to preserve the good farmland with good irrigation in our area and a way to do that wouldd be, at the least, to develop acreages (2-10 acres to preserve the open, rural way of life ;ve enjoy in this valley. I am also concerned about our domesite wells if this large, dense development is brought in. I have just re-dug my domestic well in the last couple years, and worry that using the wells existing in this proposed development ~~~ill cause further problems. Also, with taxes already reaching a level difficult to afford, 1 wonder what expenses we who have lived in this area for so long will have Lo pay for public services and schools for these people moving in. 1 ask that you please consider the concerns of those of us who live next to this proposed development. We would like different choices to be made regarding the land further out of the city. Sincerely, Marleen Mor ner ~~~~ g June 11, 1995 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 3~i64 RE: APPLICATIOPI OF ~3EM PARk: IT '~ARTNEP.Sk?IP FOi2 A COtdDITIOtJAL 'JSE PERMIT AND ANNEXr'1TIOt~( AIv'D ZOfdING FOR APPROXIMATELY 131 ACRES Gentlemen: This letter is to inform you that we will be at the June 13, 1995 meeting to voice concerns reL;arding the above application. One concern we have is with the erroneous information in the attached letter from Greg Johnson which we received June 9. Qn Fage 1 he indicates that everyone at the February 13 meeting agreed that R9 zoning is acceptable_ That is not true. When presented with R2 or R15, we said we wanted no mere than R4, but that is not saying we want R4. Of course, what we want is for the 181 acres to stay farmland. But if development has to occur, we prefer it to be one-acre tc five-acre lots such as the following nearby subdivisions: - Charolais Drive (near the intersection of Locust Grove and Overland Roads) - Mesa Drive (off Victory Road between Locust Grove and Meridian Roads) - East Pit,~in and Ramona ~t-reets (near the intersection of Locust Grove and Amity roads) - Dartmoor Subdivision (off Eagle Road between Victory and Amity reads) - Falcon Drive (also off eagle Road between Victory and Amity roads) One-to-five acre lots would be more in keeping with the acreages already developed in this area and would comply wittz Meridian's Comprehensive Plan which states that: ...existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural area by innovative laud use planning techniques...new urb~,r: density sub3ivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses ,:hall provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural resldent131 densities. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 11, 1905 Page 2 On Page 2 of Mr. Johnson's letter, he indicates he met with neighbors of this proposed development to review his revised approach. We were never contacted. The first we have heard from hire ar t}zt development company was his letter received June 0. ~~rom the map of the proposed development, it looks like the back yard:; of eight houses will be adjoining our property.. We definitely feel we should have been one of the "neighborrs" contacted, and that it is misleading to the Commission if his application indicates he contacted adjoining neighbors. Mr. Johnson also indicates on Page 2 of his lettez that this new application is for a lower residential density. We feel this is also misleading because the change in housing units only results from the apartment comple:~c being changed to an office par}:. Therefore, there are probably still the same amount of pauses and townhouses as previously proposed, just moved around a little. Other concerns we have include: 1. The ^Conditional Use Permit^. What does this mean? 'That conditions will they not have to meet? Mr. Johnson does rat clarify or even mention any conditional use issues. I do not even want the R4 zoning, but what are we really getting with the conditional use attached? 2. Schooling. It has been well publicized that Mary McPherson Elementary School is so full that the Meridian School District will not allow students from new developments to attend that school. Although Mr. Johnson indicates a school site will be donated, this does not address the issue of paying for the building, furnishings, teacher and staff salaries and the ongoing operational expenses. It also does not address the strain on Lake Hazel Middle School and Meridian High School. Will Meridian be able to educate the children from another 450 residential units? 3. Water. Mr. Johnson indicates they will only use water from the canal far irrigation. However, the household water requirements for 450 new residential units and unknown numbers of people in offices will cause a major demand on the proposed Meridian well. This could very easily affect all the nearby residential wells already in existence. If our well goes dry because of this development, we do not feel we should be financially responsible for upgrading our well just because someone else wanted to make a profit on developing a subdivision near us. Also, if our domestic wells ar~~ threatened, the condition of our property and the quality of our life is compromised. Meridian Planing and Zoning Commission June 11, 1995 Page 4. Buffer. The lots tl-,at will adjoin our property are a higher elevation than ours. We request adequate screening to accommodate this higher elevation, such as leaving the e:~:isting trues. We also request that these be single level hoL:JeJ . We feel that acceptance of this proposed development would contradict the Meridian Comprehensive Plan because it state: .....higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas...protect(ing) and maintain(ing) residential neighborhood property values, improv(ing) each neighborhood's condition and enhanc(ing) its quality of life for residents...compatible infill development which will improve e_.i~ting neighborhoods. Finally, we just want to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission if this development is rally needed or even desired for Meridian. There are already many R4 subdivisions. Although growth shows a healthy economy, at some point we loge that balance and pay more in increased core services, increased crime, increased pollution, loss of wildlife, loss of farmland, and on and on. Meridian is quicr:ly losing its rural feel and becoming more and more just a "bedroom" community. Is it possible to just say "No'." and to follow thrj~ugh with true community planning? Thank you for considering our concerns. Sincerely, Marvin R Hansen ~f ~ 1 LVancy ~. ansen 2460 East Victory Road Meridian ID 8642 JU~1 1 3 ~~~~ • _. _a Zvi »-? I'" % d i ~~t ri (" ~ i •~t i ": ""+ ..'~! ?:l c~ ri C:I ;:. C: i I~ ]. C"! i7 :..: r=1 iT! CCI :{. ~ r 1 ~ ~ ri T i-~ . r- {- ,y. T (~-! I: ~ ~.~ r_s c } .~.. d t~ !' i c? ~ fi. ~ -. .r'i I i (::i ] f:.' C:: '~ ~ (-1 i=? C+ ~ 1 t'.. ct ~= i G 1~ C:t •?- i t F? .Ti ~' %.t {'' ~•~: .i. T ('' c't !'" '~:. C"I [::' r" Mi i'l 1. F 1 i». » t: .__. L:?°!fiC.]i'FIO{...I:~~. ~.~•.°s!~_ i''r~'i"iTi1'~ •~I-!?"( Yr''ir'II"'!r~'.':~'4'~~1?:J!'I +~!fl?'~ ^.~ ri i %:~ rS ~" 1 C~t_1 ~ 7 ~!+_. i'~ r_a'_: i +~l?:.. %S'L'=~ d .! ~_+ .1- ('.'!!~; ;? i ! .~.. ~"•}.. Yj..1_ 'J.::.?_1 q i •.J{'aI4 ~~ L ~~1'4y(c ;~~t~:~ ~O!_!I"I'4_ .a' :+ .C (_ic.~"!f_.+a _ !- ~~ r_~'_,~~f_r.~~.l_!_!].t''Y '~_(~'+STil.~~_ •~4'.:JIiIF:' t-!•t~• C:;LI.{'' ~CsC';+=E_'i'"r;;. f-r;~tw:~t!'"»17.I"i+'1 _iiC-' ~I:?C?'y`?~'s f-3 ~ '~:. F I L L7 C` ~~':' ~ ?J L! ~ m?? r?'~ ~ f i ~} ? s { i '"_. f"! 1 ~ 'C. t:J ~.7 ~~ r.:, ; (-! r=-= t'.~ L-?'ar k= .~ ?.1.+'.~ ~?' ~ - ` _ ~l 1 r~l ~ "! t~.; W rr L! ~. fa C i •~! `.! ~' :w. ' ~' !' .i. r= `'?, i.!': ! ! r=' ?. ?.i fl L:S! : r- h-! r_t r~ »:( i n E.:' r ~ t.. ~ C'i ?:1 '-i c'! rl d :~! , _ 1:....S. ;.:. .. _. _? f" _: i • _ .~ ._ _ . Gil!-! I_{. ! »? i;1?:7 Y ~-~: 6°,i i '._ ! ! j= Cl?~ •y r.. F~ •=:! (.7 C +J (::J ~. f.•~ ~ ?:::E t ('"! t:t ._ ;:_ w9 ?~ ~i !ta C:i L! ~. »i (' t c~t V e? C ri r:? !.i'': .:% f l (~ ' "` ' •= l `•., i, c! :4. i::! 1-~ 1.. E:; ~; ! "! ~:' r. F•; E::' j tom:. T. ("1 Ll'~: "f' c+. !•- 4 J r'.'_: (•i cam. •y ra !'l ~' c:'•. !`~ +~a _. ~.:' r 3 !PJ i ~W i i • ... .. a_ __ ._., ._ ~... _ ._. ,_ , _ .- .+._ ?'7 i ! : F~"' Y i:J _ 1' :~ W r'I?..f r F:; L ;:_l t' F"= C:; .... 'f i. `v` F? (~ :~t `'d' {'i?J'!.. 1. ? . i~.' f~~r:-. -!- i..: ( ;_ :'~'+\ P t--i r; !:c. r" i r._ _.i'H Hs {•j •!~ t 3 t:?i'r. ~ i'i f=' `. 43! ('+!_.! ~. ~_3 .~ ?_!'rat I;', r.. ~ i'1 r_` :. i t_~ r_..~: i t~ C , !" ».' `+'~ 7 __ ~_ 1 ._ _. ~ n d x ._ ~ ' '` :. , _.. -- h i?~ h ':{F_ r; 17. 'F `,r {...+''~!_!'~ 7. C"!?~ (:7!_!'4:. i. 'i_ ~i~+~JLatii f r'. ~ ("!.~±~ :i.:~_ 1"!?:~4:. ~ ~`t!_ ..~<~'`.('? .: CJi°i ~ ': f(1 ~ 'i i ]. R'i c+. l c ('"~ ~! n ?:.; r~ =~ ~i -i'di•? F 1 F? kw l! i?i c; rl r::' ct it d n ;~? t~ t:1 1 i°~ d i::i F:. _: i"i r~ .. ,_ e r._ ! i 1~ C? . =1+ =` •¢= C71~ ~~ iT! ~' r" '.j r {1 C~ `yr `_~ r_' r" `:r :l :~ E' ::a :, 4~JC--': ?:~].Cj iTiC?'!r? i!c?r°rs' ]. C1 ?:4C~r+?"J .~.r:!2~~(t„ ~?%t~yr~ ~i.~i;;.r;? rJ!~r_ ~~=w1 TG+:~'~ t?.riC.~ .._.;:F% '.: r` I ! t:- .i_ ,.::, d .!.. !- I" •~.. !'} ~ ..~ _ r.. _a t._ ~ : ~_ f'S .l:. I- f? (~ i~ C+m (:rl 1 ~- __ _ .... `? =_' !" '._ !r??:! I_! .(. d l..l N ~'"i ? .+ ~. d , _ .~ (-! ~t=_ ~. r- L !.+~:t ,..•~ i ~k:. h 'I_ h ~:~_ :i r- ~ 1 r r.:+ cJ ?:3 ~: ~ ~. ~ ? c.-'• s i ~• ~ ~,d r_:J ?~J n~~~ ~ ~+. n :~ ~~ C."! (:? t.•:! C? ~~'F fl "~~ 1'_ i" .' r'? iT! '~ T" ?:.! 43::l l...i r~ {' (~ i.~i'r 3. ' '~w r- L! »•~ . (`~ C7 W E~''•.;r »? p" 1n} rw=' i 1 •=t'•:.•' ,-:? iTi ~? d ~: » ~!_! r- ~~? a. r,~?a ?•=.r.''_ i. r-!`,rr_,t=•r' men nt f:: rt;,ln, i rla ~~ t"!.=.~I_ •~+.1 :l !:3'f~ ''.~r,! ~ ;::1 i a.:1 ~ .;:! r' ~~'s=!._: ~ 1 `Y (at_t:i!"jE' ~1-!''p' 'a','"C)u'!=~'l ~=(-tt3'I~ ?:~C.~+C-.?t.Y 1°ic?~7~J~ri fC1 '_f1F~; ~.~C'e~~', p'i° ;~~.:~t. 7.C'!'/L~'~%t~'!'~,. `' ? 7. ».. F L='• I`' `J ra , I ?_( :~ l..+Gi ~_ i'": [ ~, i:a i + ' !" ~ .J t:1 C.:i -_i {"1 !":' (J~ r? ri c:! hi' c? (~? t=! ?:~ i fl tc+. , !''{ Vd I`~ '.r' »~: (•~: ':cr +=) C'1 ._ , , C ... •!- - 'I- 1 ;. ;` f~ !'•i, '~ :,• ~ ~ , 'I' f~+ ~.:wi'=';,_ ._. ~•Y' f,~ a I: r.: ~~.. (-i ~ ~ C ! ~: t~:: 'r ?..i ~. ._1-!: !°i:- ur~'~, ! f+_1 ?~ mir:-inL'.rn _h?'~'~-- _ - 'r" ("-a !"I ! :. ?~ i ; i.. ;:a r t ri ='~ !-'? ~! t _. ~'.. t':74:7 ,. T ! ! ¢~ ?:.. _. 'val ~' E" ~_. ;:.:! i"'w5? .: ~ . _. i:.t rt i'. I...! .~ ..i° r"' t:t 4`~ r_? i ._ _.: ''-•s 5'1 i.,:.: t:-. "y %tisf~ +..~1'iJ'v'~'~:"in !;S r_ 4VFf•h j-+--, :j E? _.ilr"?~ '~I•'i~it 'h l"1 ?= (;~r-t_;lait_(...i ~(::l~~' 1!»:+'C:. _.. ::. (•'='~~i:7 '~'. t'i% ::.i. i. 1 ._ _ ~~ _. °i '~! L! t" ~? fTl F ~ 1`' C1 E I'l i= ; c~. C'i d i'" C: ~: d _Z. aj .~ 7. ~ c+. ~::; :_ J. ]. '~" ~, y i a,~(,=• ~1'ir ~_~ '«!;y `~:`r_: t~G; ~.. .; ,_.!!•- _-,-: !-••" y .`~ .~_ ?ii' G='r') !»._%-{: ir_7 t...1 _.- ._.~_ ~~. 1 ' .~ s t... ; ~:.-. , 1 ,: ~"I f.. :_ _ ~ _. ... _ 4-i'':: - _.i i I"i CI ..:+. r .. _. i ~ t tc+. ~ ~:::' .T. t%! d _. -_ ;. F;:: ; l ;~ , ._ ~_ .. .... _ ,... ~.. { ~ .L. - 4 , ~t .~::.i: ... .I •; :; n : r.:': ca J~'~- f7`or?-? ^' ~~ 1"i c-! '4". t_ 4'"l +:~ ':' +_ c! : i : , i~`';_ ~ :C C i i_i. i'!`.._ . <i::.~ a ._ , r_, . , fi,_ I: • .~:: !._i rl :_:.:. C-, .~ j ~ C_ +t ._ ._. _ _... ~. ,: • ! _; i,..) +_ ~ f.:! ~_".. " '", "", ! •7 '' '-, _ !' ~ "i ! ! - _ i::J r~ 'i ! r_ r i :, F_; !'' `-.i ._ ....: ~ r~Y'. '?" L ( _... 'C..~i r i` '!' ::....+ I`i'4'.. t 'i' ;'_ ?ic' ?'. i't ;= '•a~ . .! .i :c~ r7 1 ~.:L ~?. ''r . ?'.~;, ! ?:_ r-l'4_ 't. l7 ! I:."t .~ +:'" ci?~ :L :L : i !.- ii ~- !........, , ,:_ .!.. '^ 'i- : _, ;"~ i": 1" .....% r.': ~!'.. i~ - ": (='+ is J i"t i, ! "? i i ' ~ l'i ~'+?"~ (T'! ~.::: _ iii..., .. -:. ... ~.• :.... .. ~:~~... ... ... .... ... .._ .... .. ,. ,_ ._ ,-• r~ .H { 4, , _ t...i ~= s l 1 <:_. : t i~ ! ~ ~3 r'" E2 c. ~ O ti ~.4 F~ ._ 7. `.' ~ , - '- - ;•:: n 7. f_! (.:i' ~a r: "y ,,^_F i ~ d- h i- •' I• .?.. 1 n . ~~ t.. ~ vJ F5 '~_ I i ~:.' r! _~ ~ 6:; ~'i ~_ t ?~ ?"::_ ~> n n ~~~. i ~ i`{ ,,.a ?- _• r~-~ ?_., i_ r_a r.. ~ ... :::) ,. ~ i ! ! i. !a ~4 ~ ~ .' I -~.~. 7. : :_ :.. ' : . 1 ~i•'t,_?^~!;?~ 'C'.i`it'~+':~E= u"J~"YC~fi-7 ;~~r; ;..i::-~VEZ' (_'.(i1GJ.:74•JC:'r-~t'j '~!=? (T1 tClr? C1rlr7:~ ;:jr_ ~~7.'i7.r._5r!i 'i,=7~-~ ~ l,;,t'..J ~<: ~~?L. T'. '~-C')1'• ~. rE~_ 13 JCIi~ CJ i- ;•c ~ ~. n i ~:i ?•'? ~ ._ :~'~_ C~!_'s r•• :! r^7!._l'~ ':. i 3c'. L ._ i :~ ,,.! __ r' aci_cr' ... r-?_z.- ~. `i~-~:a ?rye v I-!__ }. C~ !.a~ _. ~ '~ _ ... ~cl r"!".i ctlrin ~'~r~t lnl C: =~?'I ':'?ems' ~~=. Y'1_!5:r •i". 'f"~..'f•!_!r"E_? eisG ~:. 7. `~' 7. ~1;_'`ti/`:` ~-i i~ Cfi ci i~~ ::. i~Z::a f.:ar•:~ ~;'>; Lt'f, ~.;n r ?`! t. ~ i r_. .~.: r ~:~ r'i ~: ~~ f~ .:, t~i ~:. ._; 1. 1 n i"~ ~. f~ci'_4 ~ 4V ~? ". r~ i...~ {~ i"l Ei?c~-:y __.:a i_t.rs c~ a fl '`{f7i_i r_ (:~(i:•. r.Z 7.::. 1 !_! ~ i !'.1 :=.:.1~:::. ? i _7 :~ t. ~f :_~ ?~ ~ ~~' ! fir! r-i .fi ~ n~ )...? 7. 1 c~~ r! ~ ~ `~ ' f .... .._ ; rJ' ~ ~~ ,~, 3 ~ y .~y~.l8c a~wn~. ~p'~ ~,swa~.~-~-- ~.f ~- ~~ ~~ ~ ~ I/U1 ~~ z I~ A MA 4-~.a 1J'K~W~ `~ `Yn~ ~~nnz Xc~ ~ Q~~ .~i~e-d,u.~"~ ..1~-h o~~1U,,.~6 ~, w-~aU 4, ~7 ~ ~~ d' of ~~- ~~ ~w " ~ ~,~.~e~~ ~a ~~ ~~, ~ ~~~ ~~~ 6.8 U A ~ ~-uv ark. in n-e-~ -~ X~e-T ~~ ~R~ ~n~.