The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSteiner Development CUPOFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney .. ....... __ _ C ~~ - ' ~ h ~ ~ . , . HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS ,, f, A Good Place to Live ~ ~ WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CITY OF MERIDIAN REE C .-. GLENN R. BENTLE 33 EAST IDAHO .MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 MALCOLM MACCOY Legal Department (208) 884-4252 KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON ROBERT D. CORRIE BYRON SMITH Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning 8< Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 6. 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: .1/13 /98 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex BY: Steiner Development LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cherry Lane Vil{age No. 1 JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P2 KEITH BORUP, P/Z ^ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR +RONALD TOLSMA, C/C ~CHARLiE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C _^GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT !SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMAI`ION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: 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 October 6, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Steiner Development for a Preliminary Plat for land located in the NW '/ of Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which is generally located northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 48 residential dwelling lots for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision. Further the applicant requests a conditional use permit for a planned unit development . 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 14th day of September, 1998. PUBLISH September 16 and 30, 1998. .~~~~~, WILLIAM G. BEF~C~ JR., I CLERK ai~ti-11xt t Pttr~re~r `~ti~~~~ ~ ~~~~r ,~ '~, ~~ ~ ~R f r ~L ~~ -. ,A ,~~ ,. ~• ',1f11)19d1 ixl61~~~~\\ ** TX CONFIRMA~ REPORT ** AS OF SEP 15 8:54 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM 04 09/15 08 54 208 888 1097 MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtS STATUS EC--S 00'33" 001 193 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 October 6, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application of Steiner Development for a Preliminary Plat for land located in the NW Y. of Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which is generally located northwest of Cheny Lane Village No. 1. The applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 48 residential dwelling -lots for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision. Further the applicant requests a conditional use permit for a planned unit development . 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 14th day of September, 1998. .~:GGt~_.., WILLIAM G. BE~~7,~ JR., 1 CLERK PUBLISH September 16 and 30, 1998. ~~~~~.~`~~'~ ~ „ ' 9 '.'74,~~T taS , ~ ('~(,~~~~' `gyp' ~( ~~~ • CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NAME: Steiner Development L.L.C. ~ . PHONE: 884-2076 ADDRESS: P.O. ..Box 190472, Boise, ID 83719 GENERAL LOCATION: 8 acre site northwest of Cherry lane .village No. 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: 37 _5ingle family 3 duplexes 1 triplex1 private street lot and 1 common area lot. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-4 PLAN: A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, sign~nd ya~ (submit .;0 copies). Applicant LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning and Zoninb Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the Meridian City Hall on at _. m. The purpose of the Hearing is to consider a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by for the property generally described as located. at SUBDIVISION, BLOCK , LOT TO • U APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Name, address and phone number of applicant. Steiner Development, L. L. C. P. O. Box 190472 Boise, Idaho 83719 (208) 884-2076 i 2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property. Louis J. Steiner P. O. Box 190472 Boise, Idaho 83719 (208) 884-2076 3. Legal description of property. See Attachment A. 4. Proof of ownership of subject property (warranty deed) and notarized consent of property owner. See Attachment B. 5. Description of existing use. 8-acre farmland 6. Present use of subject property. Farmland 7. Proposed use of subject property. Single family detached - 46 units 8. The District (present zoning) that pertains to the subject property. R-4 • . 9. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one inch equals three hundred feet (1" = 300'). See Attachment C. 10. Characteristics of subject property which make a conditional use desirable. Infill site next to existing city annexed land. Property is for single family living located adjacent to a city owned golf course. 11. A listing of the mailing addresses of all property owners (from authentic taz records of Ada County) who are within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and a list of all owners within the area being considered for a conditional use. See Attachment D. 12. A fee as established by the Council: $275.00 + $1.42 each for certified mailings for each property owner listed within the 300 feet =Total Fee. The base fee is $275.00 plus $1.42 times 41 people 58.22 for a total of $333.22 13. A statement that the applicant or user of the property agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, if any, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. Applicant agrees with Statement No'. 13. 14. The application shall be verified by the applicant which shall state that he has read the contents thereof and verifies that the information contained therein is true and correct. See Attachment E. 15. The property will be posted one week before the hearing stating they have applied for a Conditional Use Permit or Zoning. There must be a signed affidavit that this will be done as part of the application. See Attachment F. J:/winword/pls/fulapcup.doc V J. t~ii,rli i.i.f~Ni~IIV WARRANTY DEED FlAgT ~MEA{CAN mi E O0. For vaWe Reai9ed '97 APFt I~ P~1 3 y~ Jaaars ~V. fltller aad Loos ]. Pl~er, husband and ~ "t ttEL~KJ_~ :. ~~c :~u:~EST aF >tereiaafter rciczrcd to ~s Grat:tor, does bGreb7 !~ bu6am, seal. aad coavc~y unto I~arit 1. Steiner, a msrricd rasa as lt~ sok aad aepuete property hereiaaltcr referred to u Grsata, aleoso rJ:rrcrt address u SS4 last Bellevue Road, Suite B Airfares, CA 95301 the Eollo+rialC described premises, ro-wit: SEB E]ifiT$I? "A' A37ACE]ED ~]E8ET0 AND IiADB A PART FIEREOF. T+~ FIAVF A?~ Tn HOLD ttie raid premises, srttlt tiscir applttteaftnrts nnrn rho said C',.anrr,~, hip brm and a.S~igttR forever. And t}it caid C.raator doeat hereby a~eeaed to aeh ,with thr. said CKntstec, that t`nantM is -he caner is fee cimpk et said premises; that said pretnicex are firms. friytr~ an raQttnhrancxs evrepr nrrrrrt years taus, ievi~s, snd ssawecsmetitx, and esrcept i1 C. Patent n~teevations, teett+iUirn~.~, tastmeerc crf rernrd, utee! esxtnmttc viaitie upon t5e pretnisea, :nd that Csrastos +w•ll aarraat aed defead the sA.ne hnm all elaimc whatsotver. Dated: IlpsiJ 14, ]947. K • ~ ~ .fw W, F\~I?.'x ~c a ~~ ~ ~~.1~1~_~ Lo i. 1. 1~ctl lc r 4 :~•2sr~iTAr~} STATE OF IDAHO ) 4~ ~-~ti ;~ 6~, ~p ss. •., .g ~~..•• ~~ •~. cotrrlr~roF wda ) '•~~~ o: ~~~.o•' Os This ~ dsy aE Jlpsil, is the yea: 1947, before mc, a Notary Public is aoA for said Scat, p~:ssuoaSlY appeared lames. 9V Fu2!u aad Loos !. Fulkt, lcaarvn ar ideari6~:d w me to be the person(s) ~vLos,: nam~ts) .~c Sttbscscbcd to tlse aitltin tscstrumtat, aad ac]o~owledg~d to me at • ez:cvied the **.,.ar+. rub]i~ of I3aho ERHIBIT "A" PARCEL A• A parcel of land situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 3, Tawnship.3 North, Range 1 west, Boise-Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: ~onimencing at tae>. corner common to Section s and 4 corner as sewn on c:X~F instrument rio, in2i4o, rlda wunty icecords, from 'rriliGu ci~@ beC"~ivii ~:~'ii iiCif . ti:~i~iOi~ to JCt: ~.1~7t1S 't , y , , •• L- w..,.J-S. ~.nqA ~ ~ ~ y •e....a. ~~~. • n r 1V a17~a ~ x1C .~tS .7V~t 1.il L-Ja li ~G.7V as •.L ~.. .. .. GOJ1.17 1~G{.; {.aaGiavc ..~...... .. ~, zas.., ~..•.... ~~ facet al;.n ..ha ..~~~~ *t..,,.;s... ...a .,...., .... ..a `~ 1}' iliac cif w~18 a~VL 4ta~Y~Gi.7r Mot i.G~, v• p~~ •i G~ n~i ^+- y ~.• `~~w-~iV11 3 tc an ir:.: pir. ~~:: t~ °~L.~....Vn~.~.L....e.na.....7~. ..^tiw^r .~+F, i.F.~.~•~ w~r.+~1 a ^.+ri r7 W'•.T~e.+i~~s w• ..w vuwc.a ..wr a1 ..Vi..Vi V~ 1NiVV ~..NV r{7.~ .ra.:. ~.a i~t3N 2.1 +iA+a Ml...l ..v a..,ay ....... ~t.`~C.^. 3:: n, ~~ Trgfvn~.n°!:t ~L.^r 05w~GQar1 r E'.....a.....r ~~~ ~n~ifiaLi ~.. ~.. ~~ jiff i ria~ri 4• ~~ rnrtrent T A ~l n°SC:{'~,`~~^.^. ,°L'n`rinrl as Tnci•r+~~»nr-t 1Jn g5n7g294, ~.L13 rflt!]'~t~ ~torr,~rrlg ~ thong ~ South $9°2~'C~4" Fast; 7$S,tl1. feet along thg Northerly ~.17tR of said parcel to the Northeasterly corner thereof, and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 89°23'04" East, 257.01 feet to the centerline of Eight Mile Lateral; thence along the centerline og said lateral through the following courses: South 56.28'32" East, 248.22 feet to a tangent curve; thence Southeasterly, along a curve to the right having a radius of 580.0 feet, an arc length of 2.32.85 feet, a central angle of 13°07'25", a chord bearing and distance of South 49°54'49" East, 132.5b feet to a point of tangency; thence South 43°21'07" East, 398.04 feet; thence South 37°32'35"' East, 273.07 reet to the Northerly line of th® Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter oZ said Section 3; thence leaving said centerline of Eight Mile iatera3, along said Nortner.iy Sine, aouiiz 85' lt's' Sis ~a East, 5s i . is i feet to a line parallel Frith 8tid EaSteriy Gi ~e westerly line of free East piaif o~ fihe Soi~ihcast c~ual`tci ai ~"ie i3t~iticYwe3t ~u~atez cii 3aici Sectl.on; u`ien~:+a alurtc~j 5a':id F7e~it dileri il~ie, n .....it nnw..~,e~q e~. ter. nin r-. G__a. 3t7Y`al V'JV 10' YMCS~., G(».pl 1CCL tV LLC LVVl LLaCO~1;.CY. 1Y 4.Vl NC1^ VL Yai Cc.a. uca~.t 1LCU ii1 ]tut M\.tAZi{u uc~+.a ~v r.aa2 ~.~ ~Y v....:.a : a v~ ra+ci~u ~..A T•+•-~~-.........i. w~., ~cn~ c~o~ w.a.~ nn•f«~-.. .~Vla [ij1}}.4 T}1 C.Vryl ~:.1J YJ .~11J LL 4LL~¢3lV aly• JJV iV JLt lSV1Y VII W1V~ nvrrv<4ii~ ~.l \..1Vi. Y~~~K ~` J~v4 t.~~L •• 1 1 M/!~ hR !~!1 ~ I'1 •~YI.Q1 y 11 i~..~ Vv VY.rV ~?Y~ VVi ~~.hu-v~i~ii }a~~ ~~71 ~~~~~TR vv~.aiv.~...Ci~ y r + r v y *T/Ji ~A. O~O~/~I~A/1 LT~c~' 1?~ ZA ~~Oi~.•t~~T ~O `~ ~/ Ne,=,~~F~ FA°d(t~t~t,N Ta7nct~ YFd,ZQ ft~nt• thnnna Nnr~l~ 7q°A? ~ 1 R-~ Wmgi~~ F1 , 1 ~ fPPt: the?!4<? North 89°1$'49" West, 398.40 ferats t}~,ence South it°QO'42" East, 399.24 feet: thence South 61°49'13" West, 165.37 feet: thence North 42°43'29" West, 283.07 feet; thence North 13°56'20" West; 266.06 feet; thence North 8°16'0?" West, 125.42 feet; thence North 5°49'06" West, 249.89 feet; thence • North 35°28'22" West, 77.08 feet; thence North 42°31'18" West, ?0.53 feet; thence North 53°15'09" West, 86.07 feet; thence North 56°28'32" West, 79.07 feet; thence North 63°13'16'• West, 65.34 feet; thence North 78°05'29" West, 71.13 feet; thence North 8923'04" West, 80.94 feet tv a corner on the Easterly Line of said warranty Deed to Brighton Corporation; thence leaving said Northerly l.i.ne, along said Easterly line through the following courses: North a°3C, i 56'` Rast, 2~.5.OU lest; thence Norti~ 5~:~8 ~ 22" Fast, 50. ly feet; thence iv"!crtil . ~J"Jb = 5b~ .East, 110. uu feet to the ~vii~'f OF i~F:G2'rilslivi:. a~iRC'~Z. 8 A ' .. a...a ~., . ....... ~ ~~~ of ~a;J3 si~i:a"°,. ~r. ,C ~.~~~I'JWes~ a ~ ~ ..: '~aZw'IIa^2"'~ Y a,i ~.2.iv.~ .S~ti.a.a0it ~, ~,~ uF z. ~*ortLh, Rany-e 1 Wz,M, Baise~~;eridian, Oity oh :bizrx3ian, ~~ ~v~'jty, iut~. aiv, !at`id a~i.~ii 2 p~iti'R.ZI~.vrl'~ des~^.rZa~~~ cola f'3livws C^mee*:cin7 »t the ~ corner cem~on to co,.* <., ~, ...... _ _,.r. cad 4 cQ!-n ~ as sh~~ Or CPEF Tne~rrlrli.'7~t' Nt~. 782245, ~!~3a Co~?hty Records, f,-om which the seetiQn corner comtnc~n tQ Sections 4; 9, 10 and 3 bgax~s South {1"38' il" WPSt,_ X651.19 feet; tk~ence North 0°3t~'Z7" East, .22.64 feet alanc the s+lesterly sine of the Northwest quarter of said Section 3 to a 5/8" iron pin marking the extended Southerly line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3; thence South 88 °SS' 29" East, 1977.76 feet to a point on the Westerly line of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the North rest quarter of said Section 3; thence North 0°30'18" East, 277.67 feet along said Westerly line to the. POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 0°30'18" East, 91.97 feet along said line to the Northerly corner of that parcel described in Correction Quitclaim Deed to the City of.:Neridian, recorded as Instrument No. 95016892, Ada county Records; thence along the Northerly :tine of said parcel through the following courses: Southwesterly, along a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 375.uAfeet, an arc length of 26S.i7 fast, a central angle of 41~i3 ° ~4", i cl~orci aa~ring c~nci dib~.itiea cif S~3Ltt`i Sj"il'<1°Q wfZS~, Zo3 . 98 ~Cet; ta'1~73ca, tange,~ : il:O~i Saiu ~:i7.TiT~ S~iltt`i 30x34 `SC'' yv'@ai~ 04.13 ~ L ~ f a.e ~ tv a ~ai~Qr'sa'1`. ~:iia. "v m ~ theiaCFt dVL~.+L12iil. LC=lIi aivlly Sal ...... .. .~~ i .p.. ~. ,..:.... A:.... a Mttl Y C 4~ W C. 1V~' 1 V .ic- V iJay a l ~au14.a i7t >^b v. v °aet, o:. arc la :y- ter. a f 3 C . 3 ~ vsO1$'~"' + a'ase., .Z C~~ataZti wi ylc Gi • .,~ a chor3 be3ri::g a::3 dist3noc Cf rv~r.... 12 °~ts".3 v" F.ZS r, .~.7 ..7iv f~r.v wv 7 ~C~..` Ci: ? ~+~v... waMM4N~` /hlrel~. 4. M •.V.. thazca lew~t:,r.7 said u~rtherl~ rem ., .. .. .....r , N r~-~ c er1• 12..~ Q. ~e_.t~~..1 r 3~C^~ Sabi l1IJTr1: a1;~ont ~F~t~n rQ ~hg 1Taft ~!@.~./?~!p a rari i »c ~f 5$f~ > (~ age}.~:. an Zrr 1?~'!C~*..h ~~ 177 ~ 03 fQPS; a G~Tttrd~ a»gl~ Qf 14'.54'SBp a ah.ox`d bearing and ~#.stanca of North 63°11'32" West; 1~C.53 feat to a point of non-tangency: thence • yoz~kl'Y 1970+57'~ East, 195.81 feet to the Southerly line of said Correction ouitelaim Deed; thence along said+Southerly line through the following courses: South 66°28'40~~ East, 157.70 feet to anon-tangent curve; thence Northeasterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 425.0 feat, an arc length of 288.86 feet, a ventral angle of 38°S6'31", a chord bearing and distance of North 63'04'11" East, 283.33 feet to a point of non-tangency; thence North 0°30'15" East, 154.10 feet; thence North 11°45 ~ 15"' East,. 185.`77 Zeet; thence Norte 78°33'49'' East, 182.'1 feet; thence South X39°i9 ~ 45`' East, ~sU. v0 ieec to the corner of said ~:orrected uuizciaim teed ro the City of Meridian; thence leaving said Southerly line $Otlth +~ ~3t'~' i&" W@S~, X34 . ~~ PcB~ ai+G~21y S i3Iti2 Eat3teY'l.y i9f 3I9c~i pdt~iiiczi wi%'11 th8 ih'eSteiljr iiIic LSf ttafc East iaoii Oi t:h8 Sdi3ta~96~3'r V {,j`aiaitCi Gi tlic iMvTta~'1Li~o ~ aiu~lit2r Gi aal~ voCtiGn ~ ta'1~i1C2 Z+~'.~a"'~~.si vv°2~'~y" '.dBS~, 25~.3t f~~t; t~2ZI^.E BCi:L:: 85°~fl'2Z~ ~*est, E2.76 ~`est; the.~ce ?~Io='~..2i 82°39'3F" T.~I~S*, 14_8'! faot~ 4`hgr~ncs uQ*_~+~t 89 °? 8' SB" West. 1S .1? fm?t to th3 pCtt~ U'F' B£~2NNINC . P~GET G : A parcel of land situated in the North half of the South half of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise-Meridian, CitX of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and being more particularly described. .as fol~.ows; Commencing at the 3 corner common to Sections 3 and 4 corner as shown on CP&F Instrument No. 782146 Ada County Records, from which the section corner common to Sections 4, 9, 10 and 3 bears South 0°38'11" West, 2651.19 feet; thence North 0°38'27" East, 22.64 feet along the. Westerly line og the I3ort2s~test quarter of said Section 3 to a 5 j8n iron pin marking the extended Southerly line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3 ; t.~IenCs south 88°55'29" East, x,477.76 feat to a point on rile Westerly line of tine East half of the Southeast quarter of the Noruawesz quartet of saki Secz:ion 3 ; thence Souza u~3G' i8x west, 5.6~ feat along a.aid "w"QStieiiy iinv- to a j~3rit md.Yi~~l'icj the i3ai~tia~ve3t cvrlle3Z of file rotheast ycla-r~.ei of tiara i~lv~tt`762$St t~iia~ tai Gi tia~ SV~i~iawBSt Cjiiai tes% of Soiu ScC.v1Ga'• .ws ~ C-E ri i f o i}~ uacA~2 South Z'i"3``0'12"' ::asjjt, 4~'.~3 feet a2;.r.3 ~.a YI'G.itbrf.ij Ifr.L of •°f/a~i3 ~~Vl~yil~GY.7v ~VMi ~-Ci Q~ t1. n. *iI+Y} l~~~t ~~~tQr ~iF t~a C/~1~*11 ~.r ci.st q•.:artcr of s3i.3 Sertic^ 2 to t.':e' ce^teri i.^.~ of r_yh~ M_1e Late~aZ, tgi:2' the pQTrrr q~ g~rT~T~G~ t~o.;cA '~~~~tthes?gtgrl of 31 n~±~ trA ~prtArZ i_ng pf g3i d 1 aura 1 tHrAq ~t~ t~'1e . fnllo~i!?g co~.~rsps. South 6~#°.54'11" Fastj 276.46 feet-to a tangent curve; thence Snutt~pasterly ~1A~fg a ck1XvQ to the r~.gkat hav~.ng a xadiuS of ~~, 100.0 'feet, an arc--length-oP~ 59.4'6 feet, a cental°"Taricxle. ~' of 34°04llOp, a chord bearing and distance of. -' South 51°52'06" East,, ,.58.59 feet to a point of tangency;;thence South 3d~50?bi" East, 292.99.,feet;•thence ' South,89~48'41" East, 147:34 feet; thence leaving saidecenterline of Bight Mile .Lateral ~ ,- South 35°0000^ East, 176.30 feet;.thence,~ ~ ~ -~ South 22 ° 15 ! 40" West, p6 0.05 feet .to a point 'on theNortherly _:; boundary of CAF.RRYyLANE VILLAGE NO. 1 SUBDIVISION, as shown on the official plat. thereof recorded in Hook 44 of Plats at Pages 353'7 through 3539, Ada County rtecords; thence lvorth ~i3 °58' lOu iiii4st, 75.57 feet. along the Northerly boundary of said suc~fiivision to a point marking zne Yvorti~eriy corner oz Laic 2 of 3loc;~ y ; thence Souk $o=3G'G0~ :deb, 3:.5.46 feet along bail Nor~erly bound~~y tv ta'~e southwesterly ~igh4-~af-way Ii;~e of Ir~teilacher, ka~r; the;~.:a T ~- a iia~ niG-ay' sn2u a~va ~.ti2~ l vuT'iuaa: Y , aiau + • ~ ~. ~... t . Y SGiI v~iwe'TS..ea ~.~ right°of--uay, line cf Intarlache.-. War So~:t': 34°CO'L3" East, 1?;.413 _eet tc t.~s Nart.'1°:ly ~rrer of *.s~t ~ of E3ock ? of the niur~DFn p~~r n~ ~~ro~v La*IE t~2LL•nGE Id4. ? SVBD?VISZQN, 3G shews± O!! ftro Dgf; ~i a1 plat tjle~rgpf ro~0*_'d?d ;r Bock g5 4f pZ?rs ate Pa.geS ~6a7 ai?d. 3~iQ8, Ade. county Re~IGCIs; thence South 6t°3733" West, 149.16 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Amended Subdivision to the extended Northerly right-of~ way of the Safford Sub Lateral; thence North 66°05'30" West, 396.57 feet along said extended right-of- way to the Westerly Line of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest c;uarter of said Seetfon 3; thence along said Westerly line North 0°30'11" East, '745.3? feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. $,,xRCEL D • A parcel of ianci 25 feet in width, situated in the Narthwesz quarter of Section 3, Township 3 North, range 1 West, Hoise- i4eriaian, City of Meridian, Acia County, Idaho, and lying Within the Kighi-of--way or ~iortu is~tacic Cal load, being more particularly described as follows: Cc~mmeitc:ing at the ; coz.~e~- c:ommc~i~ to Sect~.on 3 anii 4 cor~ie~r as ~i1vv~FY-i t~j3 ~.P&r iFibi~iiiffai3'1~ iv'~. iacli6, A4'a C7i131'~j% ABC~YC;S, fPOTG Wy1i~'3 %1"ie2 52~,~iGia COs'i72i CGiTu1'i0aa ~~ ue3~~ivi7S +~, ~, Zv nia~"'. ~ hQpa'.'7 SGii~a~'1 v°..3" :.1~' L•:@st ^~~' ,n .r,,.,+, a,„ .... , 4U;ia• 17 iiLM~~ WK.a•~.O >rt...~LL ~oJV }`~N t..w i.L 67.~r ` t• a va wa 'mot -'.~Q '~~ ~ i• t r ~ line .rJ tr:~ ~,~,p Fic li .a , ~..t. aC~... 3+v.aL~ waG r...... ~ .p, aT~rtyw ~wt •aY Ve}~ of Q.cti r.*i '? `~ •• ~ /~Y r:. .. .._ ~.. ......_cn .. .. .»tii N...,ttlrofsgt~erly cor:~mr et' '*-ha~4` t~M~AI ~45~~~~}1f~~ ~T ~f~1r rA ~t 2.~T ~~..~.~}~1.~.;~ i.le~f~ tQ gri~L'-±~J1Z I~prr,nra~4:'_, r,a~+l~r-~e.~ dg TT-Sft3"~it~or't. Nn, 95416$91, ~C~21 COVnty PPocards, ?nd t,.hP `POTN'~ 4F BEGINNING; th~axtc~ corttinu~.xag North. oo3A' 27~~ East; 1270.40 £eet alArag saa.d Westerly ~.ine to the southwesterly corner of that parcel described in Warranty Deed to Hra,a_hton Corporation, recaxded as instrument No. 95016890 r °as modified by Affidavit to Correct Legal Description recorded as Instrument No. 9675294; thence along the Southerly Line of said Warranty Deed South 89°23'04" East, 25.00 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line oP North Black Cat Road; thence South 0°38'27" West, 1270.41 rest along the said Easterly line to the Northerly line of said Correction ~uicciaim Deed; thence Ivorta 89~2i ~ 33 ~~ ivesZ, 25. ~iG z"eel ainnq Baia ?vo~rtrieriy line ~r~ :iYe rc7iiv~1 Gr~ nEui2viviriu. _I EXHIBIT "B" 33134 i Iron Pin INSiR. /95076890 PARCEL 'D' ~ 0.73 acres i Z i o 3 ~ ~~ 5/8" Iron P' w 7/4 N 0 c 3 ~, 9 10 PARCEL 'A' 15.20 acres `13 ~.~ INS'Z. ~ PARCEL 'B' 4.68 acres /8' PIN C-E-w t/6t S, line NE t/4 rVS1R. /950'16892 PARCEL 'C' r- 8.52 acres Total ReMa~n~ng Acres = 29.13 ;+.. ~' .,/ TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING CO. :`~CINEERS SURVEYORS P~,.ANn_45 5777 CHINOEN BOUIEVARO BOISE. IOAHO 83714-ZAGS -,.:.,.~~. -.no tai _~~cs ceY• 7f1A_j'7j-:tCq r -~~~-~ y4'.r 4S 4F F F4F .G R E s &-RE4 E44 "' 2=-B B^ 4 _ q5= LLB ~° - e. Y- i " Y - 4 ~ qq y4"Y-A YyBUt - s - t t` ~4~ d~Yx 4 ~~ ~ 41t=Yk s ~g6 Y ;4 4, - tt 888 88 -S K 8 F8 " 88 iSS? 88B 7°SSiSSS 8gM:-.8y'~yYg A 8888 88 68 88 88 ' ___ ~8 __s8 ~ g g 8 8 B 88 8 8 .r:" .:B~ s is:a- z=z'.~ ec 4:a-' as iyY: B ASS" a. - a =. yiey ~*"iyase y : -Ki-T."a V y is i 6 -s B~ BSi tl 'Y• L 8 i~ ` y '6• i8' : i i _ 4 ~ BB 9y~4 x9~t ~ :~ '_ +'8Yx ~.~:~ 44 - g g "8 Y - Bs - B -L - 8 q~i ~;}iif, ~i~~iiP 9 4 ~ ~ ~ ~I ~6~~1 ~ ~~~~iii# ~~~ "~ i i ~:;z"{- ~ ! I Ili o,.eo ~=}}t~.} ~~~, ;~~t~~i=fit ~ ; I :~ F ~ ~si ~I~ tt :x }~ q 6 .~ gg g sg $ 6 a 3I i : ~s ~ ~ ~~~ t7 cf, }} ~! ~! ~~ ~ ~ $ : ~ E ~1~a~1gl flg flg~~; 31~~9~~E~~~B~~~MB3E~ ! ~ i i 3 ~' ~~ ~ 9 R 8 'Ja~1~N NR 4y~4~ ~~i~ ~~~~ S i i L# $ 9 (: ~ ~ ~ ~~ # ~ ~t $ ~ R~~p } r ~: ill -f.'-' i s ~ ' y im. ~ ~c yyy ppp w y m i~ 66 g ~ r < N I fz R a 3 1 C o ia is ~ S t X Z ~ 111 .. at' 43~~ _ Ni~m ~ ° OO _ n~x,o °~ Z ~ pppp FSa SIgB• TT ~_ ~ A J e m4N0 A P4Na m ` ~ r ~ .: ' .1s ~ X ~ 0 ~ n ~ u ~ ~~ .. 8 ll l ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ' N T y o = ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P M( ~ n ~ _ ~ Yi y ~'+ -~-n- x ~ Lam. 9 ~ !~ e5 B~ Cf7. ~ P t 3 s ~, .- k ~ I e?k NOTIGE OF HEARING Y NOTICE tS 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 ldaho Street, Meridian, :Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on March. 3, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Steiner Development,'for aConditional Use Permit for land located in the N ~/ of the S '/ of Section 3, T.3N, R.1 W, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit fora .planned development for 37 single family lots, 3 duplex lots and 1 triplex lot for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision. A more.. particular legal description of the above property is on -file in the- City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. .~ A copy of the Application is available upon .request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 12t'' day of February, 1998. _ / WILLIAM G..-BERG, JR., CLERK ~`~``,~sttt rr rrtrrt~~~~~~' .. PUBLISH February 13 and February 27, 1998. `,*~,ti*`,~~t ~ ''r,~f~ w r ~ 8L y ,,~' T ''~'~',~~~t~t3ti t11St1\1`~`````t OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L,SMITH, City Treasurer F1,4RY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water'Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS,°Parks Supt. SHAR(L. STELES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W.'BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney _~ . ~UB OF TREASURE VALLEY ~ * 'COUNCIL MEMBERS ' A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CITY OF MERIDIAN C GLENN R. BENTLEREE 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P a z coMMlssioN Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public WorksBuilding Department (208).887-2211 MALCOLM MACCOY Legal Department (208) 8844252 KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON ROBERT D. CORRIE BYRON SMITH Mayor _; TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments. and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, .please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian -City Hall, Attn: Will Berg,. City Clerk by:. January 6, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE:. 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: ~ 1/13 /98 REQUEST:. Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family, 3 dualexes 1 trialex _BY: Steiner Develoament LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1 JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P2 KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT -BUILDING .DEPARTMENT -FIRE. DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY- -CITY ENGINEER -CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)- . ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ' ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT" IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATIOIV(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES + -. OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: _. C~ DEC 181997 ~' 4>F ~IA~f rte, CITY OF MERIDIAN ` APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT .. ._... ~ t. €. 4 NAME: Steiner Development L.L.C. -884-2076. PHONE: ADDRESS: P.o. Box 190472, Boise, ID 83719 GENERAL LOCATION: 8 acre site northwest of Cherry lane .Village No. 1 DESCRIP.TION:OF'PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE:`~Z._single family, 3 du lexes 1 triplexl private street lot and 1 common„area lot.~~ ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-4 PLAN:. A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location ut alt buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open R spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, sign~nd ya~ (submit ~0 copies). Fv re o!` Applicant LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to established procedure, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Meridian Planning and 5 Zoning Commission will hold a Public Hearing in the Meridian City Hall on at _, m. -The purpose of the Hearing is to corside`r a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT submitted by for the property generally described as located at _ ~ ,. ,. SUBDIVISION, BLOCK ~~ , LOT- TO ~' - ~~ \~"4 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT >s 1. Name, address and phone number of applicant. Steiner Development, L. L. C. - p P. O. Box 190472 Boise, Idaho.. 83719 i y. (208) 884-2076 2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property. a ~~ ~, Louis J Steiner P. O. Box 190472 ~ a&. Boise, Idaho 83719 (208) 884-2076 3. Legal description of property. . ^, ~ s See Attachment A. 4. Proof of.ownership of subject property (warranty deed) and notarized consent of property owner. See Attachment B. 5. Description of existing use. -• 8-acre farmland 6. Present use ofsubject property.. Farmland 7. Proposed use of subject property. Single family detached - 46 units . f- 8. The District (present zoning) that pertains to the subject property. t R-4 ~:..rt t~ ~~r40~j . J. l~iart:i ~.ti~N~.il~ -.. alt' Gfl~~ ~AItRANTY*DEED tFlR.ST AlC/-N mIE GO. '97 APk 1~ Pik 3 y~ For Value Reoeeved w .. Jams ~V. Falkt aad Loes 1. P1>ner, hutbaod and ~`--"'-- "L RECLiitJ:1:.. • ~~ nc .~~u:fc3= QF hettioafter rcfL-nrcd to u Graator, does berebyl~aoC lsargam, sell, and codNey mto. ,. Louis 1. Steincrr a married iaaa as de~sok and separate property hereiaalta referred to u Grantee, abase ratrrt~t address is SS4 Laat Hellsvua Road, Suite 8 ' ~ Atvstar, CA 95301 the fo~o~ialC descr~•bed Premises, to-ait• .. S££ pQiIBI? "A' ATTACHED HERETO AHD MADE A PART FIFREOF. ,, Te HAV!? AAtI? Tn HOi.fl the said premises, alrh tbt5r sppurtenm+trs tteun rbe ci~id f~tr.:- hs 6r.;r~ aeui as.~igns fnrevez. And t1:e said ('.raator does l~srehy at+eaaat !n aml aitb thr. said t'.ertetee, th~et t`rrrnu-r tc flit. e~+er in fee si~pk of said premises; tAat said pret~tiseR are fire. fr+xtt sA rnc~ttsMtnee~es esrt•.pt a~M+t years fasts, itLwi~s, and autcsmentx, snd except [1S. Patesst trx~etYatiaets, teett5et'sete~.~, et~cnsretc art re.Ynrd, Lei easetna~ntc visii~ie upe+e the prerpiseic, :nd t>tat Grastot .. ~v wsrraet aad defend the ~Ame bnn+ sn e111irnc whatsotves. D=tcd: ,Apri114, 199'1. M : %% ,/, ' .Tat W. Fti~ll'7C Lois J. Faller STATE OF IDAHO E. ) ss. . ',?~~,~,~~.•. jar ~,. 4 ~~~~'~~~, Ta ~ r ~ ~; l~~. ~ ~ s •!r = P~jdL.tG. COUNTY~OF Ads ) ti'9T` O ~ i~ .~'~~ Oa This ~ dsy of Apti2, is the °yeas1947, before me, a Notary Public is aad fos said Scat, p,,tsuwlty appeased lames W FuLu aad t..oQS I. FLllet, lmowb as idtari6cd co ac to be the pcrsotats) svLos•,: taatn~(s) .i~ snbsac~cd to ttsc eMithirs tt<ttntmtnt, aad admowledged to me t • cs..cvtcd the . ., / 1~ rv t~*.,.x.,. F'~-biit of i~3ohu ` .R . ERRIB "A" PARCEL. A• A parcel of land situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 1 west, 8cise-Mericlian,`City of Meridian, Ada County; Idaho, and•more particularly described as follows: Commencing aL tae,>, corner common co 'Sections ~ann 4 corner !as si~cwn on ~;z~F Instrument no.: i8~346, dda county icecords, from ~.iuiGu ciie aeCtiuii ~:CiiiiCi ~:t+m~C~i- ~v lC{:Llfai~ +i, y, iv a1'1ti 3 L ~..r~ wa J•V A.sAA ~~ ~ • y •.Tw..~. ^rC~ •,1 .Q a. ~ vL ~..~~ n .. ilCfit.'i AV~A WI V"JO l.i . n~a ~, 6pJi•17 iZGf., 4.a~ria.,.c ~ l1~.~LL AOAA,q..M ~ i, •fA ~'~. VJ 6'..wi 1 J.1. ... R7~~i...,. NVt Wi V JO i/ Gaa V, 6VYJ a,GOL fiiV~ay VVO f7 C.7 bCi IY ILalc, Vi W~38 a•va4.awa~~. f1Mfi1L~G~ V4 Oai~ y2y~iVl/ .~i LC fill iivli v.~v. vLi.- i.Rn Vw~..~L......~~. n.~1~~ wr~.+.~~. CSC Lf-~~. w~r..+~1 aI.-~~ r.w~L^^~~i1I ~a~Aill~ Waft ~.Vti W... C.i ..O~i1 r.V~..Y~ ~ V~ W.y .. ~ilMr rVr, MWIM~J.jyM ~~ ~Mrr.~1.1..~. , vv ..,.. ~.y ...vu !' :: .~.::.~. ,YA.~~rr7 n,i y~ T~~ ~r-~~N ~ N.^. Tloc~+;~~hi nw ~n~~_rA_n.i pa Tnr1`r~~nnt Aj^. 45n?5294 ~.G1S ~flL31t~ oe~ Sri f'hor~o , c~~3tr $9°23' Qd";'Fait, 7R5, a1 fe9et- al~ancj thg Ngrtherly~ line of. 5~°id parcel. to the Northeasterly corner thereof, ,and the POINT OF BEGINNING: thence continuing South 89°23'04" East, 257.01 feet to the centerline of 'Eight Mile Lateral; thence alone the centerline of said lateral through the following courses: South 56.28'32" East, 248.22 faet_to:a tangent curve; thence Southeasterlx, along a curve to the right having a radius of 580.0`feet, an arc length of 132.85 feet, a central angle of I3°07'25", a chord bearing and distance of South 49°54'49" East; 132.56 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 43°21'07" East, 398.04 feet; thence South 3T°32'35" East, 273.07 reet to the Nortaerly line of the southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said section , ~ ; thence ieavirlq` said centerline of fight i'iile iaterai,_ along said Norther.iy iine, South 83'i~s ~ 5~S'= .East, 53i .~$ i feet 'co a iine pfaraiiei witi'i Gild Easterij~ cii `t.lxe wesierly iine a.i the East Pull' of the Soii~ra3;i. gliartr of the iSoi tPiw~3 r`. ~i~dter of 3~siu Se~:t~in; ~z~~d ait3Yl~ Said ~7aiaiici 1171@, n~...V.. wwww.. w.~ •1-•~a.. ^iw ice. C~~a aL~ !•~...at ..'.a :...7.. JLiYL11 V'i~I'10' 11tt:S ~., LG~9.17/ LGC.b tV f.1~C iYyl LlaCab LCY. 1Y f,.V1. LIQi VL tiia V lJOL 4Gi \AC.'i \.1 wGtL lie 'SL ti1441a1Jit -LGGV a.V - vial Vi vY y<-. V^...~ A: l7.. CAS CpQ~ nA.~ /V~.•.~~.. Ca+Gl i4;(1li iijl{{...i 1 G~rLIf. 3L:.V YJ i~li tL yylell V al V . ~.I V i V (./ J f. , IfYY vim/ ya. v~ ~l.VVL MJ; ...a\..1V~ .~,-I.^.ny ~.j':v j~Va. early i~~,~ Vr VV2V r~.'i.~ Vii ,.'.L~.VY • ....r, r a W uo~M `°~°2~'1Q" waste i76 in fees-. rhaw_e ATn~~F. iCA°dA~1~" G7cct 11Cd•4Q fe~ot~ . Nnr+h ~a°n7 ~ 1 iSf~ Weac'h~ ~~ ~ T ~fP_.P~! th~~G`P Nerth 89.1$'d9" West, 39R_4Q feratz thence ' South 11°0'42" East, 399.24 feet;_thence South 6i°49'13" West, 165.3? feet; thence North 42°43'29"West, 283.07 feet; thence ' North 13°56'20" West, 266..06 feet; thence North 8°16'07" West; `125.42 feet; thence. North 5°49'06" West. 249.89 feet; thence ~_ ~ ~ ~ North 35°28'22"'West. 77.08 feet; thence North 42°31'-18" west, 70.53 feet; thence North 53°15'09" West, 86.07 feet; thence North 55°28'32" West; 79.07 feet; thence North. 83°13.'16" West, 65.34 feet; thence North 78°05'Z9q West, 71.13 feet; thence North 89°23.'04" West, o!-said warranty 80.94 feet to a corner on the Easterly Line Deed t B i said Northerly l o r ghton Corporation; thence leaving ine, ~alonq said Easterly line through the Following courses: North O°36'56" Bast, 115.OU teat; thence Norco 5~3t1'22~ Fast, ' 5t1.1y feet; ti~ence riarscit 0°30' So° F:asz, I.1u. uu lest to the i~u3i~r uF isBv3r~ilivit. r~RC3I. 8 ? 0 'i Lid _ .vi C a'•a poY~:cs va Iaata~ $~. ~Iin ~.a=aa iia tail iiG~'itiLi ~~ ~ u +' ~ ~ Y Q1 LZl Vi ~C\. -.1{~. ~l J, ~8inaaa2'li~ ~ ~iGr'~~.~a~ aZd7yC 1 ~.+J2SM, riCi~c-'aica.2Cw1aI1, ~i~~ OL .~2='~d~a71 1~.iw /•.. • • TA~•1 •s.i •wwv. w ••f~.•••7 ••~.7• /~ /~ !~ ~ ~''.~a4 VrYV.•~ , jV{yjV i ~a~- aYVa. 2 t./Yl ViVYifJl. i~ dGi^ii JLCd f~a i V riV1~3 . c C^ +we'1~i:!? »t t.~e 3• C~r31er cC+'.:~on t~ co.-~-i.,.. 7 an~ 4 ^Qr11°_r ati20~±. 03! CP&F Ta1e .....,...~..~. t,-,~pnt ?~c~. 7g3i4g, ?~da County Recers35, from . Which the seetiort corner common to Sectiortc 4; 9, 14 and 3 bears South tI°38'llq West, Z6S1.19 feet; thence North Q°3~~27q Bast, 22.64 Peet along the Westerly sine of the Northwest quarter, of said Section 3 to a 5! 8 ~~ iron pin marking the extended Southerly line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3; thence South.88°55'29" East, 19?7.76 feet_to a point on the Westerly line of the East half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 3;' thence North 0°30'18" East, 277.67~feet along said Westerly line to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing Narth`0°30'18" East, 91.97 feet 'along said line to the Northerly corner of that parcel described in Correction Quitc7.aim Deed ~to the City ofvMeridian, recorded as Instrument No. 95016892, Ada County Records; thence along the Nor'th'erly line of said parcel through the Following courses: Southwesterly, along `a non-tangent curve to tea left havinq~a radius of 37y.0 feet, an arc length of~2ti3.i7 last, a centra3 angle of ~ 41 ° i3~' v4" , a chord b~adrng dt:ci dibtat~ce of Sout.`i S1=i1'~1" vast, 20'3.99 £eat; ~anca, `tange~~t from Sa.i3 cu~~z;c, j1~Yt1~. Jk~SJ"ai'~{'i" jniaa ~, 04.13 g~sas~ ~v a ~ail~ik7~ Cili "v es~ th~a-Cc VVY WI$Oa LCL ~ 1~~ ~......... ~ a. 1 Ci. i. ~.•. A:.. ~.- O Ilr 31Vi7y' $ii1K V ui V cs t.3 Wtlc iGi ~. saar.iiay ..a t caf~~..~4.~ a7.1. .~. v . v 4d^c t, oia v~CAj..~-•'Zia~ia Vv 3V.iJ L~.i.L., iZ,(T ~~~ 4if.-i Mt glc rjy ~ ~ 0 i~' /i" ~ `jj~•. /7 ~!!9M\ .•N 1M I~ 1 ~~3vt 1. ij Cl , Vi Y~. .ryy J...~ Y..~ V1V ~ ~ V V ~i•~•~•Fs .1'Ze~i) ~~q E$5~ .~.~..~.~.f.°°.~ ~,• ~ ~ 1::~ CI: •s. w.~w~#~s+nsrt ~ ~rts4 V V..Y r , V VV V f~Iy MLA ^.° ~°$~ - n iA 1_Jn~t.~:er?y li::~ ' .... h ~..z:~ sa~_ 1J~~l~~e=t°M~`i 31Qnn ga~„i,i n r~~}~ ttAi+t ~~~io h i ~ v 7-• 7;~ _... _ 4 the 7 get f'!~~? 3±~ 3 r?tii»e Of` ~$Q.4 fnett~ 3nc?'C lo_rnt~ "flf 277~~3 ~Qf.t3 ~! 4~t1~3'd~ angle,`Qf i4°54'58", a chord bearing end`. sl"~;stanc°e of North 63°11'31," west; 16.53 £eet to a ~c-int o£~ nee-tangency- ~?7~nCe ~. yort~r 19•ZO* 5TH` East,. 195.82 feet to the Southerly °line of said Correction Quitclaim Deed; thence along said southerly li»e throuch tho Following courses: ,, South b6°28'40' East, 157.70 feet to a non-tangent curve; thence Northeasterly along said curve to the right having a radius of 425.0 feet, an arc :length, of 288.85 feet, a central angle of 38°56'31", S chord bearing and distance of North 63°04'11" East, 283.33 feet to a point of non-tangency; theiiCe North 0°30'15" East, 154.20 feet; thence North 11.45'15" East.,. 185.`77 zeet; thence North 78°33'49'' East, 182.71 zeet; thence sout~rt $96'3 ~ 45~ East, 80.Ot7 feet to tiie corner oz said Corrected uuizciaim geed to the City or" i4er.idian; thettCe ieaviszg said Southerly line S~i~ti`1 t3 =3~' 3$" west, X34.95 P2cL d;{'illy a %iI12 Ear3t~ iy of anti ~3ai3iie3. wl%~ 'ti`lts E i~65tE=IIT iillc of tt1Fc East dii i3f trot SOU'ta`1GF1a t i ""' r A.L \e. ff,..,, ~jGai \.cy. G.. ~ai8 a\v~`u\1Li~o~ a~u,~i ~Gi G~ value .~aoC~IGu, \.aiG~~re ., •,iw~.A4 AA019f9A" f~n..w1., '75A g7 f£stj ='~iZ~¢. CQL:tM e5°~c"21" 7ri~.c..~, Ems.?~ feet; tt1~E:C° ?!T_~~i t17•~g ~~Fn NoSt ? 4. ~1 goglt~ t1,n.~ne uor*_2t. 6Q °? S ~ Sa" West, 15 . Z? finet t4 the PCIN''!' aF Hx~GINNINC . P~RC3T G`, parcel of land situated`'in the North half of the South- half of Section 3, Township 3 North, Aange l west, Boise-Meridian,- City of Meridian; Ada County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as iEa~~.ows: Commencing at the ~; .corner,. common to Sections 3 and 4 corner as s2own on CP&F Instrument No. ?82145 Ada County Records,-from which the section cornea common to Sections~4, 9, l0~and 3 bears South 0°38'11" West, 2551.19 feet; thence, Nol^th 0.38'27" East, 22.64 fe¢t along the Westerly line og the Northwest quarter of said Section 3 to a 5/8" iron pin marking the. axtended~southerly line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3'; ftie2iCQ Soutn•s~~55'29'i East, 1977.76 feat to a point on ta¢ Westerly line of the East half of the Southeast quarter of 'the Nortiawesc quarter of sain Section 3;,chence ~ g South u'3u'lisx west, 5.6~i Praet along acid 'w'~,steriy ling pro a' point maYi~i.zYg the. 'rI'or~iwcst evrnaz of tide iv©rt2leaS% yelaY't&i cif t~:e iiurthstast CSLi'3c ~Gi Gig tiae ?V~a~atw~S~ ~iaitfea GP aoiv, S8C t1Gss ~ y~ }~O~ ~ 1 Al T.1.. .++. A /~'7 A9 0., ..i 1 iL. .. A ~ ~...~1..r j w~ ~~ ~ /~ SVu W1 N .I V l~L .1i-i.T V i 7 {/ I • J d LGC V G~LIII•a3 W•p I~c.a ..~.a ~I ~Jr1 ~{~ V~ Ir~r- wr,.., i~. i ....3..~.q.. R ~{.n *Zi.vy-..»~+~ rr\\3: }~'~ vF ~1.o cn\~1`j1rJ:Q.3} •\Vi. •GV.i .. Yr ir'•.~. Q~ `e.ue. • w~ a•~.rr .. Yet r - ••~. `v `- w~ Y..Y~ ..fir 1r.. ..,~-~ M\•J M~.AM IVR ~av l.^i.. VV V+Y:i I' rr w}i~ r\QrT ~.~..~1i^r O~ Ti\~K.l~ M=1O T~tg'~l ~ 1\a~\2~;,4~F~n DI1TrTT /~~' RL\rTU7~7TrjC~ tF~en~n $n~~ths~geterl y a 1 n~±~. trq gPj1~i?rZ i ng Gf g~i f~ ? atjgi-a 1 t1'+_i'Ata ~!~` ~~s2 ~fe~11,1 nt,ti ne3 C4t32 ggS ! ~ - . South 6$°54'1?"..Pest, 276.46 feet to a tangent curve; thence Southpaatprl y al_Qx~g a cuXV~ to t2~~ r~.ght hav~,~g a tad i~uS of t .. .. ~ ~ • 100..0 'feet, an arc length 'of 59.46 feet, a central a»gle of 34°0410", a chord bearing and distance of South 51°52'06" EBSt, 58.59 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 34°50'01" Eastr 292.99°feet; thencea South. 89°48'41" East, 147.34 feet; thence leaviriq said centerline of Bight Mile Lateral ,. South 35°00'00" East, 176:30 feet; thence- South 22°15'00° West, 60.05 feet to a point on the Northerly boundary of CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 SIISDIVISION, as shown on the official plat ttiereoP recorded in Sook 44 of Flats at Pages 353' through 3539, Ada County Records; thence Ivorth`43°58~1Ou iciest, 7.57 reef along the Northerly boundary of said subfiivision to a paint marxing the.ivoz-therly earner of I.o~t 2 0£ 31ac;~ y ; thence aoui:$ ~o =vu ~ Gi'i~ i+iaat, 3x5.46 FEe't aivrig Dahl iSc7Lt~t3rly ba711F1Ca'~ai"y ~G ts'16 Sa7uw`LuiBS'~2riy ~iC~il~~8i°iiali line Of Ii~tciiaChBia'.~idjtj to&iaG~ tri3ia•.aaat+iiay n.iLi-~y Sv2u • ut...aLilr rrVuii~aw.Y, Situ $uuw-woa~.oaiY right=-of-~Wa~r, line cf Irtarlac :en War. '_SVY~rJ;1 3~°C.~'L'~J" Y~Jr'V, ~7 y..'+~J fGvV .*.C W~~V ~I~%.~-i.jj~y~j ..V~~~i G~ a.Li.L 8 0* Plac.~c ? of ttie AM~"?I)~n pr~ym ny Cugp~v T.a?~E V2LL•aGE *?Q. ~ StT9D?vISI0I9, 3~ shown 7r f_rg ~ffi ~i a1 p1 at t~grop~ i'Ra~OT~j?~j ;,, 3on~ a.5 of plats at Pages 3647 ?rd 3648, Apia. county ~2eerairds; ..thence South 61°3733" West, 149.16 feet along the 'Northerly boundary of said Amended Subdivision to the extended Northerly right-of-- way of the Safford Sub Lateral; theme North 66°05'30" West, 396.57 feet along`said extended right=0f- atay to the Westerly .line of .the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of-,the Southwest quarter of said Section 3; thence along said Westerly line North 0°30'li" East, 745.;37 feat to~the POINT OF BEGINNING. :$ ~; n 'f k L ~ARCEL,~3 e ~. A parcel or land 25 feet in width; situated in the Northwest quarter- of Section 3, fiownship 3 North, ~itange:i West, 3oise- Irt®ridan, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and lying Within the night--of-=way or blotto rslacic CaL &oad, being more= particularly described as follows.:. 1 ~~ia~awm~si~c:irig at fi~r~ ; cc~rnar c:o;~oii to Sec'tiori 3 , and ~: canner a~, L ..w .~ T J. i .. www. • ~ r 3uc~'MFY'i t'ifi t.r&r ~.?'is~3'u7faSn~ avc7. ip`j46`~_ At'is ~.7'.1i1tY Records, f~Gm i~2liCai t1"io2. S2C~Gi1 Cvs'~2i i.G+TuAOi~ ~~" $e3a.tivll5 •i, ~, lv war ~ J- eagle $vuta~'i C°iv ~ i3~~ TcjYi~. w~e~ ~ a....a.. tea......... ~~...~aL ao~S ~ `-~.n ~f1.,~. Gov ~ O ~. t =;.-t1C..::^ :tt~..r~' 1.1T2e OF.,.. t.~:8 Vv W• 4fiJ 4, ~ v . ~..~ a Ci... a+j%i-'3 1~ :~^.`"'tv...~Q~ ~.;z,-+.~.. „f Sa;.,.; ~,~ ~ ~., t.~e NcYtadae*_=1`l, ==rnmr oP ~- w r•. r vr.r r•. vv.. r. • ~ ..v ~ *~~* r'-~===~ rtes===i.eLi ~~ f~n~-_-e~ti^n QLS3tc~a~ Dens to PrigH4_ol'! ~+e~~=s~f~i ~*; ~ rs~t±ni"*,i4~ gg TP_rtrt~n~or'h' Nn, OS41689~ , ?iC~R ~`~UT11;V AAoards, ?nd t~±e poTjVT of BF~ZI~N~NG; tklarc9 ccxatin~ui.ng Nor`.h ,0°39 *27~~ -East: 1270.40 feat along said 'Jesterly line• to the Seutbwesterly corner of that parcel d`escribad in Warranty Deed to Arxghton`Cornoration; recazided as instrument No. 95016890 i • . _ as modified by Affidavit to Correct Legal Description recorded as Instrument No. 9575294; thence along the Southerly ,.line of said Warranty Deed South 89°23'04" East,. 25.00 feet to the Easterly, right-of-way line of North Hlac3c Cat Road; thence South 0°38'27" west, 1270.41 teat along-tile said Easterly line to the Nortiler3yAiine of said Correction QuiLCiaim Leed; thence ivortii 83~ii' 33 ~= west, 25. Gu zeet along said ivartileriy line ~c~ ~iYe FUliV'1' UP" 1~'J.C:u11VlV1Ptta. r µ { ~.-.. . -. . '~ ~' ~) EXHIBIT "B" » I~. I C ~ . . d _ . ~ Iron Pin _ ~ { ~ PARCEL 'D' Ir~sr>z` i aso,ea9o ~ PARCEL 'A'' , , ` 0.73 acres 15;20 acres _ ~ , _, ~ ~. ~ ~ / 3 z ~ ~ ~ _ ~ r i f ~ ~-: _ ~ iH~• y 93C1Q892 , r I 3 ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ # ~- . ~ PARCEL 'B' -~ }. 4.68 acres ~ 5~. Iron Pin - 9 ~~ ~ + t /6' PfN w 1/4 C-E-w ti/6a S. line NE i/4 N51R. / 9301682 } PARCEL 'C' ~ 8.52° acres ' N ~ r , ~ . '~ ~ - ~ , .~. ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ' ,, t X, M 1 eF tpE 3 ~ p j f j :, t ... .- T 6. I t ~ I Total Rer~a~ n~ng Acres = 29.13 ~ ~. f ..~ -, y ; 9 1 0~ ' ~ ~ , ,- ~~ i j F _ TOOTFiMAN-ORTON ENGINEEtZING CO. _`+CiNEERS SURVEYORS P!./-Nt~_RS' ~ 5777 CHINOEN BOUI.EVARO' • 801SE, 10AN0 83714-:CGS _. -,..n.~r. -~na :7t _~f ~fGG CeY• '7 ~lA~t'7S-?tc~i ~ ` - '~lli `~ ~'~t[P ~ • ~sa~ s >: . i. t ~~~,~ ~ ~ ~, «t j ..~:~-:.:° .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nm VN ~ ~ ~ AA~~ gso„_~ gsog~ "• _ t y r~i m Iz ftft i s l . ~ ~ $ $~d°~t. ~ 00'„5 ooor~ a ~~ft`5i T7T d ~ Z ~ ht D ~q .. a > rnuu~ curia ~ if i .. v ]s ~ ~ „~~ ~ Es $ a ~ ~ ~ ~ i x t ~ 'ii ~ ~;~ _ ~~ .. ~. 4 d A O+ U ~ A~1 ~` vI N l `" N m O O v ~ ~ U T~-~~,--_r \ ,1 _ _~ I Im - ~ .IJ - ~.~ ~ ~ j . ] W O m W / N ~'. 1 R'. ~~ P. • ~ I' ~i ` f ~~ ~ V r ~ U / a`t ~a ,-a~~ W m ~ W DALY LANE ^~ ~ W a 3 n ~ m ~ 0 ~ • ~ N OGA CNJ N /• \ W ~ ~ ~ ~s` r ~ N ~O 7U ~ W A W ~ yy N ,~~a, ~ ~ ~. Q ~ ~} 'r CA r~~ ~ W m U ~ m ~~I ~~. . _::; r ~ 2~G ~~~L ~~ ~~~ d W V ~' / .`~~~~ N .~ 1 N N m ~ '~ W ~ ~ u r ^1 N J _ v ~ "', ~, ~ -~ ti r, ~' a 77 ~ O Rl o ~ •• / ._- i :S °° ~ j ~ - ~.~, ~ a ~ ~ , ... ~ ~ V N ,p N i ~ ~ th rn ~~ ` ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~~ A " ~ ~, -- a ~' \ j .\ =~,=_ _ `y, ~~ i . ~~ `yam r a~ ~~ D ~/ r~. ' ~ /~ ., ~ __ -. .. ,--. -~/\ ~ ,,l ~ ~ ~ /('/: /' ' _ w ~..a ~ ` .~ -,~.~ .~ _ SON ;> N _ w~ ~\ ~ / .v` / ~ ~ io Q ~ ~' „'~ r ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~- / _ z .~ _ ._ % ~ - ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ '~ ~ N N N ~' ~ ` \ .`~,~ _ `~ 1 ~ ~ 11 / ° ~ ! .1~.. ~ ~1 O1 U O W N U p, V '(~ -'"~ A 7 ' ~.~-~' \'w ~:~ ~ 1 -~ ~1 ~ ~ I _ ~ n~ ~. 'JlM 1.2i2i38N2lfll N ~+~ i ~ p W ?~ to J ~. D - N W A G1 `/~1 ~ , V ` t p \ AC _ _ N N y~~ a ~ q _°. ~ _ ~,/ i ' ~\ ~ c-~ N. R081E AVE e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~EG~~ ~ , ~ ~ - -- - MAC ~3 1 +. , / ~VeL`'r ""JP s° ~c„'-, .yKsr~~.rr~:u{t~^ Y` '9`~~a ~'ia_ F -v~K'k~~ .~~,~"d :,~,.~ CITY OF N1ERI ~ Y ~'.: '"` ~, ~..' c ,1., +~ sN`"ti ~'~'Fi -.ti. rf*'+ W T"¢..+ <~~'N °~,r ~'~ +;~4 ^h~ ~ ~ T } ~ ~~ rvfan~;, ~ r "~~»th V:. ~afrr r~~` ,r ~y i ~S ?r i~'S F s1 S +,,. ~,.r.....~ ,+a }Y..t7 r iw ~J+`,r "'~'A< r K J R.•~, Fa t .'~?'v ..tom fu.a. .. ~ +J+?'S n F =r"*1i i1 cr'A t ~` $ ~. \ ~:'~'... " •.4c'"wa5 .y ~r~ar.~:. ~a~«+'.''~ *` etc."t+n.~,*,'"6ti'~~.,X"a.+a+ari~' ~1 ,t p~ ' r. ~~t`'biw+. 3+ .. F ~ '~? ,f ..,.. .--. ~.yr .ylAg(~u'~%'~i+r~{,,,.,. \y~,n u~iN.;9 ~~F` 7A't ~. ... r-_ ~ '~ _,t ; ~ s, J• }' J. ~. i. r~=~, 1 ~ ~y' r ~~j'' I y ; y F :1: M1 t r ~ et 1 #'. y e y: ~~ 3 1 t A r ~ ~ ~ 1~ r` 8 L~ t ~ ~' p ~3 S' ~ ~p 4 r'~' l CZ ~ ii't ~.*>, ~ x ~ , ' i --~ - ~ , ~ - _ - - . ~ ~ ~~ Lr ~ r~ ~~~~~:.~. ,F ~ , ~ _ •~ ~ ~ t ~ r `~`' T' e . I I ~ J 4 - ~; ~~ '~ yr, ~ i4 Y' '?. .d..'-y~~- 0 ?F '~tftk ~ raj ~~' . Sk t u R' 1 X~°'4' A' k^~.'Jtl~r'~ rr r .Y~~,f.ZrY?'~ w e. ~. { _ - ~'+ e' 7 _ 1 j ~`, ~' 'avkS ~ W . ~..~ K~ w +. t'~~~. e , x'" '.~ ~.~ '~-kty, ~~ ~ ~ a. 1 (4 :..* ~gq ~ f. t;" ~h 7tY ~ / 5.'x,5'.' '~ k~. d ~dL r+ d ~,, t J ~'.~r tiC e ~ ~~ . r y ~ Ij"P{. X41: ~ ~: ~ ~~ r ~ .1' ~ Y1 1 :, 4 S 3~ t }: i~t r ~,y ~ ~ t k; ' ~' }}yy~~ 1 s p r ~ F I PP a ~. f 4.. ~, f ~' M i`ii Y~ t ~5 y ~ ~')Rtk Y. i` J ` t F ~r. ~I. -.q i F P.:Y ~, ~ ~ ~ . 9D STEINER DEVELOPMENT; INC. February 23, 1998 ~~~~~~~~ City Of Meridian FFB 2 6 1998 City Manager 33 E Idaho Ave .,~~Q~`^~~Y~ Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Steiner Development, LLC -~ 2 ~ar James G h 11, As manager of Steiner Development, LLC, I would like to thank you for doing business with Steiner Development, LLC. I hope you think the relationship has been, and will continue to be,~ mutually beneficial . To this °end, I would like to confirm that I am the only party authorized to sign and execute contracts on behalf of Steiner Development, LLC. I make note of this since in some agreements it appears that Doug Campbell has mistakenly been described in various capacities, including the capacity to sign agreements. Future agreements should be made in the name of Steiner Development, LLC, with me signing as manager. Doug Campbell will continue to be our liaison in Boise for day to day activities. However, Doug has never had the actual or apparent authority to contract on behalf on Steiner Development, LLC. ThankP you for your cooperation and assistance in the matter. Please advise should you have any comments or questions. , Best regards, ate. , Louis J Steiner Manager 554 EAST BELLEVUE ROAD, SUITE B ATWATER, CALIFORNIA 95301 (209) 357-8761 FAX (209) 357-0553 _ E h . r - .. ~ ~ ~ FE.B 2: ~1998~ ~ a _ ~ .~;. /~~l~2~~ ~U. : ~ ` r MERIDIAN ~~ ~~/~ 3 `~~ -~ ~ ` .~~'. / ~ ~/~~ :~~-~ ~ ~ `;~~'~~ tai //r~ ~5~ r.~ ~~ ~- ~~ - ' r ~ E ~ { f ' _ a _ ~' , S~ ~ ~~i ~ _ y ~ n . . a f~ ~ ~F ~D/~~i'.~Uj l91 ~®/" 1~1%~ UZ~j~ L~~?JS~J U ~~~~ ---~-~- , `~ ~`: f . ~ _ '. f G Y y ~ t ° , ~ . -~ ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ 2 y ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C Y ~ = r ~r - : -. .:. ~ t' - < .. .. e .. ~ ~ ~ Y i ~ ///'/~ _ ~j~.J._/ ,:, ..,.. , .J/ ~ y/r" i' ~ /0~~ /Y " ~./!J 11'f ~C" (/(f (/1/r Lam` Ft.