Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Cherry Lane Estates PP 98-100
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 40 Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH BIRD LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 884-4264 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)884-5533 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 and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: December 1, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 1998 HEARING DATE: December 8, 1998 FILE NUMBER: PP -100-98:02 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY: JEFFREY L. MANSHIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 4375 w Cherry Lane TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER CITY FILES 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 & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ** TX CONFIRAON REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 02 05/24 13:03 208 888 1097 AS OF MAY 24 ';99 13:04 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC --S 00'34" 001 250 OK NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. on June 15, 1999, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Jeffrey L. Manship for annexation and zoning of approximately 3,86 acres of land, which is generally located at 4375 W. Chevy Lane. The application requests a zone of R-2. Further the applicant requests preliminary plat approval of the parcel of land above described for two additional single family residential dwellings for proposed Cherry Lane Estates. Further the applicant requests a conditional use permit for development density below 3 units per acre for proposed Cherry Lane Estates. A more particular 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 24th day of May, 1999. r`~ado PUBLISH May 26 and June 9,1999. -f SEAL , JR.vCITY CLERK lot Flo III0 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 7:00 p.m. on December 8, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Jeffrey L. Manship for annexation and zoning of approximately 3.86 acres of land which is generally located at 4375 W. Chevy Lane. The application requests a zone of R-2. Further the applicant requests preliminary plat approval of the parcel of land above described for two additional single family residential dwellings for proposed Cherry Lane Estates. A more particular 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 16th of November, 1998. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK PUBLISH November 18th and December 2"d, 1998. ��;�tltrlifiTftftjt w r 9 '',',IIIIIHrrri K - �. ** TX CONFIRMAO REPORT ** AS OF NOU 16 't9:34 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 11/16 09 33 208 88 05 K 8 1097 EC --S 00'32" 001 224 O NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HERE13Y 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 7:00 p.m. on December 8, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Jeffrey L. Manship for annexation and zoning of approximately 3.86 acres of land which is generally located at 4375 W. Cherry Lane. The application requests a zone of R-2. Further the applicant requests preliminary plat approval of the parcel of land above described for two additional single family residential dwellings for proposed Cherry Lane Estates. A more particular 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 le of November, 1998. i6a. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK PUBLISH November I e and December 2"4, 1998. • 0 REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL P LIMINAR PLAT AND/OR FINAL PLAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TIME TABLE FOR SUBMISSION: FycE:rvED = 1993 CITY Or 1,n,:RIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING EILIE Fr- oo-9 -oa. A request for preliminary plat approval must be in the City Clerk's possession no later than three days following the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hear the request at the monthly meeting following the month that the request was made. After a proposal enters the process it may be acted upon at subsequent before 5:0. 10 PM.ings provided the necessary procedures and documentation are received Thursday following the Planning and Zoning Commission action. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Annexation and Subdivision: 2. General Location:'I'�`�5 �P' 3. Owners of Record:.1e. �- `''� '`� Address: �l 375 - "'"'D`� �nAct��b"�'� ��� ZiP�L Telephone 4, Applicant: .S -Ft2tc �� ,�. �MtRib�Zip�Z=Telephone Zai Address:H3'7s ��� - ° ' �,� eN4 �►�CE2S �Jo8�2yFF Firm: J > �fl��� 5. Engineer: a :: �cn��l ,nnAr-�sr�� P 6. Name and address to receivveCity billingS- 'Name i� `3b'IZTelephone 2-6$- Address 3� �• PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST: Subdivision Features 1. Acres: 3. 6$ 2. Number of building lots: 3. Number of other lots: 4. Gross density per acre: 5. Net density per acre: 1 6. Zoning Classification(s): R a, 7. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City Limits but within the jurisdictional mile, what is the existing zoning cla sification? R3 g. Does the plat border a potential green be lt? 00 9. Have recreational ease amenities en provided t the City? �3 D Explam 10. Are there proposed recreational 11. Are there proposed dedications of common areas?_Explain For future parks? Explain 12. What school(s) service the area? F,�ti� Cup rn�fiAKK`� Do you propose any agreements for future school sites? 00 Explain 13. Are there any other proposed amenities to the City ?_Explain 14. Type of Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial or combination): RFS ��t4L- 15. Type of Dwelling(s) (Single Family, Duplexes, Multiplexes, other): SALC PA%O&%2( 16. Proposed Development features: a. Minimum square footage of lot(s): L.?� S6o b. Minimum square footage of structure(s): I UP C. Are garages provided for?___ha Square footage: d. Has landscaping been provided for? Describe: e. Will trees be provided for?—TWill trees be maintained?--10— f aintained?1CSf. Are sprinkler systems provided for? v g. Are there multiple units?_Type: Remarks: h. Are there special set back requirements? ` 6 Explain: 3D` I.al 5asCS lDoi FicoiK Nvpcc . of uvl— i. Has off street parking been provided for? N —OExplain: j. Value range of property: k. Type of financing for development: 1. Were protective covenants submitted? g) o Date: 17. Does the proposal land lock other property?_Does it create Enclaves? OCT -08-98 THU 04:37 PM MARKS LAND SURVEYING 208 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARCEL A A parcel of land being a portion of the NE 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 10, Township 3 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap marking the Section Corner common to Sections 3, 4, 9 and 10, UN., R.1 W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence S.89040'23"E. 1322.58 feet along the north boundary of the said NW 1/4 of Section 10 to a set 5/8" iron pin marking the W1/16 Comer of said Section 10, said pin bears N.89040'23"W, 1322.51 feet from a found Brass Cap marking the N1/4 Corner of said Section 10; thence continuing S.89040'23"E. 1.11 feet along said north boundary of the NW1/4 of Section 10 to a point; thence S.0°01'16"W. 44.93 feet to a set 1/2" iron pin marking a point on the southerly right of way of Cherry Lane, said pin also marking the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S.89°41'01 "E. 203.46 feet along said southerly right of way of Cherry bane to a set 1/2" iron pin; thence leaving said southerly right of way of Cherry Lane, S.0°06'09"E. 351.30 feet to a set 1/2" iron pin; thence S.89°41'01 "E. 124.00 feet to a set 1/2" iron pin marking a point on the east boundary of that certain parcel described under Instrument No. 8707411 and the west boundary of that certain parcel described under Instrument No. 574474, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence S.0006'09"E. 266.34 feet to a found 5/8" iron pin marking the SW Comer of said parcel as described under Instrument No. 574474, and the NW Corner of that certain parcel as described under Instrument No. 9260788, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence S.89°40'19"E. 4.00 feet to a found 1/2" iron pin marking the NE Corner of said parcel as described under Instrument No. 9260788, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence S.0°39'41 "W. 3.53 feet along the east boundary of said parcel as described under Instrument No. 9260788, records of Ada County, Idaho to a found 1/2" iron pin marking the NE Comer of that certain parcel described under Instrument No. 93110125, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence N.89040'23"W. 332.75 feet to a set 1/2" iron pin marking the NW Comer of said parcel as described under Instrument No. 93110125, records of Ada County, Idaho and being a point on the west boundary of said parcel as described under Instrument No. 8707411 records of Ada County, Idaho; 209 379 7703 PAGE.02 OCT -08-98 THU 04:37 PM MARKS LAND SURVEYING 208 378 770 thence N.0°01' 16"E. 621.09 feet along said west boundary as described under Instrument No. 8707411, records of Ada County, Idaho to the point of beginning, containing 3.68 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO: A permanent and perpetual non-exclusive easement for the purpose of ingress, egress and utility services across the west 30.00 feet of the above described parcel. ALSO SUBJECT TO: Any additional easements or rights of way of record or in use. O�p'L LAND slr 0 7045 l LBENI&���5 aald s OCT 09 '98 16:42 209 379 7703 PAGE.03 Ci CENTRAL f DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE - 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL. • BOISE, ID 83704-0825 9 (208) 375-5211 - FAX 327-8500 To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our environment.- 98-333 June 4, 1998 Jeff Manship 4375 West Cherry Lane, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: 4375 West Cherry Lane, Subdivision Proposal Dear Mr. Manship: Central District Health Department has reviewed your land - development proposal- --We--understand that are -proposing two new" lots on your 3.68 acres with one existing residence. A total of three lots for the 3.68 acre. Enclosed is an application and information describing what the health district needs to process your proposed subdivision. Ground water monitoring is required on this site from the middle of June through the end of the irrigation.season. Monitoring is required on a weekly basis. Test holes will have to be excavated for -Central District Health Department and the Engineer with competency in soils classification to observe. We will not require a.Nutrient-Pathogen Study for this project,.but may require alternative sewage: disposal systems that provide a higher quality sewage effluent to reduce .impacts ,to the shallow, ground water in this area. Please review the information 'enclosed and call me, if -you have questions. Sincerely, Thomas Schmalz, EHS Senior Environmental Health Specialist Enclosed cc:' Tom Turco, Director of Environmental Health Martin 0. Jones, Supervisor of Environmental Health Serving Valley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties Ada / Boise County Office Ada -WIC Satellite Office Elmore County Office Valley 03 N. 1l st Countyoffice N. Armsrong PI. 1606 Roberts Boise, ID 83705 520 E. 8th Street N.. Mountain Home, ID 83647 P.O. Box 1448 Boise, ID 83704 Enviro. Health: 327-7499 Ph. 334-3355 Enviro. Health: 587-9225 McCall, ID. 83638 Family Planning: 327-7400 FAX: 334-33552P Family Health: 587-4407 Ph, 634-7194 FAX: 634-2174 Immunizations: 327-7450 Senior Nutrition: 327-7460 W, WIC: 587-4409 FAX: 587-3521 WIC: 327-7488 ® FAX: 327-8500 & 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor PUBLIC WORKS / BUILDING DEPARTMENT GARY D. SMITH, P.E. Public Works Director October 8, 1998 Mr. Tom Schmalz, Sr. EHS Central District Health Department 707 Armstrong Place Boise, Idaho 83704 RE: CHERRY LANE ESTATES Mr. Jeff Manship Dear Tom: COUNCIL MEMBERS CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD Mr. Jeff Manship has requested that I correspond with you concerning the sewering of his parcel of ground. Mr. Manship is proposing to develop two acreage lots, in the county, adjacent to existing city limits along the south side of Cherry Lane Road, east of Black Cat Road. These lots would ultimately sewer into a future sewer interceptor line that could be built along the Ten Mile Drain. I believe that Mr. Manship has furnished you with a drawing showing the location of the parcel and the size of the two lots. In accord with Mr. Manship's request I report to you that at this time no city sewer line exists to which these two acreage lots could economically connect. If you have any questions or need other information please give me a call. Sin erely, Gary D. ith, PE City Engineer Cc: File 200 East Carlton, Suite 100 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone (208) 887-2211 • Fax (208) 887-1297 BOISE 10 WARRANTY DEED For Value Received O DeWaine A. Kuehl and Patricia A. Kuehl, Co -Trustees of the DeWaine A. andl(�alrrdiT A, Kudhl' rilsl �l - dated the 31s( day of October, 1991, and any amendments thereto hereinafter referred to as Grantor, does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey unto Jeffrey Manship, a single man hereinafter referred to as Grantee, whose current address is 4375 West Cherry Lane, Meridian, ID 83642 the following described premises, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACKED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF. To RAVE AND TO 11OLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, his heirs and assignk forever. And the said Grantor does hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee, that Grantor is the owner in fee simple of said premises; that said premises are free from all encumbrances except current years taxes, levies, and assessments, and except U.S. Patent reservations, restrictions, easements of record, and easements visible upon the premises, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the same from all claims whatsoever. Dated: September 5, 1996. DeWaine A. Kuehl and Patricia A. Kuehl, Co -Trustees of the DeWaine A. and Patricia A. Kuehl Trust U/T/A dated the 31st day October, 1991, and any amendments t reto BY: , DeWaine A. Kuehl, Co -Trustee Patricia A. Kuehl, Co-Trustee�'��.,�aneerr,�r .R � • „�F rr ,y •.. H STATE OF 1DAR0 A /CtS 'M A � �7'°a�'1^il' 1 (� —01ird �Udrei0.` V1b�tIG� ss' e'rs�areca�naar9` GOYNTLY--OF ) STATE OF IDAHO COUNTY OF ADA ON THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED PATRICIA A KUEHL, KNOWN OR IDENTIFIED TO ME TO B. T11E PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE SUBSCRIBE TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AS THE CO -TR OF 111E DEWAINEA. AND PATRICIA A. KUEk[ TRUST, AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT TH EXECUTED THE SAME AS SUCH CO -TRUSTEE. A NOTARY PUBLIC OF IDAHO RESIDING AT: BOISE, IDAHO CONN9ISSION EXPIRES: 9/26/02 On This / U day of September, in the year 1996, before me, a Notary Public in and for said Slate, personally appeared DeWaine A. Kuehl and-Retrieie-f4-f:uehl, known or identified to c to he.lhc person& whose names are subscribed to the within Instrument as lite Trustees of the DeW m A, eie A: -Kuehl Vue h 'frust , and acknowledged to me that they executed the same as.; �1'ruslec. j OFF�dALSE/U, Diary Public 1of Idaho n $T���FAI�RK� I gat YI id lora l', / 1 ��SICo— SV�N 8 � munission expires: �Y%b rJ OW Q First American Title Company of Idaho WARRANTY DEED W. :i015i: I[) '96 SEI' 1G PH For Value Received _— TEF _.. . DeWaine A. Kuehl and Patricia A. Kuehl, Co -Trustees of the DeWaine A. andiPflt�_! is , Kuc+hl)ruiUJ`f/A dated the 31st day of October, 1991, and any amendments thereto hereinafter referred to as Grantor, does hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey unto Jeffrey Manship, a single man hereinafter referred to as Grantee, whose current address is 4375 West Cherry Lane, Meridian, ID 83642 the following described premises, to -wit: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACKED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF. To HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, his heirs and assignh forever. And the said Grantor does hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee, that Grantor is the owner in fee simple of said premises; that said premises are free from all encumbrances except current years taxes, levies, and assessments, and except U.S. Patent reservations, restrictions, easements of record, and easements visible upon the premises, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the same from all claims whatsoever. Dated: September 5, 1996. DeWaine A. Kuehl and Patricia A. Kuehl, Co -Trustees of the DeWaine A. and STATE OF IDAHO ) Patricia A. Kuehl Trust U/T/A dated the 31st day October, 1991, and any COUNTY OF ADA ) amendments t reto ON THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR a.• _ gPATF. PERSONALLY APPEARED PATRICIA A. a INvA , u� t t{t�s E NL.X. x `&-Vv q I SoP3�-L t-� bqT- k�A�e a� Tp,,Wic P, 4 -.-s . -v-v�c-cz:e �„ ��►D t-rl a� � �� mow... = st,�,��, OSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. BIOLOGY • GEOLOGY • ENGINEERING • SOIL SURVEYS • SOIL AND WATER QUALITY • RESOURCE PLANNING AND SITE INVESTIGATIONS 4696 Overland Rd., Suite 516 Boise, Idaho 83705 (208) 336-8661 January 16, 1998 Jeff Manship 4375 W. Cherry Lane Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Jeff: A soil characteristics and internal soil drainage investigation was performed on 1/15/98, on your property located in part of the NW1ANW'/4of Section 10, T3N, R1W, BM, Ada County. Two backhoe pits were examined to determine current and seasonal high groundwater depth, soil textures and colors (indicators of soil drainage class), soil structure and compaction, and depth of rooting (also an indicator of seasonal fluctuating water table level). The water table that occurs in the subject property area fluctuates in depth, seasonally. It is most extreme (deepest depth) in mid -winter through early spring (December - April), and at its most shallow level in late summer/early fall (mid-August to mid-October), after being recharged by the season's irrigation. My examination of the two backhoe test holes showed current free water de tp hs (water table) to be at 118" below the normal ground surface in pit TH1, and at 90" in pit TH2. The date of examination, 1/15/98, should be at a time when the seasonal high groundwater has dropped to near its lowest (deepest) level. In pits TH1 and TH2, soil colors and mottles indicate that the seasonal water table can and usually does rise to within 74" and 52", respectively, in the late summer/fall time of year. Monitoring wells were installed in both pits and water table levels should be read (ground surface to top of water in pipes) during the oncoming irrigation season on a weekly basis. If you have any questions about this report or if I can be of more assistance, please call me at (208) 336-8661, office; or (208) 375-7565, home. Sincerely, Glen H. Logan Certified Professional Soil Scientist cc: Lonny Fox Hubble Engineering, Inc. 9550 Bethel Ct. Boise, ID 83709 X01 32-7-1112, AES `� • Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date 1/15/98 Requested by Jeff Manship Phone _(208) 884-3843 or (541) 881-1258 Address 4375 W. Cherry Lane City Meridian State Idaho Zip Code 83642 Lot Size Bedrooms Parcel Legal Description _Part of NWNW of Section 10 T3N, R1W, BM Ada County ID Slope 0-1% Evaluated By Glen H. Logan, CPSS TH1 - Free water (water table) at 118" depth. Seasonal high groundwater appears to fluctuate within 74" of the ground surface. TH2 - Free water (water table) at 90" depth. Seasonal high groundwater appears to fluctuate within 52" of the ground surface. Pit TH 1 Pit TH2 0-11" Fine gravelly loam 0-12" Loam (10% C), (15% C), 10YR 5/4, IOYR 3/3, many fine many fine and few and few medium medium roots. roots. 11-20" Weakly cemented 12-38" Loam (10% C), hardpan, very 10YR 4/4, very fractured, 5-10% soil compact, strong material, IOYR 4/4, prismatic structure, common fine roots in common fine roots fractures. between prisms. 20-52" Weak to moderately 38-52" Gravelly loamy cemented hardpan, coarse sand (5% C), very fractured, few 10YR 3/4, common fine roots in fractures. fine roots. 52-74" Very fine sandy loam 52-68" Very gravelly loamy (5-10% C), IOYR coarse sand (5%+ 5/4, few fine roots. C), IOYR 4/4, few fine roots. 74-126" Extremely gravelly coarse sand, gleyed 68-120" Extremely gravelly and mottled colors, no and cobbly coarse roots. sand, variegated color, very compact, no roots. TH1 - Free water (water table) at 118" depth. Seasonal high groundwater appears to fluctuate within 74" of the ground surface. TH2 - Free water (water table) at 90" depth. Seasonal high groundwater appears to fluctuate within 52" of the ground surface. VA4)&AtP-- Am t s 1,..1 -TO 5T UL V-Eqt:�, L. -IQ C57rCS .1G d� ey.,-\sTv'� t -t:>5 (L -OT (;�JO Pvokszs, emc . --r� 6Cu« \3 C,Jo l i t is a me � s� .■iArm nn /I� In M ,No in -- ,. Aw ♦ slalom _ ♦ ■■ ■■ ■\ Ab A WE Ze ■ ���♦ *4i1iiiii iI $1I� iI�.i•�♦♦i ���� ♦ii 61 1i fn■Mi1'mi 0 luitt, 1111�ti■Iin ..nue 11IPFP01 xawo1, 1F, no, Q F4 �IfOwl almost ♦���. •��;��.,■: `iii .moi ■�I��N��iiii� :1�►,1 •�� � 1� ' For Accountable Mail IAdIlL O d _ Cn _ A W N O OD �I Cn Cn A W N j r N a 3 CL �-+ j�CO .� �� V 1 m ^..� tV`\ V vj a 0 V rpJ' D CrF N Fi --a m m `.:.^ CD m °1 I %� 41-. W -A, O C7 W 3anabG;bn"" M O O A 000 A J, b O ... ..+7db o00 O O O Y... + <Z D\ �,��>C= N tAo� 0, �o.� N �, ���C• r 3 �r z �z�a�a�10�°oCY � z°zzX0< ri' o (n r�rZr�> C py C C < R° xRDx m> C Y C Y Cn v. °0 n rnt�rnZ,m7rmc�r0c�� 2 7C zzzoC>n a m X to m�'rnarn=c�rzr z x-�xrn-cd-��oova r Cn -- -- rn z rn a O �y'r _, _ �v�'Q o Q .. N x tnam�nrnr�-<ymy�v�Zy-� G� r 7��T�J7rmCnrzC7zC��zvJ C7 C7 m t7 �C7Y2> p�z��m°Mzv dx ren d C��CCn Cn rn v 00 3CD to m tn�3�;n�;oz� y m C7 a d m m mz'�� y ��W� x o y z z p Z N d p d ❑ O Czi7 X a a °' z z w CD C7 Z Z Z 0X w x C7 Z Z a 00 w CCn p p 00 C7 O C7 W ^0 N C� O owo w W "U'' CD N N oo W 00 W 00 W a N 7 N ? CA 00 w 00 w %ICD'm m m CO A ? A C17 A w w ; Y "•3 N N w w m a m .� C N N N N W W O i W \O °- m Cao x N N CL C m o 0 o rrI v, ❑❑ ❑� m z o cDD s cD 4..J 0 m 3 N 0 n �. f0 CD D 7 O2 y m O. O - cD ] a _. o. CD - •o T N Om m 77-0 9N m S mag.2.Nmm qn-3oc2 C)y ❑❑m c ._o;� om ma* m �<n. , a 3o0ca MM - army CDD `o s w x ° m y o > Km IDOM CD 0 a a� o c�D. -0 w KO a0* m y O O N �mO m oNm�a CD 0 ° m x my 3.IDC y c o ID n o CD m a n d X o W 0• yo�W 3$o3 O m O ami 3���03 G., nCD :3 m O• p <D 0 N O. 00,0 - 3 c c �3•�>> R �. _ p� o; °• �.3m ` ,� '�' CO � wa c'o 3 D X Q 0 <W,<' mo.cJ,-c0 m -'�•' CDS a) (D vi W SOc �� . ': ri C �(/7 m' �mmmm CD 3 wm ° coa _ ° eixm° 7 .yyg a� mo -gym N ° rLO, 3 c a n m m 39.8-2- g5j CIc 3 g m =ooCD ID 0- r L'.oomv3 3 CD c2 vy32: 3 3 p R•Qm•m o c 3 D' m is , m o =o ° OD 'm 0. ° T m mm m 33 x c m ac ami m f 0 0 0 toasmm- w Go T CD v c N C N n O 3 V w Q. C CD N � v• ravvvaw��aYaI�G IVIQII Ul A W N O Cp dD --4 Cn i A W N iCD C O z (I)CL 3 CL � CL � Q -` (D CL mm m� ZD C a 3CD 0 CD N CD <Z CL Ctr J C' ZCiI cr Cb cnCD C M od wQ m CAy �z�z tz � C� cn �•° Z-- l ysi �a �yo �z z�,<� C[N Y`,�' m m CD m C7 (7 �G t� n Z m p Cn r y t� m a° A? x �,axxx�.. 3 d or yo CD ,>'..=r 0 Cr�ny� 'o Gr C�1 M �(`��f O m 0 Z m Z z m 2 a cp°O00 w d � w m �❑❑❑a (D o c CD d Cb O A o N m W 007 w N N N N a ami m m ON 00 a O R1 N ❑❑ ❑3 N vm 00 w _p - ' K c m3 cD 61 �m f/f m N O S CD ° m Cm -aa.o m CD 0m m_ 77'0 vi -ow S N aO avm N. '.0, 3 ovc ny_ ❑❑ n v, 0°1 m- =r 0) 2' CDL M' so .,oma$°� 3 N ma - m� o > N ammm o Cn 0 N'N Q' '< TC '00� � N �. 0 m �O - ;0 o mam00 j O c cm N �7• m< w'c N O �mmdo2a�i a8p-06 d c o� y� vm m m m c o v =�m�om o'do'mv oo� m m 0 ou�o<nw c- m m v -tea d N 0 �• 3 ry N C O y _ N n:, O O CD o m a m W . � .010 0 N CL N°a)3oo300 I it amD _C c c 3' 3 m 3 a ICD ocn c(n __x h m m�aomemi 69 `� �' �: O: OC m wm3 g$3ON5 c c 'a-'» 'J ma p� 0 7 > -23m mm mwmmm'm_ Q IDa O <0'w< vo �JU �0 cmo� ��v =0y 0.0* 0 �Cnmmw cp 2 c m m mNy3m�ooa 0 yN ^y K.d N. mo n �ocn3oa m032 39.8-.2- m, m m dw X33 _ m 0o�C^d. W NO `� O 3 mQom w ° m� y.'Lo. m ma x v m n 3 v2 m. m @3 .c y w o 3 v x o N m W �'c N 7 X ac_vd3 ID m fc a 5 m m •� Alk - 4375 W. (;Hr:KK x L�.. - •.���-_-�_ _ . PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' GOLFVIEW ASSOCIATES L P PO BOX 3510 KETCHUIVI ID 83340-3510 1698 N GOLFVIEW WAY 1674 N GOLFVIEW WAY N GOLFVIEW WAY 1681 N GOLFVIEW WAY 1669 N GOLFVIEW WAY W QUAKER RIDGE DR 4327 W QUAKER RIDGE DR W CHERRY LN BARR ROBERT A & KARLA J 1687 N GREENFIELD AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642-3912 TARRANT ARON L & SANDRA L 1694 N GREENFIELD AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642-3912 HUNN JAMES C & MARTHA P PO BOX 1076 EAGLE ID 83616-1076 1655 N GOLFVIEW WAY EVANS ALYWIN D & NANCY M 4349 W QUAKER RIDGE DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-3915 BYRNE MICHAEL P & NANCY E 4285 W QUAKER RIDGE DR MERIDIAN ID 836424096 GOLF VIEW ESTATES HOME -OWNER ASSOCIATION 1526 E O1 ST MERIDIAN ID 83642 W CHERRY LANE A CARLSON GERALD E IRA WEST ONE BANK ID CUSTODIAN PO BOX 7928 BOISE ID 83707-1928 N BLACK CAT RD 1 N BLACK CAT RD MANSHIP Y 4375 W RRY IN DL N ID 83642 TURNER BRADLEY S & LORI ANN 4365 W CHERRY IN MERIDIAN ID 83642-5433 DAVIS GEORGE B & MILDRED L 4225 W CHERRY IN MERIDIAN ID 83642-5433 4225 W CHERRY IN W CHERRY LN BROWN NIIACHTAEER J & CHERYL ANN III &PAMELA KAY HEI�G W ST ST 3017 W RAVENHUR MERIDIAN ID 83642 W CHERRY LANE HOFKINS EDWARD R & KATHLEEN Y 4200 W BLUE CREEK DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-4208 SASS DEAN D & SHERI L 4234 W BLUE CREEK DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-4208 SALLEE BRET & SALEE DEBBIE 4256 W BLUE CREEK DR MERIDIAN ID 83642-4208 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATTER OF THE ) Case No. PP -100-98:02 REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY ) PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JEFFREY MANSHIP ) DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council on June 15, 1999, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the denial of the application for annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ - 100 -98:01, and the hearing was opened on the preliminary plat application and no one provided any testimony at the hearing, and the hearing was closed, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order in Case No. AZ -100-98:01 does hereby deny the application for preliminary plat approval. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. It is found that the Recommendation To City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is not reasonable nor appropriate for the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat due to the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ -100-98:01. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JEFFREY MANSHIP FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES - 1 Pi DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Section 11-9- 604E of the Municipal Code of the City of Meridian and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that based upon the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ -100-98:01, the Council does hereby deny the application for preliminary plat approval. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ) day of 1999. as RT D. CORRIE , City of Meridian Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department and the Public Works Department. By Dated: City Clerk 61 msg/Z:\Wor1c\M\Meridian 15360M\Cherry Lane Estates\FFCLOrdPP r { SEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JEFFREY MANSHIP FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES - 2 0 0 interoffice RECEIVED MEMORANDUM �UN2519g9 040, a aft; t`IerJ� pan To: William G. Berg, Jr. From: Wm. F. Gigray, III Subject: PRELIMINARY PLAT CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY MANSHIP File No.: 100-98:02 Date: June 22, 1999 Will: Pursuant to City Council's action at their June 15, 1999, meeting pertaining to the Annexation and Zoning application by Jeffrey Manship for the proposed Cherry Lane Estates Subdivision, and Council's denial thereof, please find attached the original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT in Cherry Lane Estates Subdivision. This may be presented to the Mayor to obtain his signature only after the City Council takes action adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order of Denial in Case No. AZ -100-98:01. After you have executed the Findings please present copies to the Applicant, Planning and Zoning and Public Works. If you have any questions please advise. msg/Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Cherry Lane Estates\BergMemoPP062199 Meridian City Council Meeting June 15, 1999 Page 38 Rountree: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion has been made by Mr. Anderson second by Mr. Rountree that we deny the request for annexation and zoning of item number 13. Further discussion from Council? Hearing none roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: ROUNTREE, YEA. ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. BIRD, NAY. MOTION CARRIED: 3 YEAS, 1 NAY. Gigray: Mr. Mayor for purposes of procedure, I assume I will be directed to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and an Order of Denial in conformance with your decision here tonight for your consideration at the next Council meeting. Corrie: Is that your recommendation? Anderson: Yes, I'm sorry. Corrie: Also have the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Anderson: So moved. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP — 4375 W. CHERRY LANE: Corrie: Mr. Gigray, would that be — do we need to still have the public hearing or it's just Gigray: Well I think since it's on the agenda, you have to open the public hearing and then proceed and then it's going to be in the first instance up to the applicant the issue of the preliminary plat. Since this is now in the county I assume with somewhat depend upon our relationship with Ada County on approval of the plats. That are in the impact area. Although this does change I think the way you look at this. If you do not have an annexation as you've taken action here, you would not have any ordinance within which to consider a conditional use permit and so that would become moot in my opinion after your order of denial. Corrie: With that recommendation, item number 14 is a public hearing request for preliminary plat for Cherry Lane Estates by Jeffrey L. Manship. I'll open the public hearing. Comments from staff? Stiles: None. • Meridian City Council Meeting June 15, 1999 Page 39 Corrie: Since it is a public hearing would the applicant — nothing? Anybody else wish to issue testimony on this item number 14 request for preliminary plat? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Bird: Mr. Mayor I move we close the public hearing. Corrie: Do I hear a second? Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Bird second by Mr. Anderson to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Then I presume Mr. Gigray we need a motion on the preliminary plat; is that correct? Gigray: Yeah, you've had a public hearing so at this point, I guess you have to make a decision about whether you're going to grant the request, grant it subject to conditions. You have recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission before you for denial, and I would have to prepare the appropriate paperwork based on your decision. Corrie: So I'll entertain a motion then on the preliminary plat. Anderson: Mr. Mayor I would make a motion that we would deny the preliminary plat for Cherry Lane Estates and instruct the legal staff to draft the appropriate orders. Corrie: Any second to the motion? Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we deny the preliminary plat, that the city attorney prepare the appropriate order and decision and that the Mayor have the power to sign the same. Any further discussion? Rountree: I have none. ROLL CALL VOTE: ROUNTREE, YEA. ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. BIRD, YEA. MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS. Meridian City Council Meeting June 15, 1999 Page 40 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT DENSITY BELOW 3 UNITS PER ACRE FOR PROPOSED CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFF MANSHIP-4375 W. CHERRY LANE: Corrie: I assume that the item number 15 is moot at this point, Mr. Attorney. Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, it is my opinion and as you will know it's been standard advice of mine to the Council that you never take action on conditional use permits until you've completed annexation. We've held public hearings, taken the information, but we've always held the orders and the held the approvals and since you have now denied the annexation, you would have no ordinance under which to consider a conditional use permit, and my recommendation is that you would determine that it's moot at this point. If the applicant would try to submit some kind of new proposal or whatever at some point, then they can go back through the process. But there really wouldn't be any authority in which you would have a public hearing I would think at this point in time. Corrie: Do we need a motion on that? Just remove it from the agenda then? Gigray: To dismiss it. Corrie: Dismiss it, okay. I'll entertain a motion to dismiss item number 15. Bird: Mr. Mayor I move that we dismiss from our agenda any future Council meetings, request for conditional use permit for development density below three units per acre for Cherry Lane Estates by Jeff Manship at 4375 W. Cheng Lane. Corrie: Do I hear a second? Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion is made and second that the proposal on the public hearing on item number 15. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Mr. Mayor I would like a clarification for just myself being a not too smart guy, but why would even act upon the preliminary plat after we denied the annexation and zoning? It's out of our jurisdiction if we don't annex and zone it. • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JUNE 15 1999 C� APPLICANT: JEFFREY MANSHIP AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 14 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES SUBDIVISION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER; CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED RECOMMENDATION REVIEWED REVIEWED REVIEWED SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 81 Rossman: Well, lets open the public hearing. I agree with you though, it is proper to continue it to the next June Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Lets open it tonight and then move to continue. MacCoy: We are opening, we are not opening it, we are continuing the public hearing which was from last months hearing and is for the same program, project. The applicant, if you want to come forward and make a statement to the effect that you want to carry your material forward. BRYCE PETERSON, 1104 E. BRIGHTWATER, BOISE, ID. Peterson: I appreciate the comments that have been made by the commission. We would like to have it continued. We would like to respond to the comments as was suggested and if you would be so kind as to continue it along with Item No. 5 we would appreciate it. MacCoy: Okay, thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the public hearing for request for conditional use permit until June 8th. Barbeiro: I second the motion Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 7: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP-4375 W CHERRY LANE: MacCoy: Staff do you have any additional comments that you want to put on the floor right now? Stiles: Just to refresh the commissioners, this was tabled again because of a paragraph in the Comprehensive Plan that said development may be considered at densities less than three per acre if they would do it as a planned development and offer a cost benefit analysis. I have a little bit different interpretation of that, but that statement does exist in the Comprehensive Plan. Still dealing with the issue of a 30' driveway that accesses a five acre parcel to the south. Other than that, I have no further comments in addition to what we've already commented on for the annexation and zoning and the plat. That's going to Item No. 8. • 0 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 82 MacCoy: Bruce? Freckleton: I have nothing further to add. MacCoy: You have nothing. All right, over to you Mr. Manship. JEFFREY MANSHIP, 4375 W. CHERRY LANE. Manship: I have agreed to all of the Meridian site specific comments. I met with ACHD and agree to meet with their comments too. Just going on since December and would like to finalize a decision on it tonight. That's all I have to say. MacCoy: Any questions for Mr. Manship. De Weerd: Did they have in their comments that you need to increase that from 30' to 40' feet? Manship: No. De Weerd: Oh. Borup: So Mr. Manship, you did agree with all the staff comments? There are quite a number of things. The dry line sewer and the pressurized irrigation system that needs to be shown on the plat and streetlights and everything. Manship: Correct. ACHD had two driveway approaches that I agree upon to. We met two Monday's ago and talked about that and I agree with them both. De Weerd: Have you talked with the other property owners and worked out anything with them? Manship: No, I haven't. De Weerd: You haven't. Borup: Could you say why not? Wasn't that how it left last time was that was supposed to happen. Manship: Yes, they've had a couple interested buyers and they backed out and they have another one, so I never know what is going on. I'm trying to work on this. I'm not worried about what their plans are for the property to the south. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 83 Borup: Refresh my memory a little bit, were both these properties under one ownership at one time? Manship: Correct. Borup: You bought the front section and the person you bought that from retained a section of the back, is that the way that worked? Manship: No. Borup: The other way around? Manship: The people who had the original parcel split it with a one time split. Borup: Sold it to separate parties. Manship: Correct, then they split off another five acres in the back, which the other party is to the south of me. Borup: Okay, I thought staff had one other request. Manship: Wasn't there a question here about a copy of the road easement or something? Borup: I didn't underline that, so now I'm not finding that. Manship: I think at the last meeting was a conditional use and a cost benefit analysis, which I have completed both. Borup: Item No. 13 says please provide a copy of the recorded easement for review. Manship: That was submitted with the preliminary plat. Borup: You say that was submitted with the preliminary plat? Manship: It was part of the legal description. Borup: Okay, that was on her original comments that she requested back in December. When was that turned in? Shari was that not intended to be put into our packet or do you know? Stiles: I don't believe we ever did get the actual easement. We did get a legal description that just mentions. It said subject to that easement. We didn't have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 84 anything about the actual conditions of it. We have—it's in the title report, isn't it, it just refers to an instrument number, we don't have that instrument. Borup: So do you have an estimate of how many of these conditions still need to be complied with that you don't have the information on yet? I mean there is several here pertaining to the plat items and... MacCoy: Commissioner Borup are you waiting for an answer here? Borup: Yeah, I was just asking Shari if she had an estimate of how many items are still... Stiles: Bruce is looking for the legal description. I have a hard enough time remembering what happened last week, yet alone six months. Borup: Are you comfortable that you received enough of the items that you requested? There are no concerns in your mind? Stiles: We still would like to get a copy of that recorded easement which is—would be that instrument number, if you could just get us a copy of that. Just to make sure there aren't any problems involved with that. Ditches, I don't know if that has been addressed to Bruce's satisfaction. Are there existing easements on there Jeff? Manship: Nampa Meridian Irrigation requested to tile those ditches, because some of the are open. I've agreed to do that. Stiles: The ordinance covers us as far as requiring that piping and State Code as far as delivering irrigation water to the historic users. I really think the main issue was—it's going to be a policy decision for the council to decide if they are going to allow this type of development without hookup to sewer and water. There has been discussions about 40 acre piece at the southeast corner of Franklin and Black Cat there, that they may... (END OF TAPE) Stiles: ... into the existing sewer system. It doesn't have anything really to do with this project. If that were the case, it could be that a stub street could be provided from the west property to this back parcel. Without any applications being filed, I can't state when that might be or—we would still, staff would still support the no more than four homes be built on a 30 foot roadway. I would also like to ask that we didn't make any conditions in here as to the maintenance of that roadway, what the construction would be. I know that the fire department has indicated that it would have to meet their standards as far as compaction and construction. You might also consider that as part 0 0 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 85 of your recommendations to go to council on what standards you want that 30 foot road to meet. Borup: What has been the process in the past? How about some of these others been to ACHD standards. Hasn't that been the wording, other than the width, but as far as the base? Stiles: I don't know that we've ever approved a private road that is proposed to be gravel. Borup: Well not in the city, no. Some of those county projects we looked at. Stiles: Yeah, I don't know. If they are in our fire district, they have standards to support (Inaudible). Bruce indicates that it would be a HS20 loading. Borup: HS? MacCoy: Highway loaded. What is that 70,000? What is that? Something like that. Borup: You don't have to know, just act like you know. Just throw out a number and if no one else knows then. Well, where are we at on this? We're waiting for some more public testimony? MacCoy: I thought you'd asked Shari if she was satisfied with what you had received and what else did you need? Borup: I think she needs everything she had listed. It sounds like she is satisfied that it would have to come along some time before the fully developed. Is that true? Stiles: I don't think it's critical for you to make your decision, but I would like to receive those as soon as possible so we can have that before we go to the City Council meeting. Manship: So the instrument number of the recorded easement? Borup: I think she wants more than the instrument number, she wants the recorded easement itself. Stiles: If you could give me a copy of the actual recorded document. Manship: Not a problem at all. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 86 MacCoy: We could pass it on to the council with the stipulation that all it has to be provided before being allowed. Borup: I've changed my attitude, I mean before I felt concerned about property to the south and thing just hit me, that thing was split, both parties knew what they were buying at the time they bought it. MacCoy: Yeah, we had that discussion. Borup: Maybe that's what we need to worry about. There would've known the limitations at the time they bought the thing. If that wasn't acceptable, it should've been split differently. That's all I have right now. We are not ready to make a decision until the public hearing is closed anyway are we? MacCoy: Well I'm going to open—it's a public hearing, so if you finished with Mr. Manship, he can sit down and we can move it on. All right, thank you. All right, considering what we are looking at here, is anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this project. CHERYL BROWN. Brown: I don't know if I'm in favor or not. I don't have a problem. I own the back five acres of this property. I'm the one who talked the owner into splitting it off from the Kruels about five years ago. We were going to build our home out there and the Kruels were going to stay at the front property. They are an older couple, this is where they were going to stay. We've owned this property for five years now and then sometime later Mr. Manship bought it. That's where I just wanted to let you know that we didn't know this was going to happen, but you never know. What I'm concerned about is the roadway. I was told today that Mr. Manship said he was putting in a 50 foot roadway, I don't know if he is going to or not. That's where I'm concerned because if he doesn't and you approve this on a 30 foot roadway he can put his lots in, then I'm stuck if a developer—which developers have been approaching me and Mr. Manship on this whole parcel, which would be wonderful if we could work together on this. If we don't and he does his thing and I have developers approaching me saying we want to put four houses at least back there, we can't on a 30 foot roadway. We need 50. Then I'm stuck. That's my concern. I don't oppose to what Mr. Manship is doing putting houses back there. I just don't want to be stuck with where I'm at either. Borup: But that's something that you should have thought about five years ago, isn't it? Brown: Yeah, I guess I didn't at the time. We've decided, we didn't build our home back there, we went on the golf course, but—so now my property is up for sale. This is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 87 what I'm hearing from developers. Now am I going to be able to sell this or am I going to be—have a five acre piece of ground that is landlocked. Borup: You can get one house on it. De Weerd: Two. Brown: There is one building permit available on it right now. I'm zoned county and Mr. Manship just got his zoned city. So I guess I can ask you, I'm concerned about the roadway. Barbeiro: Mrs. Brown, who owns the land, this appears to be to the west of this lot? (Inaudible) Barbeiro: Why I asked who owns the land to the west is if you have 30 feet here, you could pick up 20 feet off the other side if you were to work out something with the people over here and allow you to get—wondering if the developers will want that land, likely want this up here too. (Inaudible) De Weerd: Well he has a barn that is 40 feet from the property line, so if you widen that to 40 feet, he would be within one foot of his barn. That is not doable. Borup: The time to work something out with Mr. Manship is probably not here at this meeting. That needs to be done elsewhere. Brown: It does. MacCoy: If you remember Commissioner Borup that this is the reason that this has been continued each time we come to this same crossroads and we say you know we continue it so that they would have time to work something out. I think we are at a point now that we pretty what need a fish or cut bait here. Borup: Question for Shari. It appears that the original application was for zoning and annexation, the application before us today is just for conditional use permit. Did the zoning application ever take place? That was (Inaudible). Stiles: You recommended approval of the zoning. It hasn't gone to City Council yet because they want to see the plat. Borup: They want to see everything, okay. That's what we were thinking. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 88 MacCoy: Well, was anybody else who would like to make a statement for this, I'll continue that situation while they are discussing their positions. On the other side of the fence, anybody who would like to state anything on the other side, the negative side? I guess not. All right commissioners. De Weerd: Well I'm looking for something. Barbeiro: Mrs. Brown may I ask a question please. You had said it was a requirement to access the property that you have should the developer wish to take it that you would need 50 feet. We can pretty much establish here that short of Mr. Manship tearing down his barn that 50 feet is not available solely on his land. For you to access your property with a 50 foot right-of-way, it would still require you to go into negotiations with the property owners who own the property directly west of Mr. Manships property. As I see it, Mr. Manship is not going to tear down his barn, nor would I expect you require him to do such a thing, so where am I missing what you want him to do? Brown: Well I guess what I was told through my realtor talking to Mr. Manship is that he was splitting off the house and barn separate. Then the next time I talked to her she said he had all of it up for sale. I guess I'm unclear really what he is doing and if he is going forward with this, am I going to be locked back there. If he is allowed to do the two acres, the two splits up front, am I going to be able to do the same in the back? Barbeiro: Are you required to come off of Cherry Lane, or do you have access to your property off of Black Cat? De Weerd: No, she is landlocked, she is right behind Mr. Manship. Brown: We have the easement, an ingress/egress easement for both properties. I'm right behind him. Barbeiro: How do you access your land right now? Brown: Coming down the 35 foot—well there is nothing there right now, but coming down that side. Barbeiro: Essentially a dirt path. Brown: Right, right. Borup: I know that I've asked this question before, but what was your understanding of who had access to that easement? 0 0 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 89 Brown: Both of us. Borup: That's the way it was written and recorded. Brown: Right, and that we would share maintenance on it and any other expenses on it. We don't have a problem paying for half of this roadway or anything, we just don't know where we stand right now. Barbeiro: As it stands now, it just goes in as it is, you will still have access to your land. So the only concern exists now, should the developer wish to come in, how will they access your land? Brown: They need to come down that roadway. That's the only way in. Barbeiro: My question was, if you have the land back there, what possibilities are there of having access to that land through an easement on a property that parallels Black Cat so that you have access to your land through Black Cat, not off of Cherry Lane. Brown: Well, we are not even, there is nothing. There is 40 acres next to us between us and Black Cat. We are not that close to Black Cat. (Inaudible) Borup: Thirteen hundred. De Weerd: So Tom in essence a 30 foot easement would only allow four lots and so Mr. Manship is developing two so she would be limited with her parcel of developing two lots. MacCoy: Well commissioners would you like to close the public hearing? What do you want to do next? Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the public hearing. De Weerd: I second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: Public hearing is now closed. What is your desire? 0 . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 90 Rossman: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment. I reviewed the minutes from the December meeting, the January meeting and the March meeting. I don't see anywhere in there where your recommendation for annexation and zoning was made by the commission. Shari do you know when that was done? Stiles: The annexation? Rossman: In January it was continued to March to allow a conditional use permit to be submitted in conjunction with the request for annexation and zoning to be heard in March. I look at the March minutes and it was just continued at the request of Mr. Manship, I believe. Stiles: I don't have my agendas with me. It was recommended for approval. Rossman: Okay, I just want to make sure of that before we act on a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. I just want to make sure it's part of the City of Meridian that we are dealing with. Stiles: Well, it won't be until the council acts on it anyway. It won't be final decision. De Weerd: Well the rezoning was along with the request for preliminary plat. We continued the preliminary plat, so I can't imagine how we separated out the rezone from the preliminary plat. MacCoy: You could've, but I don't remember. So what do you want to do here. De Weerd: Doesn't it have to be zoned before we approve a CUP? Stiles: No. The commission is only making a recommendation. It won't be zoned until the City Council zones it. Rossman: But Shari does it make sense to send up a recommendation for preliminary plat and a conditional use permit when in fact the City Council won't have a recommendation for zoning, unless.... Stiles: I'm fairly certain that it has been acted on. As much reassurance as that can give you. Rossman: I don't know if Mr. Manship wants to come back next month again. I guess he would have to either way. Stiles: It's already zoned R-3 in the county. This use would be permitted had they had any access and they would have to go through the city anyway to actually plat this Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 91 property. That's why they are requesting annexation. It's actually zoned so he could have done this in the county. So there was no question about the annexation and zoning, that wasn't the problem. Rossman: Why don't we act on the preliminary plat and the conditional use permit and if in fact there hasn't been any recommendation to the City Council for or against annexation and zoning, I guess we can see if we later discover that that hasn't been acted upon, City Council certainly can should they choose to act on. Berg: Just a response about the annexation, on December 8, 1998 the Planning and Zoning moved to recommend approval of annexation and zoning for property to R-2. Rossman: Fabulous, that was on December 8? Berg: Yeah. That is still kind of hanging there until we get the other stuff. Rossman: You've answered my question if it's been approved a recommendation then we will send it up. De Weerd: On what page? Berg: Page 54. De Weerd: Not that I'm doubting you. Rossman: Mine starts on page 55. Berg: I have it in my annexation and zoning file and you have it in your preliminary plat file. It's at the very end of that page of 54. Rossman: That issue is moved, go ahead. Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend and approve the conditional use permit for the development density below three units per acre for the Cherry Lane Estates. MacCoy: Now wait a minute. We are on Item No. 7, preliminary plat. Barbeiro: Allow me to amend that. I move that we approve the preliminary plat for Cherry Lane Estates. Borup: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 92 MacCoy: Any discussion? Okay, all in favor? Rossman: Before you vote on that, what do we want to do with staff recommendations. Are they included in the motion? Barbeiro: If I may amend the motion that we include all staff recommendations in the— in our approval. MacCoy: Do I hear a second on that? Borup: Second. De Weerd: As well as any ACHD comments, which we don't have. Borup: It's a private road, ACHD doesn't... De Weerd: What about requiring him to have two approaches that's what he testified. MacCoy: I don't have that in my file. Borup: Approaches from where to where? De Weerd: I have no idea, I just wrote down what he said. Rossman: That's fine, you can make it a further condition that if there are any ACHD requirements that be complied with. Barbeiro: Allow me to amend my motion to include any ACRD requirements for (inaudible). MacCoy: Okay, you going to second that? Borup: Second, yes. MacCoy: All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. De Weerd: Nay. MacCoy: Nay? De Weerd: I didn't say aye, you didn't give me an opportunity to vote. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission May 11, 1999 Page 93 MacCoy: Oh, I thought you said aye or whatever it was. You said no. Okay. So I've got two to one. Sorry I didn't pick up on that. That's the reason I say what I say about everybody (Inaudible). ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT DENSITY BELOW 3 UNITS PER ACRE FOR PROPOSED CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFF MANSHIP--4375 W. CHERRY LANE: MacCoy: Staff? Stiles: Nothing further. MacCoy: Excuse me? Stiles: Nothing further than beyond what was on Item No. 7. MacCoy: Okay, Mr. Manship, do you want to come back here again? What do you want to say about this? Manship: I'm just zoning it below what it is called for. Just put some variety into the development. That's all there is after doing that. MacCoy: Okay commissioners do you have anything else you want to ask of Mr. Manship? Manship: I have reasoning for that because Central District Health won't require septic system with a lot size of one acre or smaller. You need one acre or larger to have a septic system because there is no sewer access at the moment. De Weerd: I still like that density. I just don't like the road situation. What was it that ACHD wanted you to do? Manship: I have the requirements in my briefcase if you would like me to take it out. De Weerd: Well, if you would submit it for the record. Manship: I think that Brad Hawkins -Clark got a copy of them too, we met together. Rossman: Is it a final report or a preliminary? Manship: A final report. 4 0 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 40 Mayor A Good Place to Live ROBERT D. CORRIE F MERIDIAN Council Members CITY O CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 - Fax (208) 887-4813 KEITH BIRD MEMORANDUM: December 7, 1998 To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning -Q CEIVFD From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer DEC 0 7 1998 Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator City of Meridian Citv Clerk Office Re: CHERRY LANE ESTATES by Jeff Manship Request for Annexation & Zoning of 3.86 Acres to R-2 with Request for Preliminary Plat for 3 Single-family Lots We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the application. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: GENERAL COMMENTS I. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, 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 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. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name hitt approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 4. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Public Works Department. 5. Indicate on the final plat map any FEMA Flood Plains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary. 6. Due to the late delivery of these staff comments, please be prepared to respond to the each of the comments contained in this memorandum at the scheduled hearing by the Meridian Planning and Zoning. Submit ten copies of the revised Preliminary Plat Map to Cherry Lane Estates.PP Mayor, Council and P&A December 7, 1998 Page 2 the City Clerk's Office a minimum of one week prior to the hearing by the Meridian City Council. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. The legal description submitted with the application for annexation is not contiguous to the Corporate City Limits along the Cherry Lane frontage. Please submit a revised legal description prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, licensed by the State of Idaho; said legal description shall conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. The legal description for annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the Corporate City Limits per (Ordinance No 686). 2. Sanitary sewer service to this site is not available at this time. Applicant will responsible to install a dry line sewer system within this development that will drain to the future sanitary sewer trunk line that will be installed adjacent to Ten Mile Creek. Applicant will be responsible to construct the dry line sewer main to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. 3. Water service to this site will be via an extension of an existing main stubbed into the existing 30 -foot -wide easement along the western boundary. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 4. A temporary turnaround shall be provided near the terminus of the entrance road. 5. The preliminary plat indicates several open ditches within or adjacent to the subdivision boundary; however, no existing ditch easements are shown, nor is there any information as to how these ditches are to be handled. Please show any existing easements of record and any plans for piping, relocating, or abandoning these ditches. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches on this property.. 6. Developer shall be responsible for payment of assessments, and the actual physical connection to the municipal sewer and water system, of the existing home located on Lot 1, Block 1. Fees are to be paid prior to signature of City Engineer on the final plat. 7. One -hundred -watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 8. Applicant has not shown a pressurized irrigation system. Please revise the preliminary plat to reflect plans for a system per the requirements of Meridian City Ordinance. Please indicate whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned Cherry Lane Estates PP Mayor, Council and P&Z. December 7, 1998 Page 3 and maintained by the homeowners association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. If the system is to remain a private homeowners association system, plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 9. Please indicate the existing land use and zoning of all adjacent properties. 10. Please submit a master street drainage plan for the project, including method of disposal and approval from any affected drainage district. 11. Add a note that the minimum residential house size is 1,500 feet, exclusive of garages. 12. Create a 15 -foot -wide easement adjacent to the south boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 for a sewer service line to 4365 W. Cherry Lane. 13. Applicant has proposed use of the existing 30 -foot -wide easement for access to Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. The existing easement was apparently created to provide access to a 7.48 -acre parcel immediately south of this proposed subdivision. Please provide a copy of the recorded easement for review by legal counsel. 14. Although the City of Meridian has no private road standards, private roads of the proposed 30 -foot width should not provide access to more than four lots. This would prohibit the property to the south from further subdivision. 15. Annexation of this property, although part of an enclave itself, will make an enclave of the 7.48 -acre parcel to the south. 16. Cherry Lane is an entrance corridor. Landscape setbacks must be maintained along this corridor. The owner of Lot 1, Block separate common l be it is created fole for r puon rpose. 17. maintenance of the landscaping unless 17. Applicant proposes retaining livestock rights on Lot 1, Block 1. This grandfather right will cease to exist if the property is not used for this purpose for a period of one year. Animals in addition to those existing at this time (other than typical domestic pets) will not be permitted. Cherty Lane Estates?P BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES, JEFFREY MANSHIP, Applicant Case No. PP -100-98-02 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCTION 1. The property is approximately 3.68 acres in size. The property is generally located at the 4375 West Cherry Lane in Meridian, Idaho. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Jeffrey L. Manship of 4375 W. Cherry Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 3. The Applicant is the owner of record. 4. The subject property is currently zoned Rural Low Density Residential (R-2). The zoning of Rural Low Density Residential (R-2) is defined within the City of Meridian's Zoning and Development Ordinance Section 11-2-408(B)(4). 5. The proposed site of the subject property is 4375 W. Cherry Lane, approximately 1,300 feet east of Black Cat Road. 6. The subject property is within the city limits of the City of Meridian. 7. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - I PRELIMINARY PLAT -CHERRY LANE ESTATES - JEFFREY MANSHIP • Comprehensive Plan. 8. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: develop three (3) single family lots. 9. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the preliminary plat as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: Adopt the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Assistant City Engineer Recommendations as follows: 1.1 Applicant shall submit a metes and bounds legal description that references the recognized government corners. 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. 1.2 Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 1.3 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. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT -CHERRY LANE ESTATES - JEFFREY MANSHIP Ab 0 1.4 Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 1.5 Fire hydrant placement shall be coordinated with the City of Meridian's Public Works Department. 1.6 Indicate on the final plat map any FEMA Flood Plains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary. 1.7 Sanitary sewer service to this site is not available at this time. Applicant will responsible to install a dry line sewer system within this development that will drain to the future sanitary sewer trunk line that will be installed adjacent to Ten Mile Creek. Applicant will be responsible to construct the dry line sewer main to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. 1.8 Water service to this site will be via an extension of an existing main stubbed into the existing 30 -foot -wide easement along the western boundary. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 1.9 A temporary turnaround shall be provided near the terminus of the entrance road. 1.10 Applicant shall show any existing easements of record and any plans for piping, relocating, or abandoning these ditches. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches on this property. 1.11 Developer shall be responsible for payment of assessments, and the actual physical connection to the municipal sewer and water system, of the existing home located on Lot I, Block 1. Fees are to be paid prior to signature of City Engineer on the final plat. 1.12 One -hundred -watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT -CHERRY LANE ESTATES - JEFFREY MANSHIP 0 • intersections and/or fire hydrants. 1.13 The Applicant shall provide a pressurized irrigation system per the requirements of Meridian City Ordinance. Indicate whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. If the system is to remain a private homeowners association system5 plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 1.14 Existing land use and zoning of all adjacent properties shall be indicated. 1.15 A master street drainage plan for the project, including method of disposal and approval from any affected drainage district shall be submitted. 1.16 A note shall be provided on the plat indicating that the minimum residential house size is 1,500 feet, exclusive of garages. 1.17 Plat shall indicate creation of a 15 -foot -wide easement adjacent to the south boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 for a sewer service line to 4365 W. Cherry Lane. 1.18 Applicant shall provide a copy of the existing 30 -foot -wide recorded easement for review by legal counsel for access to Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. The existing easement was apparently created to provide access to a 7.48 -acre parcel immediately south of this proposed subdivision. 1.19 Although the City of Meridian has no private road standards, private roads of the proposed 30 -foot width should not provide access to more than four lots. This would prohibit the property to the south from further subdivision. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT -CHERRY LANE ESTATES - JEFFREY MANSHIP 1.20 Cherry Lane is an entrance corridor. Landscape setbacks must be maintained along this corridor. The owner of Lot 1, Block 1, will be responsible for installation and maintenance of the landscaping unless a separate common lot is created for this purpose. 1.21 Applicant proposes retaining livestock rights on Lot 1, Block 1. This grandfather right will cease to exist if the property is not used for this purpose for a period of one year. Animals in addition to those existing at this time (other than typical domestic pets) will not be permitted. 1.22 Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii on Cherry Lane located adjacent to the western property line. Pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. Adopt the Ada County Highway District's Recommendations as follows: 1.23 The existing driveway location on Cherry Lane located 10 -feet west of the east property line, which aligns with Golfview Drive on the north side of the road is approved with this application. The driveway shall be paved a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. 1.24 The applicant shall provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcels to the south and west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to final plat approval. 1.25 In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site. 1.26 As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. 1.27 Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Cherry Lane is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Adopt the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District Recommendations as follows: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT -CHERRY LANE ESTATES - JEFFREY MANSHIP 0 0 1.28 Requires all laterals and wasteways be protected. 1.29 All municipal surface drainage shall be retained on site. 1.30 If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. 1.31 Developer must comply with Idaho Code § 31-3805. Z:\Work\M\Meridian 15360M\Cherry Lane Estates\PP1tPZ.Rec RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT -CHERRY LANE ESTATES - JEFFREY MANSHIP CTT * f9F ERIDIAN 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 and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: December 1, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 1998 HEARING DATE: December 8, 1998 FILE NUMBER: PP -100-98:02 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY: JEFFREY L. MANSHIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 4375 w Cherry Lane TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER CITY FILES 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 & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTAT EPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (AI)lNE I ) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 40 Mayor A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE (208) 884-4264 Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO NG BUILD208 DEPARTMENT 208DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON 887191PCF," jT��LANNING AND ZONING Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) E "" �� Ji.., DEPARTMENT KEITH BIRD (208) 884-5533 N O v 0 6 1998 CTT * f9F ERIDIAN 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 and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: December 1, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 1998 HEARING DATE: December 8, 1998 FILE NUMBER: PP -100-98:02 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY: JEFFREY L. MANSHIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 4375 w Cherry Lane TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER CITY FILES 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 & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTAT EPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (AI)lNE I ) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: (.";,-y of 1 Iridian City Ciark Office 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 and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: December 1, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 1998 HEARING DATE: December 8. 1998 FILE NUMBER: PP -100-98:02 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY: JEFFREY L. MANSHIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 4375 w. Cherry Lane _ TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR �RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER 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 & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION)) 9 YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: IL_ A c, 02 i 2r_- 57 40 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE (208) 884-4264 CITY OF MERIDIAN Council Members PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 •Fax (208) LANN ONINGCEI�ED �NUU DMEN gA$ KEITH BIRD .8 1998 (.";,-y of 1 Iridian City Ciark Office 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 and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: December 1, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 1998 HEARING DATE: December 8. 1998 FILE NUMBER: PP -100-98:02 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY: JEFFREY L. MANSHIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 4375 w. Cherry Lane _ TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR �RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C _GLENN BENTLEY, C/C _WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER 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 & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION)) 9 YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: IL_ A c, 02 i 2r_- 57 / HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 40 Mayor LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live (208) 884-4264 Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO (208) 887-2211 GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 PLANNING AND ZONING Phone (208) 888-4433 •Fax (208) 8 RON ANDERSON CES v ED DEPARTMENT KEITH BIRD Im (208) 884-5533 N OV 12 1998 CEN OF MERIDIAN 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 and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: December 1, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 4, 1998 . HEARING DATE: December 8, 1998 FILE NUMBER: PP -100-98:02 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY: JEFFREY L. MANSHIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: 4375 w Cherry Lane TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z _KEITH BORUP, P/Z _ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C _CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C _KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT _SEWER DEPARTMENT _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _FIRE DEPARTMENT _POLICE DEPARTMENT _CITY ATTORNEY _CITY ENGINEER _CITY PLANNER CITY FILES 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 & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION) PcElvED N 0 V 1 2 1998 CTTY OF MERIDIAN 0 RECEIVED No V 1 U 1998 SUPERINTENDENT Christine H. Donnell November 6, 1998 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Councilmen: Enclosed for your review is general information relative to schools located in the proposed project area. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Carberry at 888-6701. Reference: Cherry Lane Estates Elementary School: Chaparral Elementary School Middle School: Meridian Middle School High School: Meridian High School Comments and/or Recommendations: Chaparral Elementary School is over capacity. We will be constructing a new elementary school near this development. Meridian Middle School is over capacity and will remain so until the fifth middle school comes on line in the fall of 2000. Centennial High School is at capacity. c: Monte Solomon BOARD OF TRUSTEES Rex Harrison • wally Hedrick • Holly Houfburg • David wynkoop • Steve Mann 0 0 Acla Countv'Riq4waV 2)iJti,1 Sherry R. Huber, President 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer Routson, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner e-mail: tellus(aDachd.ada.id.us May 6, 1999 Lj TO: Jeffrey Lynn Manship MAY 12 1999 4375 W Cherry Lane Meridian, ID 83642 CITY OF HERID11 I FROM: Steve Arnold, Senior Analyst Planning & Development Division SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat -Cherry Lane Estates/MCUP99-0011 4375 Cherry Lane On May 5, 1999, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the Preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of-way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District: a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho Registered Professional Engineer, together with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction*of the District, or execute Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. May 6, 1999 Page 2 3. Furnish copy of Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local Government Agency having such authority nether with payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs, as required. 4. If Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund deposit is required, make deposit to the District in the form of cash or cashier's check for the amount specified by the District. 