~b a~~ ,~~ ~" ~~ ~,u ~ a. ~~,~~ ,~~ ~4, ~~~~~j~~ Cg~'Y ®F ~(E;;si~lA~7 August 13, 1995 To: City Council of the City of Meridian Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 From: Jonathan and Bonita Glick 2860 E. Victory Road Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Application of Gem Park II Partnership far annexation and zoning of approximately 181 acres of land located in the S 1/2 of Section 2Q, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. This project is called Highlands Ranch Planned Community. We submit the following letter noting our concerns regarding this request for future development which will run the length of our 2.2 rural acres and ask that our comments be incorporated in the public record of testimony. We have lived at the above address for 13 years and value the space, quiet and rural feeling around us. Since our property is adjacent to Sally Martin's farm, located on Victory Road in the southeast corner of the proposed development site, we will be among those most significantly impacted by this development. Our first concern has to do with the zoning request of R-4 and L-O. We quote the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law drawn up by the Planning and Zoning Commission, under the Conclusion section, point O., page 24, "...since the Comprehensive Plan indicates that land next to rural land should be developed with lots compatible with the rural areas...and because that 6.8U states that new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide...larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities...it is concluded that the Developer should comply with the statement of its representative and increase the size of the lots that are next to other property owners who own an acre or more...increased size lots, which should be at least one-half acre in size... ,and ask that the City Council consider these guidelines. The Conclusions go an to recommend (in point Q) ..."that if larger lots were placed next to the existing land with homes on the land and then having some R-2 or R-3 lots with R-4 development adjacent to the R-2 or R-3..would be in the city's best interest." From the beginning, we have requested larger lot sizes next to our property. Under the Land Use Goal Statement, the City of Meridian encourages "...higher density development within the Old Town area and tower density development in outlying areas... pe otect(ing) and maintain(ing) residential neighborhood property values, improv(ing) each neighborhood's condition and enhanc(ing) its quality of life for residents...compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods." We are pleased that since the first request for R-15 and R-8 zoning, proposing 56 townhouses next to our rural 2.2 acres, the developer's representative has agreed in public testimony and in a private meeting at our home to place seven 1 /2 acre lots of at least 18,000 square feet (or R-2) along our property line from Victory Road to Leslie Street. Although we continue to believe that at least 1 acre lots next to us is a "more comparable lot size", and ask that the City Council consider this, we will reluctantly accept 1/2 acre lots with a MINIMUM of 18,000 square feet; since 112 acre lots are technically 21,000 sq. ft. We request that any reduction or variation in the promised 18,000 sq. ft. per lot not be allowed in a Planned Development so that true R-2 zoning abuts our property. For the public record, we also submit agreements made between ourselves and the developer's representative regarding buffering and screening, etc. At a meeting at our home on 8/11/95, Mr. Forrey agreed to the following: 1. To place seven lots of at feast 1/2 acre next to our property from Victory Rd. to Leslie St. We understand that these lots-will be at feast 18,000 sq. ft. 2. That the homes to be built on these 112 acre lots will be one-story dwellings. 3. That a 20 ft. landscape strip planted with pine trees to provide screening similar to what we have now with Sally Martin's pine forest will extend along our property line and on back to Leslie St. (along the seven 1 /2 acre lots). 4. That the developer will not use Sally Martin's domestic well to irrigate land- scaping or to pressurize the irrigation since we have wells going dry in this area and that all existing wells and sewer systems in the development area will be capped. 5. That the wet well built for irrigation from the canal be placed away from our property because of the noise and that we be consulted regarding it's placement. 6. That an adequate storm water management area will be provided to filter run off from the streets. 7. That hoods will be placed on lighting close to our property to divert the light away from cur property. 8. That attractive fencing will be placed on our property line sturdy enough to contain animals. That the developer will consult with us regarding the fencing and an agreement will be reached between us before it is constructed and that it will be constructed before the phase of development next to us begins. 9. That we will be allowed to see the Covenants for the development and give input regarding their contents. Another concern we continue to have regarding this development is for the Meridian School system's ability to handle the influx of students that will inevitably come with this large, dense development. Mary McPherson Eiementar~ School is closed to receiving children from any new developments. Their capacity is already at around 117%. In 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passzd amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, basically stated subdivsion development is to be measured according to the "...abilit`,r 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 accomodate the subdivision." In tight of the recent defeat of a library bond and the current negative mood regarding further school bonds, we question the ability of the City to achieve the above goal in approving more development, especially since the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing the wide range of public services needed (ie: fire, police, water, sewer, parks and recreation, emergency medical care) above and beyond the school services. Unfortunately, development in Meridian is compromising the quality of service delivery to current students with the overcrowded schools and seems to be imposing more and more costs on current residents and homeowners to raise the tax revernae needed to accomodate these new developments. Additionally, the Ada County Highway District recently came out with a study indicating the area around Eagle and Victory Road will be in gridlock by the early 20Q0's if something isn't done. The traffic in our area is a large concern and we especially ask that the City Council look at the hill coming down over the Ridenbaugh Canal in front of Sally Martin's place since this is where Highlands Ranch has a proposed entry road. School buses stopping for students in front of this entry road will be in danger of being hit by the fast traffic coming down this blind hill. We continue to have a concern regarding our domestic wells in this area also. Even with the developer agreeing to cap the existing wells, irrigate with water from the canal and use city water from a deep well the city will drill, we ask whether anyone at the City knows for sure if the acquifer under us can continue to provide water for the development that the City is approving. A number of households on `Jctory Road have had to re-drill their domestic wells in the last couple years. What kind of assurance can the Cifi~r of Meridian give us that our domestic wells won't dry up when the well that is drilled for this development starts pulling water in large amounts? We submit that the City Council has a responsibility to the current residents of this area in maintaining and. indeed, improving our quality of life. If you fail to provide for ample open space in the areas further out, the very thing that attracts people to our area will be gone and we will be one big, rambling suburb from 3oise to Nampa, no longer inviting io those seeking an open, rural-feeling lifestyle. We trust that you will seriously consider our concerns listed here and in public testimony regarding the potential impact of this proposed development. We request rZ-2 ar lower density be considered when looking at this proposal which abuts rural resider?tial of 2-~ acres in this area. Thank you. ~-~ ~'~ _ .~ _~ '~~ __, C._ ! ~ ~,~ MEMORANDUM: To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer Shan Stiles., P&Z Administrator Kenny Bowers, Fire Chief Re: THE RANCH SUBDIVISION (Preliminary Plat - By The Westpark Company) February $, 1996 I 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. The ditches to be piped are to be shown on the Preliminary Plat. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for our review. 5. Provide 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of the proposed streets in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 6. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic C:\()FPICE\ W PW IMRrPDOCS\RANCH. P8c2 Mayor, Council and P&Z February 8, 1996 Page 2 analysis by our computer model. Supply and distribution mains will be addressed pending the results of the analysis. 7. Sewer service to this development is contingent upon positive results from computer model analysis. S. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Many of the proposed street names are duplications of existing streets. Make necessary corrections to the Preliminary Plat map prior to resubmittal to the City. Street signs are to be in place, Water system shall be approved and activated, and road base to be approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to any building permits being issued. 9. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent. 10. Indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries on the Preliminary Plat Map, and/or any plans to reduce said boundaries. 11. Submit a master street drainage plan, including the method of disposal & approval from the affected irrigation/drainage district. 12. Respond in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum, and submit with copies of the revised Preliminary Plat Map to the City Clerk's Office prior to the scheduled hearing. SITE. SPECIFIC COMMENTS The legal description submitted with this preliminary plat application appears to meet the criteria of the City of Meridian (it does describe the proposed plat boundary). However, correct legal descriptions for the annexation request (now tabled at City Council) have not. been submitted. The additiona150± acres has not been submitted for platting, nor have any detailed plans been provided for this additional area. 2. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via an extension of the Nine Mile Sewer Trunk. At this time, the Nine Mile Trunk is in Phase 1 of the Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2. A non-development agreement has been approved by Council for Phase 2 of Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2 (the southern portion). This trunk line would need to cross not only Phase 2 of Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2, but a property over which neither Marty Goldsmith nor Greg Johnson has control (Frank Stopello property). Without the extended C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\W PDOCS\RANCH. PAZ Mayor, Council and P&Z February 8, 1996 Page 3 trunk line, this proposed development is not serviceable. The treatment capacity of the Meridian Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. The subdivision designer is to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Meridian Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of roadway centerlines. This Preliminary Plat submittal does not show how the proposed development will be served. Until. the sewer line routing is proposed, this development should not be considered. 3. Water service to this site shall be via an extension of water mains currently in Phase 1 of the Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2 as well as any other main lines deemed necessary by our computer model. Anon-development .agreement has been approved by Council for Phase 2 of Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2 (the southern portion). This water line would need to cross not only Phase 2 of Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2, but a property over which neither Marty Goldsmith nor Greg Johnson has control (Frank Stopello property). Without the extended water line, this proposed development is not serviceable, unless alternate routes are approved and constructed. Applicant previously depicted a well site within this preliminary plat as required by the Public Works Department's February 10, 1995 Comments. As that area has not been included in this revised preliminary plat, no well is being provided as part of this proposal. The subdivision designer is to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Meridian Public Works Department. Water lines shall be located on the north and east sides of roadway centerlines. This Preliminary Plat submittal does not show how the proposed development will be served. Until water line routing is proposed, this development should not be considered. 4. Subdivision designer to coordinate stub streets with the approved Los Alamitos preliminary plat. Extension of Time Zone Drive over the Ridenbaugh Canal more or less aligns with a cul de sac in Los Alamitos Subdivision (not the approved stub street). The network of streets proposed for this c~velopment does not make good safety or planning sense. There is only one way in and one way out for the western side of this subdivision (170± units), as well as the eastern side of the subdivision (260± units). Access to Locust Grove Road should be provided, as well as east to Eagle Road. Although being proposed as a Planned Development, no variance should be given for reduction in required street widths. Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5 proposed one cul-de-sac with less than 50' right-of--way which C:\OFFICE\ WPWIiV\R'PDOCS\RANCH.P&2 Mayor, Council and P&Z February 8, 1996 Page 4 was rejected by Council. Council must approve any private roadways. 5. Revise the Preliminary Plat Map to show ail adjacent land use and existing zoning of properties surrounding the proposed development, including existing or approved proposed streets and lots. Revise the Preliminary Plat to include all proposed and existing utilities including pressurized irrigation, with proposed source, and addressing all other comments contained herein. Resubmit the Preliminary Plat with the revisions. 6. Submit a master street grading and drainage plan including method of disposal & approval from the affected imgation/drainage district. 7. Provide 250-watt and 100-watt high pressure sodium streetlights at locations designated by the Meridian Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 8. Provide 50-foot radius paved tempcmary turnarounds at all proposed stub streets more than one lot in depth. 9. Provide statements of dedications to the public and/or easements, together with a statement of location, dimension and purpose of such. 10. A list of lot closures to determine exact square footages of all lots has been requested from the subdivision designer. The minimum square footages listed on the proposed preliminary plat are not accurate. Some lots along the Eight Mile Lateral are less than 6,000 square feet. Right-of-way/easement areas cannot be included as part of the square footage of lots. 11. 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. Applicant shall provide a statement as to the ownership of and operation and maintenance for the pressurized imgation system. 12. Permanent perimeter fencing is to be provided prior to obtaining building permits for housing. Non-combustible fencing shall be provided outside of existing easements/rights- of-way for irrigation and drainage. 13. No easement for the Nine Mile Drain is shown, nor have any details been provided for relocation of this drain. Approvals will be required from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, the Bureau of Reclamation and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any relocation/tiling of this ditch. A proposal to pipe this drain in Los Alamitos Subdivision C: \OFFICE\W PW RV\ W PDOCS\RANCH. P&Z Mayor, Council and P&Z February 8, 1995 Page 5 was rejected. Before this application proceeds any further, these details should be provided. 