~C /f!L 7V (V/ _~.z -° ~- .. v_ . "~ ~~~r~ Lac-s ~ /p ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~f ~,~a~oS~~. Uc~t ~F° ~ /o l~s /I~~~ :.. ,, _ e - ~y. ~ ~ w . ~ ~ 1 a~ ,/~ ..,,~/ ~ r. ~ / .~f C~C%~/ZJ~LiYU ~G~ fC~'tf ~ X~~ ' l Lf~~J C!!C=11~ l ~1Y/~7~~~~ /G~~ ~- _. Gf~~''-~.~~~. f ~~.~~'. ~- ~ ~'c'- Gip ~ry'~ ! l ~~?~~%~7 rG~? ~; x 6 r 3 ~, L , ~, a ~. _ ~~ ._ `r s a ` y ._ ~~, Y .. ~ _ - / ~. ~. - ~ x~ ~U1~l.a ~~ ®~.~ ~- 1~z~s 2~s~~r-~~.£. ~ ~ .~ ~?_ .: ~. F , ~ . ~~-~'~ ~ r , . ~ ~ ~ ~x / ~ f, .. ~ .:4.. < T •~ s ~ d n.,. ~ _ ~. _.. _• ~ ~. ~ ty~ ~- ~ s 4. .~,.. .~. _. ri -.. g ~/,y/./~ /f C //~' J/' //~ r ~` q.. / ~~ ~ x ~(~~ _~: ~ ~~ /2r ~,~2: ~~'~ ` ~ >~ ~S ~ '~ 5 T Gam- l/ 7L7G~~ ~ J ~ ~~ , ~~ T~ ~~1~~~ ~:S~S~~'~ ~ ~~~~ ~~i~~~-ti ~~ ~ `~p /~ g ''N' ~ / s - ~.-~ - -~~ Q~ , ~(Irtj,'LC~~tIS .t - *g .t ^9 ~, p ti R a b a *4 ''~ " ~ ROB-E-R-T-J. PATCHLV ~ L OIS J. PATCHIN A 41:99_i~_P_L UILIROSE S-T. ~ x R` 1~ERIDIAN, ID 83642 {/J /~:/y - (~1 ~ a I"'~(J ~ ~R~/~W ~ ~ 4 f i. -( G/ ,. .t y. -: ~, R. / ~ [t d - ~. - - 3 -~ ~~ _ e s ~ ti .. a R s t F: '' $c W ~~ ~ a. a. ~ .' z - 3 i : ~ _) T :r u' n ~ +. ~ i ... i n-. ~ y "'" ~ s .~ S ~, *e + y _ 3 Y i y f a . _ ,3 ~~AM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E.; Clty Engineer BRUCE D.`STUART, Water Wgrkt: SttpL JOHN T. 3HAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney ~` HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ~ A G ~ co Ncl r`~ MRFRC ood Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President 9' CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA EE C . GLENN R. BENTLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMM , Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WoiksBuilding Department (208) 887-221( ISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman ' Legal Departtent (208) 884-4252 MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP ROBERT D. CORRIE MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROTECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Wifl Berg, City Clerk by: January 6, 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 sin le famil 3 du lexes 1 tri lex _BY: Steiner Develoument LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No 1 JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY P2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT , MARK NELSON P2 MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) , _BYRON SMITH, P2 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION -KEITH BORUP, P2 ROBERT CORRIE MAYOR CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH - , -RONALD TOLSMA, C/C NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT ` -CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ~ , -GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WAT U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8t FINAL PLAT) ,-BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY FILES ~ OTHER: ,-FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: _CITYATTORNEY ND -CITY ENGINEER omh-rr~~ s -CITY PLANNER T1 T1. ~1 r, ~- ~..~ DEC 18x 1997 CITY OF MERIDIAN WASTE WATER DEPT, •Y 5~ • 827 L ~ssia Drive, Boise, Idaho 83705 : REc ~D ~~~ ~ RE~Ei~>f MAR - 3 1998 February 25, 1998 ED CITY OF MERIDIAN FEB 2 7 1998 ~'~~ Steven A. Bradbury Jones Gledhill Attorneys at Law 877 Main Street Boise, Idaho 83702 . Subject: The Villa @ Lake Subdivision Dear Mr. Bradbury: Earth Tech was retained to conduct a minor traffic impact analysis for the above Te 1 e p h o n e referenced project. The Villa at The Lake is a 46-lot residential subdivision on 8.53 acres. The site is located approximately '/2 mile north of Cherry Lane and %2 mile east % ~ 8 • s a 3.3 G o 9 of Black. Cat Road. Figure I shows the preliminary layout of the development. The site is currently undeveloped. The subdivision is proposed to be developed with F a c s i m i I e private roads from Interlachen Way with no connection to Ashford Greens Boulevard ;t o s • 3 a 3.3 s 7 Z to the northwest of the site. The purpose of this traffic study is to: estimate the traffic on Interlachen Way; determine the impact of the extension Interlachen Way to Ashford Greens Boulevard. INVENTORY The property is zoned currently as R-4. Interlachen Way is improved south of this site with a 41-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk and has no pathway designation. Interlachen Way is designated as a "collector street" south of Turnberry Way and has 19 houses that front-on Interlachen Way. Existing peak hour traffic during 4-6 pm on Interlachen Way are counted at Turnberry Way, Incline Way, Sugar Creek, and Cherry Lane is counted and is attached to this letter. Based on an assumed ratio of peak hour traffic to average daily traffic (PHT/ADT) of 10%, these counts- indicate daily traffic on Interlachen Way as follows: 771 vehicles per day (VPD) north of Cherry Lane; 725 VPD north of Sugar Creek Drive; 552 VPD north of Incline Way; and 184 VPD north of Turnberry Way. TRIP GENERATION The site is proposed to be developed into 46 single family residences. The trip `generation rates for "single family residential" are obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (6`h edition). Table 1 summarizes the trip generated by the Villa @ Lake subdivision. E A R T H` T E C M 1 Formerly Bell-Walker Engineers Inc. i ~Jar~-;23-9g 06:58A . , i~ .~ . • .. ~~c ,J ~~~ is ~i .,~ ~ i 1 -~____ 3~~,_ j !7 I8 10 %' 19 ~ A •; ~ a. '~ 20 ~" ~~' ~ , 7 Z5 21 n~ 7 ~ - 24 2z ~°y g. -_ I8 ~. ;~,r 28 29 ~fiti ~ ~~ ~ l 29~ z ~~'S 45 S 4 •'~ 4 ~ GQ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 30 y. 43 ~ 2 • A 42 48 ~` ! 31 47 ~ • 32 33 41 4~~~ ce - _.~ ~ ~- . 34 38 ~~ - -.\. t+ t= ~ tz tt ~ to ; ~ 35 36 37 39 ~¢~ ~, s ~` 4 Rpg~. ,' T ••~ \ _ 6 4 i j ~ ~"r' ~ 7 ~ • ~~ ~ d i a o -.5_ ~ s ~. 11/1 N J~ E~, ' • ! ~ ~•.., .i. 2 Q i w 1.~ L~ ~+-.4w S x'12 /i.. ! 6 ~j;~ r~ , • ~(~ •~ ~ ~/ ~ ,' $v~ s ~ ANA ~\ •~~ ~. 4 v----~ --~;~ I ---~.s 3 i ~-.40' ~__ ~~ E S~t?ATF - L G ~ ~~ 1 ~~ ~ ' aal -Ti ~ _ N O. _. (Zo ~p 1Figuc~ C~ i aoie ~ : villa L ~a Ke i rip generation Summary Landuse ITE DU Daily Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Code Rate Trips Rate Trips Single Family Res 210 46 9.57 440 1.01 46 TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution of the site trips was determined from the Regional Transportation model developed by the Ada Planning Association (APA). The 1995 network and demographics were used in the model. Results indicate the percent distribution of the residential traffic as follows: 29.7% directed to Ustick Road East; 0.3% directed to Ustick Road West; 5% directed to Black Cat Road South; 3.7% directed to Black Cat Road North; 26.3% directed to Ten Mile Road South; 0.6% directed to Ten Mile Road North; 0.7% directed to Cherry Lane West; and 31.7% directed to Cherry Lane East. This is summarized and shown in Figure 2. Without a connection of Interlachen Way to Ashford Green, the distribution shown in figure 2 would increase the daily traffic on Interlachen Way by: 440 VPD north of Turnberry Way; 302 VPD north of Incline Way; 284' VPD north of Sugar Creek; and 284 VPD north of Cherry Lane. EXTENSION OF INTERLACHEN WAY TO ASHFORD BLVD ACHD~proposed that Interlachen Way be extended and connected to Ashford Green Boulevard. The primary concern for this connection is the increase in the traffic on Interlachen Way due to the cut-through traffic .from adjacent subdivisions and land uses. Results from trip distribution of the Regional transportation model indicate that: (1) about 58.4% (see figure 2) of the Ashford Greens traffic is directed to the intersection of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road; (2) about 4% (see figure 2) of the Cherry Lane Village traffic is directed to the intersection of Black Cat Road/LTstick Road; and (3) about 43.9% of the Golf Course traffic is directed to the intersection of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road. Three travel paths are analyzed and ranked for their travel time between the intersections of Ashford Blvd/Lacoste Way and Cherry Lane/Ten Mile Road, namely: E A R T H `~ T E C H 3 ~I X o ~I .~ o~ Q 0 ac U J ~ U J A\SHFORD GREENS ~~ ~ Z m W H ~~ CHERRY LN 3~ j~° ~I ~ ~ I N FIGURE 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION i _ ~ (1) Ashford Blvd-Black Cat Road-Cherry Lane; (2) Ashford Blvd-Stub Street- Interlachen Way-Cherry Lane; (3) Ashford Blvd-Harbor Pointe Drive-Muirfield Drive-Ten Mile Road. Travel time computations, assuming minimal node delay and posted speed limits on roadways, indicate that the path including the Interlachen Way is the minimal travel time path for traffic between the two selected intersections. Impact of eliminating the connection between Daly Lane and Couples Lane was also estimated on the least travel time paths. Such an alignment would only increase the travel time on Interlachen Way path marginally, nevertheless, Interlachen Way path would continue to be the least travel time path of the three paths described above. Impact of the Interlachen Way extension, as detailed in the previous paragraphs, is quantified by determining the increase in the traffic on Interlachen Way at various locations. Table 2 presents the daily traffic projections on Interlachen Way with and without the proposed extension. CONCLUSIONS Based on the proposed. land use description, the Villa @ Lake subdivision would generate a total of 440 daily trips and 46 peak hour trips. About 285 daily trips from the site are directed towards Cherry Lane. Extending Interlachen Way to Ashford Blvd. would increase the traffic on Interlachen Way significantly, as shown in table 2, because of the cut-through traffic. Consequently Interlachen Way would function as a continuous collector roadway from Blackcat to Cherry Lane with traffic volumes north of Turnberry Way exceeding 1000 vpd. If Interlachen Way is not extended to Ashford Blvd, it is recommended that pedestrian, ,bicycle, and golf cart access be constructed between the Cul-de-sac and Ashford Blvd. Very truly yours, EARTH~TECI-~j~ ' i /J' ~! ~ i ~ f Gary unkhouser, P.E. ~ce,~`President pv/GF E A R T H `~ T E C H i i W `~ '~ ~ :~%~. -, , n fr ~: - , ~ f b, l r ~ ..>.:. 5 ,. 3 ~. v CC i~r ~-+ L', O C O .., w V .,~ iOr a v s. E-~ -. .~ bA sue. H O ..~ _> ,-. v W i~, ~ ~ ~ ~ to O ~D U ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 3 ~ 0 ~ ~ -~s ~ .~ Q U ~ +, ~ ~ ~ N O ~ M \O M 00 ~ ~ O ~ M V ~ ~ l [ [~ U , .~ ,~ .~ 3 Q 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ N o~ a~ c~ ~ ~ --~ N N N N w U U ~ ~ ~ E'~ ~ y 00 00 00 00 00 "~ ~ ~ M M M M M Q O U ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U N N N N N U ~-. 'C3 00 N N v'1 V1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N b~A U ~„` 4" ~ ~ ~. O 0 0 ~ N l~ W~ ~ ~~ ~,~ cC a~ `~ ~ ~ ' i a ~a 3 ~ ~- ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ U i ~ . U ~ E~ ~ ~ U ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, o 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ w zz zz • rn M r- N ca a a OFFI IA WILLIAM G: BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARK L. STILES, P & Z Administrator ;KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY i A Good Place to Live rCITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208)$88-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 ' Legal Department (208) 884-4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE Mayor MEMORANDUM: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor and City Council FROM: Bruce~Freckleton, Assistant to City Enginee Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator January- 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Plat with a Conditional Use Permit for The Villas at the Lakes Subdivision - 48 Lots on 8.53 Acres by Steiner Development We have reviewed this submittal and o"~`er `the following comments, as conditions of the .application. These conditions shrill be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: This property was originally included in the overall development plan for Ashford Greens Subdivision. Since the original concept was approved, the original applicant chose not to exercise its option on the.: property, and the previous owner of the property sold it to Steiner Development. The overall development plan included this parcel as a ~"medium den"sity development" which would tie subject to future conditional use procedures as a planned development. Having not experienced a scenario such as this, staffwas unable to,determinF-the legal consequences of the process to date. As is common in a planned development, exceptions can be made by Council to district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD. "9-607 E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parkirig,~-signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, rovided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section:" COUNCIL M MB aS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA CHARLES M.ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P~ COMMISSinti JIM JOHNSON, Chairman MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH v;na~t.~~.ctrr f ~ ~ f Mayor, Council and P&Z ~ ' January 9, 1998 Page 2 ~ ~ t Variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to gant this CUP in this R-4 zone as presented would be: 1. Minimum lot sizes 2: Frontages 3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives 4. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of roadway in accordance with' City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 5. Front and street side yard setbacks ~~ 6. Minimum house size. GENERAL COMMENTS ~` 1. :,Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches,crossing the property to be included in-this project, • shall be tiled per. City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of `said approval submitted to the•Public Works Department.. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed. from "their domestic..service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be " used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. :. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions ~as .prepared by ,a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants andlor deed restrictions for review by. the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks , in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606. B. " a • 6. Submit a letter from the Ada" County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision . and stz'eet`names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant.placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 8. Respond, in`writing, to each. of the comments contained in this memorandum prior to the January 13, 1998 hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Submit ten copies of the Preliminary' Plat -Map with any required revisions to the City Clerk's Office a s minimum of one week prior to the hearing by the. Meridian City Council. ~. va~c.~«.cuY • • Mayor, Council and P&Z January 9, 1998 `- Page 3 SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via an extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to 'accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main- sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. The profiles submitted for the preliminary sewer design indicate that a portion of the main in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled iri order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water °service to this site shall be via 'extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant will be responsible` to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. _ Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the .pressurized irrigation system and a statement of whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or:private.. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft .copy of the O&M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system will need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. 4. Two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by' the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdividers expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. A .detailed landscape plan for the common areas, including fencing locations, pathways and types of construction, shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required .for the improvements prior to signature. on the final plat. 6. Non-combustible fencing is to be installed along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals prior to applying for building permits'. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to ~~ `~~~.~ ti a.. - ~3 P&Z CommissionlMayor & Council January 9, `1998 Page 4 alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non- combustible perimeter fencing except -where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary`. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for" building permits. Fencing shall be set f at T the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the`Nampa-Meridian Irrigatioa District. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for. a driveway. Similarly, the duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property ''have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. .. 9. Provide ~a letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian .School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. F v 10. Proposals' for Planned Unit Developments-must include a minimum of ten percent common _ area. Common open space shall mean land area. exclusive of street rights-of--.way, buildings, parking areas, structures, .and appurtenances except those improvementswhich are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The, sewer easement area shall. be platted as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. This will result in sqi°are footages for at least two adjacent lots of 3;500 square feet. or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. ~. 12. Storage areas shall be provided forthe anticipated needs of boats, campers and'traileTS: For typical residential development, one (1) adequate space shall be provided every two (2) living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One (1) additional parking space beyond that which is required by the Zoning Ordinance may be required for every three (3) dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet (4') to any established street or alleyway. 14. A maintenance building or approved area shall be provided that is suitable for the services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection. and disposal. v~a.~ • • P&Z CommissionlMayor & Council January 9, 1998 Page 5 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access as well as gates proposed within the development. A condition of the°previous proposal was that Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the .development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement at this time. 17. If the private road is approved for :this development, a blanket easement for public utilities needs. to be .included. The proposed covenants for this subdivision need to specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace -the roadway within a 20-year period 18. Planned unit `developments are required° to contain a minimum ten percent open space. Although donations have .been made to the City golf course, they were not a part of this development. 19. The contour lines `on the blueline prints received are faint and difficult to-read. _Please darken up the contour lines with the°revised plat map. As an informational note for the Commission and Council, four lots in Golf Vew Estates Subdivision abut this proposed development. The four lots have an average square footage of 19,491 square feet (including area to the center of the Safford-Lateral) and are valued for tax purposes at an average of $215,300. The house sizes on these lots range from 2;130- square feet to 3,532 square feet. The ,a. applicant is proposing~a minimum house size of 1,304 square feet for this subdivision. Three lots in Amended Cherry Lane Village No. 1 have an average square footage of 6,171 square feet with an average valuation of $94,800. Two additional lots in Cherry Lane Village No. 1 .Subdivision that abut this site are 12,720 and 9,540 square feet, with valuations of $131,300 and $119, 700, respectively. ~. ~_` !'TVILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITfi,~P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. r JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief. W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Atfomey HUB, OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY ~OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 , -- ~ Phone (208}' 888-4433 • PAX (208) 887-4813 ; ' Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 • Legal Department (208) 884=4252 ROBERT D. CORRIE COUNCIL MEMBEAS WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA .CHARLES M.ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P & Z,COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman* MALCOLM MACCOY KEITH BORUP MARK NELSON BYRON SMITH - Mayor . ,-.t: ~, ~ ~ TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ,, -, To insure that your comments and. recommendations wiN be considered by" ttie': Meridian ,;~ ... Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations ,., to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by January 6,°1998`>= TRANSMITTAL DATE:. 12117 %97 '~ _ ~ ~ HEARING DATE:' 1113°198 p, tia . ,REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family, 3`ciupiexes„ 1,tripiex ,BY: Steiner Development ~ - ~' LOCATION OF~PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwestof Cherry Lane Villa4e No. 1 n, q~ . a JIM JOHNSON, P2 ~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL,PLAT). MARK NELSON, P2 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT BYRON SMITH, P/Z ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION KEITH BORUP, P2 .CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ROBERT CORRiE, MAYOR ~ ' . , NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ~ ~ ~" RONAL D TOLSMA, C/C SET,TLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT , _CI-fARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM`& FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) -GLENN BENTLEY, C/C 1NTERMOUNTAW G S( EUM'& FINAL PLAT) -WATER DEPARTMENT= BUREAU OF ~R C ION(PRELIM I LAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES{ BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTHER: f..-'._.FIRE~DEPARTMENT YOUR CONCISE RE A POLICE DEPARTMENT ' ~ ~ ~ ~" ' -CITY ATTORNEY " ~ °_ ~ - , _CITYaENGINEER `: ~° CITY PLANNER ,d ~,. _ _- - _ _ E. v. ~~ ,,. ~ ~ ~ Df C 2~ 3 197 ~.. OFFI IAL - . HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ~l R COUNCIL MEMBERS LIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk A GOO(I P1aCe t0 LiVe WALT W. MORROW,'President JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer GARY D SMITH P E C CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA EE C . , . ., ity Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. GLENN R. BENTLEY JOHN T. sHAwcl3oFT, waste water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO. DENNIS'J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 , ~ P & Z COMMI ION SHdRI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator ~ Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813. JIM JOHNSON, Chairman KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief .Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 MALCOLM MACCOY W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief Legal Department (208) 884-4252 KEITH BORUP WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MARK NELSON ROBERT D. CORRIE BYRON SMITH Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVEI;OPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations Will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn:.Will~' Berg, City Clerk by: January 6. 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/17 /97 HEARING DATE: 1/13 /98 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for 37 single family, 3 dualexes 1 trialex _BY: Steiner. Develoament LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No 1 . JIM JOHNSON, P2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) MARK NELSON, P2 "ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT _BYRON SMITH,. P/Z .ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION -KEITH BORUP, P/Z .CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ,-ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT -RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT -CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM &'FINAL PLAT) -WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) -GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) -WATER DEPARTMENT ,, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) .-SEWER DEPARTMENT CITY FILES --~-BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~ FIRE DEPARTMENT ~ OTHER: '' ~ ' ~ `c'J Y OUR CONCISE.REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT- -CITY ATTORNEY L ~ ~ i •P s C.c 5 ' /a A' 1 n ar"i ,,~ -CITY ENGINEER -~-;° -CITY PLANNER ~ ~ r ~. _ .,, ~,~~ .~ f ~ ~~ ..~ , ceNrRa~ , CEN AL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPAR ENT •• U~STR~G7 Environmental Health Division "~~GE1VE ^~ ^ HEALTH n Return to: j . DEPARTMENT ~ DEC 2 ~ 1997 ^ Boise ~^ Eagle Rezone # '' ~~~~ `~" `rERIb1Ar ^ Garden City ' ~, ~,.~~ ~ Meridian Conditional Use # [] Kuna Preliminary. /Final /Short Plat ~ ^ ACZ ^ 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal. 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type;of use must be provided. before we can comment on this Proposal. ., i ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment: 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ waste flow characteristics ^ or~bedrock from original grade ^ other 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrienu and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or surface waters. ~ ^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. ~. 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: _.~ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^,.interim sewage ,central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water I ` ~ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and appr"oved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ,central sewage ^ community sewage system- ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines central water 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ~: ^ 1 1. This Department would recommend deferral until .high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ 12. If restroom facilities are to be ;installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 13. ~ We will require plans be submitted for a plan revievv~for any: ' ~ ^ food establishment ^ swimming pool or spas ^ child care center .~ 14. ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store ~ ~ -5%O~G/~7~ !~/~i .~°~"/~t ~'~ ,1~~~aJ~ c:.S/`t ~'~~ ~E D ~ ~~I , / ate: Reviewed By: t 1,,,~ ~~fY-( G`I~~l ,/('~/E ~d ~G L:P/~Lj/p~.G/Z.-G/y' ~~ °° r _ t I P y ~mHO .0.9. ~. ~,. u9, $ ,Review She' a ~:fi ~~. ~~,s.,.Ir /~ , r ..-...,_- ,,.... .. z ..... •_ ORGANIZED 1904 QFGE~u~[~ JAN 0 2 1998 ~~ ~~b ~~~rO~aF '~a.~ir~ia. & ~lE~tdc~uz ~Ivctgatioo~ Dr~cict 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 2R~~$t~[~XX 208-463-0183 23 Dec~ber 1997 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 XXXX~~3~X Will Berg, City Clerk " SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 City of Meridian xe~€xxx~x~e~cx 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID 83642 .. ~ .. • " ~.=-. RE: Conditional Use Permix for 37 single family. 3 duplexes and 1 triple Steiner Development ;Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Eightmile Lateral courses along the west boundary of the project. The right-of--way of the Eightmile Lateral is SO feet; 25 feet from the center each way. See Idaho Code 42-1208--RIGHTS-OF-WAYNOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESSION. The developer must contact John P. Anderson~°o~r Bill Henson at 466-0663 for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of--way occurs. '~ The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change/Site Development -application be filed for review prior to final platting. ~~ All laterals and waste ways must be :protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage eaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. Contact ,Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. `~~ The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made availabie to ali developments within the Nampa « wieridiati Irrigation District. Sincer e l y ,, ( ~ ~~c~ '~`~r-- . Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent ` NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ~.. ~ ,~ .,. y ~ cc: File - Shop• ~ - "'' a. ~~~ " n , ~"~ - , tendent. ~• .f Supe Water y, f ~ y 1dC ~ - t ` _ \P^~ e` o~\ .~ q\ot •~`p.~ .. ~, \\~~r APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES ~: 1 _~""' RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 ,. ,.,{ BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 l a: ' - b N MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 6 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 10 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL US PERMIT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM P & Z 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: SEE ~rtgcN~~O Fi>Jr~-~GS ~~#~ a~`dl,~~ ~wv ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ~,~' CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~~ ~ ~' All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. f J` .. f ~ ~'e.~.., o. ~. i N MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: .January 13, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ifiEM NUMBER: 12 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITYBUILDING DEPT: ~;7 ~ " '~'~, MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: - MERIDIAN POST OFFIC.'E: U ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~ ADA COUNTY STREETNAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST; INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: - Aq Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~. ~: i 6 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MARCH- 3.1998 " APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 13 REQUEST: CONDITIONIAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY t COMMENTS CITY CLERK: K CITY ENGINEER: R .CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ~. OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: , ~,J~ ~/" CITY BUILDING DEPT: ,. ,, f ~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~ w _ MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~, ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: I ~~ ~ .~ t CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION:, IDAHO POWER: US-WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMAT'iON: OTHER: PRESENTATION BOOK FROM STEINER DEVELOPMENT All Materials presentred at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. / Y ~ ~ ,, < ' a ^ $, MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING:. APRIL21.1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT:. ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST:. F F & C L FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ~ NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE N0.1 `¢ AGENCY COMMENTS CITY-CLERK: SEE MINUTES°FROM 3/17!98 CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: -~~ ~~/ CITY POLICE DEPT: P "" CITY FIRE DEPT: / V"~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: .. ~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ~ . CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION:. - IDAHO POWER: US WEST: - INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: '~' BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: FINDINGS 1N 3/17/98 PACKET All: Materials presented'at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. _~ ,~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: MAY 5 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 1 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDMSION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST DFFICF_: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTESPROM 4/21/98 SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~°' ~C~ Iw ~~~ ~~~ P OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING &.-ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 14, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DIEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 15 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB. NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 AGENCY COMMENTS' CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 5/12/98 CITY ENG-NEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY E4UILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEAILTH: l~ :(_ L/ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIt;,ATION: (jL SETTLERS IRRIGATION: y'i IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All°Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~- ' ~~' . ~., a_...~.. s D MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETfNG: .September 8, 1998 APPLICANT: StEINER DEVELOPMENT ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HF~4LTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES 08/11/98 I~ ~~~ ~ c ~ ~- ~NI ~ ~ Y~~ C I~/ ~~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ci~typo~f,~Meridian. 1 ~~ f S >r ~o ~-~. ~ ~ c_~e..~. ~~ . .~ ~` _ -MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: February 10 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7 REQUEST: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK:. CITY ENGINEER: Y CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: 11 /~~ CITY ATTORNEY: ~ f--1 ~,~ S (~ ~C~ end l..(~'1CIl~S1(~'1S ~ ~t~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT:. ~ W' a.~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~~ . MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: - f dG G ~' / j ADA COUNTY~STREET NAME COMMITTEE: 1l~ v ,~ CENTRAL DISTRICT.HEALTH: ~i/~~ )~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: Ii" ~ ( " ' SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. t MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ~ MARCH 17.1998 APPLICANT: STEINER CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 4 REQUEST: CONDIT10111AL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 3/3/98 CITY ENGINEER; CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPt: _ C CITY BUILDING DEPT• f . 9,l ~ (/ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: Q ~ ADA COUNTY STREET:NAME COMMITTEE: VvCiC- CENTRAL. DISTRICT HEALTH: ~l NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS• IRRIGATION: ,~, IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATpON: - OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL .USE PERMIT.FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 . MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter .having come on for public hearing on March 3, 1998 at the hour of:~7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing. through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the City Council of the, City "'of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter.. makes the following Findings of Fact~and Conclusions of I~aW. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing- on th'e application for the conditional use permit and application for annexation and zoning ,. was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing schedulE~d; on January 13, 1998, the first publication of a which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998 hearing; that the public was gi`veri full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that ,copies .of '.all notices were .available to newspaper, -radio and television stations. As required by law a secorid public hearing was held in front of• the Meridian City 'FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 STEINER~DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED-UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) A ~{, ~ .. E. r Council on March 3, 1998.- This second public hearing followed the same procedures. for notice and hearing as set.. forth in the first public hearing. 2. The property is located,. within the City of Meridian at the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village: No. l.g°' The property is described. in the application fjor' a conditional use permit, which description is`incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursu<~nt to fthe application,ythe property is presently zoned as R-4, Low Density Residential District. "The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, ~3 duplexes, and 1 triplex.. The Applicant presented4 a site plan depicting the locat°ion of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application,,. the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, °'whether that use be _ residential, commercial. or ,industrial. 4 . That the` R-4 District is de~rr; hard ;„ rl-,o ~.,,-;; ,-„-.. Ordinance,:. 11-2--408~B. 3., as follows: R ` (R-4)~ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single- .family dwellings shall be ,:permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and,~public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to `permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with.,.. the> Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas 'by` prohibiting the `intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The ,(R-4) District allow" for a maximum of four:.; (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City `of Meridian.' FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAVd - x Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ' ;, ,,, ~. .. 5: That the planned residential development of 37 single= family dwellings, 3 duplexes and l triplex ~in a district. of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the. Applicant, is an allowed conditional use~in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject. property is presently, vacant. , 7. That sewer and water is available yto the property and. is required. 8. Mr. Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a pre-liminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential, subdivision. The site is 8 % acres and located east of Black Cat between~Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel. was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did .not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 twa-unit townhouses and one-3-unit townhouse.. for a total of 46 separate. living units. That works-out to about'5 ~ units per acre over the 8-~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street. on a forty-two-foot-right-of-way with a five-foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20-foot sewer .easement to make a„common lot: The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve they problem.. At p"resent the smallest lots are~up to r FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPME;NT''='°CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT'(R-4) about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of the various nui~ibers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is t$o have , 14 of them., Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the=_ minimum sizes. Each unit Ywill have a. two-car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per `"un:it. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback is reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks are reduced to 15 -feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not. be restricted to just.senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was; pleased with the=-..presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback,tieven though the blueprints states the•minirrium lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks t`o be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what are seen on the' blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) C~ r what is proposed. 'Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, an<3 that is, a 15-foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissiora.er Borup had a clarification on the conditional use, and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes, will 'be reflective- of the true state of affairs not `just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20- foot sewer easement behind the- property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was ii= there was a possibility of hooking into their pressurized 'irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux} gave the following testimony regarding his concerns..... His first concern was the lot size'due to the. sewer right=-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the ,; ~r duplex, and- it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned air the hearing is a revision, which he desired to see the revision. Presently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than,the 8000 square feet which °is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about- 8 units of apartments per acre`, which FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS-IONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER°DEVELOPM:ENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • would be 5 ~ per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some. being 8400 and 67.00 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. .1. He is looking forward to the completion of the subdivision. He continued with the .comment that his .house was the first in° the" subdivision. on lot 3 adjacent in the- Cherry Lane #l~ Subdivision.. Another consideration-, is the street;°that the street will be ten and a half feet longer.sor farther out than the current house; and the street- belongs to Ada County Highway District. The 'plans also show the sidewalk will; be moved. He'also commented°on what would happen to,ahe small section, which belongs to the ACHD .and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not. part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony pertained to the 20-foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12.•Y Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewereasement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that: it would be included as part FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ tl A • of the side .yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve •Bradbury addressed where the three unit°tow:nhouses will Abe located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, 'he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared t:he .plat, could better answer "the question. They wouldn.'t plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated;the ,,lot to be 4000 square feet. One way: totaccomplish that would .be to move the small .road a little further`up. With some adjustments they. feel the.. concern over the, lot. could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be~on a~separate lot ,_ and about the°~pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement °be made a separate common lot and the developers' agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could,; hook in tos it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it `has "not been discussed with the developer,.. but could more 'than likely ,be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain *_. , approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation. District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Nampa u. & Meridian. Irrigation District fort a part-'of the costs of operation and maintenance`, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider, would bill additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrgat'"ion.. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER.DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-'4) ~ ~ . s 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are `going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of" housing types and uses for the <area. The developer feels there isi a market for thi~> type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford "Greens Subdivi"sion has-part of this type of area. Pertaining to the^ street, a private street would be owned and maintained by t:he homeowners association and would not be used by th'e regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50-foot -right-of-way would be required. w ~: Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded ~. affirmatively. ~ 4 15. Steve Bradbury, representative for thef Applicant,` requested, the previous testimony be incorporated. into the hearing" on the matter. " 16. The City Council for the City of Meridian conducted a second public hearing on March 3, 1998. The testimony from that hearing is incorporated in these findings as if" set forth, in full. _ Mr. Bradbury, the representative from Steiner Development a testified as follows; The .site is an eight and a half acre parcel of property that's east of Black Cat Road between tJstick and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - {..Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) .. • Cherry Lane. The 'piece of property near the current Cherry Lane ' golf course club house. The piece of property was originally brought to the. Council by the developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision, Brighton Corporation and was part of the previously approved Ashford Greens planned unit development. The Brighton °Corporation fai.l'ed to exercise the option on the particular piece of property. Steiner Development picked up the option to the property to develop it. A copy of the findings of-facts and conclusions of~law that were adopted by the Council back in .September 1994 are in included in the packet provided. Those findings dealt with the overall concept-approval for Y- the Ashford Greens Subdivision, and what they did or what the members of the Counci'1 at that time,. did, with respect to that piece of property. Mr. Bradbury stated that the previous Council gave concept approval for what was described as medium density development, and that was further described as'being for up to eight units pe:r acre. The old Council required that the developer submit a more particular site plan for approval, and this application is that more particular site plan.. The property is located on (81/2) eight and a':.half acres, the .property is c presen.tly~zonE,d R-4, but the application seeks approval for 46 total single family units., 37 of them would be single detached, three of "them would be two unit attached~'structures. Mr. Bradbury stated "There is three two units or.you might call them two unit townhouses that are described as duplexes but that's not really FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-~4) ;` w true because triese will on separate ownership :Ls and each of the unit will be on separate lots.." There is also one three-unit townhouse proposed for a total of 46 dwelling units.. The overall density comes out to about° 5.6 units per acre, which is substantially less than the eight units per acre, 'which was conceptually, approved back in 1994. • 17. The lot sizes range from 3909 square feet up to 8413 square feet': Mr. Bradbury noted there is ,a change from what was submitted earlier because"this is where the temporary sewer easement exists. It's a twenty-foot wide sewer easement, and when the'~application`was originally submitted, the lot calculations included the land within the, sewer easement area.