5. Furnish easements, agreements, and all other datum or documents as required by the District. 6. Furnish Final Plat drawings for District acceptance, certifications, and endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement of the Owner's and Land Surveyor's certification. 7. Approval of the plat is valid for one year. An extension of one year will be considered by the Commission if requested within 15 -days prior to the expiration date. Please contact me at 387-6170, should you have any questions. SA cc: Plan & Dev Svcs/Chron John Edney Chuck Rinaldi City of Meridian E -- ADA P)UNTY HIGHWAY DICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat - Cherry Lane Estates 4375 Cherry Lane 3-lots/rezone Cherry Lane Estates is a 3 -lot residential subdivision on 3.68 -acres. The applicant is also requesting annexation to the City of Meridian, a rezone from R-3 to R-2, and conditional use approval for a density reduction. The 3.68 -acre site is located approximately 1,300 feet east of Black Cat Road. This development is estimated to generate 20 additional (10 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Roads impacted by this development: Cherry Lane ACHD Commission Date - May 5, 1999 - 12:00 p.m. N WE N !1 <— Z '! e �s -M r1plF �CHRRY I.ANe W. 1116 caoa Srata� 3 / io DA66 OF DE1YiAY - ---- - •- - _ 5Br4O'2s"e. c569.19'U 2645.09' p I r2zse� ui� ; 5A-a'16'W. �t�� e" cera' wnracue M.40' MOM' CAS Lm �000T —.46' L-? e 1 -f49611 66 Da�T i� 0 120 Ib5 AG1�5 60 IsaakmvoK j' JOE 2042' I 5B9.41'a"e. 124A0' w. nem' vo _ — — — Vol ► I �'°'` ' 1.02AX5 Pill M15roLm I 'Ix5rvnm IN 11 WW!DKM NBO*41,CIIV. MCI ym lit CM I III$ 4ii'n55-t car U MAW �� I I.01 AC1�5 NB7'4a19"w. J92.19' kOn'5 PAPK51 L Nt't.AMP C .�K 5 U P VIVI: N 0, 5' BOOK 64; Af pA25 6 58 0 0 Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner - Jeffrey Manship Applicant - same R-3 - Existing zoning R-2 - Requested zoning 3.68 - Acres 3 - Proposed lots 1 - Existing dwelling units 273 - Traffic Analysis Zone JAZ) West Ada - Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities - Impact Fee Assessment District Chea; Lane Principal arterial Traffic count 8,914 on 8/26/97 210 -feet of frontage 90 -feet existing right-of-way (45 -feet from centerline) No additional right-of-way required Cherry Lane is improved with a 5 -lane street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk abutting the site. Cherry .Lane was rebuilt in 1996. B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. C. The applicant is proposing to construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide curb return driveway on Cherry Lane located adjacent to the western property line. The driveway will be used to serve the southern two proposed lots. Golfview Drive is located approximately 150 -feet to the east and the site's existing driveway is also located approximately 150 -feet to the east on the south side of the road. District policy requires that driveways on Cherry Lane align or offset 220 -feet from Golfview Drive on the north side of the road, and are separated 150 -feet from all existing driveways. The site's existing driveway does not meet District policy. Staff recommends a variance for the site's proposed driveway because: a. There is no way to combine the driveways while adequately serving the existing single family dwelling with a garage and the southern two lots. b. The site has insufficient frontage to offset a driveway from Golfview Drive to the north. C. The driveway will be a low volume driveway, approximately 20 vehicle trips per day. CHERYEST.CMNI Page 2 0 0 The applicant should be required to construct the driveway as a 24 -foot (minimum) wide curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii and paved back a minimum of 20 -feet from Cherry Lane. D. The site has an existing driveway on Cherry Lane located 10 -feet west of the east property line and aligns with Golfview Drive on the north side of the road. The driveway serves the existing single family dwelling on the site. There is an existing driveway on Cherry Lane located approximately 50 -feet east of the site's existing driveway, which also serves a single family dwelling. District policy requires that driveways on Cherry Lane align or offset 220 -feet from Golfview Drive on the north side of the road, and are separated 150 -feet from all existing driveways. The site's existing driveway does not meet District policy. Staff recommends a variance for the site's existing driveway because: a. It is a low volume driveway. b. It aligns with a public road to the north. There is no where to relocate the driveway and adequately serve the garage. The applicant should be required to pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. E. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcels to the south, and west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcels to the south, east and west if they are the subject of a future development application. F. In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site. G. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. H. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following Site Specific Requirements and, Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to ACHD approval of the final plat: CHERYEST.CMM Page 3 0 • Site Specific Requirements: Construct a 24 to 30 -foot wide curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii on Cherry Lane located adjacent to the western property line. Pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. 2. The existing driveway location on Cherry Lane located 10 -feet west of the east property line, which aligns with Golfview Drive on the north side of the road is approved with this application. Pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcels to the south and west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to final plat approval. 4. In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site. 5. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. 6. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Cherry Lane is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship on r inequity, The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall sp scally id n i y each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the CHERYEST.CMM Page 4 i 0 Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Constriction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. CHERYEST.CNIM Page 5 0 Conclusion of Law: 0 1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. CHERYEST.CMNI Page 6 SUBIVISION EVALUATION MEET E D MANSHIP ESTATES MAY 1 1 199 Proposed Development Name GF�C City Im of Me ©f ce Date Reviewed 05/06/99 Preliminary Stage Final XXX Engineer/Developer Marks Land Surveying / Jeffrey Manship The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street names shall appear on the plat °W. CHERRY LANE" "N. BLACK CAT ROAD" A blueline final plat was not received so a faxed copy was reviewed for final plat. The preliminary plat did not have a proposed private lane name. 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, AGE , REPRESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed 1111 Sub Index Street Index 3N 1W 10 Section / p NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS 1�e(W dL NZ-- TR\SUMSM CITY.FRM ��-� Ada County Engineer John Priester .(-jS �� Date Ada Planning Assoc. Ann Hurley Date City of Meridian(impt) Representative J Date Date Fire District Meridian Representative NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed 1111 Sub Index Street Index 3N 1W 10 Section / p NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS 1�e(W dL NZ-- TR\SUMSM CITY.FRM 19 November 1998 City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 �I PxCErVE]D DEC - 2 iqur,, CITY OF MERIDIAN 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 RE;no y Aat for Cherry Lane Estates Dear Commissioners: Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 The 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 466-7861 for further information. All laterals and wasteways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Sincerely, A.WA<14- Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT BH: dln cc File - Shop File - Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 24 November 1998 0 Amy Woodruff J. J. Howard Engineers 1675 A Hill Road Boise, ID 83702 • 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 RE: Land Use Change Application for Cherry Lane Estates Dear Amy: 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 this development is under a "rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application. Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned, operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District concerning the installation of the pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements between you and the Irrigation District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's office or John P. Anderson, the District's Water Superintendent, at the District's shop. Sin cerely, 4 Donna N. Moore, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer cc: File Water Superintendent Urban File Jeffrey L. Manship City of Meridian enc. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 Acla Count"✓VC 4wa,oUC3tNCCt Sherry R. Huber, President 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer Routson, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner e-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us May 6, 1999 TO: Jeffrey Lynn Manship MAY 12 1999 4375 W Cherry Lane Meridian, ID 83642 CITY OF N ERID �Ni FROM: Steve Arnold, Senior Analyst Planning & Development Division SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat -Cherry Lane Estates/MCUP99-0011 4375 Cherry Lane On May 5, 1999, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the Preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: 1. Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are re4 sir d: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of-way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District: a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho Registered Professional Engineer, toe then with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction'of the District, or execute Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DIS RICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat - Cherry Lane Estates 4375 Cherry Lane 3-lots/rezone Cherry Lane Estates is a 3 -lot residential subdivision on 3.68 -acres. The applicant is also requesting annexation to the City of Meridian, a rezone from R-3 to R-2, and conditional use approval for a density reduction. The 3.68 -acre site is located approximately 1,300 feet east of Black Cat Road. This development is estimated to generate 20 additional (10 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Roads impacted by this development: Cherry Lane ACHD Commission Date - May 5, 1999 - 12:00 p.m. 1 zll� OL) 1) n I—J cam sgcna� 3 i to M'445 Ll CLCNERRY LANA se9'4o'2y'e. csB9.49'e� 264s,o9' D *I At 10" YVNER Ll�E IY11.40' - � 1� -- 589.41'01"E. 206.46' Ki 1 HOAC iraP�49BLI 1 1_ 66'1' 1 , E5}�Pj 1 r; I (MatM MfCH . 0 60 I b5 AC1�5 I `� R (R 2042'I 5B9'M'q"E. 124.00' 1,02 ACK5 I i 1 m5fo cr — ' IV=Iww NMNacm II I I � iFPoIJC�155-It I cauu ww 1.01 AM5 I I MM "All NM-40'ZY'W. M.74' 1 0 • The applicant should be required to construct the driveway as a 24 -foot (minimum) wide curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii and paved back a minimum of 20 -feet from Cherry Lane. D. The site has an existing driveway on Cherry Lane located 10 -feet west of the east property line and aligns with Golfview Drive on the north side of the road. The driveway serves the existing single family dwelling on the site. There is an existing driveway on Cherry Lane located approximately 50 -feet east of the site's existing driveway, which also serves a single family dwelling. District policy requires that driveways on Cherry Lane align or offset 220 -feet from Golfview Drive on the north side of the road, and are separated 150 -feet from all existing driveways. The site's existing driveway does not meet District policy. Staff recommends a variance for the site's existing driveway because: a. It is a low volume driveway. b. It aligns with a public road to the north. There is no where to relocate the driveway and adequately serve the garage. The applicant should be required to pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. E. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcels to the south, and west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcels to the south, east and west if they are the subject of a future development application. F. In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site. G. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. H. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to ACHD approval of the final plat: CHERYEST.CMM Page 3 Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACRD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two frill business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. CHERYEST.CMM Page 5 0 • Acla Count,"__RiV4wa,"2)ijti,t Sherry R. Huber, President 318 East 37th Street Judy Peavey -Derr, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer Routson, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Dave Bivens, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner e-mail: tell useachd.ada.id. us May 6, 1999 FECEIV En LJ TO: Jeffrey Lynn Manship MAY 12 1999 4375 W Cherry Lane Meridian, ID 83642 CITY OF HERIDUN FROM: Steve Arnold, Senior Analyst Planning & Development Division SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat -Cherry Lane Estates/MCUP99-0011 4375 Cherry Lane On May 5, 1999, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the Preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of-way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District: a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho Registered Professional Engineer, together with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. C. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction'of the District, or execute Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. • • ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat - Cherry Lane Estates 4375 Cherry Lane 3-lots/rezone Cherry Lane Estates is a 3 -lot residential subdivision on 3.68 -acres. The applicant is also requesting annexation to the City of Meridian, a rezone from R-3 to R-2, and conditional use approval for a density reduction. The 3.68 -acre site is located approximately 1,300 feet east of Black Cat Road. This development is estimated to generate 20 additional (10 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Roads impacted by this development: Cherry Lane ACHD Commission Date - May 5, 1999 - 12:00 p.m. sw. N E M._ CLCHERRY LANE 1. w 1�1b comer 3i Io - - --- --- PMO GF ve,M . . T . My12.58' - 5e9'40'2Y'C. (Se9'49'EJ 1645.09 I I.II� sD I".4a o•a'���w.449s�--..,' 8°�la�w�+ral.�e 4" (445 LM � �' — 13.46 - pp CF —+ 1 m Iir Pox 1822---1 w41 1 I I_ I-413' 66.4' 1 SHOV I rc I I,Of i ¢ i75atm viral . 0 60 120 ,1 _ 60, I 1,65 AX5 I -� 1 a' LISMI, 1'a"t, 124A0' Ne9.41'a Ow. — — — ICE LOf 2 ; 1.02 AM5 I 1,01"IN. M.51' -- -- � II$ La AM5 I PM 1w, 30 NB7'40'15"W 33YJ5' "-' j a U�"ffw nests ro at F4 TI wewm "a coliri MUM 55 -It k017' 5 PA K51 • The applicant should be required to construct the driveway as a 24 -foot (minimum) wide curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii and paved back a minimum of 20 -feet from Cherry Lane. D. The site has an existing driveway on Cherry Lane located 10 -feet west of the east property line and aligns with Golfview Drive on the north side of the road. The driveway serves the existing single family dwelling on the site. There is an existing driveway on Cherry Lane located approximately 50 -feet east of the site's existing driveway, which also serves a single family dwelling. District policy requires that driveways on Cherry Lane align or offset 220 -feet from Golfview Drive on the north side of the road, and are separated 150 -feet from all existing driveways. The site's existing driveway does not meet District policy. Staff recommends a variance for the site's existing driveway -because: a. It is a low volume driveway. b. It aligns with a public road to the north. There is no where to relocate the driveway and adequately serve the garage. The applicant should be required to pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. E. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcels to the south, and west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcels to the south, east and west if they are the subject of a future development application. F. In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site. G. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. H. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to ACHD approval of the final plat: CHERYEST.CMM Page 3 0 • Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required -design. changes______ 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. CHERYEST.CMM Page 5 Mayor HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 0 LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live (^_03)334-4264 Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY NIERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (203) 887-2211 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-44133 • Fax (208) 887=1813 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT KEITH BIRD (208) 884-5533 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: Fax Number: C p 5-V `T DELIVER TO: a4l Qit,r n1l � f TITLE/DEPARTMENT: ADDRESS: CONFIDENTIAL: YES DATE1,Q -%-q 2- NO- TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet): FROM: CC OF MERIDIAN - Fax Number (208)887-4813 TITLE/DEPARTMENT: " Please call us if you do not receive all FAX transactions successfully. Phone number (208)888-4433 0 TX CONFIRMATION REPORT 0 AS OF DEC 07 '98 16:37 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 07 12/07 16:31 12086370504 G3 --S 05'25" 008 OK 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: MAY 11 1999 APPLICANT: JEFF MANSHIP ITEM NUMBER: 7 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 3/9/99 All Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ?-�� X8'3 ,�n s M ADA?OUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat - Cherry Lane Estates 4375 Cherry Lane 3-lots/rezone CCS Cherry Lane Estates is a 3 -lot residential subdivision on 3.68 -acres. The applicant is requesting annexation to the City of Meridian, a rezone from R-3 to R-2, and a conditional use approval for a density reduction. The 3.68 -acre site is located approximately 1,300 feet east of Black Cat Road. This development is estimated to generate 20 additional (10 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Roads impacted by this development: Cherry Lane CCj ACHD Commission Date - May 5, 1999 - 12:00 p.m. I CCS W i;' l ct.y, VA <- 7Z C-0 my Facts and Findings: C A. CG 7= C1t General Information Owner - Jeffrey Manship Applicant - same R-3 - Existing zoning R-2 - Requested zoning 3.66 - Acres 3 - Proposed lots I - Existing dwelling units 273 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada - Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities - Impact Fee Assessment District Che rr; ;-L= Principal arterial Traffic count 8,914 on 8/26/97 210 -feet of frontage 90 -feet existing right-of-way (45 -feet from centerline) No additional right-of-way required Cherry Lane is improved with a 5 -lane street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk abutting the site. Cherry Lane was rebuilt in 1996. B. Utility street cuts in new pave ment less on1Servve ices atars 387 6280 (with are not file numbers) for unless d in writing by the District. Contact Cons details. C. The applicant is proposing to construct a 30 -foot curb return driveway on Cherry Lane located 4 � adjacent to the western property line. The driveway is proposed to serve the southern two proposed lots. Golfview Drive is located approximately 150 -feet to the east and the site's existing driveway is also located approximately 150 -feet to the east on the south side of the T j ays on Cherry Lane align of offset 220 -feet from road. District policy requires that drivew Golfview Drive on the north side of the road, and are separated 150 -feet from all existing driveways. The site's existing driveway does not meet District policy. 1 Staff recommends a variance for the site's proposed driveway because: a. There is no way to combine the driveways while adequately serving the existing LH building and the southern two lots ct �---i b. The site has insufficient frontage to offset a driveway from Golfview Drive to the north. C. The driveway will be a low volume driveway, approximately 20 vehicle trips per day. CHERYEST.CMM Page 2 C. There is no where to relocate the driveway and adequately serve the garage. The applicant should be required to reconstruct the driveway as a 16 to 20 -foot wide curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii and pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. ct E. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcels to the south, east and west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcels to the south, east and west if they are the subject of a future development application. F. In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site. G. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. H. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to ACHD approval of the final plat: Site Specific Requirements: CHERYEST.CMM Page 3 The applicant should be required to construct the driveway as a 24 -foot (minimum) wide curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii and paved back a minimum of 30 -feet from Cherry 4,� Lane. ct D. The site has an existing driveway on Cheery Lane locate 10 -feet west of the east property line and aligns with Golfview Drive on the north side of the road. The driveway serves the existing single family dwelling on the site. There is an existing driveway on Cherry Lane located approximately 25 -feet east of the site's existing driveway, that driveway also serves a single family dwelling. District policy requires that driveways on Cherry Lane align of offset 220 -feet from Golfview Drive on the north side of the road, and are separated 150 -feet from all existing driveways. The site's existing driveway does not meet District policy. �..�� Staff recommends a variance for the site's existing driveway because: Ct ''--� a. It is a low volume driveway. b. It aligns with a public road to the north. C. There is no where to relocate the driveway and adequately serve the garage. The applicant should be required to reconstruct the driveway as a 16 to 20 -foot wide curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii and pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. ct E. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcels to the south, east and west to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcels to the south, east and west if they are the subject of a future development application. F. In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site. G. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. H. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to ACHD approval of the final plat: Site Specific Requirements: CHERYEST.CMM Page 3 1. Constrict a -foo curb return driveway with 15 -foot curb radii on Cherry Lane located adjacent to the western property line. Pave the driveway a minimum ofx-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. ow 2. The existing driveway location on Cherry Lane located 10 -feet west of the east property line, which aligns with Golfview Drive on the north side of the road is approved with this application. Reconstruct the driveway as a 16 to 20 -foot wide curb return driveway with 15 - foot curb radii and pave the driveway a minimum of 20 -feet beyond the edge of pavement of Cherry Lane. 3. Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcels to the south, east and west to use this �� parcel for access to the public streets prior to final plat approval. ---a C CU 4. In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may r— be required upon review of a future application for this site. 5. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways,' shall be placed on future development of this parcel. I 6. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Cherry Lane is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Ct Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically id n i � each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9900 a.m. on the day scheduled for A .HD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. ct Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to. the Commission at the time Qf its original decision, The request �--� for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular m. eting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. CHERYEST.CMM Pave 4 9 0 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in �+"' accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact C1t Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. ��--� 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable CCS requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full 1 business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. � No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing ct and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. , i Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development C. - Division at 387-6170. CCS �—r Submitted by: Date of Commission Action: = Steve Arnold CHERYEST.CMM Page 5 MERIDIAN PLANNIO AND ZONING COMMISSION • MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 3 MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: Now we have the minutes from the previous meeting, which is a special meeting held on February 24th, any corrections? De Weerd: I have none. Borup: I have none. Smith: - None. De Weerd: I would move to approve the minutes of the special meeting held on February 24tH Borup: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: Now we start the public hearings. ITEM NO. 1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP — 4375 W. CHERRY LANE: MacCoy: Item number one is continuing a public hearing, which has actually been with us since December at least and was moved into the present time. Shari, staff wise do you have a comment on that right now? Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, we did receive a submittal for the conditional use permit, however it was incomplete, if they do continue and try to get a complete application into us it wouldn't be till the may Planning and Zoning meeting that it would be heard. MacCoy: All right... Stiles: May 11tH MacCoy: I need a thing to continue that. De Weerd: I would move that we continue the public hearing for Jeffrey Manship until the May 11th meeting. Smith: Second. MERIDIAN PLANN , AND ZONING COMMISSION • MARCH 9, 1999 PAGE 4 MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 1 ACRE BY KATHLEEN & WENDELL LAWRENCE — SOUTH OF PINE STREET, NORTH OF HWY 30/17RANKLIN ROAD, ON LINDER ROAD: ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY LICENSED FOR 50 CHILDREN BY KATHLEEN & WENDELL LAWRENCE — SOUTH OF PINE STREET, NORTH OF HWY 30/17RANKLIN ROAD, ON LINDER ROAD: MacCoy: Staff? Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, this was continued last time because it came up that the applicant was also the owner of the adjacent property and we asked them to explore also annexing that piece at the same time. When we learned some of what they want to do with that property such as wanting to run another day care facility out of that as a home, staff reconsidered and thought it would probably be better to do—consider all of those residential properties on the east side at one time and do a little more research into what might be an appropriate zoning, considering its industrial use across the street. So we could continue, I don't know if the applicant is here. I don't believe there was any additional testimony that they were asked for as far as providing additional information. They are going to need to revise their site plan to comply with Ada County Highway District's conditions, but we had no major outstanding issues on the application as presented. MacCoy: Thank you, Bruce do you have anything? Freckleton: Chairman MacCoy, nothing to add. MacCoy: Okay thank you. Is the applicant here by the way? It doesn't look like it. Commissioners what is your desire? Borup: Just a clarification, from what Shari said, the application last time was just for the one lot, is that correct? We continued it to look—so at this point it is premature to look at annexing the other lots, so you feel we could proceed ahead with the original application? Stiles: Yes, that would be my recommendation. CITY OF MERIDIAN Planning & Zoning Memo Ta File Frons Brad Hawkins -Clark CC: Date: 11/04/98 Re: Cherry Lane Estates Pre. Plat The attached CC&Rs for Grouse Pant Sub. were submitted by Jeff Manship on 11/04/98 as an example of restrictions to be placed on the two proposed lots in Cherry Lane Estates. Jeff, who developed Grouse Pant Subdivision, stated that he would .use very similar architectural, use and other conditions for the current application. 9 Page 1 ROBERT L. ALDRIDGE, CHARTERED, 6 Z-"- 5 r 2 Svc Attorney at Law 1209 North Eighth Street �� ' �� c_ Boise, Idaho 83702-4297 3f� Telephone: (208) 336-9880-�� Fax: (208) 336-9882 _ _._.. Attorney for Corporation �' DECLARATIONS ESTABLISHING COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR GROUSE POINT SUBDIVISION ARTICLE I _RECITALS WHEREAS, the undersigned (hereafter collectively "Grantor") are the owners of certain land in Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Lots 1 through and including 9 of Block 1, and Lots 1 through 15, Block 2, Grouse Point Subdivision, records of Ada County, Idaho, with exclusions as shown herein. HEREAFTER "Property"; WHEREAS, the Property shall be developed as a Non -Farm Planned Residential Development as defined in the ordinances of Ada County, Idaho, for residential, open space and agricultural uses and similar related uses allowed by law, under the name Grouse Point Subdivision; WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to subject the Property to the covenants, conditions, 'restrictions, easements, reservations, limitations and equitable servitude herein set forth to insure the proper design, development, improvement and use of the Property by the Grantor and all other persons or entities who may subsequently acquire an interest in the Property. ARTICLE 11 - DECLARATIONS The Grantor hereby declares that the Property described on Exhibit A, and each lot, tract or parcel thereof (hereafter called "Lot" unless specified to the contrary), in and shall be held, sold, conveyed, encumbered, hypothecated, leased, used, occupied, and improved subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, reservations, limitations and equitable servitude (hereafter collectively called "covenants 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 Grouse Point Subdivision and each Lot therein, and to enhance the value, desirability and attractiveness thereof. The covenants and conditions set forth herein shall run with the land and each estate therein and shall be binding upon all persons having or acquiring any right, title or interest in Grouse Point Subdivision or any Lot therein; and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Grantor and each Owner; and each successor in interest of each, and may be enforced by the Grantor and by any Owner, as hereafter provided. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no provision of this Declaration shall be construed or enforced to prevent or limit the Grantor's right to complete development of Grouse Point Subdivision in accordance with the plan therefor as the same exists or may be modified from time to time by the Grantor, nor obligate the Grantor to complete the development of Grouse Point Subdivision except as expressly provided herein, nor prevent normal construction activities during the construction of improvements upon any Lot in Grouse Point Subdivision. No development or construction activities shall be deemed to constitute a nuisance or violation of this Declaration by reason of noise, dust, presence of vehicles or construction machinery, erection of temporary structures, posting of signs or similar activities, provided the same are actively, efficiently and expeditiously pursued to completion. In the event any dispute concerning the foregoing shall arise, a temporary waiver of the applicable provision(s) of this Declaration may be granted by the Architectural Control Committee (ACC), provided that such waiver shall be for reasonable period of time. Any such waiver need not be recorded and shall not constitute an amendment of this Declaration. As provided in Section 5.01(b) of this Declaration, Lot 16, of Block 2, is excluded by the Grantor from coverage of this Declaration. ARTICLE III - DEFINITIONS As used in this Declaration, unless the context otherwise specifies or requires, the following words and phrases shall be defined as follows: ACC: The Architectural Control Committee for Grouse Point Subdivision. uil i : A structure constructed on a Lot, on a temporary or permanent basis, and unless specified to the contrary, shall include all other appurtenances and improvements thereto or used in connection therewith. Declaration: This instrument as it may be amended from time to time. Development: The Project to be undertaken by the Grantor resulting in the improvement i of Grouse Point Subdivision, including landscaping, amenities, construction of roadways, utility services and other improvements, as elected by the Grantor. Home Owners Association: an organization formed to operate the irrigation system landscaped areas and any common areas which lie within the boundaries of Grouse Point Subdivision and any other duties as provided for in the Articles of Incorporation. Subdivision: The whole of the land described on Exhibit A. A reference in this Declaration to Grouse Point Subdivision Shall include all Lots shown on. the Plat for Grouse Point Subdivision. Grantor: The undersigned Owners of the land described on Exhibit A. Improvements: all structures and appurtenances thereto of all kinds and types, including, but not limited to: buildings, roads, driveways, sidewalks, walkways, walls, fences, screens landscaping, poles, signs, and lighting. Improvements shall not include those items which are located totally on the interior of a building and cannot be readily observed when outside thereof. Lot. A portion of Grouse Point Subdivision which is a legally described tract or parcel of land within Grouse Point Subdivision or which is designated as a lot on any recorded subdivision plat relating to Grouse Point Subdivision. Mortgage: Any mortgage or deed of trust or other hypothecation of land, located in Grouse Point Subdivision, to secure performance of an obligation. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the reference to a "Mortgage" in this Declaration shall be limited to "first Mortgage", including a "First Deed of Trust". ccu : Any person, association, corporation, or other entity who or which is an Owner, or has leased, rented, been licensed or is otherwise legally entitled to occupy and use any building or improvement on a Lot, whether or not such right is exercised, including their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Owner: A person or persons or other legal entity or entities, including Grantor, holding fee simple title to a lot in Grouse Point Subdivision including contract sellers, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation, but including an Mortgagee (of and priority) or other security holder, provided said Mortgagee or other security holder is in actual possession of a Lot as a result of foreclosure or otherwise, and any person taking title through such mortgagee or other security holder by purchase at foreclosure sale or otherwise. play;. A final subdivision plat covering any real property in Grouse Point Subdivision, as recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Ada County, Idaho, as the same may be amended by duly recorded amendments thereto. Residential Lot: A Lot for the use of which shall be foi- a single-family residential purpose (. and uses incidental thereto as limited by this Declaration. ARTICLE IV - PURPOSE Grouse Point Subdivision is hereby made subject to the covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration, all of which shall be deemed to be imposed upon and run with the land and each and every Lot and parcel thereof, except Lot 16 of Block 2, and shall apply to each and every Owner and Occupant thereof and their respective successors in interest, to insure proper design, development, improvement, use and maintenance of Grouse Point Subdivision for the purpose of: (a) Insuring Owners and Occupants of building of quality of design, development, improvement, use and maintenance as shall protect and enhance the investment and use of all Lots and improvements. (b) Prevention of the erection in Grouse Point Subdivision of improvements of improper design or construction with improper or unsuitable materials or with improper quality and method of construction. (c) Encouraging and assuring the erection of high quality and attractive improvements appropriately located within Grouse Point Subdivision. (d) Securing and maintaining proper set -backs from streets and adequate free spaces between improvements. (e) Designating and maintaining open space areas to maintain and enhance the environment. (f) Assuring that the residential uses within Grouse Point Subdivision are compatible with adjacent farm uses and do not materially interfere therewith. (g) Limiting the use of Lot 16, Block 2 to agricultural purposes, except as otherwise provided herein. (h) Requiring that any re -subdivision of a Lot must comply with the applicable zoning ordinances and regulations then in effect. ARTICLE V - PERMITTED USES Section 5.01 Use: The Lots within Grouse Point Subdivision shall be used for the following purposes: (a) Residential Lots: The following Lots shall be used exclusively for single-family residential purposes and such uses as are customarily incidental thereto (hereafter "residential Lots"): Lots 1 through 9 of Block 1 and Lots 1 through 15 of Block 2 of Grouse Point Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof. (b) Open Space Lot: The following Lots shall be used for agricultural purposes, subject to the limitations as provided in this Declaration (hereafter "Open Space Lots") : Lot 16 of Block 2, Grouse Point Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof. Section 5.02 Approval of Use and Plans: No improvements shall be built, constructed, erected, placed or materially altered within Grouse Point Subdivision after the date of this Declaration, unless and until the plans, specification, and site plan therefor have been reviewed in advance and approved by the ACC in accordance with the provisions of Article VI, below. Section 5.03 Prohibited Buildings: No trailer or other vehicle, tent, shack, garage, accessory building or out building on a Lot shall be used as a temporary or permanent residence. Section 5.04 Setbacks -Residential Lots: Any building constructed on a residential Lot shall comply with the following Jninirriuri setbacks�4 tFront Lot -Line =- t -Thirty Feet -(30') {> - Rear Lot LineTwenty°Five Feet (25') i,Side Lot Line Twenty Five Feet_(25')1=- Any variance to setbacks must have ACC written approval. As used herein and elsewhere in this Declaration, "front yard" shall mean that area on a residential Lot from the right-of-way line, as shown on the Plat, to a line created by the front of the residential dwelling on the Lot extended to each side lot line. Notwithstanding the provisions herein regarding setbacks, if the applicable ordinances of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over Grouse Point Subdivision require setbacks different than those provided herein, the more restrictive shall control. Section 5.05 Easements: There is hereby reserved for the use and benefit of the Grantor and granted for the use and benefit of each Lot, and benefit of each Owner and Occupant and their successors and assigns, for the purposed incident to such use, development, and maintenance of Grouse Point Subdivision, an easement(s) for the installation and maintenance of public utility facilities of all kinds, including radio, television and transmission cables, the easements designated on the recorded Plat. Section 5.06 (' Commercial Use: No Lot shall be used at any time for commercial or business purposes, except for agricultural activity and for such commercial or business purposes as shall be conducted and maintained solely within a residential dwelling unit located on a Lot,. Provided that no signs relating to said commercial or business activity shall be displayed where visible from any public or private road within Grouse Point Subdivision and provided further, that the principal use of each Lot shall be as provided for in Section 5.01 above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantor, or persons authorized by the Grantor, may use a residential Lot(s) for development and sales activities relating to Grouse Point Subdivision, model homes or real estate marketing and sales. Section 5.07 Lighting: Exterior lighting and interior lights reflecting outside shall be placed in such a manner which will minimize glare and excessive light spillage onto neighboring Lots. Section 5.08 Animals/Pet. 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. No swine or goats will be permitted. All animals shall be contained and properly cared for, including keeping the animals and animal areas clean. Livestock shall be limited to up to two (2) animals such as horses, llamas, cattle or sheep. Up to two (2) domesticated animals such as dogs or cats, or other household pets which do not unreasonably bother or constitute a nuisance to others shall be allowed. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, consistent and /or chronic barking by dogs shall be considered a nuisance. In the event an Owner constructs or maintains a kennel or other restraining area upon a Lot, such shall: (1) be located on a Lot in manner to avoid an endangerment of or nuisance to adjacent Lot owners and , (2) at all times be kept in a clean and odor -free condition. Section 5.09 Drilling and Exploration: No oil exploration or development of any kind or nature of mining exploration, or any structures in connection therewith shall be permitted to be erected, maintained or used on any Lot and no minerals shall be permitted to be mined or extracted on any Lot. Nothing herein shall prohibit the drilling and use of a water well on a Lot. Section 5.10 i s: No commercial billboard or advertising shall be displayed to the public view on or from any Lot. Owners may advertise a dwelling unit and Lot for sale by displaying a single, neat and reasonably sized sign on a Lot. Other temporary signs advertising the name of the builder or the name of the institution providing financing may be displayed on a Lot during the construction of improvements. All lighted, moving or flashing signs for any purpose are prohibited. Section 5.11 { Subdividing: Except as specifically provided in this Declaration to the contrary, no Lot may be further subdivided, nor may any easement or other interest therein less than the whole be conveyed by the Owner thereof; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent an Owner from transferring or selling a Lot to more than one person to be held by them as tenants in common, joint tenants, tenants by the entirety or as community property or require the approval of the ACC. Section 5.12 Fences: No fence of any kind shall be constructed on any Lot unless the plans and specification therefor, including the location, material and color thereof, have been approved in writing by the ACC prior to construction or installation. No fence or hedge located on a Lot shall have a height greater than six (6) feet above the surface of the ground upon which it is located. The construction or maintenance of spite fences or spite 41rees or shrubs shall be prohibited on all Lots. All fences shall be constructed in a substantial manner and shall be maintained at all times in good repair. All new fences constructed as boundary fences shall be a wood pole (dowel end) or split cedar fence as determined by the ACC, it being the intent of the ACC to require uniformity in new boundary fencing to the extent reasonably possible. No fences shall be allowed irl the front yard of a Residential Lot. It is the intent of the Grantor that the ACC shall have the authority to regulate all new fences within Grouse Point Subdivision to the end that the locations, type and size of each fence and the material used therein shall, to the extent possible, present a reasonably coordinated appearance and be appropriate in a rural atmosphere. Section 5.13 Irrigation Water: The Grantor shall provide facilities to deliver irrigation water to the lot line of each Lot via a pump from the pond. Maintenance and operation of the pump and pumping system shall be the responsibility and cost of the Owners Association, along with maintenance and care of the common and landscaped areas and the pond. Water use shall be on a rotation basis worked out among the users. Distribution system within each lot shall be the responsibility of each homeowner. Irrigation water to the landscaped lots shall be included in the water rotation agreed to by the owners. The costs and expenses incurred for the operation and maintenance of the irrigation system serving the Lots shall be paid as provided in Article VII, below. Section 5.14 Sewer Disposal: Until public sewers serve Grouse Point Subdivision, all sewerage disposal for each Lot shall be a private septic tank system which shall be designed, constructed and installed on each Lot in accordance with the requirements of the governmental entities having jurisdiction thereof. The Grantor shall have no obligation for the construction or approval of any sewer disposal system or the connection thereof. Drainage from the septic tank located on a Lot shall be kept within the boundaries of the Lot on which it is located. Section 5.15 ( Maintenance: The following provisions shall govern the maintenance of Lots and all improvements thereon. (a) each Owner of a Lot shall maintain all improvements located thereon in good and sufficient repair and shall keep the improvements thereon painted or stained, lawns cut, shrubbery trimmed, windows glazed, rubbish and debris removed, weeds cut and otherwise maintain the same in a neat and aesthetically pleasing condition. Pending the construction of improvements, each Owner shall keep the Lot in a neat condition and shall not permit an unreasonable accumulation of rubbish and debris and shall keep all weeds and other growths cut. (b) In the event all or any portion of the improvements on a Lot are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, including any damage occurring as a result of the exercise of the power of eminent domain, or any transfer in lieu thereof, to an architectural whole in accordance with the requirements.of this Declaration. (c) A building which is vacant for any reason shall be kept locked and the windows glazed in order to prevent entrance by vandals. (d) All structures, facilities, equipment, objects and conditions determined by the ACC, in its sole discretion, reasonably exercised to be offensive or which creates a visual blight within Grouse Point Subdivision, shall be removed or enclosed within a structure approved by the ACC or appropriately screened from public view. Section 5.16 Nuisances: No rubbish or debris of any kind shall be placed or permitted to accumulate upon any Lot within Grouse Point Subdivision and no odor shall be permitted to arise therefrom so as to render any Lot unsanitary, unsightly, offensive or detrimental to any other Lot therein or in the vicinity thereof or to its occupants. No noise or other nuisance shall be permitted to exist or operate upon or from any Lot so as to be offensive or detrimental to any other lot within Grouse Point Subdivision, or in the vicinity thereof, or to its occupants. Without limiting the generality of any of the foregoing provisions, no horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices (other than security devices used exclusively for security purposes) shall be located, used or placed on any Lot within Grouse Point Subdivision except for speakers in an outside living area i.e. Patio or Gazebo. Section 5.17 Boats Campers and Other Vehicles: Any trailer, mobile home, truck larger than a standard pickup, motor home, boat, tractor, vehicle (other than automobiles), campers and garden or maintenance equipment, when not in actual use, shall be kept at all times in an enclosed structure or screened from public view and at no time shall any said vehicles or equipment be parked or stored on a - public or private right-of-way within Grouse Point Subdivision. _ Section 5.18 Exterior Enerdy Devices/Antennae: No energy pr oduction device including, but not limited to, generators of any kind and solar energy devices, or exterior antenna or dish for the reception of radio, television or other signal, shall be constructed or maintained on any Lot without prior written approval of the ACC, except for heat pumps and similar appliances shown on the plans approved by the ACC. Section 5.19 Minimum Area/Cost: No building intended for use as a single-family residence shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any residential Lot, which building contains less than 1,800 square feet of living area and has an initial cost to construct the same of less than $130,000.00 based on 1995 construction costs, adjusted to subsequent years in accordance with reasonable increase in construction costs for residential dwelling units. In the event the building intended for use as a single-family residence contains more than one story, the minimum square footage of living areas shall be 2,200 square feet and the minimum square footage of the first floor shall be 1,200 square feet. The square footage of living area shall be based on the interior living space at or above the grade of the Lot, exclusive of basements, porches, patios, and garage. Section 5.20 Construction Standards: The following standards and requirements shall be applicable to the construction and/or installation of any improvements on a residential Lot within Grouse Point Subdivision: i (a) Excavation: Any excavation shall be performed in a workmanlike manner and the Lot kept free from debris. Each Owner shall be responsible for the repairing of any damage which may occur during the construction period to any road, mailbox, utility facility or other on-site or off-site improvement caused by the Owner or contractors employed by the Owner. Unless an Owner otherwise notifies the ACC in writing prior to the Owner's commencing of construction on a Lot, all on-site improvements shall be conclusively deemed to be in good working order and condition and any damages occurring thereto during the construction, shall be the responsibility of the Owner. All such repairs required hereunder shall be made immediately following the occurrence of the