14. The Meridian School District has indicated that negotiations to acquire a future high school site are not proceeding satisfactorily. Without a high school site, the increased density proposed by this development is probably not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. Although these comments address the preliminary plat, details required in accordance with Ordinance Section 11-9-607 have not been provided; i.e., architectural style and building design, building materials and color, landscaping, screening, garbage areas, parking areas and open space. The location of fencing and any proposed gates must also be reviewed and approved. 16. No storage areas are provided in accordance with Ordinance Section 11-9-607.H.1; parking space as required by Ordinance Section 11-9-607.H.2 has not been provided; and no maintenance building or approved area has been set aside as required by Ordinance Section 11-9-607.H.3. 17. Open space provided does not seem adequate to justify variance on lot size. For the 63 lifestyle units alone, 7.95 acres should be required to offset minimum lot size requirements. 18. The Fire Department needs detailed information on all cul-de-sac landscaping and parking, and driveway locations for lifestyle homes need to be detailed to determine accessibility. 19. Applicant's representative indicated that all lots adjacent to land currently developed as rural residential would be bordered by minunum half-acre lots. Although some larger lots have been proposed east of the Ridenbaugh Canal, Lot 21, Block 8, contains 8 ownhou lots which are not compatible with existing development, nor have other rural residential lots been buffered in a like manner as requested by P&Z. 20. Applicant still shows a limited office lot on Locust Grove Road, which was not desirable to P&Z. As there is no access to this lot from within the subdivision, this L-O space does not serve a logical or desirable use for the development. 21. Application indicates acquisition of fire station site and well site is to be determined by the City and the School District. Donation of the fire station site and well site should be dealt with by this developer, not proposed for negotiation with some future owner. C:\OFFICE\ W PW IlV\ W PDOCS\RANCH. P&Z REc~~vE[~ FE®1 21996 ~rTY t?!F MERfD1AN - , February 11, 1996 ~~~~ ~~ To: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ~~~ 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 From: Jon and Bonita C71ick 2860 E. Victory Rd. ivieridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Application of The Westpark Co. for a Preliminary Plat for approximately 180.9 acres of land located in the S 1/2 of Section 20, T.3N, R. lE, Boise Meridian, Ada Co., Idaho. After looking over the plat proposed by The Westpark Co. for The Ranch Subdivision, we submit this letter to you to be entered into the record as our testimony. This proposed subdivision will run the length of our 2.2 acre rural property and our concerns are many. Firstly, we notice that, overall, the new plat has as much, if not higher, density as the original proposal. Since the Comprehensive Plan states that there is an importance to maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life...and new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities...and that land next to rural land should be developed with lots compatible with the nu-al areas to improve and enhance each neighborhood's condition and its quality of life, we do not feel this plat is in compliance with these guidelines. The small lots and overall density do not enhance the rural quality of life in this area of the county. Since all of the acreages adjacent to this proposed development, like ours, are 2-7 acres, we feel there should be a larger percentage of transitional lots at R2, with R3 transitioning to R4 tucked within the development. Secondly, we note on the proposed plat that the section to the north east is slated for R4 but noted "for future high school". Our understanding is that the school district and the developer have not reached an agreement at this time, however, so we would not want to see this plat approved with that large section unaccounted for in terms of specifics. A third concern is the pump station located along our property line in the southeast corner of the development. We would request that consideration be given to us regarding how much noise this will generate and what kind of aesthetic quality it will have when built. A fourth concern is regarding the drainage retention lot. Where will it be and will the drainage be sdequate and safe for our domestic well water source? Again, we stress that many of us along Victory Road have had to redrill our wells in the last few years, and desire that the wells on these properties to be developed not be used for subdivision irrigation. In conclusion, we do not think this plat should be approved because of the high density and inadequate transitional lots abutting rural land and the present uncertainty of the property slated for high school use and consequent lack of specifics to indicate what will be built there. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns regarding this proposed development. Sincerely, Ton and Bonita Glick ~ ., n/ -~ ~_~ ~~ R ~,~. S G~r ~";~ _ ~ ~~ 0~2 Gam{, ,~-r-- ~~ ` ~'~~ ~ 1~~c~~ U~ s ~' ~ fi~aucQ~ ~1~d~~~s~~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ c ~~ ~ ca ~cv Ia~~ ~ ~d ~~ ~ v ~~~fs~ ~~ , P ._ ~(~a~ ct~~I,r~ -f .~ dew l~ ~ s ~ ~ ~~ ~~s~ -~ ~~s~- a ~ ~~ ~ ~Q ~~-~~~~~. vim, cd~ -~-~ ss ~ ~~ ~t%ps ~ -ass ~ ~ ~ ~ C~l~-~~ ~~P ~~ wain ~- ~'Q c~le~~~~ W~ ~ ~~ t 2 ~ ~~ (ate. ~}.~,~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~~Z C~'~vv~,utcrsrei~.~rs S-~ `~ cam c~ac~~ ~p ~,~ -~-w~.c% ~ p c,, ~~ 7 ~. ~ ~ S '~ /"~ ~ERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Bob L. Haley DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ~QR E~CCf~! Dan Mabe, Finance 8 Administration ~ EZ ASS-STANT SUPERINTENDENT Christine Donnell, Personnel 8 Instruction ~~~\~~~ tie DIRECTORS ~ Sheryl Belknap, Elementary ~ Jim Carberry, Secondary Doug Rutan, Special Services J41NT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911 MERIDIAN STREET MERIDIAN,IDAH083642 PHONE(208)888-6701 January 25, 1995 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: .Highland Ranch Planned Community request for annexation and zoning Dear Councilmen: I have reviewed the request submitted by Highland Ranch Planned Community for annexation and zoning. This planned development will accelerate the need for Joint School District No. 2 to construct additional classrooms and/or to adjust school attendance boundaries. Meridian Schools do not have excess capacity. Nearly every school in the district is beyond capacity. The Meridian School District supports economic growth for Idaho and Specifically the district's area, but such growth produces a need for additional school construction. We ask your support for a development fee statute on new home construction or a real estate transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional school facilities. If this support is lacking then we ask that additional residential development be denied. Sincerely, ~, ~~ Uan Mabe, Deputy Superintendent DM:gr ~~ ~ ~~~ SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Bob L. Haley DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ~~t EXCEL Dan Mabe, Finance 8 Administration ~ ~~p ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT (g 'f. Christine Donnell, Personnel & Instruction ? ~~~\~~~ 1 Ry DIRECTORS ~ ~ ~` Sheryl Belknap, Elementary Jim Carberry, Secondary ~ Doug Rutan, Special Services JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911 MERIDIANSTREET MERIDIAN,IDAH083642 PHONE(208)888-6701 June 5 , 19 9 5 , .~~~~,~, ~~~ ~;~ .~;,, ~... City of Meridian =~~~~~~' ~~ ;~~:~~aa~,•.~ 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Highlands Ranch Subdivision Dear Councilmen: I have reviewed the zoning request and preliminary plat for Highlands Ranch Subdivision and find that it includes approximately 450 homes assuming a median value of $120,000. We also find that this subdivision is located in census tract 103.13 and in the attendance zone for Mary McPherson Elementary, Lake Hazel Middle School and Meridian High School. Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 149 elementary aged children, 112 middle school aged children, and 102 senior high aged students. At the present time Mary McPherson Elementary is at 117$ 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. In addition we would need to pass another bond issue for the construction of schools. The developer has agreed to furnish a portion of a school/park site from this developer. Sincerely, C s'~. ~ ~e !N i ~v~ Dan Mabe Deputy Superintendent DM:gr • S. RINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Bob L. Haley DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ~0`t EXCEL! Dan Mabe, Finance & Administration ~ ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT (~ 'L Christine Donnell, Personnel & Instruction ?' ~~~\~~j~ 1 ~ DIRECTORS ~ !~ ~` Sheryl Belknap, Elementary Q Jim Carberry, Secondary y Doug Rutan, Special Services r JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911MERIDIANSTREET MERIDIAN,IDAH083642 PHONE(208)888.6701 January 30, 1996 EcIE~v~D City of Meridian '°~~ ~ ~ 1996 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 `~~' ,,< ~'~ ~~~~'~''~~' Re: Ranch Subdivision Dear Councilmen: I have reviewed the application for Ranch Subdivision and find that it includes approximately 443 homes assuming a median value of $150,000. We also find that this subdivision is located in census tract 103.13 and in the attendance zone for Mary McPherson Elementary School, Lake Hazel Middle School and Meridian High School. Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 124 elementary aged children, 103 middle school aged children, and 128 senior high aged students. At the present time Mary McPherson Elementary is at 123 of capacity. This development is substantial and would severely test the capacity of our existing schools. The Meridian School District will grant approval of this development if a school site is included. There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. The cost per student for newly constructed schools, excluding site purchase price and offsite improvements, exceeds $5,000 per elementary student and $10,000 per middle or high school student. We are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools. Sincerely, Jim Carberry Administrator of Support Programs JC:gr ~ ~~~ ~I JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary TU: ACHD Commission FROM: Development Services SUBJECT: ANNEXATION - Highlands Ranch i"\ :ENTER-DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE HIGHLND.RCH/DSTECH 2-8-95 DATE: February 2, 1995 (Developer - Westpark Company, P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642) (EngineerlSurveyor - J. ,7. Howard, 2626 N. 32nd Street, Boise, ID 83703) PRELIMINARY REPORT - NOT FINAL UNTIL APPROVED BY THE ACHD COMMISSION FACTS & FINDINGS• 1. The Westpark Company is seeking annexation and zoning for a 180-acre mixed residential subdivision located on the north side of Victory Road between Eagle Road and Locust Grove. 2. GENERAL INFORMATION: LEAD AGENCY - City of Meridian ZONING - Residential R-8 and R-15, Commercial. L-O (requested) LOTS - 482 ACRES - 180 ESTIMATED VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY - 4,820 TRAFFIC ANALY5IS ZONE - 286 L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Victory Road - 1,700 MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS - Date 7/12/93 Volume 532 (Victory Road east of Eagle Road) FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Local/Section Line Road ADA COUNTY RIDGE-TO-RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - Route EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 50-feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90-feet (45-feet from centerline) Victory Road is improved with 30-feet of pavement and. no sde- walks. L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Eagle Road - 1,400 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Local/Section ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 ANNEXATION February 3, Page 2 - Hig~~~ands Ranch 1995 Line Road ESTIMATED TRAFFIC COUNT - 1,130 ADA COUNTY RIDGE-TO-RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - Route EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 50-feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90-feet (45-feet from centerline) Eagle Road is improved with 24-feet of pavement and no sidewalks. L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Locust Grove - 800 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Local/Section Line Road ESTIMATED TRAFFIC COUNT - 15 ADA COUNTY RIDGE-TO-RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - No pathway shown EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 50-feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90-feet (45-feet from centerline) Locust Grove is improved with 24-feet of paving. IMPACT FEE BENEFIT ZONE - West Ada IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - Near Rural 3. This application is for annexation and zoning but was accompa- nied with a subdivision plan. The following comments should be anticipated if the development proceeds. 4. This proposed subdivision will have entrances on Eagle Road, Victory Road, and Locust Grove Road. 5. The main project entrance is located less than 200-feet from the existing bridge structure over the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff recommends that the entrance be located at least 300- feet east of the existing bridge in order to avoid a require- ment to widen the existing bridge to accommodate appropriate site distance. Sight-distance for traffic out of the subdivi- sion will be examined when detailed plans become available. 6. A center turn lane on Victory Road at the main project roadway intersection will be required. 7. The developer will be required to align the multi-family drive- way (northeast corner) with a local roadway intersection. 8. A footbridge is proposed supports this proposal their kids to school and sports field will park that adequate automobile of the footbridge, or provide public street acs across the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff but is concerned that parents taking adults participating in events at the near the footbridge. Staff recommends parking be provided on the south side a vehicular bridge be constructed to Bess to the school from this project. ANNEXATION February 3, Page 3 - Highlands Ranch 1995 /'~ 9. The east subdivision entrance on Eagle Road should be con- structed as a three lane collector roadway Eagle Road to the four-way intersection. Two eastbound lanes will be required. 10. A center turn lane on Eagle Road at the east project roadway intersection will be required. 11. The southeast subdivision constructed as a three lane Road to the central ring lanes will be needed. 