` The proposal now is to take that out of these lots and make it a separate common lot which would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. He noted the numbers shown on the plans ar"e not correct but the numbers provided to Council for this hearing are the correct ~, numbers. The sizes of the homes are a minimum of 1304 square-feet up to 1785 square feet. More than half of the units proposed would be in th.e 1700 or above range, "actually it's'`1699 square feet." There will be 25 of -those that are between 1699 and 1785 square feet.` .The remainder of the units are equally distributed, between the other sizes. The roadway system in the project is proposed as a private road that would be gated at the., entry. He noted it woulc~ be on 42 feet of right-of-ways 37 sfe'et of that .. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ' "P would be improved. It would include a five-foot wide sidewalk on one side, which is similar to what was app`roved~in Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. Mr.. Bradbury noted that there are 7 different plans available and some of those would have two elevation choices. The homes,~are all single story and have two car garages. Each have either two or three bedrooms. and two baths. Each space would be provided by a private driveway. The driveway would have space for a least two cars, so each unit would have a total parking availability o:E four cars. There are four color choices being. offered in either stucco or a siding, and there's-a brick accent on some "of the units . He stated that the proposal is to provide a gated security entrance~in_front of the subdivision~in order to keep the traffic circulation down to a minimum. The concept is to provide a pedestrian and. cart, path in through"'the subdivision over the top of the sewer easement. This would then go on to the canal right of way and up all the way along the perimeter of the subdivision and then it would come back out up at the golf course. That would give the .people who want to walk to the golf course who live in the n'E~ighborhood or those people who own golf carts and want to drive their golf carts up the golf course. This is to,be~ owned and maintained by the homeowners association.. He noted that the Planning and Zoning commission recommended approval of the project a:~ presented. The developer is asking for certain exceptions under the provisions of the planned unit development FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) , • ` portion of the zoning ordinance. One of the exceptions is to have some of the setbacks reduced. The=typical front yard setback in a residential-sub"division is twenty feet. The plans call for a reduction of~the setback to fifteen feet. Similarly, 4 the street sidE~ yard setbacks on the corner lots.are typically a twenty-foot. set:back requirement, again the developer is asking for a reduction to fifteen feet.. Mr. Bradbury noted that "That's .. i; just exactly like what the Council approved in the Lake at .Cherry .Lane No. 6." He, also noted there is also a reduction being requested for dots one through four for a ten foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required fifteen feet.'` Mr. Bradbury noted that even though there will. only be ten.f'eet of lot setback, there wil-1 actually be thirty fi"ve feet of. separation from the lots. TYis is because ..there will be the ten foot of setback in the lot and the twenty feet` of_the sewer ° .easement area which would 'be a common lot and have that path on it. He noted. that- in addition the lot sizes in the typical,R-4 area are 8,000 square. feet. They are asking for an exception down to the lot' sizes that are"shown on `the plat. The minimum lot size is about 3900. square feet and the largest is over~8,-000 square feet, but it comes out to an average of somewhere around 5700 square feet. The typical frontage requirement on an R-4 lot :. is 80 feet. That is frontage on'the street. In this particular application the request is that number be reduced down"to fifty feet because these are essentially fifty, foot lots. Mr. Bradbury ~ {. 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -,Page 12 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT•- PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ., ,~. ~~ noted that because the lot sizes vary on this plat, his request is to approve the lot sizes on the plat~rather`than going over every"lot exception. Mr. Bradbury stated that he is also looking for an exception~in 'regards to the private~~street.' This'-exception is for a~~42 foot of right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. He noted that the house `sizes' range ~fr`om 1300` up to'`over 1700 square feet . He noted that the typical" R-4~ requi'rement's i°s 140`0`s`quare, and that for the ten or twelve on his plat that -are less than that number'he would need exceptions for them:"Mr: Bradbury noted that as an offset to~all tYose exceptions the developer owns about a third of an acre,'`which is on the 'opposite side of the eight mile lateral from the subdivision. He noted that the de'veloper'is offering"`to donate a third of~an acre to `the city. He noted that they would convey it`free of charge and fi the deed would'be conveyed to the city''at the time ft hat the final plat was recorded. He noted` tYiat the° intent o'f the project° is to~ contnu`e~ to~' try `to provide a vari'ety'of'housing types and housing choices in "the vicinity.` Mr.;Bradbury stated this is much like what Steiner Development has }'started to do up at the Lakes at'° Cherry Lane'.- He noted there are a number of different sizes of lots, and 'sizes"°of homes and types of~'housing arrangements at'thatkdevelopment site. There are `the typical 8000 square f4oot iR°-4 lots . There are` some '6500 square "foot` R-8 lots. Mr: Bradbury ;noted" that it` conceptually tYie `same idea as what isgoing` into the Lakes at #, ,~. . FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT -.CONDITIONAL USE.. PERMIT - PLANNED,UNIT,DEVELOPMENT .(R-4)' I ,. ~ ~ J Cherry Lane, with townhomes, and a variety of different lot sizes. Mr. Bradbury noted that it is the developers belief that this type"of project is not only in line with what the City ~~' Council conceptually approved back in 1994 for Ashford Greens, but it's also c:ompatible-with the overall scheme for this mile section. ` .. 18. Councilman Anderson inquired about the security gate-and specifically haw would emergency vehicles get through that security gate, "is"it keyed, is it activated by siren?" Mr. .. Bradbury stated he did not know the answer but that Mr. Campbell from Steiner Corporation indicated it would be activated by a strobe. Councilman Anderson noted they would -need to coordinate that with thy, police and fire, because not all those vehicles are equipped with strobes. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Steiner Development would be more than willing to work with the fire department and it~would not be a problem with them_to make it a condition of approval. 19. Commissioner Anderson inquired why Interlachen did no't ' tie into another street. Mr. Bradbury stated thatVthe reason the x • plans don't call for that is the concern for excessive traffic:. + Mr. Bradbury referred to a traffic impact report. He noted the Ada County Highway District looked into it.and-they thought the road should go through as well. He noted that the reason that they are not showing it that way is for concern over the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT.- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) LJ r potential for cut through traffic.' Mr. Bradbury rioted that there is~going to be traffic trying to access the golf course, back and forth, and they°e would be traffic coming from the Ashford Greens Subdivision. He noted that traffic would be heading down `through the street in order to get to•the Albertson's. Mr. Bradbury ...noted that the Ada .County Highway ,District originally thought°that°t should, go through as well, but: the: developer has submitted. a request to them. to reconsider their position. He"'noted that part: of what was submitted to them was a traffic impact study and report that was done by Phil and Gary Funkhauser from Earth Tech. Mr. Bradbury submitted copies of the report to the City Councilman. He noted that the last page is a chart and it shows what the existing traffic is, and what the projected traffic would be both with and without the connection. He noted that North of Cherry on Interlachen the existing traffic that was counted by EartYi Tech was 771 vehicles per day, and the traffic that would be produced by .this site at that location would.be 285 trips per day. He noted, that would bring the total traffic to over a thousand 'vehicles a day. He noted that if the streets were`con.nected it would add about 300 trips per day for the golf course according to the experts. He noted that it would add about• , 400 trips per~day for Ashford Greens. He noted that both of those would be cutting through and then add about 30 trips per t day from Cherry :Lane Village. He noted that what you end up with is over 700 additional trips per day with the connection. Mr. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF-LAW - Page 15 ' STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Bradbury noted that not only would the residents in the proposed subdivision be unhappy with the 700 additional trips per day, but he feels the people that live on Interlachen would likely be unhappy with having those 700 additional trips per day. Mr. Bradbury noted that the reason ,f or not connecting the street,is to avoid the ex~~ess traffic and his initial contact with A:. C.H.D. seems to indicate that they agree. They are not sure they want t'o have that connected there after all, because of the increased amount of traffic. 20. Councilman Anderson noted they,residents already have the 297 trips~of traffic because people. are going to the clubhouse.. Mr. Bradbury noted that A.C.H.D. tries to avoid what are called continuous .:connectors. He noted there would a continuous collector from Black Cat down to Cherry Lane, and that is= something that the Highway District typically tries to avoid. Mr. Bradbury noted A.C.H.D. tries tb avoid connectors because they tend to become a route for people to use and to cut through iri order to avoid intersections. He noted that the present day thinking is to have collector streets that go into the :mile r section but don't connect directly on to other collector streets. Mr. Bradbury stated that he believes the Highway District will agree that the street should not be connected. 21. Councilman Anderson inquired about the width of the road. Mr. Bradbury. noted that it is a 42-foot wide right-of-way with 37 feet improved. Councilman Anderson inquired about the FINDINGS OF FACT AND .CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ._ .,_. a._~.... r ~4, turning.. radius at ,.the cul=de-sac>-down at the end of Interlachen. Mr. Bradbury statedxthat he did not know but-that Mr. Campbell says; .that he thinks it's 80 feet. 22. Mayor Corrie inquired about the frontage on the lots and whether they :were fifty' feet. Mr. :Bradbury noted •thatthey were fifty.feet.._Mayor;.. Corrie requested further clarification% by.. asking° " fifty -feet by,~what? Mr. Bradbury noted that _each of~.the lots is a little bit different in size. He noted that if you looked at lotsM7,8,9 and 10 respectively, lot 7 has 59 feet of y p 4 frontage, lot 8 is 57feet, lot 9 is~55 feet, and lot 10 is 51 ~a feet. He noted'that lots 42 through 45 range from 60 feet to 65 feet and there are a number of other different numbers and different'sizes. Mr. Bradbury noted there are also smaller lots. Y" .. For example, he noted that the triplex, the three unit townhouse development are all smaller lots, but that it is going to be one .~ ' .. 4 building. He noted they are all going to take access off the same spot. Y.Mr. Bradbury noted that if you took each one of those .~ T frontages separately, they are small, but add them. up together and they are going to end up somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 4r or 35 feet of frontage on that one lot. Mr. Bradbury noted that with the varying sizes of lots it is difficult to pinpoint and.. say all lots are a certain size but that overall they will average about fifty feet of frontage. 23. Councilman Anderson inquired whether the parking would -,.~ r, still work out for two cars on these smaller lots? Mr. Bradbury ,_ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • ,: F noted that each one. of them would have a minimum of 18~'feet between the garage and the lot line. That they would be able to get two cars s'ide` by side up on,..to the driveway. ~` 24.Mayor Corrie inquired whether Steiner Development has ever thought of doing anything w-ith the entrance to Inter`lachen. Mr.rvBradbury noted that-the subject has never come up but that he would raise the subjectt~with the people at Steiner Development.. 25. Councilman Bird wanted to know the difference between a triplex and a townhouse. Mr.gBradbury.not'ed that''his definition of-the difference between~a~townhouse and a triplex is who owns „it.. He noted that a triplex or~a duplex is on one lot noting one building on one lot. He noted that two units owned by the same ~: person, and generally you lYive in one and rent one out. MHe noted that a,townhouSe, on the other hand is really like a zero lot ' line with a common wall. It's~one building with three separately owned units with common walls~on three separately owned lots. Councilman Bird noted that parking could be a problem in `'a townhouse or tr:iplex.~ Mr. Bradbury noted-that he has a concept drawing of. how access might be handled. What they would do is create a common driveway at the entrance at the frontage~of those lots. He noted that it would be included~in the .restrictive , convenants. He also noted that in the deeds that would be k ' supplied to these people there would be a provision for a cross access so that each owner would have a legal right to the entirety of the common driveway as it_enters those three lots. :3.~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R=4) w ~. He noted that this has-°been done a number of times, and they-have had reasonably good success with it. .F 26. Councilman Rountree noted that there are a list of amenities, but not a list of the potential disamenities that might be associated with this project. He noted the pedestrian way to the clubhouse, but that he saw no provision for vehicular uses: He rioted that there was~no discussion about the potential options for golf course out buildings that might be built in conjunction with the ,clubhouse and that might border these lots. He noted that in the list- of exceptions there is no discussion about the tiling ditches. Councilman Rountree also noted that there,: is no discussion about the potential buffering of adjacent subdivisions ._ He noted the plan blocks out pedestrian access to the golf course from that part of the city. He noted that with:~a pedestrian gate on the pedestrian way, it restricts access to the golf course. 'Mr_. Bradbury note"d that the intention is to provide for access to the golf course.. Councilman Rountree noted that there has ,to be access for the rest of the community. Councilman. Rountree noted that one of the requirements of approval.:of the PUD is that they have an open space requirement and he did not y see any open space other than space that is going to be there by way of an easement that already exists. He noted that Steiner,,, 'Development is asking the city to•make exceptions for lot setbacks to accommodate an easement that is already there so they can build a house on it, but he didn't see anything in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: (R-4) ~~ ~, subdivision; that reflects the need for-open space.- Mr. Bradbury noted that the engineer calculated the area that would be included as open and common area: in-the area that the pedestrian pathway is included, and that is calculated out to be just over 8f 10 of an acre. He also noted that a third. of an acre would be. donated, to the. city, which~is about 15000 square feet. He noted that if you take. into account all of that space, it far exceeds the ten= percent requirement in the ordinance. Mr. Bradbury also noted that when the Ashford Greens concept plan was; approved,. the city acquired a.~~fair amount of land from the owner of the property. Somebody different... now owns the piece of property but when originally approved,,the city accepted the property. He noted that based on the findings that were made back in 1994, the donated land was intended to and does in fact serve as the city's requirement for open space as part of the trade off. The trade ,: off is that,-you,c.ould provide the ten percent open space in a privately owned property which would be owned: and maintained and used by the residents of the subdivision or you make it public property. He noted that in this case, public property was provided to the city, and it is now public property and being ; used as such. Mr. Bradbury noted that if the council. at .this point in time is going to disregard what was previously required and previously provided, he thinks the city would be in essence reneging. on=an agreement .already made. Councilman Rountree noted that he did not believe there was an agreement made with this FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) particular developer. Councilman Rountree also inquired as toF whether these lots would be assessed a fee towards the pay off of the golf course improvement. Bradbury noted that he did not know f the answer to that question. 27. The r_ity attorney swore Doug Campbell. Mr. Campbell noted that the project would be included~.in the $640 fee that's currently being charged on every lot out in that general area. ~. • 28-.The City Attorney swore in Larry Astley. Mr. Astley noted that he has two concerns in regards to this project. He • felt that the density and the layout of this development could effect the aesthetic value of the golf course. He also felt in some°ways it could affect property values. 29. The City Attorney swore Joe Stafford. Mr. Stafford noted that his concern is iri regards to the ten-foot easement. He noted that 'the easement is on his property, property that he pays taxes on and that in essence ten feet that is being taken away from his :back yard~by developing this property. He noted. that it is h1s'property, so effectively he is losing ten feet of. property. The other concern he had was that the lots are made to be conducive to the area, that it fits the area.- He noted. that nowhere in the immediate area of Golf View and Cherry Lane right e: next to this area are their small lots. He noted that there are duplex lots directly to~the east of the property. He noted that those lots have much. more than a ten-foot back yard. They have much more setback than is required by this, so he has concerns FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Y with that.. The other thng'he noted is that the neighborhood .is pretty conducive to families, the golf course, using the golf ~, _ .. course, and that type of area. He noted that if there is 'a 3.909 square foot lot and you take a 130`4 square foot. home, and add aM 400 square foot: garage;-you are at 1700'square foot on 3900 square foot lot:. He noted that. is a 4~4% use not counting any side yard, sidewaljk, and driveway. He felt that the uae was not conducive to that area.'He felt that one reason the developer applied under a PUD was to°get a higher density in an area zoned for less density. He felt that a` developer should not be able to apply for a PUD just to get, a greater density of homes on.a piece of property. He noted that the 5.6 units per acre are not common in that area. He noted that his house is about 2700 square feet. The neighbors are 3300 square feet. His land use is 20% of the property. His home is about 20% of his property. That includes the garages. He thinks his neighbors are maybe 220. He noted that is what°is common in-that area. Mr. Stafford noted that the- developer is closing off the area that.'s'presentl.y an open area. They are asking for,,private streets. All the4subdvisions that border this property all have two tsidewalks and curbing gutYter. He noted all=the homeowners in the area have 20-foot setbacks on the front. He noted that- the developer is asking for 15-foot setbacks. He also noted that all the neighbors have to go by the ,. city requirements for`•our setbacks on the side .yards, the developer should also be required to abide. by the rules. ' FINDINGS OF FACT AND_CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ~ Page 22 STEINER DEVELOPMENT =CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT`DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ '• .. ,F° .. ~ :. 3' ~ , S 30. The city attorney swore Jackie Stafford. Her biggest concern is the density of what they are going to be putting over on that property.` Their family has four children, and trying to keep four children in a big huge yard is hard enough. They even have-the common area where the kids go play and bike down on the path and stuff„_ He'r concern with cutting. down, chipping away. their yards the way they want to, where are the kids going. to be. She is concerned .about apartments or anything like that having tennis courts or basketball courts or something for them, to go and just kind of release some of their energy. The other concern -that she has is the traffic :f low on Interlachen. Not only does Cherry Lane use that, but,Interlachen and Golf View do~t'oo.' She noted A lot of~ her neighbors go up from the- Side,' and go' out Cherry Lane instead of going to Summer Tree where they are probably suppose~to, but it's a short cut. 31. The City Attorney swore Wayne Crookston. Mr. Crookston noted that he lives°right off the number one fairway. He lives within 300 ,feet of the proposed Steiner Development site. #Mr. Crookston noted that when Brighton Corporation had rights to the property it was designated as medium density. Under Meridian's Comprehensive .Plan section 1.-~13U of the housing section, `the irifilling of vacant lots in substantially developed single family ~• areas should be considered at densities similar. to surrounding development. Mr. Crookston noted that all the other adjacent lots FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 6 ~ • M '! ~ ~ ` in the area area riot 50 x 85 square foot lots as is proposed by Steiner Development. Mr. Crookston noted that he-`has at least a 1/'4 to 1/3 of an acre lot. All of his neighbors have similarly sized lots and that the proposed lots do not even come close to s the size of lots in the adjoining properties. Mr. Crookston noted that at~the time the„City Council reviewed the application of Brighton Corporation_.there were specific requirements that needed to be addressed. in order for the City Council to approve the project.~He noted that in order for approval of a medium. density designation the developer needed to address the issues of~ roadways, parking and open space. Mr. Crookston then went onto note that the proposed parcels. are not even close to the R-4 designation. M:r. Crookstonn noted that at the time the City 'Council considered the Brighton Corporation development for this site-there was a statement which said Prior to any development of the medium d~erisity parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval,. by the Planning and'Zoning~Commission and ,the City Council." Mr. Crookston also rioted that the City Council said "The City Council K, -reserves the right to4place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with ordinance requirements, including but, not limited to streets, pedestrian walkways, planning and reserve strips public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike paths." Ntr. Crookston also noted'.. that the statement also mentions piping of 3 .. FINDINGS ;OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF IAW - Page 24 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ditches, pressurized irrigation, access parking, landscaping and screening. Mr. Crookston noted that he did not see these items addressed in t:he application and do not think this application should be approved. 32. The City Attorney swore Gordon Margulieux. Mr. Margulieux wanted to congratulate or thank the, developer because "he's very open". He noted that he testified-~at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Margulieux also"noted that some of the things'he had mentioned actually had been addressed. One of these issues was the sewer easement area-behind the first through fourth lot, because at that time, it was still on those .lots, and they have addressed that. He stated that he is still concerned a about the size of the lots. He noted that, his .lot, which is in Cherry Lane Village 1, -Lot 3 is twenty eight feet from where this proposed path is, and is an irregular lot of 13000 square feet. The adjoining lots around there are roughly running about 8000 square feet. He noted the .proposed lots are smaller but it looks. really good considering that it will be developed sooner or . later. He noted that it doesn't look too terribly bad but he `y does like the fact that it is closed, and he does live on Interlachen, and would not be happy to have a through street with more traffic over there. He noted that he`sort of likes their concept to that extent. He has other concerns about the easement and that it goer through what is going to be a pathway. He is not sure how to address that because it is a private section. Mr. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEV'EL,OPMENT (R-4) Margulieux noted that the_area could cause potential problems with kids gathering there and would like to see a light in the area for better illumination. He also noted that when they talked ' about medium size density and they talked about eight houses per acre with Ashford Greens,,. they were talking about multi family dwellings. And these: are single ,;family dwellings. He noted they are not talking about the same thing even though they have cut it back to 5 ~ houses per acre. 33. Mr. Bradbury testified what Mr. Steiner is attempting to do is to provide an opportunity for a variety of different l°iving alternatives within the Cherry :Lane development. Mr. Bradbury also took issue with Mr. Crookston's statement about"all abutting lots should also be 8000 square feet. He noted that not all lots abutting this development are of that size. He also noted that it would be impossible to have all lots contiguous to this development be of that 8000 square feet size. He noted that g pretty soon,; all. you would have is a mile. of 8000 square foot lots. He didn`t think that is what the City envisioned. Mr. Bradbury noted that this development is something different and presents a little bit different living arrangement and lifestyle. so you don't have this sea of 8000 square foot cookie cutter lots. He noted that he :;.had been coming out to Meridian for five or six years, talking to the city about subdivision developments, and he has heard the city talk about not having every subdivision. look the same. FINDINGS OF FP,+CT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26 STEINER DEVELOPMENT- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • 34`. Councilman. Rountree noted that the issue is compatibility and it seem to-him-that there was not a whole lot of considerati:bn to either to the type of home or the design of Y the homes that. are adjacent to the subdivision.- He~~noted that -.this happened in Meridian Greens. He noted that the`-'-city had a subdivision with large lots, specific architectural types, -and specific kinds of roofs. The people in that subdivision. objected to a R-4 subdivision adjacent to them that'had a lesser standard, smaller lots, and asphalt singled roofs, those kinds of things. ' ,~ Th'e remedy is the remedy that we have in our ordinance"language. r& and. our comprehensive plan as a buffer. There was a portion of that subdivision that had to have ,cedar shake shingles. They had -~: to meet a certain size lot, and'~theyshad to meet a certain square footage: The rest of tfie subdivision as it progressed out, -~ ., became 'what tl'e developers originally' proposedr Councilman Rountree noted that~he~would like. to see some 'consideration given to that concept in this development. He noted that he is not opposed to the medium density but wants specifics to make. sure ' r; that.. the neighborhood considerations and the existing features out there were considered. ~ ` .. 35. Councilman Bentley noted that "it was one of my concerns when I viewed ths~project" and he agrees with Mr.. Bradbury on the fact that we do not want all subdivisions to mirror each other and look the same, but the same 'token, we've got open ground butting up.,to'these people's property. He also FINDINGS OF FACT' AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'- Page 27 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE- PERMIT - PLANNED. UNIT ,DEVELOPMENT (R-4) _ ' . s .. a x ,- ,.. _ 7 ._ noted that consideration has to be given to the surrounding area. The public hearing was then closed. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to 'the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and., Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter.. 1: Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated, by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and `routing "` with the Public Works Department. -.Sewer :manholes.°to ~be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted :for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line=in Interlachen Lane ..will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the projec"t site may have to be filled in order to achieve the 'required cover., 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions. of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to~ construct .,the water mains to and through :.the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate. main- sizing. and 'rout"ing with t~he~ Public Works Department. Water service is contingent. upon positive results' from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the .source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and` approved by the Public works Department as part of the development plan review process.. Any proposal- for a supplementary Fconnection from the City's water system would need to 'be reviewed due to <~the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees for the common areas. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OFrLAW - Page 28 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one-hundredwatt, high-pressure sodium and to be at locations designated_ by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be-installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. ,.. 5. Submit for ..review and approval a detailed landscape .plan for the common,. areas and to include .fencing,_ pathways "and types of construction with the submittal.. ' of the final plat map. A letter of .credit or cash surety will be required for theimprovements,-.prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Late"r`als a non- combustible fence needs tb be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs' to~be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. -Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writings that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District grants an encroachment agreement. 7. A total frontage of 24.84 feet~for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient:. Driveways are to be ,offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. The duplex lots in the southeast portion of_ the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet.. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time ahong streets' les's than required by ACHD~ policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. ` 9., A letter`of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their-requirements. ~. 10.. Proposals for Planned Unit Developments will include a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OFfiLAW - Page 29 STEINER DEVELOPMENT"- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) _x minimum of ten percent common area, which means land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, .structures, and appurtenances except those improvements -which are accessible and available to all occupants of the private units within the PD. T1. -The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot . The two adjacent lots will be 3 , 500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify square footage. 12. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space,for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zonuing Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling. units to accommodate visitor- parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. 14+. A maintenance building or approved area will be provided for suitable services required- for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method ofa collection. and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access to the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The p°roposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address 'provisions for a sinking-fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) OF LAW - USE PERMIT - Page 30 a 18. Provide ~a minimum •ten percent open space. ~Donatoris -- have been made to~the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 1.9.y Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with. `the revised plat map. 17. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes`need to be met. 18. The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to the central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central- water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management .:plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 19. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted• comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of: 50 feet; 25 feet from, the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. A11 municipal surface- drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage .plans. The developer"° FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page~31 STEINEFt DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ° ~ " must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 20. TYiere~ was no further testimony given at the. hearing. ' b CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning " Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been` met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant toeIdahoyCode Section 67-6512, and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of ~. Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to' take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: ~ J (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ,DISTRICT: Only single-fami,Iy dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall.;be permitted except for Planned Residential Development 'and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of 1'ow density single-family dwellings, .and to delineate those areas where predominately residential. development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, •and to protect the integrity of residential areas by .prohibiting the intrusion of }incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District ' allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires- connection>to the Municipal `Water` and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. ° " F. FINDINGS OF FACT ANDµCONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL US&=PERMIT - ° PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) r 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in~- the Zoning and Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits` :allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." ~ ~ - ~' 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that sect-ion conditions minimizing the. adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site. or off-site facilities mad be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the... City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. x 7. Section 11'-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving, any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may..-prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and' safeguards in conformity ..;with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or. safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional. Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional„ Use'. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set .time period for which a Conditional Use may be im~ existence. ' 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975^, Title 67, Chapter 65, `Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which -it may take FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 33a~° STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) < k; j uclicial notices . 9. Sect:ion 11-2-418 C of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of t:he City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits.. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the-area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the;Phanning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use would constitute a conditional use and a .. conditional use permit would be requiredAYby 'ordinance; b. The use would not be harmonious with:. and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; Meridians Comprehensive Plan section 1.13U of the housing section states: "Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed, single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development." Section 6.5U states that the policy of the "city should be toestablish land use designations, which reflect the existing character ofr the neighborhoods. Under community design the goal statement provides that All neighborhoods and special areas in Meridian should be encouraged to >develop~ in a mannerP'which expresses concerns and appreciation for the ,aesthetic qualities of the physical environment while maintaining the unique characteristics which allow each neighborhood and special area to be recognized as an individual entity'." The Meridian Comprehensive Plan provides that the use should be harmonious in regards to the above sections. The use" would not be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. ~' c. The use would not be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and ' a~~propriate iri appearance with the existing or :;;intended character of the general vicinity, and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 34 STEINER DEVELOPMENT -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED'UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) "?: .T 'RF that such use will change the essent~iaL character of the same area; ~~ d. The use would be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; the approval of a private road could have an affect on the . ability of neighboring areas to-.have access to the =golf course.-This golf course is essentially the whole reason the .area is developed as it is. e.. The use will not be served adequately. by essential public facilities and services such; as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the per"son responsible for the. establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; The approval of a private gated access could have the .potential for serious consequences in regards to fire; police and safety issues. f. 'The use will not create excessive additional. :requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, °, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, - fumes, glare or odors; ,h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed, as to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or` damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit not be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 35 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) . ., •'~ Administrator, ShariStiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated-along with the following conditions if ` a conditional tzse permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing.. the property to be included in' this project 'shall be tiled per City .Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans . will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral' users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517.- Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil, scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of .proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving' the subdivision and street -names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. However if~ the conditional use permit .is "granted, the above.-conditions are concluded-°to be reasonable and the Applicant °shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit not .be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND%CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPM:ENTt -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Page 36 ¢. Y A • 4 • 4 .F' APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The' Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these ~ Findings of Fact: and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN BYRD VOTED COUNCILMAN ANDERSON ~ VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ' DECISION The Meridian ,City Council hereby denies the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. MOTION: ~. ~. - ~` APPROVED: _ DISAPPROVED:.{. , A ~, .. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 37Y STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL-USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) F:, .. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION <, NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearings on January 13, 1998, February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o"clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearings scheduled on January 13, 1998, February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearings; that the matter was duly considered at the January 13, 1998, February 10, 1998, and July 14, 1998, hearings; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) a the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursu<~nt to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-4, I~ow Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the' proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-4 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance,. l1-2-•408 B. 3., as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single- family dwellings shall be, permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Develc7pment and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low densii~y single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the planned residential development of 37 single family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4 Low Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an allowed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr. :>teve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 ~ acres and .located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The parcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 ~ units per acre over the 8 ~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty- two-foot-right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to 'the 20 foot sewer easement to make a common lot. The lots are now about 3500 square feet. Before their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest lots are up to about 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven different house plans; list of the various FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four vehicles for off street parking per unit: All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet. This would be similar to the concept and design to the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decent homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if they were going for a variance on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, and the front building setbacks to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what is seen on the blueprints are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not-what is proposed. Commissioner Smith clarified what the applicant is wanting, and that is, a 15 foot yard setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner Borup had a clarification on the conditional use, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance requirements when it is recorded. 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20 foot sewer easement .behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane, golf cart lane or just what? He also wanted to know what lot the triplex would be built on. His last question was if there was <~ possibility of hooking into their pressurized irrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux gave the following testimony regarding his concerns. His. first concern was the lot size due to the sewer right-of-way easement and how nothing could be built on it. Additionally, lot 2 would be for single families not the duplex, and it would be about 3100 square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing. is a revision which he desired to see the revision. Presently it is 3100 square feet which is quite a bit different than t:he 8000 square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens in their proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments, about 8 units of apartments per acre, which would be 5 ~ per acre. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking forward to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPM]~NT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) completion of the subdivision. He continued with the comment that his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent in the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street belongs to Ada County Highway District:. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section which belongs to the ACRD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a separate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbara Moore's testimony,pertained to the 20 foot sewer easement and what was going to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. She thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moores questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part of the side yard and landscaped. Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) plat something they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and abort the pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sE~wer easement be made a separate common lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rights as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outside the platted subdivision was brought up. Additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation would be billed by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider. 