damage. (b) Utilities: The connection to all utility facilities shall be underground and shall be inspected and approved by the appropriate governmental entity having jurisdiction thereof and the company providing the utility service, if required. Utility meters shall be placed in an unobtrusive location and concealed behind fences or landscaping where possible. An electrical service meter(s) shall be located within one hundred fifty feet (150') from an existing pad mounted transformer or one hundred feet (100) from a secondary junction box, as the same provided for each Lot, unless otherwise approved in writing by Idaho Power Company. (c) Landscaping: as a general guideline for the- landscaping of each Lot and as shall be shown on the landscape plan to be submitted to the ACC under Section 6.07(c), below, the front yard area of each Lot shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and ground cover, or utilized as entryways. Landscaped areas within the front yard shall include a minimum • 0 of:five_(5) one and one=half inch (1'.x'/2") caliperTrees measured at twenty four inches (24") {. above the ground plane and twenty five (25) five '(5) gallon shrubs. - All landscaped areas shall be irrigated with an automatic underground sprinkler system. Any plantings that do not survive transplanting or that do not present a healthy appearance shall be promptly replaced. Subject to weather limitations, all front yard landscaping shall be completed with thirty (30) days after initial occupancy of the building on a Lot intended for residential use. (d) Driveways: All driveways must be either concrete or asphalt in construction: (e) Maintenance During Construction: The following requirements shall apply during the construction of improvements on a Lot: 1. All debris shall be removed from the Lot prior to each weekend; 2. No materials shall be placed or kept on any adjoining Lot. 3. Vehicles belonging to workmen or used in the construction of improvements shall not be parked in front of occupied residential dwellings or interfere with traffic on public streets: 4. Utilities, including water, shall not be taken from any other Lot without the approval of the Owner thereof; and, 5. A receptacle, including a dumpster, for trash and debris shall be located ` on the subject Lot and shall not be allowed to be over -filled. (f) Time of Work: Any work or other activity in connection with the construction or installation of the improvements on a Lot shall be conducted on such days and at such times during the days as shall not constitute or result in an unreasonable nuisance or annoyance of neighboring Lots. (g) Roofs: The roof of each building on a Lot shall be covered with either architectural shingles -,or the and shall be approved by the ACC under Article VI, below. (H) Qualified Contractor: The construction of each Building on a Lot shall be performed by a qualified general contractor approved by the ACC and reasonably experienced in the construction of residential dwelling units and related improvements. No Owner of a Lot shall construct a Building on a Lot, unless such Owner is a qualified general contractor approved by the ACC and possessing the experience provided above. Section 5.22 Excluded Lot: The grantor has excluded Lot 16, Block 2, from the coverage of this Declaration. The covenants and restrictions herein, including any amendments hereto, shall not apply or be binding upon said Lot. 0 • Section 5.23 Outbuildings:One outbuilding per Lot shall beipermitte�i, The design, location, color and decor of such building must be approved, in writing by the ACC, before construction begins. Allow for fifteen (15) days for ACC review of plans and response. The style, size, color and decor shall compliment the residence on the same Lot, giving consideration to the planned use or used for said building and shall conform to all local governmental agency requirements: ARTICLE VI - ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE Section 6.01 Members of the Committee: The Architectural Control Committee (ACC) shall be comprised of at least three (3) persons, all of whom shall be appointed as herein provided. A member of the ACC shall hold office until he has resigned or has been removed, but in any event, until said Member's successor has been appointed. Members of the ACC may be removed at any time, with or without cause. Section 6.02 Appointment -Removal: The members of the ACC shall be: Walter R. Wanner Steve Powell Brian Wanner So long as the development company owns any property within the Grouse Point Subdivision, excluding Lot 16, Block 2, the above named persons shall be empowered to appoint all members of the ACC. When the development company owns none of the Property in Grouse Point Subdivision, excluding Lot 16, Block 2, the Owners by majority vote shall elect the members of the ACC. Upon that event, the ACC members may also serve as officers of the homeowners association. The ACC shall have the right, by a resolution in writing unanimously adopted, to designate one (1) of its members to take any action or perform any duties for and on behalf of the ACC. In the absence of such designation, the vote of any two (2) members of the ACC shall constitute an act of the ACC. Section 6.03 Non -Liability: Neither the ACC, nor any member thereof, or the Grantor, shall be liable to any Owner or any other person for any loss, damage or injury arising out of or connected with the performance by the ACC of its duties and responsibilities by reason of a mistake in judgement, negligence or nonfeasance in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve an application. Every person who submits an application to the ACC for approval or plans and specifications agrees, by submission of such application, and every Owner or Occupant of an Lot agrees, by acquiring title thereto or an interest therein, not to bring any action or suit against the ACC, or any member thereof, or the Grantor to recover such damages. • Section 6.04 ( Approval Required: No construction, alteration, modification, removal or destruction of any improvements of any nature whatsoever which materially alters the exterior appearance of the improvements on a Lot, shall be initiated or be permitted to continue or exist within Grouse Point Subdivision without prior express written approval of the ACC. Section 6.05 Basis or Approval: approval by the ACC shall be based, among other things, on the adequacy of the Lot dimensions; conformity and use of external design with neighboring improvements; the effect of location and use of improvements on neighboring lots; the relationship of the improvements to topography, grade, finished ground elevation and landscaping of the Lot to that of neighboring lots; the proper facing of the main elevation with respect to nearby streets; and the relation of floor elevations to flood elevations as defined by government entities. Section 6.06 Variances: The ACC may authorize variances from compliance with the requirements of any conditions and restrictions contained in this Declaration, or any prior approval when, in the sole discretion of the ACC, circumstances such as topography, natural obstruction, aesthetics or environmental consideration or hardship may so require. Such a variance must be evidenced in writing, signed by at least two (2) members of the ACC. If a variance is granted as provided herein, no violation of this Declaration or prior approval shall be deemed to have occurred with respect to the matter for which the variance was granted. Section 6.07 Application: To request ACC approval for the construction, alteration, modification, removal or'demolition of any improvements within Grouse Point Subdivision, the Owner shall submit a written application in a form required by the ACC, which must be signed by the Owner and contain all information requested and be accompanied by other material hereafter provided. The ACC shall have the right to require an Owner to pay a fee, not to exceed $250.00 to reimburse the ACC for any actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the ACC with respect to the review of an application, plans and specifications and/or its decision thereon. All applications must contain, or have submitted therewith, the following material (collectively called "plans and specifications") prepared in accordance with acceptable architectural standards: (a) Site Plan: A site plan showing the location of the buildings(s) and all other structures and improvements, including fences and walls on the Lot, Lot drainage and all set backs and other pertinent information relating to the improvements. (b) Building Plan: A building plan which shall consist of preliminary or final blueprints, elevation drawings of the north, south, east and west sides, and detailed 0 • exterior specifications which shall be indicated, by sample, if required by the ACC, all exterior colors, materials and finishes, including roofing to be used. (c) Landscape Plan: A landscape plan for portions of the Lot to be landscaped which shall show location, type and size of trees, plants, ground cover, shrubs, berming and mounding, grading, drainage, sprinkler system, fences, freestanding exterior lights, driveways, parking areas and walkways. (d) Contractor: Such information concerning the qualifications of the general contractor selected by the Owner to construct the building and related improvements on the Lot as shall be reasonably requested by the ACC to permit it to determine whether contractor is qualified and possesses the experience required by Section 5.26(1) above. Section 6.08 Decision: Unless extended by mutual consent of the Owner and the ACC, the ACC shall render its decision with respect to an application within thirty (30) days after receipt of a properly submitted application. The decision of the ACC can be in the form of an approval, a conditional approval or denial. A conditional approval shall set forth with particularity the conditions upon which the application is approved and denial shall state with particularity the reasons for such denial. Section 6.09 Other Responsibilities: Until the organization of a homeowner's association for Grouse Point Subdivision, the ACC shall have such other rights and responsibilities necessary, required or convenient to carry out and enforce the provisions of their Declaration, including the right to bring suit in its name or the name of one or all of its members. The ACC shall have the right to purchase, with funds provided from assessments levied under Article VII, below, and keep in force a public liability insurance policy in an amount deemed reasonable by the ACC, insuring the Owners and the ACC from liability for bodily injury and/or property damage occurring on common area, provided that the failure of the ACC to purchase and/or keep in force such insurance shall not be grounds for the imposition of liability upon the members of the ACC. ARTICLE VII - ASSESSMENTS Section 7.01 Lots Subject to Assessment: The lots which are subject to assessment under the Article are the residential lots. Section 7.02 Covenant to Pay Assessments: Each Owner, by acceptance of a deed to a lot, covenants and agrees to pay, when due, the assessments provided for in this Article. Section 7.03 0 0 Assessment Lien: All assessments levied and assessed hereunder, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, which may be incurred in collecting the same, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each lot within Grouse Point Subdivision and shall also be the personal obligation of the Owner or such lot at the date the assessment becomes due and payable. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall riot pass to an Owner's successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. The assessment lien created hereunder may be enforced in the same manner as provided in the statues of the State of Idaho for the enforcement of liens and mortgages. The lien herein created shall at all time be junior and subordinate to the lien of the first Mortgage or Deed of -rrust encumbering the lot. Section 7.04 Annual Assessments: Commencing in the calendar year in which the closing of the first sale of a residential Lot to an Owner occurs, each Lot (as specified in Section 7.01, above), within Grouse Point Subdivision shall be assessed the amount of $150.00 as the initial fee and $200.00 per year annually, provided however, that any Lot owned by the Grantor shall be assessed an assessment equal to fifty percent (50%) of the amount assessed against Lots owned by other Owners. If the Grantor pays all or any portion of the expenses for which the assessments are to be levied as provided in Section 7.07, below, in excess of the amount assessed to Lots owned by the Grantor, such excess amount so paid shall constitute a prepayment of assessments to become due and payable on the Lots owned by the Grantor within Grouse Point Subdivision. Any such assessment credit shall not inure to an Owner purchasing a Lot from the Grantor unless such person is the successor to substantially all of the interest of the Grantor in Grouse Point Subdivision. Each assessment shall be payable by an Owner to the ACC, or to such other party as the ACC shall direct, in advance or in arrears, and in such installments as the ACC shall determine. Sections 7.06 Interest and Costs: Any assessment against a Lot, if not paid when due, shall bear interest at an annual rate as shall be set by the ACC from time -to -time, or if none is so set, at an annual rate of fifteen percent (15%). Such interest shall commence on the date the assessment becomes due and payable. In addition to the interest charge, if an assessment is collected by the ACC with the assistance of an attorney, whether or not suit or action is filed, the Owner shall pay to the ACC, reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the ACC and such may be awarded in a judgement against the Owner. Section 7.07 Purpose of Assessments -__Qui of ACC: The ACC shall use all funds from the assessments paid by the Owners for the purpose of:. (a) Maintaining, repairing, replacing, and otherwise in all respects caring for the landscaping and related improvements, including, but not limited to: the sprinkler 0 0 system(s), Idcated on the landscaping easement as shown on the subdivision plat for the Grouse Point Subdivision including the landscaping located on such adjacent property along the north -south line of Cloverdale road. (b) Maintaining, repairing, replacing, operating and otherwise in all respects caring for the irrigation water delivery system, any fencing, and the waste water courses within Grouse Point Subdivision including, but not limited to: the pump and Fines except where the obligation to maintain the line is imposed upon an Owner(s) by this Declaration. (c) Maintaining, repairing, replacing, insuring and otherwise in all respects operating and caring for the common and landscaped areas, including the payments of taxes and other costs with respect thereto. The homeowners association shall have the obligation to maintain, repair, replace and otherwise in all respects care for said landscaping and irrigation systems. Section 7.08 Adjustment of Assessments: The ACC shall have the right to increase or decrease the amount of the annual assessment levied against the Lots within Grouse Point Subdivision, based on the actual and anticipated expenses of the homeowners association performing it obligations described in Section 7.07, above, including reasonable reserves for repairs and replacements. Section 7.09 Limited Assessments: The homeowners association shall have the right and the authority to incur costs and expenses for the maintenance and repair of any Lot, including the improvements on a Lot. If such maintenance, repair, cleaning, and/or upkeep is necessary, in the sole discretion of the homeowners association, to bring such Owner and/or Lot into compliance with the requirements of this Declaration, and if the Owner of said Lot has homeowners association backed or refused to perform the same within a reasonable time after written notice of the necessity thereof has been delivered by the homeowners association to said owner, the homeowners association shall have the right to perform or cause performance of the same and to levy a limited assessment against the lot owned by such owner, for the amount of the costs and expenses incurred by the homeowners association in connection therewith, including attorneys fees. The right of the homeowners association to incur costs and expenses with respect to a lot, and to secure repayment thereof by the levying of a limited assessment, shall also relate to the correction of violation of this Declaration which an Owner fails or refuses to correct within a reasonable time after written notice delivered to :such Owner by the homeowners association. Section 7.10 Non -Exclusive Remedy: The right of the homeowners association to levy a limited assessment as described in Section 7.09, above, shall not be deemed the exclusive remedy of the hombowners association, and it may; Iii its sole discretion, without,.*waroer r . { # of any other legal or equitable remedy, pursue enforcement of the lien of the limited i ?P assessment, collect the amount due directly from the Owner responsible therefore, and/or pursue any other remedy available at law or equity. Nothing in this Declaration shall prohibit or limit the homeowners assciation or an Owner from pursuing any legal or equitable remedy for a volition of this Declaration. r ARTICLE VIII - MISCELLANEOUS - W Section 8.01 t Term: This Declaration and all covenants, conditions, restrictions, and easements A ' contained herein shall run until December 31, 2020, unless amended hereafter pr ''I' After December 31, 2020 said covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements shall automatically extend for successive periods of the (10) years each, unless extinguish a written instrument executed by the Owners of at least fifty one percent (51 %) of the'lots in Grouse Point Subdivision and such written instrument is recorded with the Ada County Recorder. Section 8.02 ;rk 7 Amendment: This Declaration may be amended as follows: rfLt .. E' (A) By Grantor: Until title to a Lot within Grouse Point. Subdivision is conve ed b the Grantor to an Owner, this Declaration may be amended or terminated by the'Gr`aorra by recordation of a written instrument signed by the Grantor and acknowledged setting forth. such amendment or termination as to such unconveyed Lot. (B) By Owners: Except where a greater percentage is required herein, the provisions of this Declaration, other that this Section, may be amended by an instrument, in writing, signed and acknowledged by the Owners, including the Grantor, owning at least fifty one percent (51 %) of the Lots within Grouse Point Subdivision, and such amendment shall be effective upon its recordation with the Ada County Recorder. Any amendment to this Section 8.02 shall require the vote or written consent of all Owners. Section 8.03 Non -Waiver: The failure of the Grantor or any Owner in any one or more instances to insist upon the strict performance of any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, or other provisions of this Declaration or to exercise any right or option contained herein, or to serve any notice or to institute any action, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment for the future of such covenant, condition, restriction, easement or other provision, but the same shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8.04 Enforcement - Costs: This Declaration may be enforced by the ACC or by',any' Owner (including the Grantor) of a Lot. If suit or other action is filed to interpret or enforce this Declaration, or any provision thereof, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees, in addition to the costs and disbursements allowed by law, including the t W! same with respect to an appeal. Section 8.05 Acceptance, Each Owner of a Lot, each purchase of a Lot under a.:cohtri Cbf--:`i`; agreement of sale and each holder of ar-roption to purchase a Lot, by accepting" "adeed,, contract of sale or agreement or option, accepts the same subject to all the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and other provisions set forth in this Declaration's"and' agrees to be bound by the same. Section 8.06 Severability: Each of the provisions hereof shall be deemed independent:'a'nd, severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision or portion thereof, sha'llhot affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. Section 8.07 il-�,,. Interpretation: The provision of this Declaration shall be liberally construed 't'6'aIffJe'ctv the purposes hereof and shall be construed and governed in accordance with tke':IaWs of the State of Idaho. The singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular, and the masculine, feminine or neuter shall include the masculine, feminine or neuter. All captions and titles are intended solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect that which is set forth in any of the provision hereof. /Walter R. Wanner -known to me to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate first above written. 41d1Pary Public, residing at ' aho. . .. 1'x•`•,'•1,• ytiy: ,362-1-3110 0 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: MARCH 9, 1999 APPLICANT: JEFFREY MANSHIP ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 1/12/99 SEE ATTACHED LETTER FROM J. MANSHIP P�� All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. u4 -3S43 jtk yAaJi r� w, -PA. 0 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 12, 1999 The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order 7:05 P.M. by Malcolm MacCoy. MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Tammy De Weerd, Keith Borup, Mark Nelson. OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg. MacCoy: It's a new year 1999 and welcome you back to planning and zoning and wish you hopefully all of us a good year. We are sure going to strive for that in our position. First thing on the agenda this evening January 12, is the minutes of the previous meeting held on December 8, 1998. Is there any discussion by the commissioners as to what, any corrections? De Weerd: I have none. Borup: None. Nelson: None. Smith: None. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the minutes of the meeting held December 8. De Weerd: I Second it. McCoy: Moved and seconded. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP — 4375 W. CHERRY LANE: MacCoy: Since it is a continued public hearing, I want to start with staff. Shari do you have anything that you want to add at this moment because we had some things coming back to us. Stiles: Chairman MacCoy and commissioners. I believe that this was tabled or continued because of some of the issues with the property to the south that is nearly landlocked and will become an issue when they want to annex. The applicant is here tonight, he may have some information on that. I believe that it was continued so that the two property owners could get together and try and come to some understanding. PLANNING AND Z*NG COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 2 MacCoy: You are correct. I just didn't know if they gave you anything before tonight or not. Borup: I think was also waiting for a copy of the easement. MacCoy: I'm going to call the applicant forward here to open the public hearing or continue the public hearing and ask the applicant to step forward to see if we can clear up a few of these items. JEFFREY MANSHIP Manship: First American Title sent Shari Stiles a copy of the legal description it had the easement in there. Cheryl Brown has not contacted me since, but apparently she has had an offer from new interest in the property behind there and they have contacted me and they are looking to annex in and what not. There is no easement dispute as far as I know. I talked to Shari before the meeting and she has a copy of that legal description with the easement and there has been nothing else said on it. MacCoy: Okay, any of the commissioners have anything to say or ask of us? Smith: Shari is the easement wide enough to allow development of that south parcel with the development of Mr. Manship's property subdivision. Stiles: There is the legal description that was submitted. We don't have a copy of the actual easement, but we do have a copy—a revised legal description. It's a 30 foot wide easement. Smith: How wide does the street have to be? Stiles: A public street has to be 50 foot minimum. Nelson: If I remember right, this was the issue with the private lane and limit on how many homes can be built, supported by a private lane. We were just given the south property applicant time to check into that before she sold the property. Isn't that the whole idea? Manship: Apparently she has new interest in property and offer accepted. The gentleman that was here at the last meeting is out of the picture as far as my knowledge. De Weerd: You said he has contacted you. Does he have any? Manship: I have not met them yet. I've just talked to them on the phone and they are assumedly in the crowd here. I haven't had time to meet them yet. PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 3 De Weerd: Well great. Thank you. Smith: So have you discussed negotiating a modification to the easement to allow for a wider street? Manship: Not yet. I was going to pursue my project and as time permitted talk to them about any easement widening. Smith: Well if that adjacent property owner is here maybe we could have them come up. I don't have any... Borup: I think the two questions we had from last time was that and what the wording of the easement actually was, not just the size of it. What the easement would allow for, what usage? We are assuming that it's talking about a road back there. Are we also talking about utilities? Manship: Thirty foot ingress/egress utilities is stated in the easement. My knowledge First American Title when they sent a copy of that over to Shari Stiles is that it was supposed to be included in that, apparently it was not. Borup: At the time the property was originally divided, it was all under one ownership and when they sold it, they sold it with those conditions. If there was a problem, the original owners created it back when the property was first split. They didn't have a lot of foresight there probably. De Weerd: Why don't we see if we have a problem by talking to... Borup: I did have a question for Shari (Inaudible) I need some understanding of Comp Plan application to acreage's within either both within the city limits or within the urban service area, Specifically 63C talks about development may occur in densities as low as three dwelling units per acre. That's saying that is the—this says as low as, is that saying that you don't want density any lower than that? Is that what the comp plan is saying? Stiles: My interpretation is that the overall density should be around three. I don't know that it would forbid densities less than three units per acre. I think that is a goal to go toward so that you can develop everything within our impact area to an urban density. Borup: That says development below three, may be allowed by conditional use permit if the cost benefit analysis indicates positive impacts. So my interpretation of the way that it's written that that is the lowest density the way the comp plan is written and a conditional use permit is needed to go below that. Stiles: There is also a statement in PLANNING AND Z*NG COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 4 Borup: I'm not saying that I agree with it, I'm just saying that... Stiles: There is also a statement in the Comprehensive Plan that unless municipal sewer and water is provided, then it's a five acre minimum within the impact area. This is an unusual case—sewer is not available to this site right now. It's a policy decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council whether they will even allow this kind of development to take place within the city, without hooking up to sewer. It hasn't happened before. So I guess that's what the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council are going to have to determine if there are too many conflicts for it to be approved. Borup: I don't know if that answered my question, but thank you. MacCoy: Anymore questions Mr. Manship? Can we have the other party, are they here that we can talk to? DAVID RUNYAN 2100 W. LUCERNE. Runyan: I was here at the last meeting and we have since offered the Browns— actually it's my father-in-law that is doing it, purchasing the property. He's out of state so we are kind of handling his interest and they have accepted his offer and we close on February 20th. So we really haven't had time to get our annexation together, we feel like we need to close before we do that. Our main concern is that we are—at the last meeting I felt like we—the city and council was going to be flexible enough that we could divide that lot into four lots and use a private lane. That's what we were banking on. We have talked and called Mr. Manship and as long as we can go with the private lane on our existing 30 foot easement, he is in agreement with that, but he seems to be opposed to widening that easement. He even—we've offered to pay for any additional curb, gutter, and street that needs to be put in and he has disagreed with that. So far has not agreed with widening that road for our access. So our concern is this piece of property that we buy—that we intend to buy, it appears that it may be landlocked and certainly that is not good for us. When we looked at Ada County and what their restriction was, they had a 20 foot minimum road for private lane, 30 foot easement minimum and that's probably where they came up with 30 foot easement. Anything over 400 feet can erode over 400 feet they required—you can only have four residential lots on it. They also require the 45 foot radius turn around at the end of that private lane for fire access. So that is where we were coming from. We figured that if we could somehow get the Planning and Zoning Commission to agree to allow us those four residence, which in this case it would mean there would be seven lots on that one private lane that we could go ahead and develop that. We planned to develop it only into four pieces which would be just a little bit over an acre for each lot and two of those lots would be taken up by our family and Kathy's parents and we would be building on it as soon as we could and we would sell the other two lots. So the use for that would be PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 5 residential on one acre lot. We also agreed that we would put in the sewer stub from the back side of our lot back up to Jeff Manships property and that he would provide us the water line to come from Cherry Lane down to ours and we have agreed on that so we don't have any problem there. I guess if we have anything to say we would like to say that we recommend that you approve the plat plan with the stipulation that we can then apply for annexation and go ahead and subdivide ours into four, one acre lots. If we can do that, then we have no opposition at all as to what is going on. MacCoy: Any questions commissioners? Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, Mr. Runyan you said you were going to pay for the sewer line from your property to Cherry Lane? Runyan: No, from the backside of our property—we talked to Engineer Bruce last time and he said we could—they plan on eventually running a sewer from Black Cat along side of Ten Mile Creek. Borup: Right, I understand that. I'm just trying to make sure I understood what you had previously said. Runyan: We agreed that we would pay it for the sewer line, the dry sewer line to go from Ten Mile Creek up through our property to Jeff Manship's property with the intent that we would go ahead and develop with septic and then hook up into the sewer when it was available. Borup: Okay, that was already established I think that would need to be no matter what. I thought you were talking about something different. Runyan: No. MacCoy: Commissioner Borup, are you through or just thinking about it? Any other commissioner have any... Borup: Mr. Runyan have you seen a copy of this easement? Runyan: Yes I have. Not the legal description, but... Borup: No, the wording of the easement (Inaudible). Runyan: Yes, it says it's a non-exclusive ingress/egress easement is what it says on the engineer drawing. In fact, we have a copy of that, I think in our files here tonight. That's just a note written on the drawing, so it's not like—[ don't think it's the real legal description or agreement. Maybe it is, I don't know. PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 6 Borup: The thought I had was wonder what the original intention was if it was intended strictly for egress/ingress to the property in the back, the property that you are talking about with intention of the Manship's property accessing directly from Cherry Lane or whether it's intended for dual access for both properties. Runyan: I'm not sure about that. We got some paperwork back from Ada County, we had submitted a tentative site plan to them showing our four lot division and basically they came back to us and said it's an illegal lot and that's all they told us and that we need to apply to them to make it legal and they gave us some other instructions. We feel like what we would really like to do is we would like to be on city water and we would like to be on city sewer when it's available. So we fully intend to annex, so we didn't feel like we needed to go to Ada County. Borup: That was my other question because I think last month you said you had no intention of asking for annexation. Runyan: Well after listening to what was going on, I think the annexation would be in our best interest. Borup: Thank you. Runyan: It's easier to work with Meridian City than it would be Ada County in this case. Borup: That's all I had Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Any other questions commissioners? Okay thank you. Since we are still here in the public hearing is anybody here that would like to speak for the proposal? Is there anybody here who would like to speak on the other side of the fence, the negative side? If not, commissioners? Nelson: I have a question for Shari, it's the same question I asked last time, but I forgot the answer. If we approve this as is, recommend it's approval with the potential seven lots, that's going to be a separate submittal from... Stiles: Yeah, you couldn't put conditions on it like that, because until somebody applies for something you can't comment on it. You can't put a contingency on it that it's going to approve somebody's lots when they have made no application for any annexation or platting. Nelson: So I just wanted to point out that we can't guarantee anything to these, the new potential applicant and can't really imply one way or another what—I know that you have already looked at purchasing the property, but I don't think we can guarantee anything to you. That's the way I see it. PLANNING AND ZOING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 7 Smith: I have one question for Mr. Runyan again. Is it your intention to subdivide your property? Runyan: Yes it is. Smith: Okay that's the only question that I had. Runyan: Into the four acres—or four one acre lots. MacCoy: Anything else? Okay. Runyan: My wife would like to say something. KATHY RUNYAN, 2100 W LUCERNE. K. Runyan: If you shut out the property now, it's going to forever be landlocked and you will never be able to develop that piece because eventually on that west portion they will put in a subdivision and block it out, on the south side is Ten Mile Creek, and you will have absolutely no access at all to that property and it will be a dead piece of property in there. So if we can't work it through with us, there will be somebody coming behind us trying to do it and it will never be able to get done. So is a possibility of maybe stubbing out the road and hooking in with the new subdivision whenever that gets put in a few years down the road. Approve it on condition of going on creating a public street off that south end. I don't know. MacCoy: Any questions for her? Borup: Just a comment. It would not be landlocked, you have an easement through there. You have an egress easement already, so there is access to the property. K. Runyan: Right, for how many homes? Borup: That's where the difference. K. Runyan: Yeah for one home, I think it's too expense. Borup: Two homes, one in county. K. Runyan: Just one home in there if only four homes allowed off of a private lane. Borup: That's all there would be. Two up front and two in the back. K. Runyan: Isn't Mr. Manship going to put three homes on there? PLANNING AND ZOING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 8 De Weerd: Just two off that road. Borup: That was all thank you. MacCoy: Shari do you have anymore comment on this right now before I close the public hearing? Stiles: I guess the more issues that come up about this project, the more concerned I get that other people consider that this is setting a precedent within the city that we are going to allow development of one acre lots or however many acre lots without hooking up to sewer. I realize that sewer is a long way off from this property, but—and probably the people in the adjacent subdivision are not going to have any problem with having one acre lots adjacent to them and it's nice to have varying densities and have a choice for people, but that's my main concern is that we are considering annexation and subdivision of a property that has no ability to be sewered at this time. There is 40 acres at Ten Mile and Cherry Lane that I'm sure if they see what—if this is approved they are going to use that as a case for why can't we do our 40 acres in one acre lots? Then it gets very cost prohibited to put in sewer and water at a later date and doesn't meet the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The ones that Keith brought up, even though he may not agree with them, they are policies of the Comprehensive Plan and I think that's what commissioners need to look at in their decision. MacCoy: Thank you very much Shari. Borup: MR. Chairman, maybe expand on what Shari, or question for her, do you feel having dry line sewers installed, assuming that would be coordinated with public works as far as sewer line depth, etc., do you think that would solve some of the concerns? Answer some of the concerns there about developing without having sewer if the dry line—if the sewer dry line is installed? I think along with that stipulation of course would be that when the sewer is there and available when the trunk line is in, then the connection need to be made at that time. Stiles: It would help to appoint, in this case, if they build a dry line sewers as shallow as possible, it shouldn't be a problem, but if other people interpret that— well as long as we put in the dry line sewers we can go ahead and develop it at whatever density and disregard the five acre minimum, the dry line sewers are not feasible in the majority of the cases. There—it's impossible to tell what elevation they are going to need to be at and no inspection is normally done by any city staff to make sure that they are done to any kind of standard. Borup: Well I would have a concern on that too then. Can that be made a stipulation that the inspection be done? Stiles: Inspection will be done when it's annexed into the city. PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION 0 JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 9 Borup: Right, I mean before the dry—you are talking about inspections on the dry line sewers. Stiles: Yeah, I'm referring to the dry line sewers that occur in Ada County, that we don't... Borup: Area of impact? Stiles: Right. Borup: On doing acre subdivisions there. Well, I don't know that this would be starting a precedence then. There is a difference and the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think that could be specified pretty specifically what applies and what doesn't, maybe not. Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think there are certain things in the comp plan that are not clear enough or we don't agree with or there is a multiple listing of things I'm sure, but if it goes against the comp plan, we can't do it, can we Mr. Attorney? Rossman: No, if your determination is that this application is inconsistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan or any of the standards in the subdivision ordinance for Meridian, you can't approve it. That's pretty clear on that. If it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan that can not be approved. Borup: That's why I asked that question to start with. To make sure we (Inaudible) it does say conditional use would be required so I guess that is an option there. Rossman: But it hasn't been applied for. Nelson: But Mr. Manship's proposal—does that meet with the comp plan? Because really we are debating an issue that doesn't exist yet. Borup: No, I think it still applies to Mr. Manship's yes. Maybe we need an interpretation of that paragraph of the comp plan. Smith: What's more concerning to me is, we've had statements from the adjacent property owner that they intend to annex, they intend to subdivide and we would be approving a parcel with an easement that doesn't work for that and then we would be going through all this crap all over again. It seems like to me these two, and with all due respect to Mr. Manship, he shouldn't be held hostage to someone whose not having an application on the table, but none the less, testimony is a matter of public record. The adjacent property owner intends to develop and subdivide. I think they need to get together and decide what they are going to do and come in with a proposal that works for both of them. PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 10 Borup: You are saying a wider access? Smith: It's all hinging on an easement. We can make a conditional use application for a variance from the one acre business that we've been discussing here and approve it on that basis. Personally it doesn't work. Borup: Are you thinking a 42 foot easement which has been the city's requirement on a private road, something that would work and be in compliance with... De Weerd: With an application for a variance or a conditional use permit Borup: Is that the proper interpretation of the comp plan in this case? I guess we could talk about something else while he is reading that. MacCoy: Eric you checking the book? Rossman: Keith's reading of—what you are reading of the—it doesn't look like an ambiguous provision to me. It basically says that development may occur in densities as low as three dwelling units per acre if physical connections (Inaudible) existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and last by conditional use permit. It seems pretty straight forward to me. There doesn't seem to be a lot of ambiguity there. If in fact they are asking for less than three dwelling units, then it has to be done by conditional use permit. If they are asking for more, there must be physical connection made to the City of Meridian water and sewer service. Borup: I really think, I doubt that some phases of say Meridian Greens that are probably got less density than that. I don't know (Inaudible) phases going through, there are some pretty large lots in there. Smith: Chairman MacCoy isn't your lot the biggest? MacCoy: No it's not and I don't care for it to be either. Borup: As Shari mentioned, I think it's good to have a variety of densities. This is definitely something that needs to be addressed when we are looking at the new comp plan changes coming up. Decide what—you know what citizens of this town want and... MacCoy: You will be involved in that anyway, it's coming up. Borup: I hope, I'm planning on it. MacCoy: Are we ready to either close the public hearing, leave it open? PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 11 Smith: I'm way ready. MacCoy: Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing? What do you want to do? Smith: I make a motion to close the public hearing. Nelson: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion? Ready for that call. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one nay. MacCoy: Okay, we still have three to one. Now having closed the public hearing what is decision? Do I have a motion? Borup: Well, we can have some discussion here. MacCoy: You can have a discussion. Smith: Seems like this application if it stood alone it would need to come with a conditional use permit. De Weerd: And it doesn't so... Smith: And given the testimony from the adjacent property owner intending to subdivide that property, I would be inclined to recommend to deny this application at this time. Borup: Is there any input we can give the applicant on what would make it more acceptable? Realizing nothing binding either way, but sometimes some direction may be helpful. Smith: It seems like to me there is two issues. One is for him to develop one acre parcels and to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan he would need to submit for a conditional use permit when he submits for annexation and zoning. The second issue is and this is where I don't want to muddy the water, but the adjacent property owner has testified that they intend to subdivide. It seems like good planning to me for these two individuals given the dependency on Mr. Manship that the running tab, to come up with a mutually agreeable solution to allow them to develop their parcel, i.e. a wide enough easement to allow street width that complies with the city standards, ACHD standards. De Weerd: But by denying this, he will have to go through the reapplication process and that—you know the reason I didn't want to close the public hearing, PLANNING AND ZOONG COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 12 is I would like to hear from Mr. Manship on what he thinks about what is being said. Borup: You should of said that. De Weerd: Well, did you give me an opportunity? Borup: Yes, chairman did. De Weerd: I said nay. Borup: No, he asked for discussion. De Weerd: Shari do they have to reapply then once it's denied? So they have to pay new application fees? Stiles: If it is denied yes. Borup: Could this have been tabled and asking for new documents, new documentation. MacCoy: You could have done that, yes that was part of your decision. Borup: So just an adjustment of the current application? Rossman: What do you mean an adjustment of the application? De Weerd: To add to it a conditional use permit application I guess to go along with the annexation. Rossman: There would have to be an application for a conditional use permit. You can table the preliminary plat application until that has been noticed properly and put before the commission. Stiles: You want to table or continue this? Rossman: Up to you could do either one. De Weerd: What's the difference? Rossman: Tabling means that you have closed the public hearing and you want to delay your decision until another date. Continuing means that you are going to continue the public hearing and take further testimony on this particular application at a later date. PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 13 De Weerd: I would support continuing it. That way we have an opportunity to find out communication between the two property owners and see if there is a further application for a conditional use permit on the hook-ups. Smith: I could back that. De Weerd: So would we need to withdraw the motion to close or reopen? Rossman: Is there a pending motion on the table? De Weerd: No. MacCoy: We don't have a motion yet. Rossman: There wasn't a second, raise a motion then. Borup: We still need to reopen the public hearing. Rossman: Yes, you need to reopen the public hearing. MacCoy: So you've got to take back. Rossman: Move to continue. Borup: We can finish our discussion before we do that. MacCoy: Yes, but time is moving on here though. De Weerd: I've said everything that I have to say. Borup: That makes sense to me. I have nothing else. MacCoy: Do you want to withdraw the motion and the second for closing the public hearing? Smith: I'll withdraw the motion to close the public hearing. MacCoy: Whose going to withdraw the second? Nelson: I'll withdraw the second. MacCoy: Now we are back to having withdrawn that public hearing, it is now still open. What is your decision now? Smith: I would like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing until our February 9th meeting. PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 14 De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, before someone seconds that, since it is reopen, can we hear from Mr. Manship? Rossman: Well do you need to do that now or would you rather do that when the application for conditional use permit is (Inaudible). De Weerd: If he has an interest in pursuing the conditional use permit and talking with adjacent property owner then we have a reason to continue this. If he doesn't then you know, it would seem as though we might as well close it and deny it. Rossman: One more question, Shari is one month a sufficient time to submit an application for a conditional use permit and have it properly noticed? Stiles: Our next deadline would be the first working day in February and that would be for the March meeting. Rossman: Well you could just continue the public hearing until the March meeting and then if there is a conditional use permit before you, you can address it. If there is not you can deny this. De Weerd: We can continue... Rossman: Well, he's got two months to provide a conditional use permit application. That would be my recommendation is to continue this to the March public hearing and if there is a conditional use application address them, if not close the public hearing and deny it. Borup: That would still be the time frame even with an application that is this far along you are saying? Stiles: They have to submit a new application for the conditional use. Borup: Which needs to be processed you mean? How much processing is there on something like that when we already have the facts? Stiles: Same as any other application. We've still got public hearing requirements. Rossman: You've got notice requirements. What is it 30 days? Borup: Oh, I thought it was two weeks, it's 30 days? Three weeks, okay. Louie: Three weeks prior to the meeting, actually about 3 % depending on how it falls in the month. PLANNING AND ZING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 15 Borup: So that means the application to just meet that requirement alone would have to be the end of this week. Rossman: You are talking about March Stiles: For the February meeting, the notices have to be sent to the paper this Friday. Borup: Yeah, probably not enough time, okay. That answered my question, thank you. MacCoy: Okay, where do we stand now? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my motion to continue the public hearing and new motion to continue the public hearing on this item until our March 9th meeting. MacCoy: Do I hear a second for that? Borup: Again maybe clarify the purpose of the continuing to allow the applicant to... Smith: Submit conditional use permit or application for conditional use permit, which is required by the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: Second then. MacCoy: Okay is there anymore discussion at this moment? If not... Smith: The only thing I might add to that is there was also the issue of how the other properties going to develop. Maybe something will come to light. Maybe Mr. Manship will own it all by that time. Maybe the other party will, I don't know. Personally I'm looking for some kind of meeting of the mind with these two owners that they can come up with a mutually beneficial solution that allows development of both those parcels that is fair to both parties. Borup: I agree with that too. Nelson: And is legal. Smith: Well okay. De Weerd: That fits the Comprehensive Plan. MacCoy: Is that the end of discussion? PLANNING AND 7 -SING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 199 PAGE 16 De Weerd: I'd second the motion. MacCoy: It's been seconded, now the point is there is no more discussion I take it, if I'm right I'll call for a vote. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 2: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BY PINNACLE ENGINEERS, INC. — EAGLE ROAD CORRIDOR: MacCoy: At this time I would like to have a comment from our staff. Shari or Bruce, one of you. Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners we have received this application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment it involves the corridor roughly between Ustick and Fairview along the Eagle Road corridor. They are proposing that this be designated a mixed planned use development area. Because of the lack of implementing ordinances and some more clear guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan about what a mixed plan use development is and the fact that they are proposing this for a single use of a storage facility on Eagle Road, coupled with the fact that we are in the process of trying to get a consultant on line to update our Comprehensive Plan, even though this probably could be accomplished within six months and then it would be another six months before another Comprehensive Plan change would be made. Staff does not recommend that this be approved. We have a problem with the mixed planned use development designation as it has been interpreted as anything you want to do just go ahead and do it. Our problem was also with Ada County which they had that same interpretation. If it's orange on the map, they consider that to be wide open to any kind of development that anybody wants to do. I think that the issues as far as access on Eagle Road corridor is evidence by the letter we got from Ada County Highway District, those issues are too important to take so lightly as to go ahead and re -designate this area. I think we need some significant thought and planning into what happens along that Eagle Road corridor that is why we recommended that it be denied. MacCoy: Bruce do you have anything to say? Okay, thank you. We'll open the public hearing now, is someone here from Pinnacle Engineers? BOB UNGER. Unger: I'm with Pinnacle Engineers, we represent the Weiss Family on this application. Our address is 870 N. Linder Road, Suite B, Meridian, Idaho. I'm going to try to keep this brief because I know you have a lot of things going on and the first item ran rather long, but I think you need to know some of the history of why we are here before you today. The Weiss Family back in 94' and 95' RECEIVED FEB 12 199 City of Meridian City Clerk Office MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: JANUARY 12 1999 APPLICANT: JEFFREY L. MANSHIP ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: MINUTES FROM 12/08/98 CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: Sp Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 4&4 3 " % M Mck �qwl ,2)i DO?vvL PLANNING & ZONS COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 55 x ITEM NO. 7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP — 4375 W. CHERRY LANE: MacCoy: Staff is there anything you want to say at this point in the game? Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, I guess major issue with this would be the private road that they are proposing and how that is going to restrict the property owner to the south. It would've been nice had the property owner to the south joined in some kind of development with Mr. Manship so this could all be taken care of at the same time, but—if they are proposing more than two more lots to the south, although it's not necessarily Mr. Manships responsibility to see to it that they can get more than two lots, they would be restricted without provision of a minimum 50 foot wide public street. Smith: Excuse me, is that a county guideline, since you said we don't have any private street standards in Meridian? Stiles: It is a county guideline. Borup: So if the other property was annexed, how would that effect that? Stiles: Staffs recommendation that they not be allowed to have more than two lots. Smith: Which we could ignore if we so choose to, or we could agree with it too. Borup: What is the size of some of these public streets in some of these subdivisions that we have approved. Stiles: Public? Borup: No private, I'm sorry. Have they been 40 feet? Stiles: 42 foot minimum. Borup: 42? Okay, I was thinking 42. De Weerd: So basically what you are saying is if you approve these two lots, the owner of the five acres wouldn't even be able to develop their own home? Is that what you are saying? Stiles: No, they have one lot there now. They haven't subdivided, they are not proposing subdividing at this point. They've got one lot, a seven and a half acre lot. PLANNING & ZONS COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 56 De Weerd: But if you created three lots in the front parcel. (Inaudible) Borup: Two that access off the private drive. Smith: Third one goes right off Cherry Lane. De Weerd: You wouldn't be able to have access to the back lot, or the back parcel? Borup: The access will still be there. Stiles: They have access, they just wouldn't be able to split into seven one acre lots, I don't think that would be feasible. Ada County 42 foot minimum n mum pr vatighway District s standard for private roads—the city has approved some The basic construction of those streets is still to on only one side. Ada County But a 30 District standards. I think they probably have the s= foot width would not allow sidewalk on either side. Borup: ACHD has also allowed, I've seen some developments they've even put in half streets. Stiles: Half streets when half of the property is developing. Borup: Yes, assuming that when theother side of the boundary line is developed, the other half of the streetgoes Stiles: They require that half of the 37 foot section plus 12 feet. MacCoy: Do you have anything else that you would want to add to the public hearing? Stiles: No. MacCoy: Okay, we will open up the public hearing now, is the applicant here? One more time. MacCoy: Any comments or do you want to just say to include what you have just gone through and make that statement. Manship: Correct, we could address any sitehaveecific comments or general on site spec fic comments for comments at this time. One question that I licant will be Bruce was the wording of number linsews system within this development that will responsible to install a dry PLANNING & ZONI10 COMMISSION 0 DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 57 drain to future sanitary sewer trunk line that will be installed adjacent to Ten Mile Creek. Second to that, what that means, the dry line sewer just be installed through the development or all the way to Ten Mile Creek. Freckleton: You would just be responsible to construct it through your development to your south boundary. Manship: That's my question on that. MacCoy: Anything else? Manship: No. Borup: So out of all 17 that was the only one that you had concerns with. Manship: Yes, I was concerned (Inaudible) Ten Mile Creek... Borup: You don't own that property. Manship: That's why I was saying that dollar figure is starting to add up. Borup: So as far as dry line sewers and water line and all of that—easements along the line to service a property to the east and... Manship: Correct, no problems there. Borup: That's the only question that I've got. Pressurized irrigation? Manship: Yes, my house is currently on a well. I would obviously abandon that well and then that would be created into a pressurized irrigation system to service lot 1 and the additional two that I'm adding. That's all I have. MacCoy: Okay, you can sit down now. It is a public hearing, so anybody who is willing or wants to get up and say something in favor of this project, come up now. If not, okay anybody who is on the other side of the fence can come up now and talk. Borup: Does anybody else on the commission feel like they would like to ask some questions to the Browns? MacCoy: You can do that. Borup: Mark had eluded to maybe some concerns to what happens to that other property. PLANNING & ZON* COMMISSION 0 DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 58 Smith: I guess first I would like to ask Gary and clarify, just for clarification and Shari too. City of Meridian doesn't have any guidelines on private street construction, therefore this private streets can service no more than four private single family home lots, that's a county ordinance that the city usually goes by just to use as a guideline lacking our own and therefore if the Browns decide to divide their land into four lots like they talked about, we would not be under any city ordinance restricting us from saying that we could have six lots serviced by a private road, if we so choose to do so. De Weerd: Right? Borup: Is that ayes? Smith: Okay, that's clarification. Rossman: You are only, your powers are limited to the powers granted to you under the ordinance. So if there isn't such restrictive language within the Planning and Zoning Code, then you are right, the answer is yes. Smith: To me that says they can divide -it into four lots if they want to propose that, that's up to the commission and City Council to use their best judgement on whether that's appropriate or not. De Weerd: But you would think they would have to annex in then. Smith: Well, yeah, otherwise we've got nothing to talk about. Borup: Other than that county is going to run that by us aren't they? They are doing that now with every... Smith: If they stay in the county. Borup: No, no if there is proposed development and they stay in the county. (Inaudible) Borup: Maybe—well I don't know if we need—that probably answers my question whether we need to talk to Browns then if that's the case. That can be addressed at a future time. MacCoy: You want to come forward. Brown: My concern is the easement issue: I'd really like to take some time and not approve this tonight so we can figure out if we need to be working with Mr. Manship or he needs to be working with us so we can do this together or if he is PLANNING & ZONI0 COMMISSION • DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 59 going to totally landlock our five acres in the back. That's what I'm concerned about is us being landlocked back there with the road—with only the 30 foot. Borup: You are concerned that you need more than 30 feet you mean? Brown: If he goes ahead and does what he is proposing, right. If in the future at some time I want to subdivide that—am I going to be able to or am I'm going to be stuck? Borup: I think that was Commissioners Smith's question, if this commission can approve more than four lots and apparently the answer was yes. De Weerd: That is only if you annex into the city. If you do it under the county, then you would be landlocked. Borup: So that might be incentive to get annexed. Nelson: That only says we could, can't make any commitment that we (Inaudible). I think it would be appropriate to document an understanding between everyone. Borup: The city has also put their (Inaudible) to bring the water line clear down to your property. That's a few feet of water line that you don't have to pay for. There are some benefits both ways. Brown: What if the council doesn't agree to our annexation into the city and I remain county? Then where do I go from there? Borup: I don't know. De Weerd: That's probably why Shari mentioned that it would be nice if this came together as a joint proposal. MacCoy: It would make it a lot cleaner. Runyan: Just for Cheryl's benefit, as a potential buyer for the property, she has it up for sale, it's more valuable to me if I can divide it into four lots and you know, if we divide it into two, we'd probably walk away and look for some other property. The question that I have is what do we do with the sewer? The closest sewer we're told is at Ten Mile right now, that's 3/ of a mile—apparently we are not going to be hooking into that anyway, we are going to be coming up through Black Cat and across. Do we have to pay for that or can we go on septic? If we decide like tomorrow that we are going to subdivide this and get this all worked out, would we be allowed to go on septic until the sewer came in. If we annexed into the city, we would have to be on sewer and water as I understand, what do you do in the mean time? PLANNING & ZONO COMMISSION 0 DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 60 MacCoy: I'll ask Bruce to give you the answer there. Freckleton: The city ordinance is pretty specific when services are available you have to connect. Sewer is not available at this point in time and I think that question would just need to be deferred to City Council as far as the septic issue. We can't serve it currently with city services. Runyan: So that would be another issue that we would have to resolve at annexation time? Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Question Bruce, this is coming through Ten Mile—now I forgot where I saw it on here. Ten Mile Creek is proposing a sewer line there. Freckleton: Correct. It's a trunk line that would come down Black Cat Road to the Ten Mile Creek and then it follows the Ten Mile Creek out to the south... Borup: The site—or the area map that we've got looks like—is that Ten Mile = Creek that is just a small distance south of... Freckleton: Cherry Lane? Runyan: It's just south of the south property there that we are talking about. Borup: That's what I—it's just south of this property. It doesn't look like more than 50 feet or so. Okay. So he's saying when the trunk line goes in there, you would be within whatever that distance is, 50 or 100 feet. Runyan: We'd be required at that time to hook up to the trunk, I would suppose. Borup: Who does the stub from the trunk line to their property. Freckleton: If this gentleman was to purchase the Brown Property and develop it, he would be required as Mr. Manship is required to install the dry line sewer. Borup: Through his property to the south boundary. Freckleton: Correct. Where it could—well, it would tie into the Manship's dry line sewer, so it would carry on through Brown parcel 2, to the Ten Mile trunk line. Borup: Is that trunk line—no, if there is a trunk line, does that easement even come—how close is that to this property. Freckleton: How close does the trunk line come to their property? PLANNING & ZON& COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 61 Borup: I guess it doesn't matter. Never mind. Freckleton: The trunk line is planned to be on the north side of Ten Mile Creek. It's not that far from the top of the bank of the Ten Mile Creek to the south boundary of the Brown parcel. I believe that property is owned by Western Ada Recreation, down through that area, it ties in with Fuller Park. Borup: Okay, thank you. We've got one application in front of us, that's what needs to be addressed. Nelson: I would like to ask the applicant what kind of time frame he is looking at and if it would be appropriate to table this until we could finalize some... MacCoy: Would you come back up here so we can talk to you? Nelson: I would be willing—or consider tabling this issue until we could kind of—I know the Browns property is not part of this request. I think the circumstances are such that they should be addressed so that we don't imply that they could possibly subdivide and maybe something we could do with a private road, maybe not. I'd rather the whole situation kind of be resolved rather than—unless you have some, Mr. Manship has some time restrictions that would cause some problems. Manship: Obviously you can't pave in the winter time. Until snow clears up probably March is when I look to be under way for construction as far as installing irrigation, water mains, and the dry line sewer line. Probably won't take place until March, end of March till the weather clears up. Borup: Any comments from you on working together with the Brown property as far a development plan? Manship: I've never been confronted by Mrs. Brown, I've never seen her face until tonight. I've been at the address since August of 1996, as far as I know, I'm going by myself to work on this and have no plans to involve anybody else at the moment. Borup: Was that a problem if there was some joint? I'm not sure what— obviously the only concern was the road. Well maybe not obviously, but that's a big concern. Nelson: What she does with her property will effect you later. So... Manship: She's not landlocked she has an easement too, to access her property. The way she, my recollection now, she is going to develop, she's going PLANNING & ZON40 COMMISSION • DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 62 to need a water easement then 30 feet and that comes into play on my part if I was willing to give up the extra ground, to have her access that. Nelson: I would feel better if we table this and let you guys get together and at least both understand how that is going to restrict her. It shouldn't make any difference other than... Manship: I've got no problem... Nelson: ... having this discussion in about two years, or a year from now. Manship: I would like to get this going in the spring time as far as construction. Nelson: The purchasing person might be interested and having it cleared up before he buys it. I would be inclined to, once the public hearing was closed—I guess not closed public hearing, continuing. Smith: I guess I would feel better if this easement was cleared up before we took any action on this. I would be in favor of tabling it. Borup: As far as whether it really exists? Or the legality of. Smith: (Inaudible) there seems to be some confusion as far as what he actually stated. Manship: What I actually stated? Smith: Not—I think it was Mrs. Brown that stated she was questioning easement and had some additional documentation that she was going to make available to staff. Borup: That was going to change the size of it? I mean, Mr. Manship it's your understanding that there is a 30 foot easement through your property. Manship: Through my property. I bought that with the notion that was and if we are going into the legality standpoint of it, that would be a claim with my title insurance company and so on and so forth. Rossman: I don't think there is any question of enforceability of the easement agreement. Keith had a question earlier whether or not it was in fact a deed. I'm sure it would be a standard easement. We wouldn't mind as long as we are addressing access issues, we wouldn't mind having a copy of the easement in the record or in our files, review that, I assume it's a standard easement granting Mrs. Brown aild any of her transferees and assign and whatever access over that property. PLANNING & ZONIO COMMISSION 0 DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 63 Borup: That's correct, that's why I wasn't sure what the question was on the easement. There doesn't seem to be any dispute about there being one. (Inaudible) De Weerd: I guess the question I have is what this will do to the accessibility, I know that the lot or the Browns parcel will have access. Will that limit them on how they can subdivide. Borup: And is that our responsibility to worry about? Nelson: No, but this is a good time—there is nobody who is in dispute really. This is an opportunity to at least finalize an understanding between those parties. That's why I asked the question is there a time constrain? Was he willing to do that sort of thing and if so, I would motion to continue to next month. If he said no, we've got an agreement and I want to play it that way it's fine too. Borup: At this point, unless I understood wrong, they have no intention of plan for annexation. They plan on doing the development through the county so. For that five acres to the south. Did I misunderstand that? De Weerd: I guess if we do this they would almost have to annex in in order to have—otherwise they can't subdivide. The county has an ordinance, we don't. We can set our rules, the rules are already set at the county. Borup: It's zoned R-3 in the county. De Weerd: Yes, so they would probably have to do the same thing that Mr. Manship is doing too. Borup: Shari, didn't you state earlier that they can go ahead and develop that in the county? Stiles: The county would likely restrict them to two lots... (END OF TAPE) Stiles: ...the plat would need to be signed by the city, even if they did go through the county. They do need to get city approval for a plat within our impact area. Borup: How much... I can see what Commissioner Nelson is saying, we've got a responsibility to essentially not cause future problems. How much is our responsibility to worry about something that is outside the city limits and stated by—that they have no intention of even ask to be annexed. PLANNING & ZONIO COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 64 Nelson: Well, what I would consider doing is if it's not going to adversely effect the applicant of this project, I would continue the public hearing and give other effective parties at least a short period of time to weigh their options and if appropriate, approach this applicant on any changes that they might want. Which he could then... Smith: Might be beneficial to the Browns to enter into an agreement with Mr. Manship to increase the easement to 42 feet or whatever it is and then they don't have any question on having to annex what the county is going to do, what the city might do. Another month not going to effect Mr. Manship's schedule by his testimony that he's not going to probably start working until March. So lets give everybody a chance to get their heads together and next month, we can do our thing and that would be, when would that be? MacCoy: The 12th, I think, isn't it? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing until our January 12th meeting. Nelson: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion? Borup: For what purpose—can you explain that in your motion? Smith: For the purpose of allowing the adjacent property owners to submit additional documentation as to the form of the easement agreement and to allow the adjacent property owners to meet with Mr. Manship and be able to come back before this commission with a proposal that is just to give them a chance to (Inaudible). Borup: I know what you are trying to say. Smith: I'm trying to do this holistically, instead of piece meal. Borup: No, I thought we ought to get the reason for the continuance. Thank you. Smith: I'm not trying to—I hope that Mr. Manship doesn't look at this as being a burden on him, but I mean that's kind of why I think Commission Nelson asked you your -time line, so don't... Manship: I want to add something, I work out of town during the week. My weekends to my private time and I don't conduct business on the weekends with outside interest. I'm in Pocatello during the week on with my other business. Time is limited as far as negotiations are concerned. PLANNING & ZOqW COMMISSION DECEMBER 8,19W PAGE 65 Borup: Maybe you need to adjust that policy if you want to get it done in time. Manship: Yeah, well... Borup: But that is up to you. De Weerd: It is one of the main reasons that we are continuing the public hearing, so you have that opportunity. So they have that opportunity to clarify some of the easement details and how your proposal would effect their property. Manship: Not a problem, not a problem at all. MacCoy: Okay, we've got a proposal, any more discussion? Okay we are up for a vote. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: (Inaudible) continued public hearing is still continued until January 12tH I'm trying to write and talk at the same time. ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING — NORTH OF PINE & WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: MacCoy: Staff, what do .you have for comment? Any... Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, you have our comments dated December 3, 1998. The applicant has responded to our comments and would like to clarify that some of the response to item number, our comment that sewer and water main shall be extended to and through the proposed development. Their response was that sewer and water mains will be extended as shown. We stand by our comment, they will be extended to and through the proposed development, which means to the southern boundary of the property is where the sewer mains will need to be extended and along the entire frontage length for the water mains. Item number one under site specific comments similar response that the sewer service would be provided as shown it will be provided to and through the development. The response we got to number three was and it may have been a misunderstanding, it's not really responsive to what the comment was, but just understand that we stand by our request for the extension of the water service. MacCoy: That's number two isn't it? Stiles: Pardon? MacCoy: That's number two not number three. 1�--7 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: December 8 1998 APPLICANT: JEFFREY L. MANSHIP ITEM NUMBER: 7 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: Pp REVIEWED SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS REVIEWED SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS 9 �i� f�. 14 q All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Merid ian .