12. A center turn lane on Victor, roadway intersection will be entrance on Victory Road should be collector roadway from Victory road intersection. Two southbound y Road at the southeast project required. 13. An extensive pathway system is proposed within the develop- ment. The pathways should be located on separate lots owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. 14. Stub streets to the north will should be provided off of the central ring road. 15. A portion of the funds allocated to Ada County Highway Dis- trict from the Highway Distribution Account are predicated on the number of improved road miles (under the District's juris- diction) that are located outside the limits of any incorporat- ed city. Consequently, annexation of subject lands will ad- versely affect a major revenue base of the District without any compatible decrease in the District's responsibility to continue to maintain those public roadways located within the annexation area. 16. This application is scheduled for public hearing by the City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission on February 14, 1995. If the annexation and zoning is approved and development proceeds, the District will provide the following recommendations to the City of Meridian: SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 1. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Victo- ry road abutting parcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of-way at predevelopment value from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 2. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road abutting parcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be n ANNEXATION - Hig._ands Ranch February 3, 1995 Page 4 compensated for this additional right-of-way at predevelopment value from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 3. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting parcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of-way at predevelopment value from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 4. Direct lot or parcel access to Victory Road is prohibited, in compliance with District policy. Lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat. 5. Direct lot or parcel access to Eagle Road is prohibited, in compliance with District policy. Lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat. 6. Direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove Road is prohibit- ed, in compliance with District policy. Lot access restric- tions shall be stated on the final plat. 7. The main project entrance on Victory Road (east of the Ridenbaugh Canal) shall be located at least 300-feet east of the existing bridge. 8. A center turn lane on Victory Road at the main project roadway intersection shall be required. 9. The developer shall align the multi-family driveway (northeast corner) with a local roadway intersection. 10. Provide a public street and bridge across the Ridenbaugh Ca- nal, or provide adequate supply of parking spaces south of the footbridge. 11. The east subdivision entrance on Eagle Road shall be construct- ed as a three lane collector roadway from Eagle Road to the four-way intersection. Two eastbound lanes are required. 12. A center turn lane on Eagle Road at the east project roadway intersection shall be required. 13. The southeast subdivision entrance on Victory Road should be constructed as a three lane collector roadway from Victory Road to the central ring road intersection. Two southbound lanes are required. 14. A center turn lane on Victory Road at the southeast project roadway intersection shall be required. ANNEXATION February 3, Page 5 - Highiands Ranch 1995 15. The private pathways within the project shall be located on separate lots owned and maintained by a homeowner's associa- tion. 16. Provide a stub street to the south property boundary form the western ring road. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS: 1. Street and drainage improvements required in the public right- of-way shall be designed and constructed in conformance with District standards and policies. 2. Dedicated streets and drainage systems shall be designed and constructed in conformance with District standards and poli- cies. 3. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans, design information and calculations presented to ACRD shall be sealed, signed and dated by a Registered Professional Engineer or Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 54-1215. 4. Provide written approval from the appropriate irriga- tion/drainage district authorizing storm runoff into their system. 5. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drain- age appurtenances, etc.) outside of the proposed street im- provements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 6. Continue existing irrigation and drainage systems across par- cel. 7. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action. 8. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACHD. The proposed drainage system shall conform to the requirements of and shall retain all storm water on-site. Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of-way or in a common lot owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable ameni- ties placed in said lot. Drainage lots and their use restric- tions shall be noted on the plat. ANNEXATION February 3, Page 6 - Higr.~ands Ranch 1995 9. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets for review and appropriate action by ACRD. 10. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5-feet from the side lot property lines when the driveways are not being shared with the adjacent property. 11. Developer shall provide the District with a copy of the record- ed plat prior to the installation of street name signs. Street signs will not be ordered until all fees have been paid and a copy of the recorded plat has been provided to ACHD staff. The copy of the recorded plat shall show the recording information as inscribed by the Deputy County Recorder. 12. 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 in- stalled when the project street is first accessible to the motoring public. 13. A right-of-way permit must be obtained from ACRD for all street and utility construction within the public right-of- way. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. 14. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any require- ment or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar days of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. STAFF SUBMITTING: DATE OF COMMISSION APPROVAL: Karen Gallagher ~^ I .TAMES E. BRUCE. President SHERRY R. HUBER. Vice Pres~aent SUSAN S. EASTLAKE. Secreranr TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTER-DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE :iIGHLND.RCH/DSTECH 2-8-95 ACF-ID Commis5l.an Development Services ANNEXATION - Highlands Ranch DATE: February 6, 1995 (Developer - Westpark Company, P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642) (EngineerlSurveyor - J. J. Howard, 2626 N. 32nd Street, Boise, ID 83703) i ~ i s iz CPo R T- ~-E-/~S FACTS & FINDINGS : '~ D ~ ~. C~ 1 ~l ~ ~ ~ ~~ G~ 1. The Westpark Company is seeking annexation and zoning for a 180-acre mixed residential subdivision located on the north side of Victory Road between Eagle Road and Locust Grove. 2. GENERAL INFORMATION: LEAD AGENCY - City of Meridian. ZONING - Residential R-S and R-15, Office L-O (requested.) LOTS - 482 ACRES - 180 ESTIMATED.VEFiICLE TRIPS PER DAY - 4,820 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE - 286 L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Victory Road - 1,700 MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS - Date 7/12/93 Volume 632 (Victory Road east of Eagle Road) FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Local/Section Line Road ADA COUNTY RIDGE-TO-RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - Route EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 50-feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90-feet (45-feet from centerline) Victory Road is improved with 30-feet of pavement and no side- walks. ada couni~y iligi~way district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 ANNEXATION February 6, Page 2 - Highlands Ranch 1995 L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Eagle Road - 1,400 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Local/Section Line Road ESTIMATED TRAFFIC COUNT - 1,130 ADA COUNTY RIDGE-TO-RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - Route EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 50-feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90-feet (45-feet from centerline} Eagle Road is improved with 24-feet of pavement and no sidewalks. L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Locust Grove - 800 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Local/Section Line Road ESTIMATED TRAFFIC COUNT - 15 ADA COUNTY RIDGE-TO-RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - No pathway shown EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 50-feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90-feet (45-feet from centerline} Locust Grove is improved with 24-feet of paving. IMPACT FEE BENEFIT ZONE - West Ada IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - Near Rural 3. This application is for annexation and zoning but was accompa- nied with a subdivision plan. The following comments should be anticipated if the development proceeds. 4. This proposed subdivision will have entrances on Eagle Road, Victory Road, and Locust Grove Road. 5. The main project entrance is located on Victory Road, less than 200-feet from the existing bridge structure over the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff recommends that the entrance be. located a sufficient distance east of the existing bridge in order to provide adequate sight distance. Sight-distance for traffic out of the subdivision will be examined when detailed plans become available. 6. A center turn lane on Eagle Road at the main project roadway intersection will be required. 7. The driveway into the multi-family portion of the project nearest Eagle Road is not properly aligned nor offset from the local road intersection nearby. This driveway should be aligned with a local roadway intersection or be properly off- set. 8. The Ridenbaugh Canal traverses the entire site, entering the property at its northern boundary's intersection with Eagle Road. The Ridge to Rivers Pathway Plan designates the Canal as a trail. A footbridge is proposed across the Ridenbaugh ?,NNEXATION February 6, gage 3 - Highlands Ranch 1995 Canal. Staff supports this proposal but is concerned that parents taking their kids to school and adults participating in events at the sports field will park near the footbridge. No off-street parking facilities are proposed. Staff recom- mends that adequate automobile parking be provided on the south side of the footbridge, or a vehicular bridge be con- structed to provide public street access to the school from this project. 9. The east subdivision entrance on Eagle Road should be con- structed as a three lane collector roadway Eagle Road to the four-way intersection. Two eastbound lanes will be required. i0. A center turn lane on Eagle Road at the east project entrance will be required. 11. The southeast subdivision entrance on Victory Road should be constructed as a three lane collector roadway from Victory Road to the central ring road intersection with two southbound lanes provided. 12. An extensive pathway system is proposed within the develop- ment. The pathways should be located on separate lots owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. 13. The applicant has proposed one stub street to the north and to the east, that should be maintained. Another stub street should be provided off of the western ring road to the parcel fronting on Victory Road east of the western street connection to Victory. I4. A portion of the funds allocated to Ada. County Highway Dis- trict from the Highway Distribution Account are predicated on the number of improved road miles (under the District's juris- diction? that are located outside the limits of any incorporat- ed city. Consequently, annexation of subject lands will ad- versely affect a major revenue base of the District without any compatible decrease in the District's responsibility to continue to maintain those public roadways located within the annexation area. 15. This application is scheduled for public hearing by the City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission on February 14, 1995. f the annexation and zoning is approved and development proceeds, the District will provide the fallowing recommendations to the City of Meridian: SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: ANNEXATION - Highlands Ranch February 6, 1995 Page 4 1. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Victo- ry road abutting parcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of -way at the pre-de- velopment value from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 2. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road abutting parcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of-way at pre-develop- ment value from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 3. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting parcel (2d additional feet). The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of-way at pre-de- velopment value from available impact fee revenues. in this benefit zone . 4. Direct lot or parcel access to Victory Road is prohibited, in compliance with District policy. Lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat. 5. Direct lot or parcel access to Eagle Road compliance with District policy. Lot acs shall be stated on the final plat. 6. Direct lot or parcel access to Locust Grove ed, in compliance with District policy. Lot tions shall be stated. on the final plat. is prohibited, in Bess restrictions Road is prohibit- access restric- 7. The main project entrance on Victory Road (east of the Ridenbaugh Canal) shall be re-located to provide adequate sight distance for the roadway's design speed from the bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal. 8. The developer shall re-align the driveway into the multifami- ly area at the northeast corner of the project with a local roadway intersection. 9. Provide a public street and bridge across the Ridenbaugh Ca- nal, or an adequate supply of parking spaces south of the footbridge_ 10. The east subdivision entrance on Eagle Road shall be construct- ed as a three lane collector roadway from Eagle Road to the four-way intersection. Two eastbound lanes are required. 