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as opposed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury r stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing types and uses for the area. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street would be limited to a great extent and that is why the typical 50 foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it will work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. Steve Bradbury requested that the previous testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. At the February 10, 1998, Planning and Zoning meeting the Commission made a motion and voted to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 17. Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, addressed the Commission with the following testimony at the July 14, 1998, public hearing. Steve Bradbury noted this item originally came to the Commission in January of this year, and that it was recommended for approval to the City Council. The project, at that time; was contemplating a total of 46 living units, 37 of them being single family detached 3 two unit townhouses for a total of six more units. As well, there would be a three unit townhouse for three more for a total of 36. When it reached City Council in March the testimony brought before the Council expressed opposition to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) project. Primarily residents of Golfview Subdivision and the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision responding to the lot sizes. City Council took that testimony under advisement and asked that the plat be revised to enlarge the lots in those areas and it was agreed by Steiner Development to prepare a revised plat. The plat has since been revised. The developer has eliminated a total of three-living units so there are a total of 43 units. This change resulted in 33 single family detached dwellings and then two 10 townhouse units. The townhouse units would be moved to the southerly part of the project. The townhouses at Cherry Lane Village were taken out all together and replaced with single family detached lots. The townhouses next to Golfview were also eliminated except for two that are immediately adjacent to the entry way where there's a whole line of townhouses that come along Interlachen. The townhouses are now clustered on the westerly side of the project so they are away from the existing developments of Golfview and Cherry Lane Village. The third thing that was done was that the lot sizes were increased in two locations. Along Golfview there are now four lots with a minimum of not less than 8000 square feet in size, and this will be reflected on the final plat. The lots that are closest to Cherry Lane Village area were also increased in size, with lot sizes ranging from 6, 375 up to 9, 350. The issue that is still unresolved at the time Planning and Zoning reviewed this application was whether or not Interlachen would be required by the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 STEINFR DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4} Ada County Highway District to connect through to the road that is the collector road that serves Ashford Greens. At that time the ACHD's official position was that they wanted it connected. The ACRD has since agreed and have abandoned the notion that there should be connection through, so that matter should be behind them. The ACHD gave staff findings on or about June 3, 1998, and those findings indicated they liked the cul-de-sac idea. Commissioner Smith inquired of the ten townhouse lots. Mr. Bradbury clarified that the townhouses took up lots~20 and 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and also 36 and 37, to make a total of~ ten. The last revision of the map is July 10t'' and Mr. Bradbury is to get •the Commission the new map dated July lOt''. Clarification was also made that these are two ten unit townhouses and not duplexes or triplexes. Commissioner De Weerd questioned if there were any open spaces. Mr. Bradbury pointed out that one piece of property, which is remote from the building lots across the canal, and another piece of property over by the golf course side will be open space. The developer has proposed to donate this third of an acre to the City for use as part of its golf course, without charge. The path that goes along the southerly boundary works its way up along the canal which would be used to access pedestrians and golf carts to access the golf course. This would be next to the relocated clubhouse. The total open square footage space is about an acre including the donated ground. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Commissioner De Weerd brought up the comment of Councilman Anderson concerning the gate and how it would be responded to by emergency vehicles. Mr. Bradbury addressed the issue by saying, "The intention is to work it out with the Fire Department and whatever other emergency services are involved. Find out what they prefer and install that type of system." Commissioner De Weerd addressed the question as to the total number of lots per acre. Mr. Bradbury commented that it was 5. Because the Ashford Greens Subdivision did not exercise its option on a piece of property, Steiner Development picked it up and is presenting the plat, attempting to follow the conceptual approval that was granted to Ashford Greens. Mr. Bradbury thought Golfview was in existence prior to Ashford Greens. Commissioner De Weerd questioned the landscaping. Mr. Bradbury noted there would be landscape treatment at the entry, as well as the area over the cart path. Mr. Bradbury could not be precise as to how it would be landscaped but there would be a walkway, grass, bushes and trees. There has not been a landscape plan drawn up. He noted that he would prepare this for the final plat. Bruce Freckleton from the Public Works/Building Department addressed a couple of questions. The first pertained to the original comment's from January of this year regarding a .pressure sewer main that crosses port-ions of the property. His original comment from January was that those should not be easements but a common lot. If there should be a break on a forced main they need FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) to get in right now. Mr. Freckleton stated, "I 'don't know - it's looks like we've got one of them on this revised plat as a common lot but it looks like the other one is still within an easement and I'm just kind of wondering - okay you still show it on your plat as an easement though." Mr. Bradbury responded that the plat as drawn shows a common lot on the part Mr. Freckleton was talking about., and he thought this was a temporary easement that would be abandoned at some time. Mr. Freckleton acknowledged that it was true and it would be when Golfview develops out to Black Cat, then that lift station would be abandoned. Mr. Freckleton noted that his. original comment was that it would be a common lot owned and maintained by tYie homeowner's association. "The written response from PLS, the applicant's engineer, was that the sewer easement area will be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowner' s association. The area landscape plan will be submitted to the city for review and approval." Mr. Freckleton noted he was a little confused as to ouhy this project was not there now. Mr. Bradbury stated, "It sounds like we need to make that a common lot, and if that needs to be a condition of approval, that's certainly appropriate." ' Commissioner De Weerd brought up the issues about the tiling of the ditches and the potential buffering to adjacent subdivisions. Mr. Bradbury responded that there were no plans to the either of the two ditches because they exceed the size limits the City generally requires for tiling. Also, the ditch between FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ the project and Golfview sits on a 50 foot easement. The ditch itself provides a fair amount of separation between the two 3 subdivisions. His understanding is that the ditch between their project and Golfview is entirely within the Golfview lots. The ditch is not a centerline. The property line from Golfview actually goes all the way over. The other side between this project and the golf course have the lots and another 50 foot ditch easement, plus the fairway. Beyond the fairway is another couple hundred feet before you get to houses. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the public would have access to the pathway, to which Mr. Bradbury responded with a yes. Commissioner Borup inquired about when the conceptual review was done for Ashford Greens if that was a public hearing. Mr. Bradbury thought it was because it was a PUD and preliminary plat. Mr. Bradbury testifed that they didn't have a design for this parcel at that time. The preliminary plat came about because one was done for the R-4 portions of Ashford Greens. Mr. Bradbury's recollection was that the City was taking an overa7.1 view and moving densities around and taking into account the fact that Ashford Greens property owners were donating property for the City golf course, kind of one big package. The City was getting a golf course and in exchange Ashford Greens was getting a little bit higher density in a couple of locations. Since Ashford Greens developers did not have a specific development proposal, for what they called medium density areas, the council gave it a concejptual approval for a density of up to 8 units per FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • acre. 18. Wayne Crookston was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. His lot is zoned R-4 and the golf course, by one fairway, is between his lot and this development. His greatest concern is over the compatibility with his lot. Mr. Crookston has close to 15,000 square feet, a little over a quarter of an acre. He thought thE~ Comprehensive Plan stated things have to be compatible. He feels that the smaller lots are not compatible with the size of his lot or those of Golfview. The lots were somewhat enlarged along Golfview, and somewhat larger right across from his property.. Going west, after his property, they gradually go down hill. He feels that is not a compatible situation, unless they put lots at least R-4' of 8000 square feet. He doesn't feel they are going to be compatible, and that they should be larger than 8000 square feet. The lots that abut them are larger than 8000 square feet . He also commented that when it was dealt with the property was under Ashford Greens, it was placed definitely in an R-8 situation, PUD, but not platted out. He apologized for not appearing. before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but he didn't find out about it until it went to City Council. He does appreciate what they have done. 19. Joe Stafford was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He noted that he lives on Plum Rose which is in Golfview Subdivision. His lot is approximately 16 to 17,000 square feet in size. He appreciates the lot size increases, but there is nothing FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) - r that high a density on either side of Golfview and/or Cherry Lane in that immediate area. Another area of concern is about being conceptually approved. The key issue, he thinks, is that it was conceptually approved for Ashford Greens, and it had high density property. Apparently they were giving quite a bit of property for the golf course, thus allowing them to cluster high density. This present project is not giving or adding more golf course. The talk is donating three quarters of an acre to that area. Another concern is as many times as the project has been presented before Planning and Zoning and City Council there is still not a correct map sent to the public. No landscaping to be able to review or discuss. Mr. Stafford also brought up concern over the setbacks, and that he understood they were requesting a variance for setbacks to the rear yards. He wondered if they were going to, have a 20 foot setback from the rear yard. Commissioner Smith noted that it stated a 15 foot setback on the map and this is normal city ordinance. Bruce Freckleton commented on the discussion about setbacks that they looked standard, and that the townhouse lots would be a zero lot line. Additionally, noting 20 feet on the front, 15 in the rear and the .side yard with a street is 20 feet. Mr. Freckleton did clarify that the side yard setback is five foot per story. 3 Continued discussion by Mr. Stafford questioned the street widths and sidewalk issues.. ,Bruce Freckleton = addressed his concerns by stating they are private streets, and therefore are FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ~~ Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) k f • narrower. There will only be a sidewalk on one side of the street, a 4 and this is alright as long as the City Council does not require sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Stafford brought out the fact that there are 8000 square foot homes along Goifvi.ew, but when you go down 30 to 40 feet they drop down to 5000 to 4000 square feet. He noted that this does effect the immediate area. 20. Gordon Margulieux was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He noted that his concern was over the lighting and safety of the path. Teenagers within the neighborhood with an unlit path could be a problem. The developer has expressed a willingness to maybe light it to a certain extent. The solution changes from lighting or locking it. Comments were also noted ~- about landscaping and Mr. Margulieux has not seen anything on it. Earlier in the day they had talked about the 20 foot area would be paved and maintained by the homeowner's association. Maintenance is an issue if the homeowner's association chooses not to maintain that area. He additionally commented to the R-8 platting. Apparently Planning and Zoning were to go to them and talk about it which has not been done. He felt that wasn't conceptual approval. He noted he has been at all the meetings he received a notice on. He brought up that there were some requests for changes to the setback, and that the developer has been straight forward with them. Mr. Margulieux also brought up that at the original meeting that setbacks were discussed. The front was a change from 20 to 15 and the side to the street, whatever side is adjacent to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) D • street, and alst> a change from 20 to 15. The rear also was to (. ' change from 15 to 10 on some lots. Also, these changes did not pertain to all of the lots. In response to Commissioner Borup's questions, Mr. Margulieux's final comments were addressed to Commissioner Borup. They would like to see the clubhouse developed and get it over with. He has called 9-1-1 when he has seen people peering around t:he area, and sometimes when they've had parties at the clubhouse there have been problems, but this is usually once a year. From his point of view he feels the subdivision in general is not a bad subdivision, and he feels they have tried to do a lot of things to satisfy or try to satisfy the people in his subdivision. 21. Robert Patchin was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. He's at a disadvantage since the map he has is small and apparently different than the large one that's displayed. He feels the density is a little too much for the surrounding area and is not compatible. He's not sure what could be done if they reach their limit as far as the number of lots to their investment on no return. He thinks the traffic will increase, and if it's not restricted it wi:11 be a lower cost of housing, and more children. He thought originally it looked like a request for six variances. He brought up the fact he had sent a letter to the City addressing concerns on moving the townhouses away from the edge next to the larger lots in the other subdivisions. He'd also like more time to study the real map. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) t 1 C • d f- ~! ~~ 22. Mr. Bradbury re-addressed the Commission by stating, "In "k this case therE:'s a proposal to provide the city with some additional property for the golf course and provide some additional open space, anal as a result the developer is asking for ~_ consideration as a PUD." This means there are no variances, an this term is used in the ordinance or in general rules of law. €. ~' There have been a number of exceptions asked for under the P process. One is the project be served by a private street because it is a dead e:nd cul-de-sac. The intention is to construct a security gate for the gated community. The streets are less than ~~ ACHD's standards, but the ACHD will not own and maintain them. '~ They will be maintained and owned by the homeowner's association. Sidewalk will be placed on one side of the street only. A request for front yard setbacks to be reduced from 20 to 15 feet, and 18 j~: for the garage units has been requested. Also the street side yard setbacks be reduced from the standard 20 to 15 feet. He noted the ~. map is the same but the numbers have been modified for logical 9, sequence. He :>ees compatibility as uses, such as residential next to residential and not a hog farm against residential. He doesn't feel that the lot square footage has to stay consistent, or else every lot in Meridian should be the same square footage. Mr. Bradbury also noted there is some distance between Golfview and Cherry Lane Village with the golf course and canal. In regards to the gated path., he stated, "The path is going to be open at both ends. It's gated so that people from outside of the subdivision F Page 18 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~i • • ' cannot come into the subdivision, but people from outside the ~ subdivision can access the path and go all the way along the path without having to negotiate or open or close the gate, so it is open, and I'm not sure maybe we didn't - in our conversations with Gordon maybe we didn' t make that very clear . But it' s open . The proposal is not to pave 20 feet side to side. It would be a walkway with landscaping with I don't know ten feet of pavement and i the balance being landscape treatment." Mr. Bradbury then addressed the density issue by stating from the motion by City Council in the Ashford Greens project, "The concept of `medium density' parcels is approved conceptually only." The lighted path will probably be included as part of the landscaping treatment, and would be addressed in the final plat. Commissioner Borup inquired on the percentage of open space, and Mr. Bradbury noted that there is a total of 8 1/2 acres, and there is about an acre of open space, so about 12%. Bruce Freckelton brought up the setback issue again. He inquired of the June 9, 1998, packet if the revised plan was incorrect or not. Mr. Bradbury noted the only thing that is incorrect were t:he lot number sequences. Discussion over the setbacks between Commissioner Borup and Mr. Bradbury noted that the application did not have specific lots mentioned on the reduction. Commissioner Borup stated, "Or is it a blanket on all of them?" Mr. Bradbury responded by stating, "The way I was approaching it rather than trying to figure out which FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4)~ ust sim 1 ones were going to need i't and which ones were not, j P Y make it a blanket." This would be fine. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the setbacks were along any existing subdivisions that they are asking for the variance or the exception. Mr. Bradbury commented that there are no rear yard a setbacks, and that the existing subdivisions abut the rear yards. They are not going to ask for reductions of rear yard setbacks. He also noted that maybe the front yard setbacks would be reduced. Commissioner Borup asked if the reduction was the same as what the original application was of last January, or if it was a blanket request at that= time. Mr. Bradbury's added comments were that there was some confusion over the matter because the map showed some of the logs that would need setback reductions. Commissioner Borup noted that the map did not have the lot and blocks on it and were specified other than the map, to which Mr. Bradbury agreed. Commissioner Borup also noted that in the application there was a request for reduction of the setback. Mr. Bradbury agreed. Commissioner De Weerd questioned the pathway area again and who would be :responsible for the maintenance and upkeep on it. Again, Mr. Bradbury noted it would be the homeowner association's responsibility. Commissioner De Weerd then addressed a question about the landscaping issue to Bruce Freckleton. Mr. Freckleton noted that they typically are submitted to Shari for review, and he didn't think they come before Planning and Zoning unless it is requested. Commissioner MacCoy noted that Shari does most of them, FINDINGS OF FACT~AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) s • ~ and they see them once in a while. He's not sure if it is just because, they have requested some, and sometimes they get them #: without requesting them. Mr. Bradbury added comment that the submittal of the drawing that went before City Council was a real rough outline. Commissioner De Weerd then addressed the area of the circle if that was by the gate, and if the area was all asphalt. Mr. Bradbury noted that the public side of the gate would be the access. It would then work its way through, around, and up and then there would be a gate. Commissioner MacCay wanted to clarify about the homeowners association taking care of the pathway, and additionally there are the private street and sidewalk that go along with it. He stated, "In other words it's going to be costly for them." Mr. Bradbury responded that it will not be a cheap subdivision, and that most of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1600 to 1700 square feet. The object is to find people who want to have nice homes in a secure environment without having yard work and maintenance. He did agree that they would have a fair amount of homeowners dues in order to maintain not only the private road but the pathway system. Commissioner De Weerd. addressed the issue if there were going g to be specific designs marketed for uniformity or if there could be built whateves~ the person wanted. Mr. Bradbury responded that there were specific floor plans and elevations presented to the City originally and those are included in the book. He also noted this is part of the PUD and that they're proposing specific floor FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) plans and elevat:ions that would be built in the project. He isn't s saying that every single one is going to be exactly like that, and there. may be somE~one wanting to build something a little different, but conceptually these are the floor plans they feel will work with the proposed project, including the materials expected to be used. and the standards they will need to be met or exceed the standards. Commissioner De Weerd addressed the landscaping and if there would be minimum's on them. Mr. Bradbury noted it was addressed in the restrictive covenants and that there will be a minimum requirement for the landscaping. The restrictive covenants will be created and recorded and the buyers will be given a copy of the t them before a lot is sold. Also, as part of the final plat process he expects the City will review°them. Commissioner Smith wanted clarification as to the lots which met or were in excess of 8000 square feet and, those which did not meet the square footage. He noted there is no calculation on a number, and they do not know which ones are going to require the variances on•the setbacks. Mr. Bradbury noted he could tell them lot by lot what the sizes are, and that it could provide that information,. H.e did not figure out on a lot to lot basis which lots were going to need a 15 foot setback, which ones deal with a 20 foot setback, nor what might need a 19 foot setback. In addressing the :issue back to Mr. Bradbury, Commissioner Smith noted he thought it would be helpful to have the sizes of the lots. Commissioner De Weerd addressed her last question pertaining FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 22 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~~ lC to the security and about the police responding or patrolling the pathway. Mr. Bradbury's testimony in response was that it was not gated or locked; that an officer could stop his car and go down the pathway, or even drive down through the pathway, as it was not closed. Commissioner Smith responded that with the landscaping that will be done it wouldn't be wide enough, and from the sketch the gate is right on the property line. It would stick out down to the southeast a little, which would be off the property. Mr. Bradbury believed it would be in the ACRD right-of-way. r 23. Joe Stafford re-addressed the Commission with testimony pertaining to the compatibility that every lot has to be 10,000 square feet in size, as well as all of Meridian. He noted that 200 of the lots that were raised to 8000 square feet meet the minimum standard.. He noted there wasn't an 8000 square foot lot abutting the property. He also noted that 80% of the lots do not meet the minimum square footage for an R-4 zoning, of a PUD. He stated, "But that certainly is not compatibility." He feels that the 800 that do not meet the 8000x square foot requirement are not compatible with his 18,000 or some who have 12,000 square feet. 24. Gordon Margulieux approached the Commission again with his final testimony of the evening. He wanted to clarify about the locked gate. He noted that it is a gated community, there will be a gate on the street that crosses the street that people have. to open in order to get through. InPregards to security, there may be a gate across the path and at some point in time in the evening it FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4} would be locked. He wanted clarification as to what will happen to the gate, open 24 hours a day but locked at certain times, and that the existing road does not line up with the proposed road that is there. Between the existing curb and the new curb there is ten and one half feet. Since the old road is owned and maintained by the ACHD he wondered if the ten and one half feet would be moved out now. He is just not sure how the area will get controlled. Also, maybe with the lot changes it could be brought back in to line. He also noted there were four houses along that section before and now there are only two. He just wanted to know what the plans were actually going to be. Mr. Bradbury addressed Mr. Margulieux's concerns making sure it was over the ten feet which the highway district owns. He noted they have had discussions with the ACRD and that they were going to buy it from them so that it all lines up. He stated, "I mean it's an engineering thing between Mr. PLS and the ACHD people and if there's extra right-of-way that's not going to be needed, the notion is that Steiner Development would buy it." 25. Commissioner De Weerd inquired if the subdivision would be fenced or open. Mr. Bradbury was not sure, but stated, "Mr. Campbell says that it's likely to be fenced everywhere but along the golf course." 26. Jackie Stafford addressed the Commission with her public testimony pertaining to the landscaping and that as many times as this has been presented there should be plans on landscaping by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 24 STEINER DEVELOPME^~NT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • now. 27. Commissioner Borup noted that they have more concerns and questions now than they did six months ago, and these were the items that came up at City Council. He didn't know if the Commission could address the changes to satisfy the City Council's concerns. Commissioner De Weerd added that was her question also. She noted the issue about compatibility was high on the list and it had not been met, but feels it has been improved upon. She also believes that multi-land use is a good idea, but she doesn't know what their definition of compatibility was for the perimeters that would be shared with existing subdivisions. Commissioner MacCoy noted that since they didn't get any guidelines on this because of the change from what he had reviewed, and what they received, they felt it should go back to Planning and Zoning. and again opened up for public hearing. Planning and Zoning would then hear it again and make a new decision. Commissioner Borup noted that one of the criteria they use regarding compatibility between residential and commercial is buffering. On one side is a 50 foot canal as a buffer and the other side they have a•golf course fairway, and the smallest buffer is the pathway. He doesn't have too much concern over the compatibility as some of the other concerr.~s. The discrepancy on the plat is the numbering and the lot sizes and that they should all stay the same, with the exceptions of those that need to be changed. Commissioner Borup FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) also noted the l.ot that was 7900 square feet needed to be changed to 8000. Commissioner De Weerd commented to the fact that since it has gone to P & Z and City Council, and at this point in time there is still no clear idea as to what is going on, this is a little confusing. Commissioner Borup brought up that the corrections still need to be made, whether to Planning and Zoning or City Council. Findings would need to be done and then go from there, and they would eventually end up with the City Council. 28. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional sewage generated by the proposed development. The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer lines on the south and wE~st sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the main line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of the project site may have to be filled in order to achieve the required cover. 2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Irrigation District or private. If the system is to be privat:e, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any propbs~~al for a supplementary connection from the City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to be watered. The developer will be responsible for the payment of assessment fees. for the common areas. 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or one- hundred watt, high pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for tYze common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set back from the top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. 7. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of this no parking area. 8. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Page 27 +~ 9. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or less. Provide lot closures for all lots to verify squares footage . 10. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 11. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street or alleyway. 12. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 13. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the development. Provide an ACHD approved turnaround at the terminus of Interlachen Way. Coordinate the design of the turnaround with District Staff. Construct a private road into the site at the terminus of Interlachen Way. The applicant shall be required to pave the roadway its full width (24-feet minimum) to at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Interlachen Way and install pavement tapers with 15- foot :radii abutting the existing roadway edge. The applicant shall provide a plan showing how the private road grade meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach speed of 20 MPH and a maximum intersection approach grade of 2°s for at least 4-feet. 14. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. ACHD does not make any assurances that the private road which is a part of this application will be accepted as a public road if such a request is made in the future. Substantial redesign and reconstruction FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 28 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • costs may be necessary in order to qualify this road for public: ownership and maintenance. 15. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have keen made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 16. Darker. up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. 29. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. 30. The Cf~ntral District Health Department, prior to their approval, requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining to tYie central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and central water plan must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. The storm water management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central District Health Department. 31. The nfampa & Meridian Irrigation` District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile :Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land ~:7se Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 29 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) District must review drainage plans. with Idaho Code 31-3805. ~J The developer must comply 32. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Ali t:he procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the .external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 6T-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential District. The {R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in t:he Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatibles non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximtun of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 30 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, SE~ction 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minirnizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained px•operly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 31 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commis-ion and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of t:he area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; c. The use would be designed, constructed, operated a.nd maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use. will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~_~1 ~ •~ g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason 'of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have, vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and' i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature. of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use .permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation., 3. Determines the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 33 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLAIVNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) :>treet development plans. 4. :submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants <~nd/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be granted. APhROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Tl/1T T !'~7l T T COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER De WEERD COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER NELSON CHAIRMAN MAC COY(TIE BREAKER) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED Page 34 .,,~,_r - __~, _ _ ~ - ..~ 1 N AND RECOI~Il~NDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. The Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED: _ DISAPPROVED: 0~-04-98 - Final 09-21-98- Changes per P & Z requests FINDINGS OF .FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 35 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) APPROVAL .OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this day of 1998. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED _~ COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED _ I~ MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) . (INITIAL).. APPROVED ,. _~ s VOTED DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STEINER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 ~_ MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on January 13, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the ,: Applicant, appearing through its representative, Steve Bradbury, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian>having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the. following Findings of Fact. and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A'noti.ce of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit and application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled on January 13, 1998, the first publication of which. was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January ~13, 1998 hearing; .that the public was given. full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and ghat copies of. all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 STEINER DEVELOPMFs'NT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the Northwest of Cherry Lane Village No. 1. The property is described in the application., for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned~as R-4, Low Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to construct 37 single family, 3 duplexes, 1 triplex. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any, additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, a:~sociated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the 'R-4 bistrict is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3., as follows: R-4 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Only single,- family dwellings shall be permitted-and no conditional uses ~~hall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R- 4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer .systems of the City of Meridian: 5. That, the planned residential development of 37 single family dwellings, 3 duplexes and 1 triplex in a district of R-4' Low -Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) + • allowed conditional use in the R-4 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That. sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 8. Mr: Steve Bradbury testified as follows; that Steiner Development isE. requesting approval of a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a residential subdivision. The site is 8 ~ taacres and located east of Black Cat between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The ~~arcel was originally part of Ashford Greens Subdivision but=the developer did not exercise its option on the property, so Steiner Development did. Mr. Bradbury further testified that the proposal calls for 37 single family detached units, 3 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse for a total of 46 separate living units. That works out to about 5 ~ units per acre over the 8 ~ acres. The proposal also calls for a private street on a forty-two-foot-right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. ThE~ sidewalk would be around the outside perimeter. The lots became smaller due to the 20 foot sewer easement to make a common lot . 'The lots are now about 3.500 square feet . Before ± their testimony there was much discussion and figuring on the lot sizes to help solve the problem. At present the smallest-lots are up to about" 4,000 square feet, but could be up to 4500 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 5700 feet across the subdivision. Minimum square footage of homes is 1304 square feet. Mr. Bradbury pointed out the seven. different house plans; list of FINDINGS OF FACT .AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 STEINER DEVELOPMF,NT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) the various numbers of units, and the square footage. The square footage ranges from 1304 up to 1785, `and the proposal is to have 14 of them. Mr. Bradbury pointed out most of the homes would be larger than :the minimum sizes. Each unit will have a two car garage and front driveways, which allows accommodation for two additional vehicles, for a total of four •~vehicles for off street parking per unit. All the units will be single story. The setbacks are in accordance with the code, except for the request that the front setback be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet, and the street setbacks be reduced to 15 feet from the required 20 feet:. This would be similar to the concept and design to `•the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision #6. This would not be restricted to just senior housing. Commissioner Johnson was pleased with the presentation and Commissioner Smith also acknowledged it was a good site plan and it deserved decE;nt homes. Commissioner Smith also questioned if` they were going for a variance *on the minimum lot size, and the front yard setback, even though the blueprints states the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet,,. and the front building setbacks. to be 20 feet. Mr. Bradbury responded what is seen on the blueprints. are the required sizes for an R-4 zone, but it is not what is proposed. Commi:~sioner Smith clarified what -the applicant is wanting, and that: is, a 15 foot yard .setback, and the smaller lot sizes would be for the two unit townhouses. Commissioner. Borup had a clarification on' the conditional FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF .LAW - Page 4 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ' use, and whether the changes would be reflected on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Bradbury confirmed that it would be part of the planned unit development. All the plat notes will be reflective of the true state of affairs not just a recitation of the standard ordinance-•requirements when it is°~recorded. - 9. Vern Moore questioned if there was going to be a 20 foot sewer easement behind the property, and if it would be a walking path, golf lane,_.golf ~cartFlane or` just., what? He also wanted to know what,_ 1'ot,~•the triplex would be built on. His _ last question was if there .was a possibility of hooking into.. their pressurizedarrigation system. 10. Gordon Margulieux-gave the ,,following.,.. testimony regarding his concerns. His first..=concern .was, the lots-size due tos the sewer right-of-way easement'andrhow_nothing could be. built on. it. ,Additi'onally, lot 2 would. be for dingle famil°i es not .the duplex, and it' would-be about 3100_square feet. Apparently, what was mentioned at the hearing is a revision which he desired to*see~ 'the revision. Presently"it is 3100 square feet which- is quite: a° bit different than the 8000 °square feet which is R-4. Ashford Greens 'in their°proposal was looking at apartments and units of apartments; about 8 units of apartments per, acre, which would be 5 %~per acre.. These would be individual homes with over half of them on lots, ranging from 4500 to 5100 square feet, with some• being 8400 and 6700 square feet. He feels ,these lot sizes are consistent with the Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1. He is looking FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.,`- PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ,' -_ a -_---_-_-. ______ ~__..a~"~ _~_. ~" 91 -1 - in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) m forward to the' completion.. of the subdivision. He continued with the comment th~~t his house was the first in the subdivision on lot 3 adjacent i.n the Cherry Lane #1 Subdivision. Another consideration is the street; that the street will be ten and a half feet longer or farther out than the current house, and the street' belongs to Ada County Highway District. The plans also show the sidewalk will be moved. He also commented on what would happen to the small section which belongs to the ACHD and how it would be handled for the corner homeowner. He inquired if there would be a sep<~rate home owners association with just that section of houses, not part of Cherry Lane Subdivision Home Owners F Association; that they will maintain the path. 11. Barbera Moore's testimony pertained' to the 20 foot sewer easement. and what was going, to be done with it. She questioned if their property line was longer; if it goes out to the street or if their property went 10 feet back into the easement. ShE~ thought there was a discrepancy between the two maps. 12. Steve Bradbury addressed Mrs. Moore's questions by stating the intention was not to include the sewer easement as part of the pedestrian pathway; that it would be included as part of the side yard and landscaped. ' Further comments from Steve Bradbury addressed where the three' unit townhouses will be located. Regarding the discrepancy in the length of the street, he felt Keith Jacobs, the engineer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 STEINERyDEVELOI?MENT - CONDITIONAL USE_PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) f E who prepared the plat, could better answer the question. They wouldn't. .plat something. they didn't own or didn't match up. Taking out the 20 foot sewer easement calculated the lot to be 4000 square feet. One way to accomplish that would be to move the small road a little further up. With some adjustments they feel the concern over the lot could be solved. 13. Gordon Margulieux's last two questions concerned whether or not the sewer line would be on a separate lot, and about the. pressurized irrigation. Steve Bradbury responded the staff had suggested the sewer easement be made a separate common ,~ lot and the developers agreed to it. Regarding the pressurized irrigation and if the Margulieuxs could hook in to it, Mr. Bradbury commented that it has not been discussed with the developer, but could more than likely be accomplished. The issue of water rigYits as to where they could be applied, and to obtain approval from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District to include properties outride the platted subdivision was- brought up. Additional comment included whoever is hooked to the pressurized irrigation would be billed by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District for a part of the costs of operation and maintenance, which the Margulieuxs would need to consider. 14. Commissioner Smith had one final question regarding the reason why they are going for smaller lot sizes and narrower streets as oppo;~ed to the standard R-4 requirements. Mr. Bradbury stated the developer is trying to provide a variety of housing FINDINGS OF FACT' AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DE~TELOPMENT (R-4) ! • types and uses- for the area.,.. The developer feels there is a market for this type of subdivision, and the surrounding Ashford Greens Subdivision has part of this type of area. Pertaining to the street, a private street would be owned and maintained by the home owners association and would not be used by the regular public. This street- would be limited to a great extent and that is. why the typical 50 foot right-of-way would be required. Commissioner Johnson's last comment was, "But it's the. location and the fact that it's a unique market and that's why the developer thinks it wi-ll~work. Right?" Mr. Bradbury responded affirmatively. 