11. A center turn lane on Eagle Road at the east project roadway intersection shall be required. ANNEXATION February 6, Page 5 - Highlands Ranch 1995 12. The southeast subdivision entrance on Victory Road should be constructed as a three lane collector roadway from Victory Road to the central ring road intersection. Two southbound lanes are required. 13. The private pathways within the project shall be located on separate lots owned and maintained by a homeowner's associa- tion. 14. Provide a stub street to the south property boundary from the western ring road. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS: 1. Street and drainage improvements required in the public right- of-way shall be designed and constructed in conformance with District standards and policies. 2. Dedicated streets and drainage systems shall be designed and constructed in conformance with District standards and poli- cies. 3. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans, design information and calculations presented to ACS shall be sealed, signed and dated by a Registered Professional Engineer or Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 54-1215. 4. Provide written approval from the appropriate irriga- tion/drainage district authorizing storm runoff into their system. 5. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and d=aia- age appurtenances, etc.) outside of the proposed street im- provements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 6. Continue existing irrigation and drainage systems across par- cel. 7. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action. 8. Submit site drainage plans. and calculations for review and. appropriate action by ACFID. The proposed drainage system shall conform to the requirements of .and shall retain all storm water on-site. ANNEXATION - Highlands Ranch February 6, 1995 Page 6 Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of-way or in a common lot owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable ameni- ties placed in said lot. Drainage lots and their use restric- tions shall be noted on the plat. 9. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets far review and appropriate action by ACFID. 10. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5-feet from the side lot property lines when the driveways are not being shared with the adjacent property. 11. Developer shall provide the District with a copy of the record- ed plat prior to the installation of street name signs. Street signs will not be ordered until all fees have been paid and a copy of the recorded plat has been provided to ACRD .staff. The copy of the recorded plat shall show the recording information as inscribed by the Deputy County Recorder. 12. 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 in- stalled when the project street is first accessible to the motoring public. 13. Aright-of-way permit must be obtained from ACED for all street and utility construction within the public right-of- way. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with zoning file number) for details. 14. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any require- ment or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to_ the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar days of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. STAFF SUBMITTING: DATE OF CONIl~IISSION APPROVAL: FEB 0 8 1995 Karen Gallacher - ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Development Services Division Preliminary F.eport Annexation. Conditional Use, and Preliminary Plat -Highlands Ranch Victory Road from Eagle Road to Locust Grove Road, Meridian Highlands Ranch is a 450-lot residentiall2-lot office subdivision on 175-acres. The site is located on the north side of Victory Road from Eagle Road to Locust Grove Road. This development is estimated to generate 6,400 additional vehicle trips per day. (5,850 from old traffic study for.500 SFD and 180 townhomes with no commercial development) Roads impacted by development: Earle Road -Minor arterial with a bike route designation -Traffic count 1,130 (1993 APA estimate) Victory Road -Local road (section line) with a bike route designation - Traffic count 2,142 (1993 APA estimate) Locust Grove Road -Local road (section line) with no pathway designation - No traffic count available Issues to be addressed: 1. Right-of--way requirement (40' or 50') and road improvements 2. Access offset, width, and locations (streedpathway alignment to bridge to schooUpark) 3. Right-of-way for office/commercial streets (60') 4. Update to previous traffic study 5. Access/street layout to bridge crossing of Ridenbaugh to the north (5-10 parking spaces) 6. Smooth alignment of Highlands Ranch Road 7. Width of median at divided road entrance on Victory Road ~.-.. Pw. U to , ~ m ..~ ` ~-•1 r 17 s s J.. `' ._.J. I -- ~ ~ _~ ~ _ E • ~ i ; ;~ ~~ ` M' `~ s' , {r : r ~ r .,_,.: -r~~ ~ 9 s IO tt 22 ~ ' x, ~ /~.~.J ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ I ~ ° i ~ . ~ ~ ~ i '. w s . ~ ~ s ~ a~.~ i ~ s .~s.~ VIG?ORY~ „ ~ ~ ~ . :u . a~ ~` Q ~ ~ v + ~. ~ ~ ~-° ~ ~ .•- W "" ° ~ ~ : j ~rr1 ~ r ACRD Commission Date -June 7 , 1995 - 12:00 .P.M. ,• f-- ~ - z a W U Z O U H Z W ~. O J W W O V Z Q DC 0 Z Q J s V i~l w Q w z z 0 N O Z a 0 Z Z Q . QyOb/ 7AO~N~.7 '~•t'A~07 ~~ ~- .c~~' .-~ .. ~. r 10'3Jdd 0S9L Sb~ 80Z 0b:80 S6~ S0 Nflf c c~ f -1 ~J JAMES E. BRUCE. President SHERRY R. HUGER, Vlc® President SUSAN S. EASTIAKE. Secretary Post-It'" brand fax transmhtal memo 767'1 r w P.9s. ~. ~o. Oap[. PAena M Y S Fax B Fax M DATE: June 5, 1995 J U ~ 0 8 i99~ TO: City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian ID 83642 FROM: ACHD Development Services Division RE: HIGHLAND RANCH SUBDIVISION The proposed modification to Highlands Ranch Subdivision is of sufficient size, and/or is expected to generate traffic impacts such that the District requests deferral of the public hearing for this application until an updated Traffic Study has been approved by the District's Traffic Services Department. The District will notify you and the applicant, as soon as possible, after completion of the review and approval. ACRD requests the lead agency to include the results and recommendations of the approved Traffic Study in the public hearing process. This delay will allow the public and the lead agency to be better informed about the traffic issues related to this project prior to making any decisions. cc: Westpark Company Playne Forney ACHD Traffic Services - Dave Szplett Ada Planning Association - Erv Olen (Fax #345-5279) Project File Chron ads county highway district 318 East 37th • Bofse. Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 QH~V OS9L S6C SOZ~ OS~80 S6/SO/90 T 0 ' 3Jtid 0S9L Sb£ @0Z O~ o JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUGER, vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary z£ : 9I 96 ~ Ei0 Had ~EcE~vED FEB 0 8 1996 CITY OF MERIDIAN February 8, 1996 Ms Sherri Stiles City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIlVIILE Re: BaUantyne-1Youtner Business Park and the Ranch Subdivision The Ada County Highway District staff have deferred action on the referenced development applications pending receipt and acceptance of the requested traffic impact studies. We will inform your office when further action is taken. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns. A~` David Szplett Transportation Engineer cc: project file ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Bolse. Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680 n~errtrx~w trr~ F~~ rtu~v nco~ efir Qn~t~ fb• r afiiRni~n SUBDIVISION EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name HIGHLAND RANCH City MERIDIAN Date Reviewed 06/08/95 Preliminary Stage XXXXX Final Engineer/Developer J. J. Howard Engr. /The Westpark Company 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 Meridian City Street Name Ordinance. The followina existing street names shall appear on the plat as• "E. VICTORY ROAD" "S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD" "S. EAGLE ROAD" The following new street name is approved and shall appear on the plat as• "E. LIMOUSINE ^RIVE" "E. SHORTHORN COURT" "E. SIMMENTAL STREET" "E.BRAUMA STREET" "S.KETCHUM PLACE" "S. POTLATCH PLACE" "S. MACKAY PLACE" "S. HYNDMAN PLACE" "E. BULL TROUT DRIVE" "E. DWORSHAK DRIVE" "HEREFORD" is a duplication and cannot be used "ANGUS" sounds like ANDROS and therefore cannot be used. "BRANGUS" sounds like ANDROS and therefore cannot be used. "GIAVINA" sounds like G1NA and therefore cannot be used. "LONGHORN" is a duplication and cannot be used "DEADWOOD" is reserved for use in another subdivision and therefore cannot be used unless it is in ali nment. "BORAH" is a du lication and cannot be used. "LOOKOUT" is similar to OUTLOOK and therefore cannot be used. "GALENA" is a du lication and cannot be used. "TRINITY" is a du lication and cannot be used. "WHITEBIRD" is reserved for use in another subdivision and therefore cannot be used unless it is in alianment "CHALLIS" is reserved for use in another subdivision and therefore cannot be used unless it is in alignment. "MCCALL" is similar to MACAW and therefore cannot be used. "LESLIE" is a duplication and cannot be used "STANLEY" is a duplication and cannot be used "BRITTON" is similar to BRITTANY and therefore cannot be used. "DONNELY" is similar to DAWN and therefore cannot be used. The followina proposed street name is over ten letters in lenath and must have verification in writing from ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT that it will fit on a sian• "S. HIGHLAND RANrH WAY" The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE, ~EC. NAY R R ENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES Ada County Engineer Ada Planning Assoc. City of Meridian John Priester Terri Raynor Representative Date ~ 'r Date T' Bate ~ ~ -~'~ Meridian Fire Dept. Representative Date NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of vigning the "final plat", other vise the plat will not be signed !!!! Sub Index Street Index 3N 1 E 20 Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS >LJbT ,~(~/71~t~ , ~•tss•~i~b5 c~1 't-/,~~~ ~~$' •5 CI~'Y ~~-,i~f;t;~~el~~t~j. ~~~~ '~ !~ Z~GQx~rct 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 2 7 January 19 9 5 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Meridian Planning & Zoning Boise 343-1884 3 3 East Idaho SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Meridian, ID 83642 Boise 345-2431 RE: Proposed Application for Annexation Into the City of Meridian to Develop Highland Ranch Planned Community Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no problem with the proposed annexation for the above-mentioned project. There are a few things I would like to mention, however. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has three (3) facilities which will be impacted by this development and I will talk about them from an east to west direction. 1. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Ridenbaugh Canal has a 100 foot easement, 50 feet from the center both ways. It courses approximately through the center of the development. 2. Nine Mile Drain courses along the toe of the Ridenbaugh Canal on the west side until the point that it hits a section B on your map and heads off on a northwest direction through the subdivision area which is not indicated on the plat. 3. Eight Mile Lateral has an 80 foot. easement, 40 feet from center both ways. It courses along the east portion of the proposed subdivision. I would like to reserve any comments in regard to these facilities until we can see a more detailed and structured plan regarding the development. Page 1 of 2 APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 27 January 1995 Meridian Planning & Zoning Page 2 of 2 All laterals and wasteways must be protected. All municipal storm surface run-off must be retained on site. Please feel free to contact me if you care to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, ohn P. Anderson, Water Superintendent JPA/dnm cc: File Each Director Secretary/Treasurer Bill Henson Rider #4 ~~~~~a 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 Phones: Area Code 208 Greg Johnson, President Gem Park II Partnership P. O. Box 344 Meridian, ID 83680 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 RE: Land Use Change Application for Planned Development - Victory Road (8icxhlands Ranch) Dear Mr. Johnson: 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. 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 Dale A. or Pamela Nixon Harold Killgore and Rayelene Allen Clayton or Susan Record Richard S. or Linda Schaffer Sally D. Martin - f City of Meridian APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS • 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 1 June 1995 ~~~~~ r SEP 1 4 fSS G1Y OF MERIDtAPJ 7~av~c~ia Bi ~~ 7acigatloa Z~<.v.~zict 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 12 September 1995 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Stan McHutchison, P.E. Boise 345-2431 Briggs Engineering Inc. 1111 South Orchard, Suite 600 Boise, Idaho 83705 Re: Honor Park Subdivision No. 2 - Tiling of the Ninemile Drain Dear Stan: Your plan for the new alignment and for the piping of the Ninemile Drain has been received and reviewed. The plan shows the new alignment with several cross sections. It appears that the size of the new ditch section will be adequate to meet the requirements of Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for this facility. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District does need an agreement for the piping of this section of the drain ditch. Please contact the District's attorney, Daniel Steenson, at 342-4591 and request that he prepare a License Agreement. I might remind you, however, that there is a section of the drain upstream from your proposal that the developer would like to re- locate. Activity, which has not been approved by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, has occurred at this site. We need to see calculations and design for this section before we proceed with an agreement. The District must review and approve this relocation just as we are the above referenced section of the project. Please feel free to contact me if further discussion is required. Sincerely, John P. Anderson District Water Superintendent pc: Each Director Secretary of the Board Daniel Steenson John Sharp Bi~Y Henson ~E'ity of Meridian Ada County Highway District Rider 4 APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES F' 11 a RIVER FLOW RIGHis - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 '~a~sr~ca & ~Zencd~ ~Jv~i~atloc~ Di~t~cict 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 6 February 1996 J. J. Howard Engineers 2626 North 32nd Street Boise, ID 83703 Phones: Areo Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 RE: Land Use Change Application for The Ranch Subdivision Dear J. J. Howard: 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. 