15. - Steve Bradbury, representative for the Applicant, requested the pz-evious testimony be incorporated into the hearing on the matter. 16. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and "Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as set forth hereafter. 1. Sanitary sewer service shall be by extension from the existing main line in Interlachen Way. Approval will be contingent upon or ability to accept the additional- sewage generated by the proposed development. ..The subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes to be provided to keep sewer- lines on the south and west sides of centerline. Profiles submitted for preliminary sewer design indicate a portion of the• main :line in Interlachen Lane will have less than the minimum. three feet of cover from top of pipe to finish grade. This portion of-the project site may have to be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 STEINER DEVELOPMENT. - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEV'EELOPMENT (R-4) • ~. filled in order to achieve the required cover. '2. Water service to the site will be by extensions of the y existing main installed in Interlachen Way. Applicant to construct the water mains to and through tthe propo:~ed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate -main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 3. Identify the source for the pressurized irrigation and whether the system will be owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigaition~District or private. If the system is to be private, plans and a draft copy of the O & M Manual must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from t:he City's water system would need to be reviewed due to the size of the area to. be watered. The develc>per will be responsible for the payment of asses~;ment fees for the common areas. 4. Streetlights shall be two-hundred-fifty-watt and/or ,one-hundred watt, high pressure sodium and to be at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Streetlights to be installed at subdivider's expense: Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 5. Submit for review and approval a detailed landscape plan for the common areas and to include fencing, pathways and types of construction 'with the submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Along the Eight Mile and Safford Laterals a non- combustible fence needs to be installed prior to applying for building permits. Fencing needs to be set ' back from they top of bank to alleviate inherent problems with eroding slopes. Construct six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City has expressly agreed; in writing, that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in FINDINGS. OF FACT' AND CONCLUSIONS STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-(R-4) OF LAW - Page 9 USE PERMIT - • place prior to applying for building permits. Fencing shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District.- 7. A tot:al frontage of 24.84 feet for the triplex lots appears to be grossly deficient. Driveways are to be offset a minimum of five feet from property lines, leaving only 14.84 feet for a driveway. The duplex lots in the southeast portion of the property have a combined frontage of only 22.7 feet. 8. No parking will be allowed at any time along streets less than required by ACHD policy. The homeowners association will be responsible for ,enforcement of this no parking area. 9. A letter of approval from the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School District for the roadways as shown or revise to comply with their requirements.. 10. Propo;~als for Planned Unit Developments will include a minimum of ten percent common area, which means land area exclusive of street rights-of-way, buildings, parking areas, structures, and appurtenances except those improvements which are accessible and available to al]_ occupants of the private units within the PD. 11. The Homeowners Association shall own and maintain the sewer easement area:, and it will be platted as a common lot. The two adjacent lots will be 3,500 square feet or le:~s . Provide lot closures for all lots to verify squarE~ footage. 1-2. Storage areas will be provided, such as, one adequate space-for every two living units. This may be reduced by City action if there is a showing that the needs of a particular development are less. 13. One additional parking space beyond the required Zoning Ordinance should be required for every three dwelling unit`s to accommodate visitor parking. Parking areas may be no closer than four feet to any established street. or alleyway.' FINDINGS OF FACT AND COI.VCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • ;, o 14. A maintenance building or approved area will be provided for suitable services required for the repair and m~~intenance of all common areas. 15. Provide a master street drainage plan showing method of collection and disposal. 16. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access; also gates within the. development. Interlachen must be continued through the development to provide access.to` the future golf course clubhouse. ACHD's initial comments were that Interlachen Way must be continued through the development as a public roadway, but the agency is rethinking that requirement. 17. If the private road is approved, a blanket easement for j public utilities will be included. The proposed covenants for the subdivision will specifically address provisions for a sinking fund to provide maintenance of the roadway and replace the roadway within a 20 year period. 18. Provide a minimum ten percent open space. Donations have keen made to the City golf course, but were not a part of the development. 19. Darken up the contour lines on the blueline prints with the revised plat map. Y 17. Kenny Bowers, Chief of the Meridian Fire Department, requests all codes need to be met. t 18.z The Central District Health Department, prior to their approval,. requires written approval from the appropriate entities pertaining.:. to ~th.e central sewage and water approval. The central sewage and centr<~l water plan must be submitted to and approved by the_Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Run-off is not to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 STEINER DEVELOPMI~NT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~. create a mosquito breeding.: problem. The storm water- management plan, and an inventory form needs to be completed and submitted to the Central Dist:rict~Health Department. 19. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments pertain to the right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral of 50 feet; 25 feet from the center each way. The developer ;must contact John P. Anderson or Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs. A Land Use Change/Site Development application is required prior to final platting. All laterals and waste ways f must be protected. All municipal surface 'drainage must be retained a on site. If surface drainage leaves, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District ;must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with. Idaho Code 31-3805. 20. There was rio further testimony given at the hearing. I CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. All tYie procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing >of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2- " 418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian. + FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF' LAW - Page 12 STEINEReDEVELOPMENT -iCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVI3LOPMENT (R-4) 4 1 ~i ~ 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances,' other governmental statutes. and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property`"is currently zoned (R-4) Low Density Residential Disi~rict. The (R-4), Low Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 3. as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT• Only single-family dwellings shall~be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential. development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of M}eridian. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits t allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district.'! f 6. The City of .Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional. use r permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho .Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section 4 conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properl°y, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 STEINER.DEVELOPMENT -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) i k: 7 • existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with- this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the- terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975,•Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho.. Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of~which it may take judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the" area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional€use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; ` b. T:he use would be harmonious with and in accordance FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) y a~ M with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; c. The use would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will change the essential character of the same area; d. The use would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. 'The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, :streets, police and fire protection, drainage :structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that i~he person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide <~dequately any such services; f. The use will not create excessive additional requirements, at public cost for public facilities and services and- the use will not be detrimental t:o the economic welfare of the community; g. 7'he• use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation ghat will not be detrimental to any persons, ~>roperty or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, - fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be granted in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission . that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce FvINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) i ~ Freckleton, be .incorporated along with the following conditions. if a conditional u;se permit is granted. 1. .Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall .be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate .irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users <~ssociation, with written confirmation of said <spproval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic ° purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of. proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. . 5'. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City~Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. ' ~y6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and .;street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. • 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. ,The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be granted. FINDINGS OF"FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16 STEINER DEVELOPMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVILOPMENT (R-4) ~~ APPROVAL OF FINDINGS., OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and-Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these 1?findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER MACCOY VOTED ~~ VOTED ~"~C~" - . COMMISSIONER SMITH VOTED- COMMISSIONER NELSON VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED Q~ DECISION AND REC0IKMENDP,TION ,'~ ~'~ a v The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of'Meridian that it approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described ins the Application. The Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping. requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional` use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant-by the City., MOTION: Z /V,/~~ APPROVED (( ( DISAPPROVED: 2-05-98 - Ch ge a Draft FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17 STEINER DEVELOPMF'sNT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~CEN~~ ~/ FEB 17 ~ggg ~- /~?~, ~ ---___--- ~Gf G~C/~rl~ 4' _ ~FMERIDIAN----- "z"~7~ --- -- - - ---- - - --5-' __ ~ - -- c°', / ,, ~G~~-- -~''~ _ _ 7 -----~ . - - -_-_ _- ~ _~1/i ~_~~ _v -- ~~ - m~~ --- -- - ~!2_ _ j17G'.~'c~' 1//~i~ /l ~-i1~6 S / T /1/?~ll ~~11~5 ---------_---- l~r~s p~~ - ---- --- - -A --------- -- / ---- ----. ___ 1~ -favQ ~o i~2 ~~zU ~~,. ~~~~~~ rfi~~~s c~cZvc-l ~,f c _ ---_----------- GC~-~ ~~~ 7G~ry ------ _` •~C ~P /Cy'~ ~"Gl F ~~ lII ~ --- - - -~- -- -_- -____---------- ~f tom' ~~%o~ o if c%~/ ~~~,n~~- --_---- ____ ___ / _ _- _.__ -- ----- - ------- __----- --------- `1/`?~'c - Vic.--~~-~ ~Scnv~c ~~ - ~,_r1~rr/,_ ~-r/ ,~~r S - _ ___ __ _.__ - _- -- -- - ---t- - - -~ - ~____ -. ~~ ~~~ ,. f~ >~ r ®~ ~~~~_~ .v • _- - --- - -- _ ~ - ,~ __ J ~- -_ ~~ l~~- --- ~i~ ~~ ~/ ~~_ Gel - __ ._~ rl S r _-. ~- ~~ + ~ ` _.._ -- .1~_f ~ __ . -~ ~ _---- -- _ ._ ;, --- _/_ .-- __ ---- _------ - --- -------- --- - f ~''~` ~ _ f ~ ~ _ _ _ --- ___ - -- -- -- `, ~ ~,rYl~ll _---- ----ROBERT-J- PATCHIN ---- ------- ' L OIS J. PATCHIN ------__--._------_-41.99-{~'__PLL'~1~IROSEST -----------_-_-------------------- - 1~1ERIDIAN, ID 836,~Z ~~ ~ ~, --~ cJ~_ ~------- --------------------- .J .. ~~ ~=.: 4 FEB27~1998~ __ __ ~ /~~~2~G~ »rU _ __~' '~_~F_l~IERIDIAN t _ /~/v~ ~_~_ - ---- ___ //~~~,~,, ? ~ - ~,F- - - --- /~ C !Q'~~~1 lG~ --- --- - __- -- ------~ ~ ~ rr~vs' ------ - _ _ _ - -- - - ~ ~ ----- --- F _-- __,_ .~~.t. ~~ -- -m~~~ / ~L f -- ----- - ------__ __-_ ~~G LJl,~f--~ LP ~ 7r~G~:~?c~? _- ~.!~ /~,-~1~6 T i T /l/Z~/l / l~S --- -- -- - C~12J . ~ ~-- -- - --_= ~~>/~~FS'~ /QTR /LL 7~IlJ ,F'D~O.S~I LUG?Fj4f ~D~S /fY~is---- -- ~~v1~1/ ~rJ ,'ti-rte ~' ~5~~~ ' ~E-1/~`-l ~1~~~` ~~~ ----- -- _-_ _ ---- -_ y __ __._ _ _ ^ i , ~~N/~'iC~~~~ ~U `'"GLf ~~ ~ 1 ~N ~~ ~l~ G1 j1~C~ b`U ~~ Z~s /'~s~ ~i ~~ / vv ~ ~ . --_- -- ------ ---._ _-_ ------.___ !l?!?-_L!C __ Gc.._ ,~~-~ ~5 ~~ ~~.~~ ~ _-v~r~/' ~ /fit S ___ __ 1? ~YU7G C~~,~Y~lt2~C% .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~` a af: ,; n • .. - _ ,~/ ~ - ,~ ~.~ .~~~ ~~1~ l~~t •• ACS ,5,~'~ ~_..__7~~ ~i~ ------ /Gl,~t/IlF w c7' ~~f1i'LC~~1/S 0 ~~y~ .~ ~.Sl'~`~ 111~/~~~ _i~~ ---R0.8ERT J L OIS J. PATCHIN --~-- X1.99- ~V_PLL~I~IROSE S-T.------- ------ -- -- __-._- 1~1ERIDIAN, ID 836-2 ---- . .. ~'o/ ~~~~ .. ~~- \~ j ~~~ ~. y _ FEB2~1998~ - t ~VIERID~AN_ --_- --- -- ~ ~ ~ ----------- -- ----- - - ~-, , t , ---- -------.--- ---- ~~U -'-------~. t ~' . . a. --- ---- - - _ ,~. "~ N ~ ~ .~~ -- - .; - --_--.- - .-.__ _~ _ ~ ~ .a - - - / ~~ ~. ~ - . _ _ ___- __ ~~~ ~~ E~ r.~~r~ _ _ _ _-- _ -- - -- ~- .~ /~S _~---___ ------------ ~~>r~ L~Fs ~ ~D ~ /LL--~II.t - ,~U~DS~~• - G~CJ ~Z~E ~D ~.5~ __/fY~i~ --- - - ~ - , ~f ~G%~l1/jj~/"-YU ~cJ /'~"Yt1 ~'?~/5 <~~ ' C._y~1/~l~l'?1~. L~ -- _ sG~~l ~~~ --- --- i I --- --- -- .. ~~ - ~ ~ -7"' ~ /7~ S - - / ~~~~~ _~, ~ ~ FE8 Z 7 1998 A __~ 11 _--- - ~^. /~~C~2~~~1_ _.__~' _'_'~~'_1_~E__RIDIAN_ -------- ~~ ~~~~---- ~' ~ ~ ,~' ~~~ ?~~s~a vie ------- ----- - -~-p -- /- ---- - .} ~a~, ~~ ___ t~ ~ __ ~ <l F_~-c~flG%rJ/ 1 vC.~ ,~~ 1-~~~ C~/~ ~5°I ~1~r2/~`~G/!~ -- --y - ;;~ - -- - -------- -- - 4---- - ----- --=- ------- -------- - 1~ G`~ EG t~!/~1--~ ~ - ~ - ---- - __ l ~2 _ ~?~~~~~ ~~ ire--~~o s i ~ ~/Z~/f f~S . /)/' - ---- - - -----.- ----- --1~-- -- ----- --- -- - - -= _--p _ ~,~'- n. .3 _~ . ~~>r,~C~F-s~ /©~s ~~~, ~l~~.t p,~~~os~l • ~~°F /ors /I~~~~ .-. . .~ _ _ ,. - ___-_ v__~ ~___-- --- __--__-------- ___ ____-- --__ ~ `f__..--7~- ------- loanis,~/r~a~z~ ~f ~~' ~L~~ o. _ ~S ' / `~ /rvJe=S~~CYU~ ~G~t1,-~Y~ltuCf _ ~' _7u~ ~. ~-.~~v~~i,~ ~, -_ ~c~~ . ~~ FFA P ~ 1998~~ /~~ ~_ ______---------C~- -- ~ _ ~~l~2i~,~- -`~-----~'F ~VIERIDIAN ___ -- -_-~~ ? /~~ _-- __- --- . ___,~_ _ ~ :. a - ______ y , _____ _- ~~ ~ ~ y~~1 d~ G-~ - ,~ ,~ ~O ~S /i2 _------- _ _ _---- - ~~ ~~z~ . ~~>r~ L~'Fs /p ALL _~1~.t p,~©~as~~• /~~~°f /o ~s /Iy~~ y __- ___ _ __~__________. x _ _ ~___ ,> _ __ __---------- -----_._-- ---_~ _ ~ _ __ 7 -- -- _ ('~s~,tC~~L~~ ~~11 Cott ~C?~ ~l~ Gi i~'~'vr/~ r r . '` - ----__ - ~. - ~ ~ ~ .__ ~ r 3/~~-___ - --- -- v - _ ------.- ___ - . - t. ----- , , '? - ~ ~l ~:S 7F~ .. ____. _ _.___.______v_~.-- ----- ---- ----------- ERT---J. PATCHI_~V----- ----------- -------------- - -- `-^ ~ ~ L OIS J. PATCHIN -=----=---- - ----- ----------___._1.99_ ~V._PL U~LIROSE ST------- -----------_---- - 1~lERIDL4IV, ID 836-12 --- ------------ --- -------- t xk. .. r-~. _ _ ~~ .. _ - - .~ ._...-.. _.~~_--._. _.._-.__-~.--.----__L ____-._...__._ ~_. _-.-. ----- ___------__-____- _ U .~ .~ ~ ~1~~ ~j2i~~~ cs, f ., __ ___ ___ _.-_ _ ~_ ___.----_ --- j , ~ - - ---_____ ~~~v~'c~~~s P ~_ ------ ._.-.-~-_ ___.~-_.-_~_.~-.__.__ r _.-.________. .. • J~ ,_ . ___ __ _ _ _ _~_ __~_ ________ _ -,, ~~; . _____ - ___ 4 __ ___ - --- ROBERT-J'PATCIIIN _._ _~__ _-_~__a,-- , --__- ~- L DIS.J. PATCHIN 1 ' ~ - __ ___.._~199.~~!_PLL~IIROSE-ST_A-._~_ _.__~__.__._____. -.---__.__.--_--- -,_ ~11ERIDIAN, ID 836-1 , __~ __ __- _ __ __ ,W .: -- , ,. ;~ ---_-- _ - _ ----a -;=-__ __ ~ ~ ~ . ,, ~ a- __ ___ ~, { _ ___-__ _ ----._ P _~-- ___. _ _ _ __ -_ .. ~~y~ _. y -~ ~~~~~ FEB 2 71998 - --- -- ------ --- --- ------1~~ ---- --- --- --- -- __- - - - _ -_ --- .- - -- _- - __ . _-- .., - _~ ~__G~~/_~ ~~_ ~r~ ___~~,~_ _~ - Irv ~1i~c~.~_ 3.~~/ ~~ --- -- - - - ~ _ _ __ ___ f ~~ - ------ --- - - - ----- ~,~pp , s _ 1~ ~~,~-_~~~v~ _~~.__ Mfr ~.~~~' pl,~.~ ~ _ - -- -- - - -_ ~ x x --- --- --- - _------ 1l ~w, ~ ~~ ~~~f ~>~~~y ~ -------~- --- ----- _____f <~yv _._I _~ /-__ ~___ - f 0 1 ~~~ - - --- - - ~~~~ C~FS ~ `p ~ /L ~ ~1~.! ,p,~o~osj~r. __ /~v G2 ryE' fp ~,S__/I~.~i~s __ ~7 - --- ~'G~Z'~/' Yt/ ~cJ ~'tYcf ~ ?~s~L~~l~_ C/F-t/F frr~~?~"7` ~L:~' - - - -- - ---- ~A ~~Jc~'iC~~,~~Z~ 1~~~ ,~~~ ~j~~ ~ ~~~ / --- --- IC - --- -----___- ---- ~' - _- "7 --- - ---=-- -- - f1~!?~t'--LC_~~-1~SoNJLL~~ ~, U/~r1f ' ?/ ~7lS a __ . __ /rl/LIL'$%)?ICYU / _-~~?t1 ,~~7lluC r'.> I u~ ~ ~ ~y'V/~ _ ~-- -i - _ __ 3 ~ ~.~ . r ~ ~B ' ~ ~ I .' ~ /,l i ~/72I ~ 7 /lt c f /~~ ------~ Z _. ----------_ ~ ~ J - .. ~~ _:. __ F _ -__ -__ ~___- ,~ ~ _ /~I,q~u/Il G~1J `t"G~C _ ~~t/~u! 111 /~~f --~.~G1/--- _ - --- /~ --- -___.~~~-_- -- ~Q . - : ~- ----- _ __ - -- -- - - - ~: ----__ .._ __ .__-_ ~- - ----- -- ---==--ROBERT--J PATCHLV____-.-_------~----------- - LOTS J. PATCHIN -------_---__--- X199_iB!_PLL~I~IROSEST-_----------=;--------~ 1~IERIDIAN, ID 836,~Z p r k ~ ~~~~~~ _ _ -- ~' fEB 2 71998 ~~ __ _ - ------- C~2/ ~^~ ;_~F_~1'IERIDIAN ---- s__ ~.~ ~~ _ ---- M ~ -----------____ __ --- -- .. .~ -- ----------- ~ =~ --f~-'1 ~~ _ ~c'%_ 1~ ~ ~ B.~,~!~ r~ (fir/ /~Jj~ ~~ .~ -` ~ :a.. ~~y///~-- - ~ ---- ~v/~ ---__.______~__, . __.____._ .~~C_'~®E GCS ~ ~- L --~f~m~~ ~~--C t/ _ __---------------- ~~ Z~lf~t -3 ,. _ . lca `r~~S p~ni -~c° ----- -- _~- ------ ----- ---- -_ _ ~-- .. _ ----_ ----- ~ -- / l v / tom. f -- ,.---- ----- 1l ~w,2 0 S ---- --- -- --- _._ C~zv ~- ~ ~ _ -- : -----__ _ _ ~~>Is~ ~C~S' ~ /p /.~ /LL ~11J ,~'~ DS"~~. G~lj°F ~D ~S /fyli4 o . ___. _ ~~~ f - ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,qc ~'~cy~ --- ¢ _--- - y -- ---- - _ _ -- -- r ~a„i~~~cx ¢°~C~ 1~v ~r --- t~' ~~ ~~ a 7c~lCv ~f jvc~r/' ~Z~s ~ %~~s~~~~V C~~G'~ ~~'1~~~ i~ __ ___ ------ ----------- --------- -- - ~---- ~---~ . _ ~~~ ~ ~~r S -- --- --- /rv~1C=S~jCYU7~ _~l}af1~Y~1~Z~ y ~'.~ ~ff __--~ ~_ Vii`-- _ ?_- - . „ .. 4 • • ` __~ .. ----- - - ---- lU ~. /,-- ~1.~ ~2r= viz ~~ ~i ~~ ~ __`~/_ ~-S ¢ .-~--- li ~`~ - , _____. ___.__. f~_-_r'~ __--- _-_- - ~ - ~ - . _ -_ ~~~ ,, c~-~/ ---~j-% 1.~ 1/~~ ---_ ~s __S ---- __ ~ ~°-- __- - _ p _.. f ~ - ____-_ -- ~ ---` _~- - _!_ x ~. __ - s. __._____ .. ~. __. ----- _ ..-_--ROB.~RT-J PATCIfLw---~_~_______._ __` ----------- __ , - LOTS J. PATCHIN -- _-------- _____~_---.___~4199_EV_PL~'~YIROSEST-- ----------- , l~IERIDL4IV, ID 836-2 `_____`__ -r._.__------ _._ « 6 ' ~, S f °E~ fE8 2 71996 ----- ---- --_ - ---- ~ --~---- ----------,~v'e w ~/~ ~ ,,~~ ~~ iin ~~ - - ------- _;_~--~ _~1ir ------------- --- -- ---- ~lc ~Sf -_-------- ~~~~ C~~s ~ ~D ~ /Lr, Cllr r,~d ~~~~ ~~nvp ' .~^/ ' ----- -----` ----- - --. XIS l ~~ 1 C~~'~1/1~1~ ~ ~ :. c~c=v~ l ~,f Gc.t-~ c~ `~Z~ G~~ - -- ---~_--_.__--------- ~ ~ sG~w~~/ ~- _ f, --- - -- ---- - -- -. .~--- P -- - _; -~---- - ~ % - ----7 -~----- - ----__---- ------- ----.. _ _ 4 ----- y - ~' ~" a ~ - -------- -- ~_ __ _..__ __ --- -- --- ---- __- -- . _ ---- ~~S - /a~~- ~ sS~ .-- - __ _ _ - -- --- -- _o __- _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ y __- __ x ~,.. ~. ' E ~I{ MERI ~~~~v i{ , , . ~ ! • - _,~ _ - - ~ __ -~ ~f 1. ~~iG~?,l ~ll ~- /~~/ ft///1"ZlJjLt _ v ~ G~~/N/ ~l ~~~/N1Sl L' ~3~ _G~ ------ ---- -- --- - - ~-~/7 ° ------- -- ~~ ,/ ~ -' - `/ ~~ .. _ _ _-_~~ ~_ S?%?lam l~E7d-__GC-S -.s~~- ~ ~.<_~1~iC~ ~:-~1~/~ __~___ ~~ 1 - ~----- V t. __._ - __ ---- -. ~.gx~~l ~J~w_~~~--- l ~~11/~'C~'t~t/S Ili/~~=~ --!~~ cs-F~~~ll , :;-- ;~ - - ~ - ------ROBERT-J PATCHLV--~-----~--- L DIS J. PATCHIN ---------.._-- X199_ i~'_I'LL~~IIROSEST ----------------- Il1ER~tDIAN, ID 836-2 m ~ FEB 2 71998 A --._--- ~ _ /~C~2~~~ ~' ~- ~F MERIDIAN. ;.,.~~ 7~~ ;; - r ~ _, ,.~ K r. - ,_ - .~~ F. . r ~-- - - . -_ --- --- t- , ---- --- --- . ~ ,. ___ - .. _____ _ - -- - ------ __ _____- ---- ---_.-------- -~ __ _ ff ?f~GitJjtvC' :--- U7i~° ~'r/t~S~/Qrl~'i~/~s~Gr'l~ -- --- _.. -- -- -- -- a EG tom!/fit"-3 / ' ~_..// ------ ~ -- ,~ ~o /' ff ,,,[ ---~ ---------- `~llt .~~~oS~~. G~~F /o les //y~~ - -- ---- ------ ~f ~~' ~%~ o if ~~ ~/ ~~~ - - __ __ --_ -- --- _ _ _ __ __ . - --- -- -- --- - _ __ _ _ ._ Irv~e'S~rCYU i~ ~~t1~a2r~lr2LC ~.~ ~~ ~ ~ G~/~ o MERIDIAN PLANNIN~I~ID ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. • SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 6 ` Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until our October 13~' meeting. De Weerd: Second. MacCoy: Discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think we need to reverse the order of seven and eight. MacCoy: I think you are correct on,that too. She's right. Rossman: It appears to me that it would be appropriate to address the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law before you move on to the Plat approval. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess there was a question as to several items that were mentioned in the Findings. A letter from the school district and a building that was mentioned in the staffs comments and that's why we tabled the conditional use permit. MacCoy: I agree with commissioner De Weerd and also with our counsel.. We will switch no. 8 to no. 7. We'll move up no. 8 and come back to no. 7. ITEM NO. 8~ TABLED AUGUST 11, 1998: FINDINGSyOF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL.U,SE PERM_IT,FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) -THE VILLAS SAT THE LAKES~SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT- NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: Borup: Mr. Chairman, probably the easiest to handle this is ask staff if all their items of concern was included in the revised plat. MacCoy: Staff, Shari? Bruce? I guess we'll wait for a few moments. Shari did you hear the question? I guess you did, okay. Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, I got this just today in my box and hadn't had a lot of chance to review it. It appears that most of the items that we'd asked for had been addressed. They have added-one duplex lot from the original findings and probably that may need to be revisited into the findings, I don't know if that can just be done by your motion, .but ... I don't know if the last time you looked at it whether that parking was incorporated in there, the additional parking area. Without actually reviewing this against what the findings are, I'm not positive that all those findings are consistent with what we've been presented. MERIDIAN PLANNIN~D ZONING COMMISSION MEETING • SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 7 MacCoy: Shari do you have anymore to add at this moment? Stiles: I seem to recall on this project that they had made some concessions as to minimum house size adjacent to the lots in Golf View Estates No. 2. The note that is still shown on here shows the minimum house site is 1250 square feet. I don't know if you recall that? MacCoy: We had discussed that, but I don't know what our final decision was. Maybe Commissioner Borup has something to review. Commissioner Borup, did you hear what Shari had... Borup: I'm sorry, did I hear her comment? MacCoy: Yes. Borup: No, I didn't. MacCoy: Shari would you repeat the comment please. Stiles: There was some discussion previously about making the house sizes larger next to Golf View Estates No. 2, I believe the minimum house size in that subdivision is 1,800 square feet. Do you recall? Borup: I don't recall that that was one of our requests. I know there was some comment, but there was also a irrigation ditch and a pretty good buffer there, with no direct access. That's my recollection. Did you say they added another lot, or another duplex lot? I've got three plats up here, so I think I've compared the most two recent ones. Stiles: From the findings it showed that there were nine duplex lots, there are now ten. That was back from... Borup: I still have ten on my previous one, that's why I was confused. Stiles: I think the findings still reflected the original submittal. Borup: That must have been from perhaps the testimony on what their intention is. My-the notes that I had on my previous plat coincide with the ones that they've got marked duplex on this. Whatever that means. I think most of the comments-one of the reasons we table this was technical information is missing on the plats. Some of it was-one big concern was the path along the ditch. It looks like they included a conceptual there. Which is I think what one of the staff requests. I think some of the other things were more specific plat type comments, if i remember right. I don't believe, I don't know that the commission MERIDIAN PLANNIN~D ZONING COMMISSION MEETING i SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 8 had any other concerns other than that those specific items that staff had mentioned were included. De Weerd: Some of those were on the pressure sewer main. Has that been answered? Freckleton: Yes it has. They got-they're calling it lot 47, which is out of sequence for lot numbering, it should be 38, it looks like, but they do have a common lot now. However, in the notes, it's not reflected as a common lot. De Weerd: You wanted detail on who was to maintain that, included in their... Freckleton: There should be a note on that plat that references the common lot, calls it out as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, with a blanket easement for the City of Meridian for sanitary sewer. Borup: I think the question that we have is, is this plat to the state that we can in good conscious send it on to City Council? Stiles: Commissioners, 1 would like to see the note added and the Findings changed to reflect what is here now. On page 21 of the findings, Mr. Bradbury stated that most of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1600 to 1700 square feet, I wauld like that to be designated which lots and what sizes of homes are the minimums for each lot. De Weerd: You would like that noted in the findings? Stiles: I would like that part of it noted on the plat. The findings changed to reflect what we have before us now. De Weerd: I believe that was one of our requests, so that is not noted on the plat then. The new plat? Stiles: The minimum house size, or... De Weerd: How many lots met the R-4 and how many don't. If the existing road was changed with what the proposed, and did we receive comments from ACHD? Stiles: We received comments from Ada County Highway District, previously, the first time this came through. De Weerd: Okay, but we haven't received anything again to reflect what the applicants have told us. Stiles: Nothing new, no. I don't think that they changed the roadway system. ._ MERIDIAN PLANNIN~D ZONING COMMISSION MEETING • SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE9 Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, the information that was requested regarding the zoning and setback variances is in the table of the right hand corner on the plat. MacCoy: Keep in mind commissioners that we're still talking on item no. 8, which is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the plat comes on number seven. De Weerd: These were items that we had issues with in our findings MacCoy: Just so we're keeping straight the two items De Weerd: I guess the findings have, they've been revised not to reflect the building that was supposed to be on site, that is not going to be on site. Stiles: They do show the existing club house, I don't believe that has anything to indicate that's going to be removed. They do show an outline of the existing club house on Lot 4, Block 1. De Weerd: On page 29 we have 19 and then the next item is item no. 29. Mr. Chairman, on these findings they have on page 29, item 19 and then they jump to item 29. In these findings, do we need to amend them before we can pass them? (Inaudible) Berg: Commissioner De Weerd, on page 29, you are referring to where you think it skips from 19 to 29, if you notice the indention 17,18,19, so it isn't a skip. De Weerd: So if we were to amend these... one of the items that we mentioned was item 14 on page 28, that refers to the maintenance building. Would we then request that that be omitted? MacCoy: That was the agreement that was made at the time we had the hearing. He said he would remove that off the final plat. So if you've got it covered in the findings, then it's going to have to be done. Shari, Item 14 in the findings of facts, referring to the maintenance building which was stated-that's page 28. That was to be omitted, the applicants made that statement. We agreed to scratch that I thought. Is that your recollection? Borup: Mr. Chairrman, that's what my notes show. MacCoy: Thank you. MERIDIAN PLANNIN~D ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 10 Stiles: I don't recall on the storage area. I don't remember that you requested them to take out the parking that was shown on our previous version of this plat, particularly around-they had some parking stalls shown adjacent to the duplex lots and those have been removed. I don't recall that being requested to be removed. De Weerd: I don't recall that either. Mr. Chairman, can we table this and review the plat so we can get response from the applicant? MacCoy: We like to have it on the record. You request to see the applicant at this moment or are we talking among ourselves here. Borup: The plat is a continued public hearing. MacCoy: The plat is, right. We're on item eight right now for Findings of Fact. --- Borup::.. That's why I was talking .about tabling that item, all our questions seem to pertain to the plat and revising the findings to reflect the revised plat. MacCoy: Well, if that's your desire, I don't see-why not. That's up to you. Rossman: There is no reason why that can't be done and probably should be done to expedite this process. MacCoy: Yes, do you want to have motion? De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that we table item no. 8 for the conditional use permit. Nelson: Second. De Weerd: Until... (Inaudible) De Weerd: Until after the public hearing for the preliminary plat, item no. 7. Borup: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIF_D: All ayes. MacCoy: Item eight will be tabled until after item seven has been reviewed and we'll come back to that. MERIDIAN PLANNIN~D ZONING. COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 ~~ 'PAGE 24 _ .._ =.~~ _. ~'`- De Weerd:- So if we subtracted out the duplex lots•}and the four additional lots that they were requesting that would leave 29 lots, right? So• I could amend it rather than 22 go to 29 on my motion? Is that correct? Rossman: You need to make a new motion.. You need to make the motion, state the motion. • ~=• MacCoy: We are waiting.for a motion. De Weerd: Okay, well I will based on this table that I see, I will make a motion. I would like: to move to approve the preliminary plat for the ~Ilas at the Lakes Subdivision, with the~change~of:notingahe~parking~area=toinclude five°parking spaces`ttiat~29'lots`need'to~meet a•minimum 1;600~sq ~ft:_ per unit toinclude•lots- -~----. r31=34-and lots 2-9; that'the duplex units~`needao~be~a~minimum of 1;25Q~sq ft.~, an, dythe~remaining'lots~a~min`im of~1;,304:~ MacCoy: Do I fiear a 'second? a. Borup: Second.. MacCoy: Any discussion? I think we've had~a lof of discussion already. All in favor? MOTION- CARRIED: Two ayes, one nay, ardgone absent. •~ Borup: Just a comment, Mr. Bradbury might want to pass along sometimes it is not~necessarilygood to put too much information in the packet.. MacCoy: Alright, moving on back toWiterri no:8``~That which was•tabled earlier this evening. ~ ~° ~ ~ • ,~ ITEM, NO. 8:; TABLED BEFORE ITEM'NO:` 7` FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) - THE~;VIL_LAS rAT THE'L'AKES~`SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT -NORTHWEST OF CHERRYlLi4ND~ VILLAGE NO. 1: _ __ MacCoy: Commissioners?° De Weerd::`. I assume that I could make a'motion to approve the Findings of F~ with the amendments that were noted previously? MacCo~r: On item no. 7, which is the preliminary plat. • De Weerd: Counsel, is that what I need to do? ~- _.._ .__ _ ,._ T _, MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 25 Rossman: It appears to me that the Findings of Fact that we have before us are not very representative of what we need to decide or what is acceptable for the commission to decide at this point. My recommendation would be, unless somebody is ready to recite what the proposed amendments were, we're going to have to submit this for amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. De Weerd: I believe that I can do that. Rossman: Okay, then go ahead. MacCoy: Commission, it's up to you. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Facts with the following amendments: Ors page 27 number 7. Rossman: What did you want to do to number seven? De Weerd: Delete. On page 28, delete number 9, 14, and part of number 16 regarding interlock and connection. The interlock and connection. That they would include the new preliminary plat incorporations. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Any discussion at this point? All in favor? We want to pull, you have an approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions, does somebody want to read theirs? Alright, we'll go ahead with it then. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts, need the roll call. De Weerd: I already made that in my motion. MacCoy: Yes, you did. Going down... Rossman: Just call the roll. ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. De Weerd, aye. Smith, absent. Nelson, aye. MOTION CARRfED: All ayes. MacCoy: I wanted to read the decision and recommendation De Weerd: The Aeridian and Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application. The applicant shalt satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings MERIDIAN PLANNING~ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 26 of Fact and Conclusions of Law as amended or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use shall be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the city. MacCoy: All in favor. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Second, excuse me, you've got to pick up the second, yes. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 9: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA COMPANY, INC.. -SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAGLE & FAIRVIEW: MacCoy: Before we enter into the public hearing, I'd like to make a comment. We the commissioners are very much in approval of all the letters we've received from you people. That's one thing we've been asking for the last couple of times. We'd like to hear from you. You stand up hear and give your comments, it's on tape which is very good and also a number of you have submitted letters. One thing I would like to comment about the letter is they are well written. They are not some of the stuff we see in the past years with all kinds of little pieces that don't really add up to anything. They are really well thought out. I want to commend you from the standpoint too that we are very much impressed with some of the suggestions you've made. We're going to consider those because they haven't been brought up before. I just want to put that on the record this evening. It's a great job, keep it up, that's good. Since we are open again as a public hearing, is there anyone here that would like to standup next. Okay, the applicant would like to stand up next. LARRY DURKIN, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY. Durkin: Mr. Chairman I would like to hold my comments tonight in the interest of time and in the interest of repeating myself until after the public comment. Prior to that, I would like to answer any questions that you may have developed, otherwise, I will make my statements after the public comment tonight. MacCoy: Any commissioners have any questions you want to ask the applicant at this moment? Borup: No, I just appreciate his statement. Thank you. i N ry w ivleridian Planning & Zc~g Commission January 13, 1998 Page 68 MOTION CARRIED: All yea. ITEM NUMBER 12: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY'STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant's representative to address the commission. Bradbury: I would simply like to ask that the commission incorporate the testimony given in the previous matter into the hearing on this matter. I have nothing further to add. I think I covered everything. Johnson: Does anyone else want to do the same or we would just' automatically incorporate your testimony anyway so everybody gets a shot you know. Anybody else have anything additional then. All right, I will close the public hearing at this time. This require Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct the City Attorney to draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item. Borup: Second. Johnson: Motion is seconded to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. All in favor? Opposed. MOTION CARRIED: All yea. Johnson: Any further motions for this evening? Mr. Berg would like to make a comment. Berg: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Just another reminder of this thing. I'll get you some notices out that this is the Planning and Zoning Seminar at Boise State on January 24~'. I do want to say that I've response from our - I guess three active members of the commission, and they are all attending. If you would like to attend. Johnson: Isn't the City Council going to this? Berg: So far, no. 't'hey have some conflicts, chili cook-off. And John if you would like to, that would be great. And if Gary or Shari would too. I just need to get this into the people running the workshop. Prior: Sign me up. What day is that a Saturday? Berg: Saturday, the 24th, and it's kind of an all day thing. Meridian City Counci~ ., • March 17; 1998 Page 7. ° MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #4: NEW FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY STEINER CORPORATION: Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have declared a conflict of interest on that, John Prior is here to answer-any questions if the Council .has any. Cowie: Council this is one that~was brought to my attention and I brought it to the attention of the Council. Any discussion on this Findings of Facts and Conclusions °of Law? AnythingTthat you want to say before we do this? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I don't necessarily see that a threat of direction or action is shown in the findings to the applicant and that's probably a weakness on our part for not providing that specific information to counsel in the preparation of the findings. My thoughts and direction of this particular action at the time of the hearing was hat the difficulty I had with it was a lack of being harmonious with the surrounding R-4 neighborhood.and the larger lots and larger homes that it abutted and that if.you'll recall I gave the example of the kinds of things that we had done in Meridian Greens and- another subdivision that escapes me with providing larger lots and establishing `a particular architectural style in a new requested subdivision that would reflect the architectural and lot size in those adjacent lots and then transition into the proposed use be it smaller lots or in this case a P.U.D., planned unit development, I've indicated to Mr. Campbell that I'm willing to sit down and discuss those issues with them, having said that that the way the findings are set up it's setup as a denial to the original application by way of discussion I'm not opposed to tabling this until we have an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Campbell and maybe make further modifications to make the directioh clear to them and that we don't have double actions on this, that approach would also- require the•delay in tabling of the next item on our agenda as well which is a subdivision, plat. Those are my comments. Cowie: Any further comments? Mr. Rountree do you want to make that into motion and we'll see where it goes? Rountree: Mr. Mayor t would move that we table action on this finding as well as the next item on our agenda until we have an opportunity to sit down with the applicant and provide specific direction to them with this particular application. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie• Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to table iem #3 and #4 with the time to sit down and discuss ;the Findings of Facts and the ways that the Council would like for them to go. Any further discussion? Meridian City Counci~ March 17, 1998 Page 8 Bentley: Mr. Mayor, l think we're going to have to come up with a date though I don't think you can just throw out an indefinite table on it. Rountree:. I would amend that to add a date certain -has it been seconded? Corrie:.Yes, withdraw your second. Bird: 1 withdraw the second. Rountree: I'd amend by motion to propose a date certain - Corrie: My suggestion-would be' four weeks. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, again 1 would modify my previous motion to°include a date certain that we would decide on our regularly scheduled meeting April 21St. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie:' Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to table the motion of item;#3 and item #4 until the 21St of Aprif Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion sayraye. MOTION- CARRIED: All ayes. ' i~ Rountree: Mr. Mayor, on that subject I would request that Shari work with the developer and get a date established that we could sit down with them, preferably an evening. Corrie: Shari? ~ ~ f . Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, once we do sit down with them and explain some of the things that we would like to see in the proposal is do you have an idea of when that would go back to public hearing~or are you suggesting it go back to Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing or to the City Council? Rountree: 1-don't know what the resolve is going to be, it may very`well have to go back through Planning & Zoning and I suspect that's what's going to have to happen. Still"s: Okay. ' Corrie: So if you'll set up a time and notify Will so we can put a notice of the City Stiles: Is that, the entire Council that wants to meet with them or is that just - Meridian City C®unci~ • March 1-7, 1998 ~ _ . Page 9 Corrie: - Do you want to,. have two at a time? ~ ` Rountree: That probably would be easier #o discuss two at a time. Stiles: Okay, hanks. ~ . ITEM #5: TABLED MARCH 3, 1998: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER CORPORATION: ITEM #6: ORDINANCE:.#789 - THURGOOD REZONE: Corrie: Item #6 is Ordinance.#789, this is a rezone ordinance. Ordinance #789 is an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending and changing the zoning of certain real property in the City of Meridian which is generally described as a .. portion~of the south=east corner of section 1; township 3-north, range 1 west and also known as 236 W. Cherry Lane, Boise, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and providing.for effective date. Is there anyone ftom the audience.that would like to have Ordinance #789 read in its entirety? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, just for verification this is #789 is that correct, because there's no number on our ordinance. Corrie: Right it's #789. This is rezoned ftom R-4 to a residential L-O, limited office. Any discussion on Ordinance #789? If none I'll entertain a motion for Ordinance #789. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that City Council approve. Ordinance #789, authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. Corrie: Ordinance #789 with suspension of rules, all in favor say aye. Opposed no. -- Oh I'm sorry that is a roll call vote. Back-up on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Bird -Yea, Mr. Bentley -yea, Mr. Rountree -yea, Mr. Anderson -yea. MOTION CARRIED: All yeas. ITEM #7: APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR LIQUOR AND BEER LICENSE FOR BILL MARTELL - BILL'N LYNN'S PLACE: Corrie: Chief, is everything in order on the one? 6 Meridian City Council • March 3, 1998 Page 30 ITEM NO. 13: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - NW CHERRY LANCE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Bradbury. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE WAS SWORN BY CITY ATTORNEY Bradbury: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Steve Bradbury. I've been asked to present the application on behalf of Steiner Development. What you have before you is an application for planned unit development and preliminary plat , you should all have a book that looks like this. And what I'll do in my presentation is kind of leaf through it and tell you what's back there and then we'll get an opportunity to talk about each of the difference parts of the book. The site is an eight and a half acre parcel of property that's east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane, and if you want to get a feel for the location, if you look behind tab four, three, four pages in you'll find a location map here. Like that. And the piece we are talking about is this irregular shaped piece which is on the southerly end of that map. Maybe I can show you a bigger board that will help as well. We got the Lake at Cherry Lane 5, 6 & 7 over here. Ashford Greens, and then we've got Golf View over here, and the piece we are talking about is right here. As a matter of fact, it's the piece where the golf course club house is. The current one. This piece of property was originally brought to the Council by the developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision, Brighton Corporation and was part of the previously approved Ashford Greens planned unit development.. The Brighton Corporation however failed to exercise their option on this particular piece of property, and my client, Steiner Development, picked it up. In the book, in case you are interested, behind tab five is a copy of the findings of facts -and conclusions of law that were adopted by the Council back in September 1994 that dealt with the overall concept approval for the Ashford Greens Subdivision, and what they did or what the members of the Council at that time did, was with respect to this piece of property, gave it concept approval for what was described as medium density development, and that was further described as being for up to eight units per acre. Steiner Development having acquired the property is submitting this application for that purpose in order to -let me back up. The Council required that a more particular site plan be submitted for approval by the City, and this application is that more particular site plan. Back to the book for a second. Behind tab one, you will find a summary letter of the application. So if you hadn't had an opportunity to read that, you can read through that at your leisure. Behind tab two, you will find some general project information, just sort of outlines in summary form what the project is all about, and I will go through that a little bit. I already told you that it's on eight and a half acres. The property is presently zoned R-4, but the application seeks approval for 46 total single family units. Now 37 of them would be single detached. Three of them would be two unit attached structures, so there's three two units or you might-call them two unit townhouses. They are described as duplexes but that's not really true because these will on separate ownerships and each of the unit will be on separate lots. And then there's one three unit townhouse Meridian City Council . • March 3, 1998 Page 31 proposed for a total of 46 dwelling units. Now that comes up to a overall density of about 5.6 units per acre which is substantially less than the eighf units per acre which was conceptually approved back in 1994. The lot sizes, now you need take your pencil or pen out and fix an error because it's not right, and I will tell you how that happened. The lot sizes range from 3909 square feet up to 8413 square feet. And the reason for that change and one of the reason is that some adjustments were made down in this part of the plat. This is where the temporary sever easement exists here. It's a twenty foot wide sewer easement, and when the application- was originally submitted, the lot calculations included the land within the sewer easement area. The proposal now is to take that out of these lots and make it a separate common lot which would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association to be formed. The other thing that happened is this street here got moved up a little bit. We've kind of rearranged this area in here so that vve could make this -take this twenty feet out of those lots and still have reasonable size lots. So those numbers that are shown there are not right. The ones I've given you are what the engineer calculated earlier this week. The size of the homes are a minimum of 1304 square feet up to 1785 square feet and actually behind tab eight, is a list of the numbers of units for each of those sizes. In other words a .size distribution list. And what you will see is that more than half of the units proposed would be in the 1700 or above range, actually it's 1699 square feet. We probably should find another foot so we can call it 1700, but 1699 and 1785, there'd be 25 of those, so something more than half. And the remainder of them as you see are pretty equally distributed between the other sizes. The roadway system in the project is proposed as a private road which would be gated at the entry. It would be on 42 feet of right-of--way. 37 feet of that would be improved. It would include a five foot wide sidewalk on one side, which is similar to what was approved in Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. Back to the homes, be 7 different plans made available in there, and some of those would have two elevation choices and if you are interested in looking at the. plans and the elevations, you can find those behind tab six. They are all single story. They are all two car garage. They each have either two or three bedrooms and two baths.. Each space would be provided by, of course, a private driveway. The driveway would have space for a least two cars, so each unit would have a total parking availability of four cars. There are four color choices being offered in either stucco or a siding, and there's a brick accent on some of the units. If you are interested in looking at those, you can find the materials and color charts behind tab eight as well. Some of the amenities of the project you can find a list on the second page behind tab two. This is what my physics instructor used to call a spaz test to find out whether or not you can follow all the tabs and you are not a spaz, I guess. That was back in high school, and I've always remembered that for some reason. I don't why, maybe it was because I was a spaz. Maybe I still am, 1 don't know. Well now that Councilman Morrow isn't here, he doesn't beat up on me over my college allegiance. At least Ihave a - Bentley: Another Idaho joke. Bradbury: That's right. We got somebody's who is going to pick up the baton here. Anyway, behind tab two I talked about the gated security entrance, and you can find a Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 32 detail of that behind tab four. Third page in, behind tab 4, and it looks similar to this drawing here. The proposal here is to provide. a gated security entrance in front of the subdivision and so the - in order to keep the traffic circulation down to a minimum. The other nice feature about this is the concept is to provide a pedestrian and cart path in through the subdivision over the top of the sewer easement and out on to the canal right of way and up all the way along the perimeter of the subdivision and then it would come back out up at the golf course. And that would give the people who want to walk to the golf course who live in the neighborhood or even theoretically those people who own golf carts and wanted to drive their golf carts up the golf course, would have a route to get up there. And as you can see, you can see the detail of how all that works there. This by the way as I said, this sewer easement would be a common area lot as would the lot where the golf cart path would. go. All to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association to be formed. Behind tab three are application materials if you are interested in those. Behind tab four is a copy of the layout of the subdivision. You've probably got a blue line there in front of you so it will be a little bit easier to read than that one. It gives you an eight and a half by eleven of it. And then the details for the cart path and the details for the gated area, and then the location map. Also behind tab five behind the green sheet is a copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law which the planning and zoning commission adopted when they looked at this project about a month ago. And I assume you know, but in case you don't, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the project as presented. Now because this is a planned unit development, the developer is asking for certain exceptions under the provisions of the planned uni# development portion of your zoning ordinance, and I'll go through each one of those exceptions so that we can talk about them. One of the exceptions is to have the setbacks reduced. Or some of the setbacks reduced. The typical front yard setback in a residential subdivision would be twenty feet. They are asking for reduction of the setback to fifteen feet. Similarly .the street side yard setbacks, that would be on the comer lots like here. That's typically a twenty foot setback required, and again the developer is asking for a reduction to .fifteen feet. And that's just exactly likg what the Council approved in the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. Now there's also a reduction being requested for these lots, lots one through four for a ten foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required fifteen I believe it is. And what you need to understand however even though there will only be ten of lot, there will actually be thirty five feet of separation from the lots, which are to the south because you will have the ten foot of setback in the lot and you will have twenty feet of that sewer easement area which would be a common lot and have that path on it. In addition the lots sizes are the typical R-4 lot sizes, 8,000 square feet, and they are asking for an exception down to the lot sizes that are shown on the plat. As I said the minimum size about 3900 square feet. The largest is over 8,000 square feet, but it comes out to an average of somewhere around 5700 square feet, and I don't have the exact number for the average, but it is in that 5700 square foot range. Also the typical frontage requirement on an R-4 lot is 80 feet. That is frontage on the street. 80 feet. In this particular application the requeat is that number be reduced down to fifty feet because these are essentially fifty foot Its. I say that and then I'm going to say yeah, but there's also some of the flag lots and the corner lots which are something less than that. So Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 33 probably the simplest way unless you want me to read a list all the frontages is to simply say a request to reduce the frontages are shown on the plat. I guess I talked about the private street, but technically that would also be a requested exception from the typical ordinance requirements. This- one as I said 42 foot of right-of--way with a'five foot sidewalk on one side. The house sizes in here, I-told you about the range from 1300 up to over 1700 square feet. The typical R-4 requirement is 1400 square, so for those ten or twelve that would be less than that number would need exceptions for that. I think that's all the exceptions that we are asking for under the planned unit development provisions. Now as an off set to that, I guess, if you want to look at it that way is that the developer owns-about a third of an acre which is on the opposite side of the eight mile lateral from this subdivision which is over on the golf course side. And the developer is offering to donate that third of an acre to the city. Inyother words, convey if free' of charge and the deed would be conveyed to the city at the time that the final pat is recorded. And that would. be used, of course, for the city's golf course property. I can show you where that piece is. It's right here..There's a piece that's -well, it's relatively triangular in shape right here and so a lot would be - a separate lot would be created on the -let's get my bearings here - on the east side of the canal. And that would be. conveyed to the city. This piece. The intent of the project, of course, is'to continue to try to provide a .variety of housing types and housing choices in the vicinity. Like what Steiner Development has started to do up at the Lake at Cherry Lane. As you probably recall up there, there are a number of different sizes of lots, and sizes of homes and types of housing arrangements. There's the typical 8000 square foot R-4 lots. There's .some 6500 square foot R-8 lots. There's some - I can't remember the -lot sizes, but other lot sizes that are in number six which -and there's a mix of houses in'there, but that's a seniors living area, and then in number seven, are a series of townhouse developments duplex type - t say duplex and that is really not right because they-are all separate lots with separate ownerships, but townhouse type developments on smaller lots there as well. Our feeling is that this type of project is not only in line with what the City Council conceptually approved back in 1994 for Ashford Greens, but it's also compatible with the overall scheme for this mile section, and we tried to put together a view and unfortunately we don't have those on there, but I give you an idea of the different sizes and different types of lots and housing that is provided in the area. You've got, like I said, this is the Lake at Cherry Lane area up here, arid then you got the Cherry Lane Village area down in here, the Golf View and Ashford Greens, and as you can see, we have marked and some of these reds are areas where there are existing townhouse and; duplex type living. That would also be true in this location here. And you don't have it yet, but an application is just about to be filed.for the piece of property up here, the Wilkens' property,.and the same basic kind of concept will. be pursued for this property as was pursued for the Lake at Cherry Lane, and that is having a variety:of housing types. and a variety of lot. sizes. The whole mile section is I think conceptualized as being a place. where there can be a variety of sizes and different housing opportunities, and we think it's consistent with what's been proveri in the past, and consistent with-what is likely to~be submitted to you folks in the not too distance Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 34 future. That's all of the prepared presentation that 1 have, and I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have. Corrie: Council, questions'? Anderson:' On the security gate, would that be something, how would the emergency get through that security gate, is it keyed, is it activated by siren? Bradbury:. I don't. know the detail on that. I know that the security gate systems that have been used around the valley have had -there's been a system. for emergency access. i don't know. Do you know how that works? is it strobe he says. Doug Campbell representative of Steiner Development says that he envisions it being activated by a strobe. Unfortunately I'm just lawyer. I don't know the technicalities of those things. Anderson: That would be something that would probably need to be coordinated with the police and fire, not all those vehicles are equipped with strobes. And it would be up to them to figure which system would work best. Bradbury: Sure, we are more than willing to work with the fire department. I've had really good success with those folks in the past and making sure that they are comfortable with what's been approved or have been applied for. If you wanted to make it a conditional of approval, that certainly wouldn't be a problem for us. Anderson: And then the road, is it Interlachen that goes through there? Bradbury: 1 call it Interlachen. Anderson: Is there a reason why that doesn't go on through and tie into the other street? Bradbury: Well, yeah„ as a matter of fact there is. 1 brought with me a traffic impact report that 1 will pass out to you if you'd like. The Ada County Highway District, when they looked at this thing, they thought that the road ought to go through as well, and the reason that we're not showing it that way is we are concerned that it's going to create too much cut through traffic. 1 mean there is going to be traffic trying to access to the golf course, back and forth, and there would be traffic coming from the Ashford Greens Subdivision. They'd~be heading down through this -down this street in order to get to the Albertsons down there on the corner. And so -like 1 said, the Highway District originally thought that it ought to go through as well, and I think that you may even have a transmittal from them saying that that's what they'd to see.. We submitted a request for the Highway District Commission to take another look at this thing and go before them next week, and part o` what was submitted to them was a traffic impact stud/ and report that was done by Phil and Gary Funkhauser from Earth Tech. -and let me pass out copies of that. And we can go through the report and talk about how he got there. Meridian City Counci{ March 3, 1998 Page 35 But what I'd suggest you just do is go to the last page, and there is a chart. And it shows what the existing traffic is, and what the projected traffic would be both with and without the connection. And what you have is on Interlachen, .and you can pick any one. Let's just go to the bottom line because that's the one where the most traffic is. North of Cherry on Interlachen the existing traffic that was counted by Earth Tech. Is 771 vehicles per day, and the traffic which would be produced by this site at that location is 285 trips-per day. Now that gets you up to -well, we are over a thousand vehicles right about there. If you added, if you connected the street through, what you do is you add about 300 trips per day for the golf course according to the experts and you add about 400 trips per day for Ashford Greens.- Both of these would be cutting through and then about 30 trips per day from Cherry Lane Village. So what you end up with.is you end up with over 700 additional trips per day with the connection that you wouldn't have withouf it.. Now our feeling is that not only would the residents in this proposed subdivision be unhappy with those 700 additional trips per day, but we also felt like the people that live on Interlachen now would likely be unhappy with having those 700 additional trips per day. So the proposal that we've made is not to put it through in order to keep that cut through traffic from taking that route. According to the preliminary contact we've had with the Highway District staff, they tend to agree. That goes to the commission as I said next week, but staff indicated to Mr. Funkhauser earlier today who passed it on to me that they tend to agree. They are not sure they want to have that connected there after all because of the increased amount of traffic. Anderson: And they would already have the 297 trips now that people are going to the club house now, so those people are already experiencing part of that,. and they are going to get relief when the club house is moved to the new location. Bradbury: Yeah, I guess that would be true. That's correct. t guess that's how people get there today. You are going to find out that 1 don't golf. Inaudible Bradbury: I'm sorry? (Inaudible) That's right. Now one of the things that Mr. Funkhauser pointed out is that by connecting it through, what you end up with is what the traffic people call a continuous coNector. There would a continuous coNector from Black Cat down to Cherry Lane, and that's something that the Highway District typically tries to avoid. Because of the fact that it then becomes a route for people to use to cut through in order to avoid intersections and having to go around and so the -apparently the present day thinking is to have collector streets that go into the mile section but don't connect directly on to other collector street going on through and they want to have these discontinuous collectors. Mr. Funkhauser says that if you were to connect it in, it would function as a continuous collector, but it isn't designed to actually properly act as such. You know if you are asking for a prediction, I think the Highway District is going to agree that it shouldn't be connected. Anderson: Is it a 47 foot wide road? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 36 Bradbury: It's a 42 foot wide right-of-way with 37 feet improved. Anderson: What's your turning radius in that cul-de-sac down there at the end of fnterlachen then? Bradbury: I don't know, but Mr. Campbell says that he thinks it's 80 feet. Yeah, 1 wonder if it doesn't show that on the blue line. I don't have that. Inaudible Anderson: Is that back at the sidewalk or the curb? Bradbury: Let's see. I think that's going to be the right-of-way all the way back, so that's going to be back to the back of sidewalk. That actually, yeah, it's going to take it right to the property line. Cowie: Anybody else have comments? I have three. Did you say the frontage on the lots were fifty feet? Bradbury: Fifty, right. Cowie: Fifty feet by what? Bradbury: Weil, there's a whole bunch of numbers, and that's kind of the problem. Each one of these lots is a little bit different size. For example, if you looked at lot -let's just take the string 7,8,9 and 10. Because they are square and they are easy to work with. Lot 7 is 59 foot of frontage. Lot 8 is 57. Lot 9 is 55. lot 10 is 51. And you go over to - if you want to get into these numbers over here, you've got on 42.through 45, they range from 60 feet, 65 feet, 65 feet and another 60. There's a whole bunch of different numbers and different sizes. Now there are also smaller ones. For example, let's look at this triplex, I say triplex, I'm using the wrong terminology too. This three unit -the three unit townhouse development there, those are all smaffer lots, but it's going to be one building, and they are all going to take access off that same spot. If you added up the numbers on the frontage for - if you took each one of those frontages separately, they are small, but add them up together and you are going to end up somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 35 feet of frontage on that one. So it makes it really hard for me to say that we are asking for a fifty foot frontage. I guess on average that's about what we are ending up with. But each one of the lots is going to have a slightly different amount of frontage. And that's why when I talk about asking for the exception, I'm talking about the exception to allow frontages essentially as shown on the plat, and of course as you go from preliminary to final, you find that there is little adjustments here and there, but essentially that's what we are talking. about. Anderson: Does the parking still work out two cars. on these smaller lots? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 37 Bradbury: Yeah, each one of them would have a minimum of 18 feet between the garage and the lot line. So that you would be able to get a car up two cars side by side up on to the driveway. Corrie: The other one is who is James G. Marshall? I got a letter to the Meridian City Manager. Dear James G. Marshall. Bradbury: Beats me. Did I write that letter? Corrie: No, it was from Louis Steiner, but I was just curious if we've gone to the city manager form of government and Mr. Marshall is here. I didn't Bradbury: I don't know. 1 don't remember having seen the letter. Who wrote that? Corrie: Mr. Louis Steiner. Bradbury: We will be sure to give him a call. Corrie: I think he "was talking about Boise, but they don't have a city manager either. Bradbury: They don't have a city manager either. Corrie: My other question is has Steiner ever since Interlachen is the only way in to that, have they thought about the entrance of Interlachen to do anything in the entrance at all? Bradbury: Down at Cherry Lane? The topic of conversation hasn't come up in front of me, but I'd be more than happy to raise it with them. . Corrie: That's all that I have at this time. Bird: I have one. What the difference between a triplex and townhouses? Bradbury: Well, the difference is - my definition. Bird: I have a definition too, that's why I want you to - Bradbury: Yeah,,because I'm the one who's been yammering about it. My definition is the difference between a townhouse and a triplex is who owns it. A triplex or a duplex, it's on one lot. One building on one lot. Two units owned by the same person, and generally you live in one and rent one out. In a townhouse, on the other hand, it's really like a zero lot line with a common wall. !t's one building with three separately owned units with common walls on three separately owned lots. Meridian City Council • March 3, 1998 Page 38 Bird: That's what I'm saying and in your five, six and seven the three people that own it are nice, if they are not, you have a fight. There is no way you are going to get a car in any one of those. Bradbury: Yeah, I understand the problem. Let me show you something that maybe will help you. Bird: Then your lot sizes are going way down too on that. Bradbury: We brought - in case this issue came up, let me pass this out. What's coming down towards you there is a kind of a concept drawing of how access on to that particular lot you are talking about might be handled. And what we would do is we would create a common driveway at the entrance at the frontage of those lots, and the way we'd handle that is we would include in the restrictive convenants and in the deeds that would be supplied to these people a provision for a cross access so that it would be -each owner would have a legal right the entirety of the common driveway as it enters those three lots. And we've done a number of times, and have had reasonably good success with it. Bird: In putting those three parking spaces that we got back here, right? Bradbury: Right. That's right. Bird: (Inaudible) Bradbury: Did I have the same definition as you? Bird: Yes. Bradbury: That worked out then. Corrie: Any more questions? Mr. Rountree? Rountree: List of amenities, you don't list the potential disamenities that might be associated with this. You talk about pedestrian ways to the club house, but 1 see no provisions for vehicular bridge across the lateral or drain so that's really not an amenity. You don't discuss the potential options for golf course out buildings that might be built in conjunction with the club house that might border these lots. That's not an amenity. In your list of exceptions, you don't talk about tiling ditches, variances would be in order. You don't talk about the potential buffering of adjacent subdivisions, ei. Probably Golf View and to a lesser degree and probably not at all Cherry Lane Sub. 2. You block out pedestrian access to the golf course from that part of the city. You have a pedestrian gate on the pedestrian way, so folks that now access the golf course that live in the front of that subdivision would have to go through the subdivision almost to your Lakes Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 39 Subdivision that's being developed now back across to the golf course or out to Black Cat and around. I don't see any provisions for those folks. Campbell: Are you talking about driving or are you talking about walking? Rountree: You can't even walk according to your plan. You have a pedestrian gate. Prior: If he's going to testify, he is going to have to be sworn in. Campbell: What gate are you looking at? Rountree: I have the page 3 after tab 4, the one you referred to as the gate that shows a five foot pedestrian gate on the five foot sidewalk. I guess that's just one side where you are going to drop the sidewalk. The cart path it does show, but it's - I don't know what you are-going to do. Are you going to gate that like the other side? Bradbury: No, 1 mean the intention is to provide an access - if there's a problem with the detail, maybe I'm not reading it right, but the way I understand it is this is the path that takes you up to the. golf course. Rountree: Well, you actually show a gate on the other side. Bradbury: Agate over here. Rountree: My question is why a gate there and not on the other side when we see this in final form, you are going to say well we want to gate the entire community and we are going to gate people out on the cart path and pedestrian way. Bradbury: No, the intention -and if the drawings are creating a problem, then we will fix those. The intention is to provide a route through -along the subdivision so that people who live in the area can access the golf course. And if the gating scheme concerns you, let us know. Rountree: It has to be accessible to the rest of the community. Bradbury: Sure. We don't have a problem. The theory here is not cut it off. The theory here is to provide it. And if the - like I say, if the drawings are a problem or if there is a - if you've got a gating scheme that you like better than this one, by all means just say so. Rountree: My last question or comment is that one of the requirements of approval of .the PUD is that they have an open space requirement and I don't see any open space other than space that's going to be there by way of an ea~2ment that exists anyway. You're asking the city to make exceptions for lot setbacks to accommodate an Meridian City Council • • March 3, 1998 Page 40 easement that's already there so you can build a house on, but I don't see anything in the subdivision that reflects that need for open space. Bradbury: Actually the engineer calculated, and maybe if I'm -the area that would be included as open and common area is the area that this pedestrian pathway is included, and that's calculated out to be just over 8/10 of an acre. In addition, and the reason I told you about the provision of the third of an acre that would be donated to the city, I mean that includes another 15000 square feet or there about. If you take into account alt of that space, it far exceeds the ten percent requirement in the ordinance. Now, in addition to that, when the Ashford Greens concept plan was approved, the city acquired a fair amount of land from the owner of the property. I guess it was the Fullers. Is that right? Fullers for the golf course, and at that time, I believe that the city had included in the generalized open space requirement the land that was provided to the city for purposes of expansion of the golf course. Now, this piece of property is now owned by somebody different. But when originally approved and when the city accepted the property and as set forth in the findings that were made back in 1994, that donated land was intended to and does in fact serve as the city's requirement for open space as part of the trade off. The trade off is -you can provide theoretically I suppose you could provide the ten percent open space in a privately owned property which would be owned and maintained and used by the residents of the subdivision or you make it public property, and in this case, public property was provided the city, and it's now public property and being used as such. It seems to me that if the council at this point in time is going to disregard what was previously required and previously provided, I think that the city would be in essence reneging on an agreement already made. Rountree: I don't believe there was an agreement made with this particular developer, but that's okay. My last question, is this particular development as I believe the original development, and maybe Gary you can correct me if I'm wrong, but were these lot numbers calculated in the lots that would be assessed a fee towards the pay off of the golf course improvement and maybe you can't, Steve, answer that, but Gary might be able to. Bradbury: I don't know that answer to that one. DOUG CAMPBELL 2638 N. TURNBERRY WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Campbell: This particular project will be included in the $640 fee that's currently being charged on every lot out in that general area. (End of Tape) CorriA: Any further questions of Mr. Bradbury? Rountree: Not at this time.- Meridian. City Council • • March 3, 1998 Page 41 Bradbury: Thank you very much. Corrie: Someone else from the public would like to enter testimony in this request? LARRY ASTLEY 2129 TURNBERRY CIRCLE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Astley: I live in Cherry Lane Golf Course. 1 live adjacent the number one hole, fairway. My concerns in this matter are basically two fold. Looking at the proposed development in my opinion affects what I feel is - or in my opinion, the density and the layout of this development affects in my opinion the aesthetic value of the golf course. And also you know in some ways could affect property values. I guess that's all I have to say. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to testify. JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUMROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Joe Stafford: I'm here tonight to talk about some of the problems that I see with the project. I've kind of listened to what the developer's requesting and the variances that he is requesting including the density issue through the PUD. Presently I'm understand the property is zoned R-4. Where I live is in Golf View Subdivision directly south of this project. Our property is 18,000 square feet is our lot, and it is contiguous and touches this property to the north. Some of the concerns I have in just listening and you know talking about the ten foot back yard to the houses and to the property to the south, but it's really not a ten foot back yard because there's an easement there. A ditch which presently is there. That ditch belongs -the property on that ditch belongs to us. We pay taxes on it. It'e assessed in our lot. It was purchased with our lot.. There is a ditch easement there -they have a right to use that, but that is our property. Our property we touch that and so effectively we're getting a ten foot away from our property line. A ten foot back yard for someone to use. The other concern I have is in this area part of the statements were made that this is conducive to the area, that it fits the area. And in nowhere in this immediate area of Golf View, Cherry Lane right next to this area are there the small lots. There -are duplex lots directly to the east of this property. I've been over there, know people there. They have much more than a ten foot back yard. They have much more setback than is required by this, so I have some concerns with that. The. other thing, the neighborhood is pretty conducive to families, the golf course, using the golf course, and that type of area. He brings out that there's a 3909 square foot lot. If you take a 1304 square foot home, and add a 400 square foot garage, you are at 1700 square foot on 3900 square foot lot. That's a 44% use not counting any side yard, sidewalk, driveway. Not counting any of those things. 44% land use on that. That is not conducive to that area, absolutely not. And one reason I think he applied- under a PUD which is common to get a higher density in an area zoned for less density. And so I'm kind of objecting to that. The 5.6 units per acre is not common in that area. Our Meridian City Council ,~ ~; March 3, 1998 Page 42 house is about 2700 square feet. The neighbors is 3300 square feet. Our land use is 20% of our property. Our home is-about 20% of our property. That includes the garages. I think the neighbors is maybe 22%. That's kind of what's ,common in that area. The other thingTl wahted to bring out if they are doing - if this is so conducive and this is a family area, the golf course where all our kids play golf and that what not: I mean we have:a trampoline in the back yard. We have six bicycles. We have all these things that we use as a family. "On lots that are taking 44% land use or building use, I'm objecting to that saying they don't have room to use any of that area. I think the other thing I want to bring out real quick and I know my time's limited is the lot width. All the lot widths are very small. It's not "conducive to good community flow. They are closing off the area, that's'presently ari°open area. They are asking for private streets. All the subdivisions that border this property all have two sidewalks, curbing gutter. They,are asking for one side.. We all have 20 foot setbacks on the front. They are asking for 15. And we all have to ~go by the city requirements for our setbacks on the side yards. So I think that is all I have. Is there any questions? Corrie: Thank you-very much. Anyone else wish to testify? JACKIE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUMROSE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY Jackie Stafford: I'm pretty much - my husband just talked just a second ago. My biggest concern is the density of what #hey are~going to be putting over there... We have four children, and trying to keep four childrenin a big huge yard is hard enough. I mean we even have the commonary-where the kids go-play, bike, you know down on the path and stuff:- My concern with cutting down, chipping away their yards the way they want to, where are the kids going to be. Usually when you have apartments or anything like that a lot of times they will have tennis courts or basketball courts or something for them to go and just kind of release some of their energy. The other concern that I have is the traffic flow on Iriterlechen. Not only does Cherry Lane use that Interlachen, but Golf View does too. A lot of our neighbors - we come up from the side, and go out Che; ry Lane instead of going Summer Tree where we~are pr"obably suppose to. But it's a short cut. So I think they are disregarding that traffic flowbesides the one that's in Cherry Lane:- So that's pretty much it. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Anyone else would like to testify? Prior. I've been advised not to swear this particular person in. WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY Crookston: I might. As many of you know I live on the golf course. I live right off of number one fairway, what is now the number one. I don't know how they are designating it now. EvFntually it wll~be the number eighteen fairway. And I lire within 300 feet of this proposal. I did not get notice when this was initially done by Brighton Corporation, so I can't say-that I did actually know about it. I can't actually say that I did Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 43 not know about it, because I was presiding as the City Attorney when that was presented. However, at that time, this area of the property was not being presented to be developed at the time. It was part of what they called the medium density portion of the property. The City Council at the time did allow the single family dwelling units that Council presented some things that had to go about that. I would refer to as far as my concem, I would refer to the Comprehensive Plan that says that these lots are suppose to be compatible in section 1.13U of the housing section of the Comprehensive P{an it says infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Well, surrounding development is where 1 live, where Mr. Astley lives, and the people that five over in Golf View. Those are not on average 50 X 85 square foot lots. I have approximately at Least a quarter to a third of an acre. Mr. Astley has a larger lot than I have. Mr. Stafford, he testified that he has approximately I think he said 16000 square feet. So the lots around this are substantially larger than they are proposing. The concem that I have is that on that size of lot, you cannot build a house that is of the same property value as the ones that I'm referencing. The City Council at the time did consider the medium density parcels of ground, but they did state that Mr. Wardle presented Brighton's application at the time in the findings of facts it says Mr. Wardle further stated that they were aware that the PDR approval for the medium density parcels must be conditioned on a future submittal of specific design plans which would address access roadways, parking, open space, landscaping, and other matters. 1n September 13, 1994 public hearing Mr. Wardle stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission can require the medium density to come back before it. I think that when you present the medium density and the planned unit development type idea, you have to consider also what the comprehensive plan says. You are suppose to have compatible surroundings to what is there, and what is compatible to me is not a 85 x 50 foot lot. The other thing that I have is that there is the concept about Interiachen connecting to. Dawson. And I well understand the reason why people may not want that to be connected. People that live along Interlachen may not want that. That, however, is something that the previous City Council said. had to be done. I have no objection to Interlachen not being connected to Dawson, but what was done previously the City Council wanted it connected. So that's something that you have to consider. As I said in my mind, the lots are too small. They are not R-4 lots. They are not even close to R-4 lots, and they are not close to the size of lot that I have or Mr. Astley has, and the people in Golf mew have. Some of the things that were addressed by the City Council at the time this was being developed by Brighton Corporation, there was a statement that said, "Prior to any development of the medium density parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council." Certainly this is a proposal that does that. But this is the first time that I've ever seen this application for the development of that property. Then the City Council also said, "The City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with ordinance requirements, including but not limited to streets, pedestrian walkways, planning and reserve strips, public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike paths." It mentions piping of ditches, pressurized irrigation. It says access parking, landscaping and screening. I don't see Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 - Page, 44 that that's been addressed in this application,.. so I have a problem with that also. So that's basically my position is that I don't think that these lots are compatible to the surrounding area, and 1 don't think that this proposal should be approved. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Cowie: Question Council? Crookston: Beg your pardon? I guess 1 can talk to you later about that. I can tell you the story about my hand. But - Cowie: We're not interested in that. Crookston: It probably should be stated that this is a public hearing. Thank you. Cowie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this request? GORDON MARGULIEUX 2420 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Margulieux: t need to congratulate or thank the developer because he's very open. I testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Some of the things I had mentioned, they actually had addressed. Particularly the sewer easement area behind the first through fourth lot, because at that time, it was still on those lots, and they have addressed that. I appreciate that. f am still concerned about the size of the lots. My lot, which I'm in Cherry Lane Village 1, Lot 3 which is twenty eight feet from where this proposed path is, and my lot which is an irregular is actually 13000 square feet, but the adjoining lots around there are roughly running about 8000 square feet. So this is smaller, and I am not saying that their aiming at different people, different - in a gated area and what they are proposing, and it looks really good considering that it will be developed sooner or later. This doesn't look too terribly bad. 1 do like the fact that it is closed, and as Steve pointed out, I do live on Interlachen, and I would not be happy to have a through street with more traffic over there. I've sort of like their concept to that extent. Other concerns I have is this easement that goes through that's going to be a pathway. I'm not sure how to address it because it's a private section. It's would be taken care of by the homeowners association, which hasn't been defined yet, but it will be. But it's wider than this room. And there is no parks very close. And there is going to be a nice smooth pathway through there where kids on skateboards are going to be skateboarding, and things are going to be going on over there, and it's not lit. There's a street light down at the - if I can borrow this -there will be a street light right here which will light some of this path, but nothing down here. We have some problems with kids in our neighborhood that like to drink and smoke, and they like dark areas to do it in. And there was some question as to whether or not because at the time when I mentioned it, they said well maybe this will be gated. B~~t timed so that at night it would close and people couldn't get in. But this wouldn't be gated on the other side. One of the families that we constantly see smoking and drinking are right on this comer this house, and Meridian City Council • March 3, 1.998 .Page 45 they have a two and a half foot fence. Very easy to hop over and just sit there. If possible ..some of the things that could be done, is maybe put a street light somewhere at the end of-that. Right now they don't go back there because.Wally has a big post with a big.light on it, and the police patrol that, and I'm not sure how they are going to patrol~it if they can't turnaround. There is going to be a path down there: I'm not sure how they are going to turn around. So they might not patrol it. So my concern is that we go going to have a park back there that you are going to see a lot more activity because there is no open area for kids to play over there. Medium size density~it was mentioned. Again, a lot is important. When they talked~about medium size density„and they talked about eight houses per acre with Ashford Greens, they were talking about multi family.dwellings. And these are single family dwellings. So we are not talking about the same thing even though we've cut it back to 5 '/z houses per acre, it's not quite,the same thing. The other one is - well I guess that's about it. I went through them real fast. Any questions? Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else "from the. public would like to speak? ;Okay. Steve do you want to answer any questions that have come up? Bradbury: I was asking the gentleman who testified and I'm sorry, I missed his name, Stafford, and I was asking himwhich lot he was living in. He,pointed to this lot right here. Just so there's no confusion, the lots that would be immediately adjacent to his lot and the others in Golf View would have the standard R-15 rear yard, excuse me standard R-4~ rear yard setback. The reduction that we are asking for in the rear yard setbacks are the ones over here next to this gentleman's lot, which has also then has the twenty foot sewer easement next to it, so they actually have that separation, so we are not talking about a reduced setback next these folks, and of course those folks in Golf View are separated from this project by the canal, which according to the map, and I am going to assume it's correct, is shown on there property, and so there is a fairly good sized separation, and a matter of fact you call it I guess maybe a manmade feature, but there is a geographical feature that separates these two parcels of property in addition to the distance. r So l just wanted to;make sure that there wasn't any confusion about that, because we are not asking for a reduction in the setback in that location. I guess maybe the thing that I wanted to address primarily was this concept of compatibility and how it is that smaller lots are incompa#ible with larger lots, and maybe I just don't understand it, so that I can't express it particularly well. But I don't understand it. Because it seems to me that when you are talking about compatibility, you know land use in the land use context, you are talking about compatibility of uses. That is the reason we have zoning is to keep industrial uses, you know where they are going to be .banging out car .parts separate from residential uses; as .opposed to residential uses separate from .residential uses. So in terms of the use compatibility we are talking residential in a residential.. Nowwhen you talk about the lots, what you are really talking about is how much_space somebody is going to have between them and somebody else, bottom line I .guess just how much dirt is oi:~t there. The reality is and I think you all know this, not everybody wants a third of an acre, or a quarter of an acre, or even 8000 square feet. Some people don't want to have all that ground to take care Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 47 Corrie: The reason I made the statement is I suggest you bring the chairs. Bradbury: Okay, how many do you want? Corrie: Probably a lot of them. Any questions? Bradbury: Thank you very much. Corrie: Council, any further discussion. Rountree: 1 guess my point on the application and what I see and the issue of compatibility if that's the appropriate word, is that it seems like there wasn't a whole lot of consideration to either the type of home or the design of the homes that are adjacent to this and I'It cite a specific example where we have had this happen in the past and what the remedy was. 1t's something very similar to this happen in Meridian Greens. Only it was an R-4 against an R-4. We had a subdivision with large lots, specific architectural types, specific kinds of roofs. The people in that subdivision objected. to a R-4 subdivision adjacent to them that had a lesser standard, smaller lots, asphalt singled roofs, those kinds of things. The remedy is the remedy that we have in our some of our ordinance language and our comp. Plan as a buffer. There was a portion of that subdivision that had to have cedar shake shingles. They had to meet a certain size lot, and they had to meet a certain square footage. The rest of the subdivision as it progressed out, became what the developers originally proposed. I would like to see some consideration given to that concept in this development. I'm not opposed to the medium density. I was on Planning and Zoning when it came through Planning and Zoning. But we did want specifics and we did want to make sure that the neighbofiood considerations and the existing features ouf there were considered. That's why we wanted specific plans brought for consideration of medium density. 