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 The Westpark Company City of Meridian enc. C~~p~ APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 5 December 1996 ``~ DEC 0 6 1996 Ms. Shari Stiles `~~~ ~R1~31AN City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Street . Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Ranch Subdivision by Gem Park II (Annexation, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Application) Deaz Shari, This is a r uest to withdraw all eQ applications related to The Ranch Subdivision project. Based upon the difficulties and confusions which have transpired due to revisions of the master. 1 . pan, we believe your recommendation to withdraw the project and resubmit is the best approach. We have retained Briggs Engineering (Becky Bowcutt) to develop a new t master plan incorporating agency comments and suggestions.. We believe this approach will provide a plan that will be favorable to all partiesinvolved... Since $8,386.32 was previously paid with the original applications, would the City consider granting credit to a new application. We understand a new application will r wire ublic notice, le ~1 P gal notice and attorney's fees for findings of fact and conclusions of law and we aze willing to pay those costs. Could the City please consider this request for reduction in application fees. Sincerely, Gr Johnson President, The Westpark Company, Inc. (Managing Partner) 08/15/95 17:58 $208 3422627 pyM ~~ W61. CL4Rb PIANNq~6-DEYflOPbIE1~i August 15,1995 Honorable Chant Kingsford Mayor City of Metidiaa 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Bigbtands Ranch Project Dear Mayor Sings#ord: I represent James Griffin, owner of approximately 80 acres on the SW cornerof Eagle and Oves]and Roads. Ivlr tiaffiu~'s property is immediately to the north of the easte~ side of the Highlands Ranch project, where the imentian is to develop low rise office uses. There is apparently also a possibility of a high school being developed on this sire. 'The project as proposed by Greg Johnson and The Westpazk Company is generally well conceived and is responsive to public and neighbor concerns. It should. be as asset to Mea~ciian. There u, however, one sigpificant concern that exists with respect to this project and the Cuiffin property. This concern is that if abusiness park/low rise office type development on the Highlands property, there should benorth.-south vehicular and pedestrian connecrions so that movemern between the two sites does not create future congestion problems oa Eagle Road. This assumes that there wdl be substantial commercial development on the Griffin property- If a high school is developed on the Highlands Ranch progeny, vehicular connection world. probably not be wise. Again, the project concept is good. We are confident that the issue described above can be worked out in the process of developing deta>Zed design and patting. Please let me lmow if there are any questions- Sincerely, f~t,F.c,;P~,..,.: William Clark ~ lames Griffin Aavid Lombardi, Givens Parsley Cueg Johnson Wayne Fogey 4791rLnia Street Boise, Idaho 83702 208 /342-2625 Fax 208 /342-2627 ~ 002 AUG 15 '95 18 10 208 3422627 PAGE.02 DEC-15-95 FRi 15:09 J J FiOWgRD EIVGiNEERS 2083440574 W W Z (3 Z W z J ~~ C/~ Z~ a~ ~o a aN ~m oN ~~ M 'z ~ N N ~Sl~. ~'~/ ,ate e/ ~~' ~ ~{~ `~ ~aa~n c~ ~~ O~;CC'Qi1/ ~~`IiLL~ ~~ auo~-z~' ~o(^///-~u~ ice/ i ~ Y (/ i~ P.01 i7~~~9s- ~~~cor~ /. ToP . m~ - io Qom-, tilor~. iz~8 Z. ~G',e`~ : ¢Pm /ices. /2~/9 ~,~°~ ~~ , Q ~~ DEC 15 '95 15 29 2083440574 PAGE.01 Ja interoffice M E M O RA N D U M to: Shari Stiles cc: File from: Bruce A. Freclcleton <~~ ~~"' re: Response to questions about "~'he Ranch" date: May 31, 1996 Following are the Public Works Departments response to questions raised in the meeting of Thursday, May 30, 1996; • In regards to the amount of detail to be provided on a preliminary plat with respect to proposed and existing utilities - We expect to see the storm ~ sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainages, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants and street lights (all in plan view). We also need to see a sewer line profile with line of natural ground and proposed sewer main invert. This profile can be a very simple line profile, we don't expect it to be the final engineering plan, but it does need to be accurate. As I mentioned in the meeting, the purpose of the profile is to identify at an early stage any potential grade/depth problems that may exist of a site. • In regards to the width of the common area lot for the sewer ~ water near the NW corner of the proposed development -Typically 20' width is adequate for a common area lot that is also used for sewer, however, the width may need to be wider if the depth of the sewer main is excessive. Our Water Superintendent indicated in his original comments to the Meridian Planning &~ Zoning Commission from the desk of... (2/13/96 meeting) that 12" diameter water mains would have to be built down Locust Bruce A. Freckleton Assistant to City Engineer Grove to Victory Rd. and then down Victory. meridian Pab~ic works Dept. We will not allow the water main to enter 33 E. Idaho Avenue into the development through a common Meridian, Idaho 83642-2600 area lot. Additional mains may be required (208) 887-2211 depending on available volumes. Fax: (2os) sel-197 or sel-4si3 Shekinah Industries, Inc. 420 Bitteroot Drive, Boise, Idaho 83709 (208) 375-2647 April 3, 1995 The Board of Directors Meridian Heights Water and Sewer Association, Inc. P. O. Box 472 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Sewer and Water Hook on Agreement of Kentucky Ridge Estates between Shekinah Industries, Inc. and the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer Association, Inc. Gentlemen: I recently requested the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer Association, Inc.'s consideration of giving my company, Shekinah Industries, Inc., approval of connecting the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivisions to the Meridian Heights Sewer and Water system for. s$rvice. This letter is to outline the conditions that I will agree to in order to secure -your approval. These agreed upon conditions are as follows: 1. I will have Merle Hanson deed you cone-foot strip of land along his southerly boundary, which will make the Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision contiguous to the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer Association's property. This land will be deeded at my expense. In addition, 15 foot permanent sewer and water easements will be granted to you through Mr. Hanson's property where the water and sewer lines are to be located. 2. I will meet the requirements of 94-20-CU to convert the Meridian Heights land application site from a pressure April 3, 1995 Page 2 irrigation system to a gravity irrigation system, all at my expense. 3. I will pay a sewer hook on fee for Lots 20-25, Block 2; Lots 19-25, Block l; and Lots 3 and 4, Block 3. Since these lots will be temporarily connected to sewer, I would be willing to pay what all homeowners had to pay for their sewer hook on fee. The fee at $750 times 15 lots is a total cost of $11,250. This amount is to be paid within 30 days of the approval of Shekinah's construction loan. It is understood that the water hook on fee for 90 lots will be free, since I will drill a well capable of supplying all 901ots at my expense. If the State of Idaho Department of Water Quality will approve an additional 20 lots above the currently approved 701ots to be hooked to the lagoon system, those additional connections will be the property of the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer Association. 4. The sewer and water facilities in Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision, including the new well and well lot, all water lines and appurtenances, and all sewer lines and appurtenances, when completed, will be dedicated to the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer Association. The inclusion of water meters in this system will be at the discretion of the Association and at my cost if required. I am in hopes that this letter will address the issues of concern to your board and will allow you to issue the approval of connecting 661ots of the Kentucky Ridge Estates sewer system and 901ots to the water system in accordance to the preceding conditions. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, S KINAH INDUSTRIE INC. .Michael Preston President .. April 3, 1995 Page 3 Acknowledgment of the above conditions of approval are verified below by the various parties' signatures. This agreement is dated April I ~ . 1995. MERIDIAN HEIGHTS WATER AND SEWER ASSOCIATION, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHEHINAH INDUSTRIES, INC. David Page, President .Michael Preston, President ~V cott Cairl, Director LaVonne DeGraw, Vice President rad ok, ctor Ellen Blake, Secretary/Treasurer . /~~~~T Bill Stanla®, Director T "Pr'T 1*T 1r Ii 1 Iw L N 1 V 1\ I1 L 1 •• v ~ . A Wayne S. Forney, AICP Urban Planner and Development Analyst x~Z~~t~F>~t-~cRs~Q~i~aa~o~atratu~[t~ax 3045 Thayer Place -Boise, Idaho 83709 Cmm~rehrnvve l+lanrony Gty s iteglonal Plan upnares C:iI1fP.n F~aI llclpalion (:LVnmunity l+I~ir+sais Growln M~nagomonl Plan ImPlememaGon Zoning, annexation R Ocvelopmonl ordinances Code Analysis Land D9vebWnenl Planning R Nego6alions Infrastruclura Ptanrunq ftgvgetliaflon Pl:,ns Ecalanic DevewPment Mayor Crant P. Kirilsford and City Council City of Meridian 3:3 P., Idaho Ave. Mcridian,lD 83642 Dear Mayor Kingsford and Council Members: O C T 1 7 199 CITY t3E ~E~ID~N Since your October 3, 1995, City Council meeting, Jim Carberry of the Meridian School District plus Greg Johnson and I have met with three of the Meridian Councilmen in two separate meetings to discuss utility service and revisions to the Highlands Ranch Preliminary Plat to include a new senior high school campus within the project. We had very positive meetings. Based on these discussions, we are asking that the Meridian City Council approve the Findings of pact and Conclusions of Law for Highlands Ranch so we can proceed to revise the Preliminary Plat and go back to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. We also request that the Meridian City Council authorize the City Attorney to start preparation of the annexation ordinance, but we understand that no action will be taken on the annexation ordinance urrtil the City Council has received an acceptable Preliminary Plat. cwrmunily We ailtici ate submiitin a revised lat to the Cit on November 17, 1995, to be oevulopment P b' • p y v~~an:s Analysis on the Planning and Zoning Commissions's December 1995 agenda We anticipate Fiscal presenting the updated Preliminary Plat to the Meridian City Council during February ln,~l,~,uvab 1996 for approval. FVrldirlQ $dalOQi4f Our preliminary discussion with Mr. Gary D. Smith, P.E_, iindicatcs that the PuhIIC Pnuoy proposed high school site can be accommodated with City utilities. We will continue to ~"AI"a10n work closely with City staff and City officials to prepare an acceptable plat. Thank you ProlCCl for your partnership! ManagemYnl (;O+IVaCI ° . 1 yonn~nq Respectfully, $O7VICCS 10 C~uos d CounGos Wayne S. Forney, AICP Representative of Weti4tpark Company cc Greg Johnson ~a AAember: American Insulule of C13rtilied Planners - aneriwn F'annirw~ AssOCia40n • IWhp n9 Assoeiaaon OCT 17 '95 10 56 'x>~at Telephone 362345 • Fax 362416 17 October 1995 ~~~~~'~~ 208 887 6049 PAGE.01 FROM WAYNE S FORREY P. 002 Wayne S. Forrey, AICP Urban Planner and Development Ana/yst 52 East Franklin Road - Merldlan, Idaho 83642 Telephone (208) 887.6015 Fax (208) 887-6049 Comp~ehsns+ve Fr;~nn;ng! MEhrIORArIllUM O~IV E +~e9~ons1 Flan Uo~atcs TO; Shari L. Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator `'"""' F':5•iiCiUyllUn City of Meridian C;rmmurnry FROM; Janelle San! Ra!auons Wayne S. Force, AICP (i, uwih r.tanaoemern DATE: 14 November 1995 Plan Implementation ~'' Meeting to Review Kevised Highlands Ranch Preliminary Plat Inning, Annexstion L OCvy;lpp,rlCnl °`tl'""^"~ Will you please advise me ~f a time this week that you can meet with Wayne and Mr. Cner+ AnA! ~ifl Greg Johnson of Gem Park TI Partnership for about 1 S minutes to discuss revisions that . y have been made to the Highlands Ranch Preliminary Plat, 'T'hank you for your prompt .and +~,,,,cloamant assislancc. Kce u our ood work! P P Y $ F'IUnaint~ L Iaegoeaoons inlrastrurnue F'IrlnndlQ n'evge4taGUn PI,,, s. Economic Devstopmem Community f~nvMnhmnnt F'nsnce Analysis F'scal ImpHGa~80nS r~ mrtinry ; Ir OIC9iCS rua+,c r'olrcv Evaluation Prolsct Managemern Con:rsct ~'~[ll l: `I il(J' ;,rv~ces to ~~ r,,~, lA4w_, PAGE6 M~CLU NG 9 ~' L OF f~,fc~.1~IPa)J v"t'~l~ g' ~~YI~UP THIS PAGE: FAX il: FA?( t: 3~2'(-H lO PFIONE r!: 3102 .G~,q-S tuombor: Mipn4on Insub,rn ni Cnrtifinl) F'tnnnnrs ~ Amencan Penning Associsuon -Idaho Planning Associatian NOU 14 '95 10 37 208 B87 6049 PAGE.02 Wayne ~. Forrey, AiCP r' Urban Planner and Development Analyst ,, ~T~~~~~ 3045 Thayen Place -Boise, Idaho 83709 -- ,...Lr, ('S~.~ '-^ ~JCC'?!C'S __.,, Mayor Bob Come - - "` ~ ~~ ~'' City of Meridian ~„-~-rn~.;rn~y 33 E. Idaho Ave. -° - - Meridian, ID 83642 .,, Telephone 362-9345 Fax 362-9416 14 February 1996 ~~ ~~~~ F ~. ~ 1 ~ r~'3~ CITY ®~ ~£~iD~?~ „~,.;., - -m,-~~r Dear Mayor Come: :.n ~mplF,rr~<-rd~uon Last night at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing, the '`"nc"~'°~ Commission dir t d th W k C Geve!coment _;,~~~~~ ec e e est ar om an to conduct a coordination meeting to p P y resolve the issue of the public bridge connecting The Ranch Subdivision and Los Alamitos ^ " Park Subdivision #3. The people that should be included in this meeting are: City of '°~. "°''"S Meridian Zoning Administrator; a representative of Los Alamitos Park Subdivision #3; a - ~~ ~ ~ ~ representative of The Ranch Subdivision; Karen Gallagher of the Ada County Highway ' '`''°''"'°°` ~~,:r~ ~~n a District a re resentative of the Meridian School District and a representative of the ~ P g ~ :~-y°t z~~°:~s Sundance Subdivision. .-,tr35:r~°t~re We need to have this meeting before our next public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission which is scheduled for Tuesday, March 12, 1996. We suggest having .,~,,'~a~za"°° this meeting at City Hall on Thursday, February 22, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. Is this date, time r!~ns and location. acceptable to the City? If so, we will send an invitation letter to all involved ``°~°`~ ° parties. _eveicpment ~,;r•,rr~~'r;w Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Keep up your good work! . „ .° ~~,~~ys~s - ~ Res ectfully, ~~a'iors _~. ~.~., strategies Wayn~rrey, AICP ~~'a°~~~°~ ZI >> J~~ eat Gv ~~~~ ~ °~ ~~` ~-.' z~ Z ~1 ~G ~ 3 : oo~ - ,.~r.ay^ement /~ .... _. '_. ~..:'.: f1.I'GS I~ _.._~_ _ _ . .., . ,. ,_. - _.. ~_,-.n Wayne S. Forrey, AICP Urban Planner and Development Analyst ~,,.,.. v ~ ~~ 3045 Thayen Place Boise, Idaho 83709 Telephone (208) 362-9345 Fax (208) 362-9416 Comprehensive Planning / Cdy ~ Regional Plan Updates Citizen Participation community Ms. Shari Stiles 18 March 1996 Relati°ns Planning and Zoning Administrator Gr°ti~tn City of Meridian Management 33 E. Idaho Ave. Pian 1,-,p~°mentat;°n Meridian, ID 83642 \~ zoning, Annexation RE: Review of ~-Reduced Property Preliminary Plat and CUP/PD & Development Ordinances Dear Ms. Stiles: Code Analysis Land During the March 12, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, I presented a Development letter to the Ci mformin the Commission that West ark Com an would be withdrawin a Planning & tY g P p Y g Neg°tiau°ns portion of "The Ranch" Planned Use Development property from their annexation request. Inrrastru°ture We have prepared an updated Preliminary Plat which shows the minor changes and the Planning residual property for annexation approval Revitalization Plans We need to visit with you as soon aS possible and conduct a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development review meeting. Can you please call me with Ec°nomic some meetin dates and times that are convenient for ou? We would like to conduct this Development g y meeting prior to March 29,1996. Thank you. Community Development Finance Analysis Fiscal Implications Funding Strategies Public Policy Evaluation Project Management Contract Pianrnng Services to CiC~,es & Counties Respectfully, Wayne S. Forrey, AICP Representative of Westpark Company ~~ Wayne S. Forrey, AICP Urban Planner and Development Analyst 3045 Thayen Place Boise, Idaho 83709 Telephone (208) 362-9345 Fax (208) 362-9416 Comprehensive Planning ? City & Negional Plan Updates 15 May 1996 Citizen Participation Community Relations MS. Sharl Ir. St11eS GroWtn Zoning Administrator Management City of Meridian Plan Implementation 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Zoning, Annexation & Development Ordinances Dear Miss Stiles: Code Analysis During this past week, I have been following up with various agencies to ensure that Land Thcl~ch Subdivi~n, a project being proposed by Mr. Greg Johnson and the Westpark Development Com an would be read for the Ma 14 1996 Plannin and Zonin Commission ublic Planning a P Y~ Y Y g g p Negotiations hearing. Upon speaking with Mi. Will Berg, the City of Meridian City Clerk, I discovered Infrastructure that the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) was waiting for a copy of the revised Planning Preliminary Plat of The Ranch Subdivision and that The Ranch Subdivision would most likely be tabled to the June 1 1, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. Revitalization Plans Upon further clarification today in a telephone conversation with Ms. Anna Doty, we E°onomic came to the conclusion that the Cit of Meridian needs to receive 30 additional co ies of the Development Y p revised Preliminary Plat to be distributed to the various required agencies. In addition, Ms. community Doty informed me that you would also need a revised application. Can you please let me Development Finance Analysis know what information you need? Do you need additional information to update City files? We are more than happy to provide current information to the City. We need to know Fscal Imputations precisely what information you need as part of the update. Funding strategies Thank you for your prompt assistance. Keep up your good work! Public Policy Evaluation Project Spectfixlly, Management Contract Planning J lle Sanford services tt Planning Analyst Cities & Counties Z~~ Wayne S. Forrey, AICP Urban Planner and Development Analyst 3045 Thayen Place Boise, Idaho 83709 Telephone (208) 362-9345 Fax (208) 362-9416 Comprehensive Planning / City & Regional MEMORANDUM Plan Updates Citizen Participatipn TO: Will Berg, City Clerk community Crty of Meridian Relations Growth FROM: . Janelle Sanford Management Wayne S. Forrey, Plan Implementation DATE: 22 May 1996 Zoning, Annexation & Development Ordinances RE: The Ranch Subdivision Revised Preliminary Plat Code Analysis Per your request,. we have attached 30 copies of the revised Preliminary Plat of the Ranch Land Subdivision. Please make sure that you distribute a copy to ACHD as soon as possible so Development Planning a we can be placed on the June 1 lth Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. If you have any negotiations questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Infrastructure Planning Attachments Revitalization Plans Economic Development Community Development Finance Analysis Fiscal Implications Funding Strategies Public Policy Evaluation Project Management Contract Planning Services to Cities & Counties ~~~ The Westpark Company, Inc. Real Estate Development P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642 (208) ~9C 888-9946 RECFIriIEi~ 28 November 1994 S E P 1 2 1995 CITY OF MERIDIAN Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Mr. Berg: We have been asked by the Meridian City Council to meet with them on October 3, 1995, to discuss changes made to the Preliminary Plat of Highlands Ranch. In order to meet with the City Council and discuss the requested changes, we ask that our applications for Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit continue to be tabled until the October 10, 1995, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Greg ohnson, President The Westpark Company, Inc. -Managing Partner l'~ The Westpark Company, Inc. Real Estate Development P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 389-8049 27 March 1995 Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian., ID 83642 RE: Annexation Application to the City of Meridian near Mr. Berg: TtECEI VED MAR Z 71995 C~t'Y OF 11IERIDIgN I learned through Wayne Forre_ y this morning that you need a letter from me requesting that the public notice fort , _ " ` ` ~- "_ ° ~ r_ ~Ypplication be put on hold so we can amend-the application. This amendment will be done based on conversations we had last week with Mr. Bob Come, Mr. Ron Tolsma, and Mr. Walt Morrow of the City Council. Please accept this letter as my request to the City of Meridian to hold the public notice for the Highlands Ranch Annexation Application. If there is anything else I need to do to hold this public notice, please let Wayne or me know. Thank you. Si rely, eg Developer -Highlands Ranch The Westpark Company, Inc. Real Estate Development P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 389-8049 8 May 1995 Mayor Grant P. Kingsford City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642. Dear Mayor Kingsford: Thank you for your help on the. Gem Park iI - - .~ project and-the applications that were submitted on April. l4, 1995, far the May 9, -1995, Planning and Zoning. Commission public: hearing, These applications were held by the City to be scheduled for the- June 13, 1995, Planning and Zoning: Commission public hearing. I am writing to ask firer written c©nfirmaton that these applications have been accepted and will be on the agenda for the June 13, 1995, and Zoning. Commission public hearing. ''hank you again for your assistance. Sincerely, Grego n President The Westpark Company, Inc. Real Estate Development P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642 ~2os~ ~=seas-- See -~~4-~ June 7, 1995 Jim Johnson, Chairman City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Hall 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Update of the Highlands Ranch Planned Development Dear Jim Johnson: II!~+~~I'tTIE~ IX'1'Y OF Ni~~IDUN My name is Greg Johnson. I am purchasing property from the Schaffer, Killgore, Record, Martin and Nixon families in the Locust Grove, Victory and Eagle Road area. This combined property totals about 180 acres. Over the years, I have developed dozens of high quality subdivisions in the Treasure Valley and in Anchorage, Alaska. I am very proud of each project. My company (The Westpark Company, Inc.} wants to develop this 180 acres as a high quality residential and office community with parks, bike paths, a school site, quality housing and strong covenants to ensure a high quality neighborhood for the community. Right now, my company is developing Sportsman Pointe Subdivision near Locust Grove and Overland Roads in Meridian. If you drive through Sportsman Pointe, you will see that we take pride in our work and commitment to good, positive development! On February 14, 1995, Westpark Company presented the initial Highlands Ranch Development to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for public hearing review. At the Public Hearing, several adjoining property owners expressed concern about our development request of R-8 and R-15 zoning. Several citizens felt (and perhaps you did, too) that the Highlands Ranch project should be zoned R-4 just like Sportsman Pointe, Meridian Greens, Hunts Bluff, Sundance and the other subdivisions in the general area. At the Public Hearing, citizens also indicated that R-4 zoning with a density of four houses to the acre, would be acceptable to them for the Highlands Ranch project. Other citizen comments included concern about nearby individual wells; need for a Preliminary Plat; quality of homes; and high density apartments. After the February 14th Public Hearing, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to the Meridian City Council that our annexation request of R-8 and R- 15 be denied. Given the fact that our neighbors and the Planning and Zoning Commissioners did not like the R-8 and R-15 zoning request, we decided to stop our R-8/R-15 zoning plan halfway through the process and submit a new, revised development approach based on citizen ideas and comments. Our development team redesigned Highlands Ranch to fit into the R-4 zone as requested by citizens and we significantly decreased the number of housing units in the project. We met with neighbors, city officials and agencies to review this revised, lower density development approach. We received positive feedback from these meetings, so we submitted a new annexation and development application to the City of Meridian in mid-April 1995. This new, lower density, R-4 planned development application is now scheduled for public hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. at the Meridian City Hall by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Here is a summary of the changes we have made to Highlands Ranch as a direct result of citizen comments at the first public hearing. Citizen Concern Old Highlands Ranch Pr c New Highlands Ranch Project 1. Zoning request too dense. 2. Don't want on-site wells used for irrigation. 3. Possible impact to private domestic wells. 4. Want parking for school and park site on south side of Ridenbaugh Canal. 5. Want more Open Space. 6. Want to see a Preliminary Plat. 7. Too many residential units. R-15, R-8 and L-O. Use existing property wells for pressurized irrigation. Use existing property wells for pressurized irrigation. Footbridge only - No car parking. About 10 acres of open space or 6% of project. None submitted. R-4 and L-O to allow lower density residential and a campus office park. Only canal water will be used for irrigation system. Cap existing wells except for one well that will only be used to provide a small amount of water to recharge a recirculating water fountain at the project entrance during non-imgation season. Parking lot for twelve cars plus footbridge to school. 17.2 acres which equals ten percent (10°'0) of total developable land is now open space. Provided as part of Annexation Application. (See reduced copy attached to this letter. ) 682 units. 450 units which represents 1/3 (33%) reduction in dwelling units. Update of Highlands Ranch Planned Development -Page 2 f:itizen Concern Old Highlands Ranch New Highlands Ranch Project Proj~ S. Too much residential - Lack of business tax revenue to City. 99% of project was residential -high demand for municipal (housing) services. 1/4 (25%) of site developed as Corporate Office Park to increase tax revenue to the City and decrease demand for municipal (housing) services. Create jobs for neighborhood residents.. 9. Move the townhouses next to Victory Road near the Glick, Hastings and illorgner properties to another area. 10. Need for Singly Family lots next to Glick and Harris properties as a buffer rather than the lifestyle homes. 11. Increase size of residential housing units. 12. Keep pine trees on Martin property. 13. Need berm along Locust Grove, Victory and Eagle Roads for beautification. 14. Want to see commitment from developer on project features. ~2 units next to Victory Rd. and Glick property. Small lifestyle (townhouse) lots next to Glick and Harris properties. 163 units at 1200 S. F. and larger. Most trees removed to allow lifestyle homes. Not shown on plan. Not submitted to neighbors. 46 units moved to interior of subdivision away from Glick property and Victory Rd. R-4, Single Family detached homes next to Glick and Harris properties on extra deep lots (140'+) as a compatibility buffer. 213 units at 1200 S. F. and larger. Retain trees at Victory Road entrance and work around trees to leave as many as possible in current location. Any displaced trees will be transplanted to other areas of the project. Preliminary Plat provides space for landscape berm along Locust Grove, Victory and Eagle Roads. This letter demonstrates our commitment to positive cooperation and willingness to work with citizen input. pdate of Highlands Ranch Planned 13evelopment -Page 3 As you can see, we have taken your concerns seriously and we have made the changes that our neighbors asked for. I assure you that my company is committed to high quality development. We are here for the long haul and it will probably take ten to fifteen years for complete buildout of Highlands Ranch. Our first phase will start at the west edge of the project near Locust Grove Road and we anticipate developing about 15 acres and 40 homes each year on the average. We also plan on growing trees on the undeveloped portions of this property to be used for landscaping and for homeowner use. One of the major changes we have made is to drop our R-15 zoning request and plan a corporate office campus along Eagle Road on the Nixon property. This positive change resulted from neighbor concerns about high density residential and lack of tax revenue to the City. We believe the corporate office campus will be a positive use for this neighborhood and significantly increase general revenue to the City of Meridian. Any development in this corporate office park would only occur by Conditional Use Permit wluch gives the neighbors significant input regarding any future development. I hope you can support the changes we have made to Highlands Ranch. We believe Highlands Ranch has all of the elements that will make a great Planned Development Residential and Corporate Office Park addition to the City of Meridian. These elements include a corporate office park, a school site, a park site, pathways, significant open space, quality mixed housing and strong neighborhood covenants to ensure high quality. I will be attending my previously scheduled family reunion next week so I will not be at the June 13th public hearing. Wayne S. Forrey, AICP, will be representing my firm at the hearing, so please call Wayne at 887-6015 (work) or 362-6007 (home) if you have any questions about Highlands Ranch. I am committed to good development and neighborly cooperation. I hope we can work together to enhance our neighborhood. Respectfully, The bVestpark Company, Inc. g J sorb- resident Update of Highlands Ranch Planned Development -Page 4 The Westpark Company, Inc. I~EC~VED Real Estate Development ~~N ~ ~ 1~~~ P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642 CIS of t~'Il~fn~; ,~ ~~ G2pa) 8s8 -q~ ~e 21 June 1995 Mayor Grant P. Kingsford City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Mayor Kingsford: On January 12, 1995, Gem Park II Partnership submitted an Application for Annexation and Zoning with a total fee of $3,1.56.28 to the City of Meridian to rezone 180.9 acres in the general azea of S. Locust Grove and Eagle Road, north of Victory Road from RT (Rural Transitional) to R-8 (Medium Density Residential), R 15 (Medium Density Residential) and L-O (Limited Office). Our Highlands Ranch application was heazd by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission which resulted in a recommendation for denial. After various meetings with City leaders, we felt it would not be fiuitful to pursue this rezoneJannexation with the City Council. In essence, we stopped half way through the process to prepare an R-4 Planned Development that would fit the desires of City staff and leaders. On April 14, 1995, we submitted new applications for Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit, Information Pertaining to Planned Development Residential for Highlands Ranch and a new application for Annexation and Zoning from RT to R-4 Planned Development Residential (PD-R) with completely new fees. Because we submitted a new Annexation and Zoning request, the prior request (R-8 and R-15) was terminated at the Planning and Zoning Commission stage and never reached the City Council. We would like to request a 50% refund of our original submitted funds because the request was only processed half way. We aze respectfully requesting a refund of one half of $3,156.28 or $1,578.14. Thank you for your prompt attention to our request. estpazk Company, Inc. -Managing Partner The Westpark Company, Inc. Real Estate Development P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 3 888-9946 28 September 1995 Mayor Grant P. Kingsford and City Council 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 T~ECEIVED SEP 2 91995 CITY OF MERIDIAN RE: Acceptance of Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Highlands Ranch Planned Development -Acceptance of Annexation Conditions and Annexation Ordinance. Dear Mayor Kingsford and Council Members: First and foremost, let me say thank you for preparing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that will allow annexation and development of the Highlands Ranch Planned Development. We are very excited and honored to develop Meridian's finest planned residential and business community. Everything we accomplish together in Highlands Ranch will enhance Meridian as a quality City with quality neighborhoods. Let me also state that Gem Park II Partnership, the owners and developers of Highlands Ranch, hereby agree with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and we will meet the annexation and development requirements contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which were presented to us during your September 5, 1995 City Council meeting. We fully understand that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FF&CL) specifically state that "annexation and zoning required to meet the suggestions made herein would be in the best interest of the City; that if the applicant is not agreeable to meet the suggestions made herein the property shall not be annexed." -Gem Park II Partnership is agreeable to the FF&CL and the conditions of annexation and zoning. We respectfully request that the Meridian City Council adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FF&CL) as written for Highlands Ranch, approve our annexation request and authorize preparation of the annexation ordinance at your October 3, 1995 City Council meeting. For clarification purposes, we respectfully. request that the Meridian City Council verbally discuss with us the monitoring procedure that will be applied to Paragraph Y on page 30 of the FF&CL. We believe that the best way for the City to monitor when a lot has been sold is through the building permit process. The building permit procedure would be much easier for the City to monitor than title record searches. We understand that the intent of Paragraph Y is to monitor building activity as it relates to police and fire services. Monitoring building permits would easily accomplish the intent of paragraph Y. 1J Westpark Company -Page 2 Also, we would appreciate direction from the City Council on how to proceed with processing our revised Preliminary Plat. We desire to revise our Preliminary Plat to meet the adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and then submit this revised plat and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to your Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval as soon as possible. It is our understanding that we cannot prepare a revised or updated Preliminary Plat or submit any information to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission until the City Council has adopted the Annexation Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. We propose that the. City Council approve the Highlands Ranch FF&CL at your October 3rd Council meeting and then we could have the updated plat and Comprehensive Plan amendment information submitted to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission by your October 13, 1995 cutoff date, to be reviewed by the Commission at their November 14, 1995, regular meeting. We would sincerely appreciate your acceptance of this schedule. We will attend your October 3rd City Council meeting to review the lot monitoring procedure and plat processing schedule with the City Council. We fully understand that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Highlands Ranch contain significant requirements and safeguards which will help us construct a high quality Planned Development. We are proud to be part of Meridian and we look forward to a strong partnership with the City. Sincerely, e o on, President Westpark Company, Managing Partner The Westpark Company, Inc. Real Estate Development P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 4~C888-9946 Mayor Grant P. Kingsford 03 October 1995 and City Council Members City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. ~~_;~~~~~ Meridian, ID 83642 O C T 0 3 X95 RE: New Meridian High School Site in Iii .Ranch CITY OF ME~1i31AY Dear Mayor and Council: During the past two months, I have been negotiating on and off with the Meridian School District regarding the possibility of a new high school site along Eagle Road at Highlands Ranch. The Meridian School District has now made a decision to locate the District's next high school at Highlands Ranch along Eagle Road. During late afternoon last Friday (September 29, 1995), the Meridian School District submitted a real estate purchase agreement to my company for approval. The District has informed me that they want to purchase this property within the next few weeks so they can commence their own site planing, environmental analysis and preliminary architectural work. In order for me to sell this property to the School District, I must commit to provide sewer, water and other utilities to the school property line. The only way I can commit to provide these utilities to the high school site is if I know that Highlands Ranch is annexed into the City. As a way to help the Meridian School District obtain this site within their immediate schedule, I am asking that the Meridian City Council approve my annexation request at tonight's City Council meeting conditional upon submitting a revised preliminary plat that is acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Highlands Ranch provide excellent guidance on how we are to proceed with development.. It would really help the Meridian School District to move forward at this time and we need your annexation approval in order to help the District. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, West ark Comp y e hnson President _...,. ~ ..._ ~~ z 12 February 1936 P.O. Box 344, Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 889~9x~ 888-9946 Real Estate Development Bruce Freckleton (Assistant to City Engineer) t~Shari Stiles, Planning & Zoning Administrator Kenny Bowers, Fire Chief City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83&42 Re: The Ranch Subdivision, Preliminary Plat Response to Staff Comments GENERAL COMMENTS: ~~CLI VE® FEB 13196--.. _. C~ OF MERIDIAN 1) We will be tiling all irrigation ditches that will be remaining in use after the project is complete. We are also applying to the the portion of Nine Mile Drain that extends through the project. We will be requesting a variance allowing the Eight Mile Lateral and. the Ridenbaugh Canal to be fenced rather than tiled. Please send appropriate variance forms to our office. 2) We will comply. 3) We will comply. 4) We have previously submitted CC&Rs for your review. Do you need additional copies? 5) We will develop a five foot sidewalk on one side of the street as allowed in the PUD process (Section 9-607) as we are building pathways throughout the subdivision to encourage pedestrian traffic in the greenbelt areas as opposed to the street. 6) We will work with the city during the engineering process to ensure adequate water supply. 7) We will work with Public Works to supply adequate sewer service. 8) We will comply. 1'he Westpark Company, Inc. ~~ ~,` ~ s~ ~~ 9) We will comply. 10) Our maps show no Flood Plain Boundaries on the Subject Property. il) We will comply. 12) This letter complies with item #12. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS: ~~ 1) The Legal Description for the potential High School Site is attached. It was submitted with the tabled Annexation Request. We are requesting it be annexed and' Zoned R-4. If for some reason over the next five years the School District does not purchase this property far a high school, we will submit a preliminary plat-for its development. 2) Our first option is to service the project through Mr. Stopello's property and attach to the Nine Mile Trunk Stub Phase 2 Los Alamitos. If access to sewer is blocked on this we have left access available to Locust Grove and the main k F~~nk f~~' out of `~ r route, can be ept at the same depth in this alternative route. ~,~,~,el fi't'-' 3) We have planned service of water by extending main on Loc ~sA~ Grove and entering the Northwest corner of the project. The link with Los Alamitos Subdivision will be made when the Steppelo's property is developed. 4) We were furnished this- information to line up with Brandy's Jewell Avenue formerly Time Zone Drive) by Roylance & Associates and C ty officials`~,and ACRD officials. City and ACHD officials have informed us that we are only responsible for one-half of the cast to construct this public bridge. We have sent a letter to the Mayor addressing this problem but have not received a written response. The access to Locust Grove was eliminated because of the restricted site distance with the canal bridge and safety concerns at that location. The west side of the Ridenbaugh will eventually have three access points. Two of them out to Victory Road and one north through Frank Steppelo's property and Los Alamitos Subdivision. The property east of the Ridenbaugh will have access to Victory Road and northwest access on Time Zone Drive connecting with Los Alamitos Subdivision west to Locust Grove and north to Overland Road through the approved subdivision to the north. Variances on road widths can be granted in a PUD per Section 9-607. Haven Cove is not a PUD. 5) We have shown everything of public record. We have shown pressurized irrigation, source is Ridenbaugh Canal. 6) We have shown the drainage plan.. Letters of approval will be obtained with final plats. 7) We will comply. a 8) We will comply. 9) We will comply. 10) We are providing this. 11) We will comply. 12) We will comply. 13) We intend to the Nine Mile Drain along the Ridenbaugh. The other drainage will be incorporated into our storm drainage system.' The drain is substantially smaller at this point than in Los Alamitos. 14) The site may be sold to the School District. It not, we will submit a plat for development as R-4 or submit a request to amend the comprehensive plan and rezone to L-O as originally planned and as directed by the City Council. L-O would certainly not increase the residential density and would provide necessary city tax revenues. This portion of ground will not have utilities for several years and will remain available to the School District if they desire to purchase it. 15) Information has been provided to the city. We will continue to coordinate with the city on a per phase basis as final plats are filed. 16) We will be providing documentation to the city indicating that storage needs at "The Ranch".are less than typical residential development. Storage will be provided for the lifestyle units. We will comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, no additional parking space is needed.. The parking facility near the elementary school site has been eliminated because ACHD and the city have required us to pay for one-half of the cost to construct a public bridge for school access. This action eliminates the need for extra parking. "The Ranch" is oriented to pedestrians.. A maintenance building will be constructed for the project near the lifestyle campus. 17) We have furnished computations. ~{ /v 18 ) We will design and review this type of detail at F1 lat stages. 19) We have complied and adjacent largest lot size would be 18,000 only at selected locations. 20) City Council Findings & Facts be beneficial to the City of Meri owners are in agree hat the square feet, (not 1/2 acre) and ~Q found the L-O cust Grove to than. 21) We felt it desirable to get it as close to the intersection of Victory and Eagle as possible. If the city would like, we will ti designate it be the southeast corner of the parcel adjacent to Eagle Road. Sincerely, Greg Johnson President, The Westpark Company, Inc. Managing Partner of Gem Park II