1 guess that is the point I would make in discussion. Anybody else can talk about that or you can close the hearing and we can go forth. Corrie: Anybody else want to call anybody? At this time I will close the public hearing, and ask any further discussion. Bentley: I agree with Charlie. That was one of my concerns when I viewed this project, and I agree with Mr. Bradbury on the fact, and we do not want all subdivisions to mirror each other and look the same, but the same token, we've got open ground butting up to these`people's property, and I think we need to have some transition housing that are similar in statute and size to what is there, and then as the project proceeds, you can go in with the smaller homes, because there is people that don't want a lot of yard. They want the ability to just run around with a mower and go play golf. And some day I'll probably be right there with them. I don't know how good the golf wiU be, and that is the basic problem 1 have tc~o. t think we got to give some consideration to the sur: ounding area. Thank you. MERIDIAN CITY C~CIL APRIL 21, 1998 PAGE 2 ~~ because Bob didn't mention that but the stations that were done by the various cities we had the best station and we were notified of that by-the Boise people, to me it was even more of interest we were told that in a formal meeting with the German (inaudible) Government so I thought that was really good that we shone for our city. Smith: Malcolm was really correct in that the award is for the volunteers, there were just an untold number of volunteers that made that partnership successful. MacCoy: We couldn't have done it without them. Cowie: Thank you very much.. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 7, 1998: Cowie: Council you have the minutes of the previous meeting held April 7, 1998, are there any corrections or alterations to those minutes? Bird, Bentley, Rountree: None. Bird: I'll make a motion we accept the minutes of the April 7th meeting. Rountree: Second. Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Bird, second by Mr. Rountree that we accept the minutes of the April 7th meeting. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: Ail ayes. fTEM #1: TABLED MARCH 17, 1998: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED- UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY STEINER CORPORATION: Cowie: I believe that Council we had a -supposed to meet with these people. Bentley: Mr. Mayor for the record we need to point out that City Attorney Crookston has stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Cowie: Do we have the other attorney here tonight? Bentley: No we do not. Cowie: Okay, I don't think we'll need him. MERIDIAN CITY C~CIL APRII, 21, 1998 PAGE 3 Rountree: Mr. Mayor, a meeting was scheduled for our last Council meeting with Steiner Development, we sat with them and explained some of the language in the conditional use permit, some of the desires that we were looking for in terms of access to certain lots, reduction to the number of lots in the area that bordered Golfview Estates, also some design. details that will be included with the CC&R's for adjacent properties to abutting neighborhoods. Since that meeting within the last couple of days I have received and I believe the other councilmen have received a proposed re-plat showing some of the changes that they've come up with since our meeting. In talking to City Engineer Smith prior to our meeting he apparently has not seen this plat so given that if there isn't any further discussion or questions I would move that we table items #1 and #2 till our next regularly scheduled meeting in May which would be May 5th fior the Finding and Facts and the preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision. Bird: i'll second that. Corrie: Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Rountree and seconded by Mr. Bird that we table items #1 and #2 till the May 5~' meeting, are there any fiurther discussions on those two items? Bentley: The question I have is if it's going to appear that we're going to have substantial changes to this to where it would possibly need to go back to P & Z, do we need to wait to make that decision until we hear from staff or is time not a problem on this one? Corrie: Gary, are they -Shari are the changes substantial or are they just minor or just re-drawing of the plat or does it require a second hearing for the planning and zoning? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I think what some of the things staff.had requested would have required substantial changes, however after the meetings that were held and the changes that have been made I wou{dn't consider those to be substantial. Corrie: Gary do you have any comment? Smith: No, i don't have any comment Mayor. Bentley: That answered my question, thank you. Corrie: Any further discussion? A11 those in favor of the motion say aye. MOT{ON CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Cour~ May 5, 1998 ` Page 2 Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we accept the minutes as written. Bird: Second. Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson, second by Mr. Bird that we accept the minutes as written of the joint city council rural fire district meeting held April the 14~'. Alf those. in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: AN ayes. Cowie: I'd like to welcome the scouts here tonight from troop 30 in Meridian. Welcome fellows, and hope we can give you some highlights on city council here. ITEM NO. 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR COND1T10NAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR' THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION -NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY STEINER CORPORATION: Cowie: Council, is there any discussion on this tabled item? Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have declared a conflict of interest on this. I will step down. Bentley: Mr. Crookston, before you depart, I need to ask did you author these findings? Crookston: No, 1 did not. Bentley: Thank you, Rountree: Just to get some discussion going on this item and item number two, tabled preliminary plat for the same subdivision: We had met individually with the developer on #his particular issue, have discussed some changes in the preliminary plat that would reflect, need some changes in the Endings of facts. I understand by letters that I have received and phone calls and information that's beer} received by the city, that there are a number of individuals that would like to see what the changes are in this preliminary plat. Being that we had not taken action on the public hearing even though we did close the public hearing, I would suggest that we consider either moving this back to P & Z for hearing or rehearing before the city council. Meridian City Co>.~1 May 5, 1998 Page 3 Bird: I concur with Charlie. l think that some people would like to have a clearer deal of what the changes were. I feel comfortable with them, but I think that some of the other people aren't. Bentley: I would agree that it needs to go back. Anderson: I'd like to see it go back to P & Z and go through the process again. Corrie: Okay, if that's what the conclusion is of the council, I'll entertain a motion to that effect on items one and two. If that is the council's pleasure. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, 1 move that we move items one and two tabled April 21 Sc related to findings of fact and conclusions of law for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for Villas at the Lakes Subdivision northwest of Cherry Lane be reheard before planning and zoning with the amended plat and that be scheduled at the earliest possible date for planning and zoning. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley to refer back to planning and zoning for the earliest public meeting on the agenda of the. planning and zoning. Any further discussion? Rountree: I believe the information that we have received from the public desiring information and expressing some concerns about this should made available to the applicant so they can take that into consideration in the next hearing. Corrie: Okay, we'll do that. Any further.discussion? Berg: Since the attorney is not here on this issue, Charlie is your motion desire to go through the whole process of two public hearings? One before P & Z and one before City Council, or would you like the recommendation of the P & Z after the hearing is done? Why I say this is it should~be pretty clear what they are going to do, just have one hearing or go through the whole process again. Rountree: I didn't know there was an option. I'm thinking it goes to planning and zoning and comes back to us with their recommendations. That was my intent. Corrie: They have to have another public hearing, yes. Inaudible. Rountree: Either that - as far as discussion could we -we've closed the hearing. By motion can we remand it back to P & Z and request them to reopen Meridian City Coui~ ~ May 5, 1998 Page 4 , their hearing, and then when they are done, come back to us and reopen our fiearing. Cowie: We can do thaf'if that's your desire, yes. It's going through the process again is what you're doing.,. ~ y ' t t Rountree: Well, I see some structure difference from just' what the applicant has to do. Cowie: The way I understand it, you want to at least let the'public have another ` crack at this. Rountree: Yes. ,~,, Berg: Just a comrrient. You've heard the application. You've made some comments. He's willing to make some changes. You want the public to have more input on those changes, but you are not totally rejecting the project. Rountree: Correct. Berg: So that's not really going through the whole application process with him reapplying, but you are just going through the public hearing, process to make sure the public get the input. Rountree: Correct. Berg: Okay, f think #hat's what the intent was. Cowie: Just for my clarification. They are changing some changes on the plat as well. So they are going to have to address that at planning and zoning as well. Rountree: My motion included both items one and two', which is the findings as welt as the plat. Cowie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Cowie: I'If make sure planning and zoning gets that same word. Rountree: That Mr. Campbell get that information. Cowie: I will see that he gets that too. ~ ! ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 7 Smith: Page 28 of the Findings, the staffs comments, requirements, did we have a page 28, item 9 did we get a letter from the school district? And then same question has to do with item 16, it says provide detail pedestrian walkway,. golf cart access, my question is when is that suppose to be submitted prior to City Council action, after, now? And then item 14, a maintenance building or approved area will be provided for a suitable seivices required for the` repair and maintenance of all common areas. And I don't recall that there was a maintenance building area proposed for this development. I guess item 14 -14 is probably the most concerning to me. Stiles: Commissioners on item` 14 that was a -staff requirement that we requested. This project did come before you previously. It was recommended for approval to the City Council. It went to the City Council for a second public hearing and some of the neighbors were upset and wanted it to be reheard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. That's why it came back before you. They have made some modifications. There are some errors on some of the information that they have included on this plat. They haven't met all the requirements of our initial comments, but I don't know if you want to approve this or make any kind of recommendation for approval on this with the .errors or I'm not°even sure if this is the most recent one that I have. The one I have is dated .tune 8t", '98; is that what you have? Is that what you're looking `at? Smith: I didn't get anything since the last meeting. Stiles: You wouldn't have had anything new. Smith: But I guess that leads into my terse comments at the start of the meeting regarding why this is even on the agenda if we haven't got a corrected plat. But we're not on the plat. I realize~that. We're on the Findings, but I don't want to throw a wrench in the works here. I don't want this thing coming back from City Council for starters, and I don't want to approve Findings if we are going to have them - if that's going to cause us problems getting the plat moved through. But 1 know the plat hasn't - we haven't seen anything that's responded to the comments. I think there was a couple of questions on common lots and the plat didn't reflect that, and it should have been resubmitted before we push it on to City Council, so I don't -and then these things that are in the Findings, I don't remember ever discussing a maintenance building. I didn't see a letter from the school district. Well the fire department, we get the comments, but the school district I didn't see aletter - I don't recap seeing a letter of approval. I'm not saying I didn't get it. f just don't recall it. Then 1 want to know when specifically so we can make it matter of public record, when they are suppose to provide a detail of the pedestrian walkway, golf cart access. I guess this is a question for the attorney or the chairman. Should we -what shou{d we do on item four so it doesn't adversely affect what we do on item five? • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 9 asked them to provide on their submittals before or after they've gone to city council, and they've fallen through the cracks and not been done. So specifically because I don't want -- personally and I'm not speaking for the whole commission, personally I don't want to the Findings on without the plat to the city. And the reason I'm not in a position to send the plat on to the city is because of these conflicts with the Findings and with -there was a couple of items and I don't have the minutes in front of me, but there was a couple of items that needed to be corrected on the plat and we have not received that. We don't have that as part of our packet and so it hasn't been done. I can't forward that on either. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess it raises the issue if we have complete information packets and the items that we asked for the time before if they were also provided and what we have prior to this meeting, we wouldn't be in this situation. We would have that information even though the plat follows this discussion, we would already have had a chance to view it and be able to make some logical choices here. My concern is number 14 was not discussed at all at our last meeting. It wasn't raised as an issue by staff. I didn't even see it in the minutes that 1 read of prior meetings of this building being an issue. So that building came out of the blue. MacCoy: It was discussed and I see it's written because that's off a tape on all the past documents, so I agree with Commissioner Smith that since it's in the documentation as we see it presently it better be ready to go forward all the documents present to this council. Otherwise we should not be releasing that, but that's your decision. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would support Commissioner Smith's option to table this. In the essence of not avoiding other -wasting people's time here. Borup: I think we already -we've been given pretty good guidance from city council. It's already come back once.. If at the very least if staff would have received the plat and had a chance to review it, I'd feel more comfortable in this case staff has not received it. And we certainly haven't. I don't know how we can do anything else. Again city council has been pretty clear on what they want. MacCoy: We are asking to approve the Findings of Fact number one. Borup: Right, but I think they go hand in hand enough, and I don't know what it accomplishes to forward the Findings without the plat. MacCoy: All right. Smith: Mr. Chairman, then at this time I would make a motion that we table this item until our September 8th meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 10 Bradbury: My name is Steve Bradbury. l'm representing Steiner Development. I understand your frustration and believe me we're just as frustrated. We've never seen your Findings. We don't know what's in ftont of you. So, I'm at a complete loss to be able to respond to the questions that are contained in a document that we don't have. In listening to your conversation, you are struggling with respect to a maintenance building. My understanding is the initial staff report suggested under the typical PUD requirements that provisions should be made for a maintenance building. We explained to you in the original public hearing some months ago and in the most recent public hearing that there is no maintenance building. There is no provision for a maintenance building because all the maintenance will be contracted by a third party provider. So it seems to me that if the maintenance building is an issue as a condition to leave it from the Findings because we don't propose one and i don't think you folks ever required one. {think it's just a hold over from a previous staff report. With respect to the pedestrian access and golf course detail, when we met a month ago, the discussion was to my recollection that that would be a matter that would be provided before the council approved the final plat. It would be handled as a staff review detail. And so if what we're looking for is a date certain, let's put it on at the point of the final plat. With respect to the corrections needed for the preliminary plat, I guess perhaps we dropped the ball there, but I got to tell you 1 don't know where. And part of what we were hoping to have happen is that the Findings would be adopted so that we could prepare you a preliminary plat that complies with the conditions of approval that you impose on the conditional use permit. Otherwise we're guessing, and I know you guys are tired of hearing us guess and believe me we're tired of guessing, and that's kind of the chicken and egg problem that I think we maybe getting ourselves into. If you tell us what you want, believe me, we'll get it to you, and we haven't been yet told what you want. I think the process that the city attorney is suggesting is that the conditional use permit .Findings is the process by which you tell us what you want. MacCoy: Hold it right there. Let me ask the question of the staff. Everything that we've talked about, do you have any comments right now? Stiles: Commissioners staff was at a loss to know how to react to this going back to the Planning and Zoning Commission because the changes were really negotiated at City Council level, then sent back because of the opposition from the neighbors and they wanted the opportunity to review the revised plat and speak to those concerns at a public hearing. Probably what needs to happen on this plat because there are some obvious errors on the plat, I'm not sure that the public would know what they're looking at if they did see this plat. It refers to six duplex lots that are two of them are immediately adjacent to the people that were having problems with the duplexes and it also refers to three triplex lots one of which I don't even see on the plat. My concern is approving something that's not correct. It maybe that we need to revise our comments, and if this is the latest version, -- • • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 11 MacCoy: What's your date? Stiles: I have June Stn '98 Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, when we were here last month, we provided you with a revised plat dated July 10, '98. That's the one I've got. Stiles: Staff does not have any copies of the revised plat. Bradbury: Ms. Stiles was not here, and I remember handing one to Mr. Freckleton that night as well as all of you. Stiles: It's almost impossible to comment on something that's handed to you the night of the meeting. De Weerd: I might share a couple of things here. This commission is fairly new. We're evolving, and we're finding out that if what we forward to city council is not complete we're getting it back. That doesn't do you any good and it certainly is overcrowding our agenda. So we need to be conscience what we send forward is going to be complete, and this is all a learning process as the newest member for me especially. What my notes have of last meeting is that we needed resolution on the pressure sewer main, on the common lots. One was made common. The other one had it as an easement. We requested that that have a common lot as well. We wanted specific notation on setback variances, and where they were required, how many would be required. We would like to see a landscape plan on the pathway. We wanted to know how many lots met the R- 4requirements and how many didn't. We wanted to know about the fencing in the front and also about the existing road and how it's not in line with the proposed road. And I believe those were the issues that I noted that we thought we would see at this meeting before this meeting, and if that's of any assistance there you go. MacCoy: Does the applicant ever receive the Findings of Fact prior to this meeting? They are available to him? Okay, by what type of -here's meeting on Tuesday night, do they (inaudible). Berg: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, we prepare the packets on Friday. At that time we call each applicant, and if we can't get a hold of them Friday, we call them Monday saying the packets are prepared. If we get the Findings in at a later time from that Friday, we call them and say we now have the Findings or what other documents that we may have, but we call the applicants and let them know that they are on the agenda and their packets are ready. Sometimes we fax it to them. Sometimes they come pick them up. MacCoy: Anymore comments from staff? • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 12 De Weerd: Do you have a letter from the school district? Bradbury: No. As a matter of course a letter from the school district comes out. I don't recall - I mean I don't recal{ if there has been something more than what is typically sent, their form letter is generally not very helpful. Could I inquire Ms. De Weerd? I'm recalling several of these issues that you've raised except the pressure sewer main. I don't remember what the issue with respect to that was. De Weerd: I'm sure Bruce can help you with that. Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, members of the commission, the issue with the pressure sewer main was that the easement that you have shown along the southeast I believe needed to be a common lot over that pressure sewer main instead of an easement. Bradbury: Okay, al! right, and you are looking for a landscape plan now as opposed to at final plat? Smith: No, {just wanted to know when staff was asking for that. Bradbury: Well that's what I'm trying to figure out if between now and the next time we come if in fact this thing going to be postponed, if you wanted to see a landscape plan - De Weerd: I would love too, but I won't require it. 1 would love to though. Bradbury: The discussion at the time, my recollection was at final plat, but if that's not what you want, you just need to tell us what it is and we're going to do our best to provide - De Weerd: If I could ask for it, I would. Smith: I'm not concerned about it. I'm just - if it's in the Findings and staff was vague as far as when they wanted, I just want clarification to be entered in by Shari when she wants it so we can incorporate that into the Findings. Borup: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to move this along it appears to me that all the questions really are concerning items that would be on the plat. Is that -the other commissioners agree with that? So far what I've heard are all things that pertain to the plat. You don't agree? Smith: Well if you could get a date certain into these Findings, but yes 1 agree with you. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 13 Borup: Well then in light of that I would be in favor of approving the Findings and tabling the plat approval especially in light of what Mr. Bradbury said. That would give them the information that they need and we can move on. Smith: But that information is available to them whether it's approve or not. De Weerd: Mr. Berg, our city clerk, raised an important issue, and that's if we pass the Findings tonight, that will go before city council without the preliminary plat and they really should go hand in hand, should they not? MacCoy: We think so, but that's raising a good point. Smith:. I made a motion to table it. De Weerd: Did you make that official? Smith: I did. Borup: Oh, that motion on the table? Mr. Bradbury, if we approve the Findings and held the plat, the end result isn't going to be any different for you, is it? Bradbury: I agree and that's what I was just speaking to Mr. Campbell about, and I think if we're going to get hung up on the plat, let's just table the whole thing and - Borup: Do them both at the same time, and the time frame stays the same. Bradbury: We're going to be back next month anyway. I apologize for that. I wish it didn't happen, but that's where we're going to be. Smith: And by-that time staff can - we can either remove item number 14, have a date certain on item 16 and find out whether or not we do have a letter from the school district. MacCoy: Any comments from the staff? Stiles: Commissioners the reason I asked for the detail landscape plan is because they are calling this a PUD. They are required to have ten percent common area. They are showing the edge of the ditch in some areas where they are proposing a pathway at less than three feet from the people's backyard. I think as part of the conditional use permit, those details need to be reviewed and approved and know that that is what you are approving as part of the conditional use permit. Not something after the fact that staff is simply going to review and have to try to negotiate some kind of common ground when what they are proposing at least to me is difficult to tell that that can happen even. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 14 De Weerd: I believe that we did request a landscape plan for our next meeting. If we could please get-that prior to the meeting, that would be helpful. You know, Mr. Bradbury, I don't believe -Shari do you want that specific as to what the plantings would be or do you want a conceptual design? Stiles: I would like it at least conceptual to the point that I can tell that there is in deed room for the pathway that they have proposed and what kind of landscaping is going to be there beyond just the ditch that's there now. De Weerd: Well perhaps I might suggest that you call Shari and work with her on the Findings and maybe pose any questions that you might have on what she needs, and if we could have that prior to the meeting, that would be excellent. MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have any conditions before you- Smith: No, my motion is still on the table. MacCoy: Do you want to put any conditions to it? Nelson: I'll second that. Smith: Beyond what Commissioner De Weerd stated, no. Incorporate all the other commissioners' requests. MacCoy: Okay we got a second on the table right? Okay. All in favor of that? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 5: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, could I move right now to continue the public hearing on the request for preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner Development? Prior: Is that a motion? De Weerd: Can I? It's amotion -until September Stn Smith: Second. I i • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: AUGUST 11, 1998 APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4 REQUEST: CONDITION USE PERMIT FOR PUD FOR VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUB. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM 7/14/98 CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS ~~ ~ Jam. ~- ~ BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION JITLY 14, 1998 PAGE 81 hopefully you can work all this out for the benefit for both of you. ITEM NO. 18: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: ,MacCoy: Moving on to item 18, just to let you know, if anybody's here for that it's been withdrawn from the thing and we will take a recess for five minutes and we will return to item 12. (FIVE MINUTE RECESS TAKEN) MacCoy: Okay we're going to reconvene now after taking a break. Steiner has come forward and said they'd prefer not doing 12 at this point. Just do 15 and 16 and go that route at this point. So we'll be at item 15 a public hearing. ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) -THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: Prior: Mr. Chairman, just for a clarification Steiner Development; so they don't want to do number 12? MacCoy: No, I didn't say that. I said we'll start at number 12 when we came back. He came up here during the break and said he'd prefer to move it to 15 and 16 since we had people here for this hearing. Prior: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. MacCoy: Now you can come up here, sir. Bradbury: I just thought that maybe these folks might like to get home a little sooner than later as would we all I'm sure. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. This item originally came to this body in January of this year and was recommended for approval to the city council. At that time it contemplated a total of 46 living units, 37 of them being single family detached 3 two unit townhouses for a total of six more units. And then one three unit townhouse for three more making a total of 36. It reached city council in March and the number of -well, I guess probably very close to the same people who are here this evening I think, appeared before the city council and expressed opposition to the project. These are primarily residents of the Golfview Subdivision and the Cherry Lane Village MERIDIAN PLANNING~D ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 82 Subdivision and as we understood the concerns that were being expressed at councilYthat night were that the lot sizes adjacent to or near to those two subdivisions were too-small and therefore were not harmonious with the existing development. City Council took that testimony under advisement and ask that the plat be revised to enlarge the lots inthose--areas and Steiner Development agreed and did prepare a revised plat. Proposed that the city council take it up and the city council decided that it should probably come back and we should run it passed you folks first so that you folks could take another look at this. So in fact what has happened is that the plat has been revised from that which you saw earlier and I don't know what the best way to do this so you can see this. (Inaudible) Bradbury: What we did what the developer did - is this thing working? What the developer did is in total - he eliminated a total of living three units so now instead of having 46 livings, there's 43. And the change resulted in 33 single family detached dwellings where before there were 37, and then 10 townhouse units you know two-unit townhouse units. So we ended up with a total of a minus three. Among the changes that were made were to move the townhouse units that existed in this vicinity here in what would be I guess the southeast part of the project the southerly part 'of the project and some of the townhouses that were in this part of the project here again over near Golfview. The first place they used to be over near the Cherry Lane Vllage Subdivision and then some over near Golfview. The townhouses at Cherry Lane Village were taken out all together and replaced with single family detached lots. The townhouses that were next to Golfview were also eliminated except for two which are immediately adjacent to - this isn't a good spot for you guys maybe. Except for the two that are immediately adjacent to the entry way where there's a whole line of townhouses that come along and along Interlachen. So as a result the townhouses are now essentially clustered on the westerly side of the project so that they are away from the existing Golfview development and away from the Cherry Lane Village development. So that rearranged the location of some of those structures. The third. thing that was done was that the lot sizes were increased in two basically two locations. Along Golfview where there once were six lots, there are now four and those are in minimum of -these lots here will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet and as a matter of fact one of them is all the way up to 9,400 square feet so all of the lots next to Golfview will come out at 8,000 square feet. Actually .one of them shows on my map here as being 7,993 feet. Well, we'll fix that and move the line over a foot or whatever it takes to make sure that all of those lots are at 8,000 square feet before the final plat is presented. In addition the lots that are closest to the Cherry Lane Village area were also increased in sizes. Those lots originally ranged between 3,900 square feet to about 6,500 square feet, and most of them along there were originally under 5;000 square feet. Those lots now-range from 6,375 up to 9,350, so they're over -one of them is over 9,000 square feet. If must be this one here. And there once were 11 lots, now there's 8, and so the lot sizes have grown and new lots next to Golfview will come out at MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14,.1998 PAGE 83 8,000 square feet. Actually one of them shows on my map here as being 7,993 feet. Well, we'll fix that and move the line over a foot or whatever it takes to make sure that all of those lots are at 8,000 square feet before the final plat is presented. In addition the lots that are closest to the Cheny Lane Village area were also increased in sizes. Those lots originally ranged between 3,900 square feet to about 6,500 square feet, and most of them along there were originally under 5,000 square feet. Those lots now range from 6,375 up to 9,350, so they're over -one of them is over 9,000 square feet. It must be this one here. And there once were 11 lots, now there's 8, and so the lot sizes have grown and numbers of lots have decreased. Of course the purpose of that was to attempt to get the density away from the existing development in order to address the concerns,that were expressed by the individuals that live in those areas and try to cluster more of the density toward the center of the project and adjacent to this unplatted land to try to deal with the harmonious issue that was raised. The other issue that was I guess still unresolved at the time that you folks saw it is whether or not Interlachen would be required by the highway°district to connect through to the road that is the collector road that serves Ashford Greens. And when you saw it at the time, the highway district's official position was that they wanted it connect through. We were in the middle of the process of working with them to explain why we thought it wasn't a good idea. The primary reason was we were concerned it was going to create a lot of cut through traffic and increase the traffic load on Interlachen above that which would be acceptable. And the highway district has since agreed and have abandoned the notion that there should be a connection through, so that issue I believe is now behind us. And I don't know, Bruce, did you get a copy of the highway district's most recent transmittal on that? Let me just give it to you or give it to somebody. Maybe give it to Will. What I've given Will is a copy of the Ada County Highway District's June 3 staff findings which were accepted by the Ada County Highway District on that date. I think it's June 3`~. In any event what they said is that they like the idea of~the cul-de-sac. They don't want a connection through. They too are convinced that if it's- connected through, there would be too much traffic generated along Interlachen. And that's really all I that I had to present to you. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have. Smith: Steve, I'm sorry quite frankly I don't really remember what we looked at before. But on this development, you said there was ten townhome lots? Bradbury: Yes. Smith: And I see the two over off Interlachen. Then what is the 25, 30 -- Bradbury: Commissioner, you need to look at lots 20 and 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Right and then 36,.37 to make a total of ten. Smith: 36 and 37. MERIDIAN PLANNING ARD ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 `PAGE 84 Bradbury: Correct. I think there's a note that says~that somewhere on there. Smith: Well, I was looking for it and I didn't see it. Unless it's under notes. Bradbury: Yeah, 1 found it under notes. It's. note 13. I hope that you've got a somewhat similar plat to the one I've been pointing to. Smith: Okay, it is note 13. I'm sorry. (Inaudible) MacCoy: What's the date on your map? Smith: This one say November 18, 1997. Borup: Revision there. Smith: I'm sorry June 8, '98. r, ~ Bradbury: I've got an updated one. The last revision on mine is July 10. You're looking at a map that's got bad numbers on it. Let me show you one more time so you know. ~, Smith: Yeah, Iguess - Bradbury: The townhouse lots, are here. I don't know what numbers are shown on your map, but these are - De Weerd: 40 and 39. Bradbury: Mine is 37 and 38, but I'm not going to -it's these two lots that are the most southerly. rAnd then it's,the lots on the western edge starting with the corner. I'm sorry, you've got to go one lot in. 19 on your map and 20, and then 21 on your map, 22, 23, 24. What's your number across the street? Smith: 25. Bradbury: Okay mine shows 26 and 27, so - Smith: 25 and 30 on"here. Bradbury: That's what happened. We jumped somehow. De Weerd: And three and four? Smith: No. J Bradbury: No. MERIDIAN PLANNING ADD ZOI~IING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 85 MacCoy: Do we have a copy of that map -any place? Can you give us one of those? Bradbury: We'll give them to .you. I think what happened is we caught the bad numbers and reprinted it. Smith: And before you called these duplexes and triplexes, is that still the deal or are you just going with .duplexes now? Bradbury: Just so that it's clear, I don't want to get lost in the definitions, these are all what we call two unit townhouses, separate ownership. When I hear the term duplex, I'm thing single one ownership. Two units on one lot, we're talking about zero lot line townhouses. So you'll sell separately. De Weerd: They just share a wall. Bradbury: They just share a wall, exactly, and there's a total of ten of those units in here. De Weerd: Ten two unit townhouses. Bradbury: Right. Now that's not 20 units. I mean ten units. It's late. Borup: Am I correct on the old plat you had 2,1 townhouses and on the new one you have 20? Bradbury: On the old plat, we had a total of 6, 7, 8, 9 what I'll call multiple unit structures. Borup:., Six duplex, three triplex. Bradbury:Correct. Total of nine. We picked up one additional attached dwelling than from what was originally presented to you back in January. ~~ Borup: No, just the opposite. Bradbury: We had nine. We've gotten now. Borup: Oh, but I mean total units. Bradbury: But in total number of units, we've actually lost three. Borup: Yeah, I was just talking on the townhouse designation units. .: Bradbury: Right. 5 MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 86 Borup: I still have - I saved my old plat for some reason. I knew this was coming back. De Weerd: Now this is a PUD? Bradbury: It is. De Weerd: You know I wasn't there. Bradbury: I understand. De Weerd: Do you have open space here? Bradbury: Yeah, there's two places. There's this piece of property here, which is remote -from the building lots across the canal, and this piece of property is over on the golf course side, and what the developer has proposed to do and it's about a third of an acre. What the develop has proposed to do is to donate~that to the city for use as part of its golf course would be without charge. The other area is a path that goes along the southerly boundary and then works it way up along the canal which would be used to access to allow pedestrians and golf carts to access the golf course the relocated clubhouse which will be up in here once that project is completed, and so there's a total square .footage, of the open space of about an acre, just about an acre of-open space including the donated ground just to make that clear. De Weerd: I think during your city council meeting, Councilman Anderson asked about the~gate and how it would be respond to emergency vehicles. Did that get straightened out? Bradbury: From what I understand and 1 don't~know a lot about these emergency gates, but I've hear that these gates and how the emergency vehicles are going to open them, but I understand there's a number of different type`s of systems that can be employed. There's some sort of a use where you can use a strobe. There's some sort of a deal where you can have a remote or an emergency key .access number, a number of different ways to accomplish it, and I don't think that this developer necessarily demands that there be one or the other. The intention is to work it out with the Fire Department and whatever other emergency services are involved. Find out what they prefer and install that type of system. De Weerd: And so.what are the total number of lots per acre? Bradbury: It comes out to five. De Weerd: And what was it before the redesign? MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 87 Bradbury:. It was actually over five. I~can't remember`the number the density at that time. I can't remember exactly what it is but it was 5.2 maybe. I can't remember. One of the things that Commissioner De Weerd, since- you didn't - weren't here before, this piece of property was originally included as a part of the Ashford Greens PUD and during the preliminary plat process for Ashford Greens, this piece of property was identified as what the city council at the time was calling, I think they're calling medium density and it was conceptually approved for up to eight units per acre. The developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision didn't exercise the option on this piece so Steiner Development picked it up and this application -whafthey did back"then is they gave a PUD approval for Ashford Greens with the preliminary plat. This parcel was shown as an undeveloped conceptual .medium density type of an area. Steiner,Development picked it up and is now presenting the plat. Theoretically attempting to follow the I guess the conceptual approval that was granted back to Ashford Greens back in whatever year it was. De Weerd: Was Golfview Subdivision developed at that time? Bradbury: I think it was. Although I don't know that for certainty. I think Golfview was in existence prior to Ashford Greens. De Weerd: Do you have any landscaping in this development? Bradbury: There will be a landscape treatment at the entry, and you don't have that. It doesn't show on the plat, but there's a landscape treatment at the entry and then this area which would act as a cart path would also be landscaped. De Weerd: With what type of landscaping? Bradbury: I don't know that I can give you the - I can't tell you precisely. Specifically or are you just trying -there will be a walkway and grass and bushes and trees. I mean that's about as specific as 1 think I can be. I'm not sure. If you're asking me has a landscape plan been prepare, I think the answer would have to be no. That would typically be prepared at a final plat process. De Weerd: Those are all the questions I have right now. MacCoy: All right. Mr. Smith? Smith: I don't have anything else. MacCoy: Mr. Borup are you finished? Borup: Yes, 1 am. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. ^I hope I'm not kicking a MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 88 dead dog here, but in this revised preliminary plat, I look back at my original comments from January of this year, we have a pressure sewer main that crosses portions of this property. This is a forced main that comes from a lift station in Golfview Estates and discharges-over on I believe it's Turnberry. This forced main goes across the southerly edge of lot'37 and across the southeasterly side of lot 40 as well as along lots 1 and 2. My original comment from January was that those should. not be easements. They should be a common lot. If we have a break on a forced main, we need to be able to get in there right now.. I don't know -it's looks like we've got one of them on this _ revised plat as a common lot but it looks like the other one is still within an easement and I'm just kind of wondering -okay you still show it on your plat as an easement though. MacCoy: Steve, do you have an answer for that? Bradbury: Well, all I can tell you is the plat as drawn shows a common lot on part that he's talking abou# and it does show as an easement on'the other part. I don't remember the precise conversations that were going on'at the time. But I had the idea that this was a temporary easement that would be abandoned at some point in time. t Freckleton: That's true. As soon as Golfview develops out to Black Cat Road, that lift station would be abandoned because the gravity sewer would go out. to Black Cat, but until that time in this interim, we have this forced main situation. Bradbury: Right, and my recollection is that because it was a temporary easement that it might make the most sense to provide for just an easement so that when. it's abandoned it's got go to somebody, it's got to be somewhere, and I suppose one of two choices. It's either a common lot owned by a homeowners association or it's a part of somebody's building lot. Freckleton: My original comment was that it would be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The written response from PLS, the applicant's engineer, was that the sewer easement area will be a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The area landscape plan will be submitted to the city for review and approval. So, that's why I'm a little confused as to why we're not there now. Bradbury: It sound like we need to make that a common lot, and if that needs to be a condition of approval, that's certainly appropriate. MacCoy: Anything else, Bruce? Freckleton: That was all I had. Thank you. De Weerd: Mc. Chairman, a couple of other comments that were addressed were MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 89 tiling ditches and the potential buffering to adjacent subdivisions. Have those - Bradbury: There are no plans to the either of the two ditches. From what I understand they both are -they both exceed the size limits that the city generally requires for tiling. And actually fromthe way we look at this, the ditch that is between this project and Golfview I believe sits on a 50 foot easement, and so there's actually in addition to the lots the size of the lots in Golfview, and now the increased size of the lots in the Villas, there's~this 50 foot ditch easement that.is in between so that it provides the ditch itself provides a fair amount of separation between the two. My understanding from looking at the maps is that the ditch between this project and Golfview is entirely within the Golfview lots. In other words, the easement that that ditch runs through, it's not a centerline. The property boundaries are on in the centerline of the ditch, but the property line from Golfview actually comes all the-way over. So the ditch itself is in Golfview. It's in those lots. On the other side between this project and the golf course you have the lots and you've another 50 foot ditch easement and then you've got fairway, and you've got another couple hundred feet beyond that before you get to houses. Now, perhaps the one exception maybe some houses that are more or less in this location over here which I think are among the people that are intending to testify and they are a little bit closer to these units which is wMy these were all the. size of these lots here. The nearest lots to these homes were expanded. And of course then here you've got 7, 8 and 9,000 square foot lots. You've got 50 foot of easement. You've got golf course, then .you have the nearest dwelling units. (Inaudible) And so what we're trying to accomplish is recognizing that we've got these existing developments; these people were concerned about the fact that they didn't think that smaller lots made sense next to their larger lots, so we tried to put the larger lots next to their larger lots, and take advantage of and use the separation the natural separation which is provided by each of those-two ditches. De Weerd: And the public would have access to the pathway? Bradbury: Yes, that's correct. MacCoy: Anything else? Any other commissioner - Borup: Just a question. When the conceptual review was done for Ashford Greens, was that a public hearing? Bradbury: I got to think it was because it was a PUD and preliminary plat. Borup: So that was part of all that when they did the conceptual. So it wasn't - they didn't have a design at that time then? Bradbury: They didn't have adesign-for this parcel; that's right. • MERIDIAN PLANNIN(, ZONING COMMISSION `JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 90 ~, Borup: How did,you have a preliminary plat? Bradbury:Well I think what they did is they did a preliminary plat of the R-4 portions of Ashford Greens. Borup: But not this portion. I was speaking specifically of this portion. Bradbury: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah this was part oftheir- as I understood- it,~ and the original Findings from the Ashford Greens were in this middle that was made to you folks in January and kind of went through and discussed how that atf came to be. My recollection of it was and I didn't go back and read them today, but my recollection of it was that it was kind of -the city was taking an overall-view and moving densities around and taking into account the fact that the Ashford Greens property owners were donating property for the city. golf course and so it was all kind of a one big package. The city was getting golf course.4 Ashford Greens in exchange was going to get a little bit higher density in a couple of locations, and since the Ashford Greens developers didn't have a specific development proposal for what they called medium density areas, the council simply gave it a conceptual approval for a density of up to 8 units per acre. Kind of like and unfortunately I probably have said this about every time I've been in front of you folks for the last three months, kind of like the way we tried to handle the Lake at Cherry No. *6 and 7 when we came in with a 40 acre plat with two ten acre lots in it and said we know we have to come back for a conditional use permit to show you exactly what we're going to put in'these two ten acre lots. And then that's exactly what happened. They turned out to be the senior portions of that project. MacCoy: Mr. Borup, any other questions? Borup: No thank you. MacCay: This is a public hearing. Anybody that wants to get up and make a statement may do so at this moment. WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Crookston: I think what concerns me the most is the compatibility between my lot which is as Mr. Bradbury pointed out is approximately right in here. My lot is close to 15,000 square feet. I have approximately a little over a quarter of an acre. And I think that our comprehensive plan basically says that things have to be compatible. I don't-think that these smaller lots are compatible with the size of my lot or the size of the lots that are in Golfview. They did enlarge the lofs somewhat along GolfView and they enlarged the lots a little bit. They are somewhat larger right across from me. Then they just gradually go downhill as they go west. I don't feel that that's actually a compatibility situation. Unless they put lots that are at least R-4, which is 8,000 square feet. I don't think that ,- MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14; 1998 PAGE 91 ~- they are going to be compatible,. and I think that they should be larger than 8,000 square feet because the lots that abut them are larger than 8,000 square feet. I certainly appreciate what they havedone to enlarge some of those lots, but I don't think they've enlarged them enough. As my memory serves me, when we dealt with this property under Ashford Greens, it was placed definitely in an R-8 kind of a situation. It was a planned unit development, but this property was not platted out. So I didn't know what was going to happen to that property at that time. And that's when I got a hold of this thing and I didn't find out about it until it got to city council, and I apologize for that. I should have stepped up before the Planning and Zoning Commission and not just in front of the city council. As I said 1 have to appreciate what they have done. I would like them to do somewhat more. Thank you. Borup: Your lot is R-4 zone or R-8? Crookston: My lot is R-4 zone. But it's substantially larger than the 8,000 square (End of Tape) Crookston: ... from the west from my lot west of me - Borup: So there's some other lots between your lot and this development? Crookston: There's the golf course between my lot and this development, but there are = Borup: When you say west you meant others on your same street; is what you meant? Crookston: No, on my street. I live in a cul-de-sac, and the lots go around in a circle. The lots that go around from me westerly are larger than 8,000. Borup: Okay, the other lots on your street. I'm trying to decide where the. se lots to the west of you are located. You are saying those are on your street. Crookston: Yes. Borup: So between. those tots and this development, you say the golf course is in between? Crookston: Yes. Borup: Do you know how far that is? One fairway down through there? Crookston: Yes, it's just one fairway between my lot and this development. Borup: Thank you. MERIDIAN PLANNING"l~VD ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 92 . MacCoy: Any other questions? Anyone else who would like to make a statement. JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUM ROSE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Stafford: As I stated :I live on Plum Rose which is Golfview Subdivision. My lot approximately is'from -let's see I think I attach right in this area here off the Golfview Subdivision. Our lot is approximately 16 to 17,000 square feet. That's abutting this project and those lots again as Mr. Crookston brought up that we do appreciate that they've increased the lot sizes somewhat compared to what they were before, but there's more at issue and that's the density factor for-the whole project. There is nothing that high a density on either side meaning Golfview and/or Cherry Lane in that immediate area. The other thing that kind of bothers me a little bit is that they keep bringing up that this was conceptually approved. I think the key is it was conceptually approved for Ashford Greens, which had high density property because they were giving quite a bit of property to the golf .course. So they were allowed to cluster high density. This project isn't giving or adding more golf course. They are talking about donating three quarters of an acre to that area. I don't know what that would do or if that would change anything to the golf course.' Another issue is that this is the third time it's been - one P & Z, one council and back to P & Z with recommendations from staff from my understanding on modifying some things, showing the easements accordingly, talking about a plan for landscaping and yet there's not a correct map that's been sent to the public. I mean this map is different than the map I got and the map you have apparently. There isn't a landscaping plan for us to look at or talk about or discuss to see if it's good or bad. There's a few comments, well I'll change this or I'll change that. We had originally talked about -there was discussion about the developer meeting with the homeowners to show us the changes so we could talk about it and work things out. There was no contact made at least to our home for that matter. The other thing I think that I'm concerned with is besides the lots sizes, you're talking about setbacks. From my understanding now, this is the last hearing, and I don't know if this is changed, but the setback requirements for the city they're asking for a variance. Am I understanding that that is correct that they're asking for avariance-for setbacks like on the rear yards? No? They're going to have a,20 foot setback from the rea~~yard? a Smith: It says 15 on the map. Stafford: 15 on they map. Borup: Which would be that's normal city ordinance. Stafford: Is that normal city ordinance? So all the setback requirements are MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION JiJLY 14; 1.998 PAGE 93 going to be normal city ordinance. No variance? Borup: I don't think anybody said that. Stafford: That's a question I have to staff maybe. q. Freckleton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman: They look standard setbacks. However, when you have the townhouse lots, there will be a zero lot line there understandably so. Stafford: Which is standard for a townhouse. So, there is no ten foot setback on the rear lots for building or 5 and 5 on each side which would be different from the city. Freckleton: Side interior is 5. That's standard. Stafford: On both sides? Freckleton: Yes. Twenty foot on the front, fifteen rear. Side yard with a street is 20. Stafford: Okay, so they're not asking for a variance on the setbacks. The other question I have are the streets standard width along with sidewalks on both sides like we're required and like Cherry Lane has and both attached subdivisions? Freckleton: I'm sorry. Stafford: Street width. Is that the standard size for streets? Freckleton: These are private streets. They are narrower. Stafford: They are narrower. And is there sidewalk on both sides of the - ` De Weerd: One side. Stafford: One side. Freckleton: One thing that I should clarify from~my previous statement, on your side yards setback it's five foot per story, so if you end up with a two story, that's ten. Stafford: But there's no request for a variance on that. Okay so the streets are private streets, and they are not the normal width that we would have in a subdivision, a public street let me put it that way, and they're not required to have sidewalks on both sides. MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 94 Freckleton: They-are not required to if city council allows them not to. Stafford: Okay. My concern is too this isn't -they brought that they were talking about another project they did that was a senior citizen or 55 and older project. There's no mention of that. They're talking townhouse or higher density. You know we all have kids. I'm sure is going to be a majority or a minority of children in there with one side streets, no yard to speak of, no sizable yard. I think the minimum lot size in there is about 4,000 square feet, which is approximately the size of some of our homes the actual lot size that's abutting this property. So those are all some concerns that I have with the project and he brings out that there's 8,000 square feet along Golfview, but you.go down 30 feet or 40 feet and they drop down to 5,000 and 4,000 square feet.. So that does have an effect in the immediate area just because my property is touching an 8,000 square foot lot which is considerably smaller, but still granted R-4 type lot doesn't mean that the whole :project is done that way. So I think those are some of the concerns that I have and if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them. Borup: Yes, Mr. Stafford, did you attend any other public hearings? Stafford: Yes, I did, city council. Borup: But not the one - Stafford: Not the P & Z. Borup: I didn't recognize you from P & Z. Show the location again of where your house is. I thought the way - Stafford: We're along this lateral right here, and (believe - Borup: I thought the first time I saw you pointing further to your right. Stafford: Yeah, I'm not sure if it ties in this spot or this spot here. Borup: That's why I was confused. I thought you had' pointed to the other spot which my plat shows as being part of Lakes at Cherry Lane. Stafford: Yeah, so it would be from this point. Borup: Okay, that's why I was confused. You were pointing to a different subdivision. Thank you. MacCoy: Anything else? Thank you. GORDON MARGULIEUX 2040 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION • JULY I4, I998 PAGE 95 Margulieux: I live again as I mentioned in Cherry Village No. 1. I live at lot number three which is 27.29 feet from the proposed path. Right there is the corner of our lot. It's an irregular size lot. Most of these lots here are 8,000. My lot actually because it is irregular is 13,000. But I'm not as concerned. I think that the developer has done a fairly good job at trying to balance, trying to transition in there, so t'm not that concerned about that. I am concerned about the path. There are some issues that haven't been -they seem to fade in and out. But one is lighting on the path. We have -three or four years ago, I wouldn't have even thought of this, we have a family that's in our neighborhood that has some teenagers that are kind of troublesome and f think an unfit path back there 20 feet wide that is gated, it will be gated. This is one of those issues that sort of fades back and forth. At-night at one end but not on the other end, and it just happens to be the end that a patrol car if they wanted to look down that way, they wouldn't be able to - in fact from the drawings I've seen of the island where the gate is that a patrol car would not be able to go down to the point where they could look down to see if anything is going on there. So, I'm concerned. The developer has expressed a willingness to maybe light it to a certain extent. But that again it changes from time to time as to what a good solution would be for that. It is again locked at night. The proposal is that it's locked at night so people wouldn't 6e going back there. On one end, but the other end is open. The comment about landscaping, I'm not sure because again we haven't seen anything on that. But earlier today we talked about that entire 20 foot would be paved and maintained by the homeowners association. So I'm not sure what sort of landscaping would be there, if there would be any trees or anything like that. Twenty feet is a pretty wide area especial{y for walking or -the idea is that maybe you would drive your golf cart over there. So maintenance is an issue if the homeowners association chooses not to maintain it. I'm not sure exactly how that gets addressed. I did want to make the comment about the platting for R-8. My understanding from talking to people is what happened is they said we'd like to do something like this. R-8 sounds like a good idea. And the P & Z came back and said show us and then we'll talk about it. And they never came back and showed -so they really didn't give it approval. They said yeah, go ahead and show us what you're talking about and we'll talk about it and they never-did. So I don't think there's even aconceptual -there maybe but I don't believe there's even conceptual approval. It was you know if you want to try go ahead. Anybody can present something to us. By the way I have been to all the meetings in case someone's interested. I have been to every one of the meetings that I got a notice for. The only other one I wanted to talk about mention is there may be some change that I'm not aware of but there was some requests for changes in the setback and Steve's been very straight forward. I should say the developer's been very straight forward in any of this. I can go over to their headquarters, sit down with them, talk to them. I have in the past and they've been very straight forward. I really appreciate it. But they did talk about some setbacks at the original meeting and if I remember the note, the front was a change from 20 to 15 and the side to the street, whatever side adjacent to MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 96 the street, was also request a change from' 20 to 15-and I thought that they might have mentioned that the rear was to change from 15 to 10 on some lots. Not all of those lots, but that they had asked for that. So again I'm sure that when Steve gets back up here he'll mention those and it was apparently in the original packet that they gave so they're not trying to hide anything as far as I know. Other than that I actually like -I've seen the book. I sat down and looked at it and gone through it and it looks nice. And they've done things that's been brought up in the meetings so I think they are willing to work on it. They have and other than this path, the security along that path, that's the only concern I really have. Any questions? By the way, good morning. MacCoy: Thanks a lot. Borup: Gordon, right now you're living next door to the clubhouse? Margulieux: Actually fairly close. We see the light out on the - Borup: Which of the two uses would you consider more favorable to you? Margulieux: Well the clubhouse - I would like to see the place developed and get it over with and this to me looks fine. I mean they've done lots of things to change it. I'm not opposed to the development. The clubhouse gives us no problems at night unless they have a party. We've had to ask them about that, but that only comes about once a year anyway. So either way it doesn't seem to bother us. We do see cars driving around and we do call 9-1-1 when we see people peering into the clubhouse that aren't suppose to, and if I saw someone in that path over there that wasn't suppose, I'd call 9-1-1 then too. But either way I think that the subdivision in general is not a bad subdivision from my point of view, and I think they've done a lot of things to satisfy or try to satisfy the people in our subdivision. Borup: Thank you. MacCoy: Thank you very much. ROBERT PATCHIN 4199 W. PLUM ROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Patchin: I would love to comment, but I don't think I can do it intelligently having a map that you can't read because it's so small and I guess it's not the same map that's on this large display here or the ones that you have. So it's a little bit disadvantage and to make any kind of a reasonable comment at this point: I would like to say though that I still think the density is a little bit too much for the surrounding area. Idon't believe it's still is not compatible. I don't know what can be done if they've reached their limit as far as number of lots to their investment that there is no return. That may be a problem. The traffic has got to MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 97 increase based on the number of lots and if it's not restricted tike the other density over" there in Cherry with the 55 or older, why it's going to be a lower cost housing and of course there's going to be more children. Just looks like the density is going to be just too much. It's awful hard to follow the numbers and it looked like originally it looked like about six variances were required to do this development. I'm not sure. f kind of lost count of that as to existing. I have not made the meetings. I've been absent unfortunately, but I did write a letter to the city and it is on file. It did address some of the concerns there moving the townhouses or"what were duplexes away from the edge next to the larger lots in the- other subdivisions. So they have made some progress but I just don't think it has gone far enough. 1'd like to have more time to study the .real map. MacCoy: Any questions? Borup: What lot was your lot number? Patchin: Well, I'm right across the street. {t's 1ot number 2 and block 5 of Go{fview. Borup: You're right across the street from Mr. Stafford? Patchin: Yeah. Borup: Okay, thank you. MacCoy: All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to come make a statement? Bradbury: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments. Where to start? Let me talk about this notion of variances, because I think it's important that we get it as clear as we can possibly be at this hour. You have an application for a PUD, a planned unit development. Under the planned unit development ordinance you allow for certain exceptions to be made to the standard zone requirements in exchange for considerations of open space and issues- like that. In this case there's a proposal to provide the city with some .,additional property for the golf course and provide some additional open space, and as a result the developer is asking for consideration as a PUD. So there are no variances as that term is used either in the ordinance or in general rules of law. There are a number of exceptions which have been asked for under the PUD process. Among those exceptions is that this project be served by a private street. It is after all a dead end cul-de-sac. The intention is to construct a security gate so that the people who live in this subdivision will have the added security of gated community. The streets are lesser width than ACRD standard, but of course ACRD; that is the highway district, will not own and maintain them. Instead they'll be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. There is in fact a proposal that sidewalk be placed on one side of the street only, and MERIDIAN PLANNIN~D ZONING COMMISSION • 7LILY 14, 1998 PAGE 98 again as we have talked in times past, because these are streets that dead end and just serve the interior of the subdivision, it didn't seem that a bunch of additional concrete in the form of sidewalks on both sides of the street would necessarily be a good idea. There is a request for exceptions from the standard setback provision. The request has been that the front~yard setbacks be reduced from 20 to 15 feet, and 18 for the garage units. And that the street side yard setbacks be.reduced from the standard 20 to 15 feet. With respect to the notion that the map is somehow different, it's the same map, the numbers have just been modified so they follow a logical sequence. I think the map you have the numbers simply don't follow a logical sequence. Other than that, everybody is looking at the same drawing. With respect to the idea of this notion of compatibility and larger lots needing to be next to larger lots, I guess I understand to a certain extent. But I see compatibility a little differently. tt seems to me that when you talk about compatibility you're talking about compatibility of uses, and the compatibility of uses is to take a clear incompatible use. A hog farm next to Mr. Crookston's house, a nice home. That would be an incompatible use. Residential development next to residential development I don't know what can be more compatible than that: In this case I don't think that the notion of compatibility requires that every lot which is adjacent to another lot be the same size as the lot next to it. Because if you take the logic of that, if you start with a 10,000 square foot lot, every lot in the City of Meridian has to be 10,000 square feet because after all if there's one next to that it's got to be 10,000 square feet in order to be compatible. It'll have to be 10,000 square feet, the next one after that will have to be 10,000 square feet. I don't think that's what compatibility is about. I think what compatibility is about is having compatible uses and in this case we're talking about residential uses in a residential area, separated by the way, -- interspersed is maybe a way to say it with golf course. The distance between Mr. Crookston's house and these parcels it's got to be a couple of hundred feet. The distance between the Golfview properties if they're some 10, 12, 15, 16,000 square feet is there's a 50 foot canal easement in between so there's a couple 3,000 square feet of their lots that are taken'up by canal. You have that separation and that distance, and on this developer's side, we're going to have standard or in excess of standard R-4 lots. All of them being 8,000 square foot minimum. I'm having a hard time buying into the notion of incompatibility. Mr. Margulieux was talking about the gated path. It's perhaps some confusing. The path is going to be open on both ends. It's gated so that people from outside of the subdivision cannot come into the subdivision, but people from outside the subdivision°can access the path and go all the way along the path without having to negotiate or open or close the- gate, so it is open, and l'm not sure maybe we didn't - in our conversations with Gordon maybe we didn't make that very clear. But it's open. The proposal is not to pave 20 feet side to side. It would be a walkway with landscaping with I don't know ten feet of pavement and the balance being landscape treatment. I think I've addressed most of the issues, except perhaps the density one and whether or not this was ever approved. I'm going to read. the motion that was made by the city council in the Ashford Greens project. I'm not going to read the whole thing because it covers three pages, but I'm MERIDIAN PLANNING~D ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 99 going to read one sentence out of it. It says, "The concept of `medium density' parcels is approved conceptually only." So this is not the first time that this idea has come before the city. Anything else? MacCoy: He mentioned the lighted path. Bradbury: We'll work with him on lighting. I think that would be included as part of the lantlscaping treatment, and I don't think that we have any problem with including in that treatment with some form of lighting. My experience has been that the landscape plans are something that you folks look at the final plat. In due course-those would be presented and we're certainly willing to work with these people in any way to help them be as comfortable as they can with it. MacCoy: Any questions from the commissioners? Borup: Steve, did you mention earlier percentage on the open space? Bradbury: I haven't calculated percentage. Let's see, there's 8'/s acres and there's about an acre of open space. So that comes out to about what? 12%? Borup: Okay. Freckleton: I guess I'm feeling a little ignorant now that I ta{ked about the setback issue. The new revised plan that I got with my packet dated June 9, is it incorrect then? Bradbury: The only thing that's incorrect about it are the numbers on it, the lot numbering sequences is incorrect. Freckleton: Okay the setbacks are stated right on here just as I had quoted earlier. Bradbury: Under your ordinance - Freckleton: Standard setbacks. Bradbury: Under your ordinance as I understand it the ordinance requires that the zone that the property exists as it exists is required the setbacks are required to be shown on your plat under the zone as it exists, and that's why it comes out this way. Freckleton: No, I think what you need to show on your plat is what you propose for setbacks. Bradbury: Well, let's pull out the ordinance. Does anybody have it? MERIDIAN PLANNIN(~!~iD ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 100 (Inaudible) Borup: Yeah, I think that's my recollection too. We had some others where the - I'mthinking of a zoning thing where the current zoning had to be stated, but on your previous fact that you specified which lots you were looking for reduced and which ones you weren't. So apparently that is not with thi$ application. Bradbury: Well; because we've changed those lots - Borup: Well, that's what I mean so this application doesn't have specific lots mentioned on the reduction? Bradbury: That's correct. Borup: Or is it a blanket on all of them? Bradbury: The way I was approaching it rather than trying to figure out which ones were going to need it and which ones were not, just simply make it a blanket. Borup: Okay. Bradbury: And°then we don't have to try to untangle every time we move a line. Borup: Yeah. De Weerd: Are those setbacks along any existing subdivisions that you are asking for the variance or the exception? Bradbury: There are no rear yard setback -the existing subdivisions abut the rear yards, and we are not asking for reductions of rear yard setbacks. So the front yard setbacks of those same lots however would be maybe reduced. Borup: Was this reduction the same as what the original application last January? Was it a blanket request at that time? r Bradbury: Well there was a little bit of confusion about that because there was a map that showed some of the lots that would need setback reductions and over time - Borup: -- specified other than the map which the map didn't even have the lot and blocks on it. Bradbury: That's right. And that map was something that was originally inserted and then over time it got to the point where it became just too complicated and so it was simply, the proposal Ithink - MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 101 Borup: I think my question was on this application. I don't think anybody here has the paperwork from last January. I saved some plats and stuff for some reason, but in that application there was a request for reduction of the setback. Bradbury: There was; correct. That's correct, yes, sir. De Weerd: Now on the pathway, who is responsible for maintaining and upkeeping and maintenance? Bradbury: That would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association that would be formed as a part of the project. De Weerd: So when lights go out they will take care of it. Bradbury: It would be part of the homeowners association responsibility. That's correct. De Weerd: Bruce, I had a question for you. Is that right with the landscaping that we don't see that? Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, typically I believe those are submitted to Shari for review. I don't believe that they come before P & Z unless it's requested. De Weerd: Well, it seemed like it was an issue before city council and so I guess I assumed since it was an issue at that point that we might be seeing it. I guess that assumption is wrong. MacCoy: Anyway in past, Shari has done most of them. We see them once in a while. I'm not sure if that's just because -well we have requested some sometimes, but sometimes we get them without even requesting them too. De Weerd: Yeah, I guess I was just looking conceptually what the idea was. Borup: Tammy you said you felt the city council had a concern on it last meeting, is that what you're referring to? Bradbury: I don't know if this helps you, but included as part of the submittal, I think drawing went to the city council included as a part of the submittal to the city council was-kind of just a real rough outline of what was considered there. De Weerd: And that circle is by the gate? Okay. This is all asphalt here? Bradbury: (Inaudible) The access would be on the public side of the gate. It would work its way through and around and up and then there would be a gate MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION • JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 102 here. (Inaudible). De Weerd: Thank you. MacCoy: I'd like to clarify something with you. You mentioned the pathway and so on would be homeowners. The street is private and so of course the sidewalk that goes with it. That's private. So the homeowners association has got quite a few.they've got to take care of. In other words it's going to be costly for them. Bradbury: I don't think this is going to be a cheapo subdivision. That's not the market that these guys are after. These guys are after the market -the bulk of the homes in this subdivision and you don't have the materials that were submitted here six months ago, but the bulk of the homes in this subdivision are proposed to be in excess of 1600, 1700 square feet. So we're not talking about a number of just little boxes. I know these aren't mansions by any means, but they are reasonably sized homes, and the market is to try to find people and I've said it in the past in meetings with you is to try to find people who want to have nice homes in a secure environment but have a bunch of yard and .maintenance duties and you're right, these folks are going to have a fair amount of homeowners dues in order to maintain not only the private road but the pathway system and what not. De Weerd: Now are these - do these have specific designs that you are marketing or they can go in and build whatever they want or do you have uniformity? Bradbury: There are specific floor plans and elevations that were presented to the city originally as well and they are included in the books. But again unfortunately you .don't have. De Weerd: And are those their only choices, or can they just build something? Bradbury: The idea is that this is as"apart of the PUD we're proposing specific floor plans and elevations that would be built in the project. Now, I'm not going to try to say that every single one is going to be exactly like that and there may very well be an occasion where somebody will want to build something a little bit different, but conceptually we're trying to show you here's the floor plans that we think are going. to work here and we've laid it out for these floor plans. These are the elevations we think we're going to use. These are the materials that we expect to use and the standards will be meet or exceed these standards. De Weerd: And landscaping? Do you have minimums on that? Bradbury: Included in the. restrictive covenants will be minimum requirements for landscaping. MERIDIAN PLANNING~D ZONING COMMISSION JiJLY 14, 1998 PAGE 103 De Weerd: Will you provide any of that? Bradbury: To the city? De Weerd: No, to the buyers. Bradbury: Absolutely. You bet. The restrictive covenants will be created and recorded before a lot is sold. And as a matter of fact as a part of the final plat process f expect the city wi{I review these restrictive_covenants. At least if what has happened in the past holds true to form. MacCoy: Anything else? Smith: Just a clarification since it's so late. You said ~arl~er you don't have identified on here which lots are in excess of or rn~et Qf are in excess of 8,000 square feet and which ones aren't. We don't hays a calculation on a number and we don't know which ones are going to reggire tthg variances on the setbacks? ~; t , Bradbury: Well, I could tell you lot by lo~ y~rha~ the sizes are because I have it on the map that I'm working with. So if you're' interested in that information we can certainly provide it, but what I didn't try to .do is try to figure out on a lot by lot basis under this layout which lots going tp need a 15 foot setback and which one can deal with a 20 foot setback and what might need a 19 foot setback and -all of that. Smith: It would be helpful to know which ones are what size. Bradbury: Sizes of the lots? Smith: Just to get an idea of -you know we've got this many that meet the R-4 zoning and this many don't. Bradbury: I can.leave the map that I have here. It's got the square footages on it. Smith: You-know you're required to do that anyway. You presented it. You lost it. I don't have - I'm just tired. De Weerd: I do have one more question and that's about security issues. !think the point was raised that the police would have the opportunity to respond to that pathway if there were problems or patrol that pathway or -- you. don't. fee that. as a- Bradbury: I don't understand that either. I mean it's not gated and locked and I think if an officer wants to stop his car and go down that pathway. I suppose theoretically if you wanted to he could just drive his car down there because it's MERIDIAN PLANNIN ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 104 twenty feet wide, but it's not closed. Smith: You are going to put in a bunch of little nice landscaping so it won't be wide enough. But this gentleman i think was under the impression that the pathway was gated, not the street. When you showed us where that pathway originates, that's off of your property. If it's going to have access - from what I saw in your sketch and what I'm looking at on the property line here, the gate is like right on your property line? Bradbury: Right. Smith: And then that thing is stuck out down to the southeast a little bit, which is off of your property? Bradbury:. I believe it's going to be in the ACRD right-of--way. Smith: Okay, I'm just confused. Bradbury: It's late and this is~maybe not as easy as we'd hoped. MacCoy: Anything else? Okay, thank you very much, Steve. is there any other comments from the audience before we close this? Stafford: My name is Joe Stafford. Just one quick comment. You know you talked about compatibility that every lot has to be 10,000 square feet and the whole City of Meridian be 10,000 square feet. Twenty percent of the lots from what I've heard him say tonight on which ones they raised to 8,000 square feet meet the minimum standard there. There isn't an 8,000 square foot lot abutting this property. So 80% don't meet the minimum of 8,000 square feet for an R-4 zoning, and l understand. it's a PUD. But that certainly is not compatibility. You know l understand every lot is not the same. We have a variance in sizes in our subdivision, but 80 % don't meet the 8,000 square feet, and he's trying to sell that that's compatib{e with my 18,000 or someone else's 12,000. So I just have to bring~that up. Thanks. MacCoy: Anyone else? Margulieux: This is Gordon Margulieux. I just want to clarify that about the locked gate. I know that this is a gated community, so there is going to be a gate that is on the street that crosses the street that people have to open in order to get through, but there was a discussion at one time that for security reasons that they may put a gate across the path too, so that at a particular time in the evening time that that gate would be locked. And so that the gate wouldn't be open 24 hours a day, but it would be locked on the -now if that's changed, again, things have fluctuated so if that's changed, that's fine. Again it's just a situation of really sort of knowing or getting the idea as to what they plan on MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY I4, I998 PAGE I05 doing. The other one in talking about the gate that 1 was reminded of and that is the existing road does not line up with the proposed road that's there. There is between the existing curb right now and the new curb, there's ten and a half feet. So it's 10'/2 feet the new one moves the road over. But the o{d road is owned or maintained by the highway district so I'm not sure exactly what sort of situation that ten and a half is going to be moved out now. That road is not going to be part of somebody's but we don't know who's because it belongs to the highway district right now. So it will be a curb in there and so I'm not sure how that's going to work out. I haven't quite figured that out yet. But it is if you took at the old one, and go from that corner on the old - on Cherry Lane's Subdivision 1 from the end it's ten and a half feet shorter than if you go from the drawing out to the curb. So I'm not sure exactly - I'm sure they'll all figure it out, but I'm not sure how that area gets controlled over there. I should also say that with the changes in the lot size, maybe that can be brought back in to line with that; because it had before, you had four houses along that section. Now you only have two, so the lots sizes -there's room that can be maybe moved around there. So maybe that could be brought in line with it. 1 don't know. MacCoy: Steve, do you want to answer that? Bradbury: I'll try. Are we talking about the ten feet highway district thing? Yeah, we've had conversations with the highway district about that and I needed to be reminded because I couldn't remember exactly where that all came out either, but as -we're going to buy it from the highway district so that it all lines up. 1 mean it's an engineering thing between Mr. PLS and the ACRD people and if there's extra right-of--way that's not going to be needed, the notion is that Steiner Development would buy it. De Weerd: Is this fenced in? Are you fencing this subdivision in or is it open? Bradbury: You know I don't know. I haven't talked about fencing. Mr. Campbell says that it's likely to be fenced everywhere but along the golf course. MacCoy: Any other questions? Thank you. Any other comments to be made before we close the hearing? Yes. Come ahead. JACKIE STAFFORD 49 ~21N. PLUM ROSE STREET 1NAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. J. Stafford: Just one comment. These people have been up here three times. You'd think they'd have some type of landscaping. Something to give us all that we wouldn't have all these silly questions that we keep having to ask. That's it. Thank you. MacCoy: Thank you. Anyone else? I'm going to close the public hearing at this time and commissioners, what is your desire? MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 106 Borup: This is back before us because of a substantial change in the plat that was originally recommended; is that correct? MacCoy: That's correct. What's your desires? Borup: My desire is to take a nap. MacCoy: Well if we get with that, we can do that. Borup: Well I don't know. We seem to have a lot more concerns and questions on this now than we did six months ago, and I'm not sure why. Smith: I don't recall anybody coming in and testifying against it six months ago. MacCoy: You got a point there. Borup: That maybe the difference, but it's got three less lots, (End of Tape). Borup: .. I guess these are the things that came up at city council. The question I would have then. I don't know if we can answer that is if these changes satisfied city council's concerns. De Weerd: Yeah, I guess that was my question too. I know the issue of compatibility was high was on that list, and you know I don't know if that's been met. I think it certainly has been improved and you know I look at the example of Meridian Greens where they were compatible and then they kind of filter in and then you can have a higher density, and I believe in that too. I do believe that multi land uses is a good idea. But I don't know what their definition of compatibility was for the perimeters that would be shared with existing subdivisions. MacCoy: I think what the -since we didn't get. any guidelines given back to us on this thing because of the change from what he had reviewed, and what they received they felt that it should go back here and be again opened up to the public. We would then hear that and make a new decision. If it's to go back and get more facts, put it in that direction or - Borup: One of the criteria we use when we're talking about incompatibility between residential and commercial is buffering. And you think on the one side we have a 50 foot canal as a buffer. On the other side we have a golf course fairway as a buffer. And then the smallest buffer is the pathway. On my standpoint, I'm thinking I don't have as much concern about compatibility as maybe some of the other aspects. Is that correct that the only discrepancy on the plat is just the numbering is my understanding, lots sizes all stay the same except for the ones that need to be changed. Well, there was some mention that MERIDIAN PLANNIN~AND ZONING COMMISSION ~~ JULY 14, 1998 ~ ~ PAGE 107 one was - Smith: Common lot. Borup: No, well the 7900 foot one was going to be changed to 8,000 De Weerd: I don't know. I just don't understand if it's gone through P & Z and City Council, why we don't have a clearer idea of what's going on. '' t MacCoy: I expected you to have that, but we didn't receive that. You can put it back into Finding of Fact again if you want. Borup: Well, that's what I was going to say. That's the procedure we need to go to. These corrections still need to be made. Whether to us or to city council. We can do the findings and go on from there and it ends up back in the city council's lap. De Weerd: Well before we make a motion since we can't talk about this after a motion has been made, have we closed the public hearing? MacCoy: Yes, I just did. De Weerd: Okay. Is it would be our hope that city council gets a more complete picture than what we get if we ask for Findings at this point? That you can give them a better idea of if you're going to fence it and maybe the type of fencing and an idea of the landscape. I think some questions were raised that if these people again show up at the public hearing that they too can have~a better understanding of what's going on. So that's my little speech at 1:00 in the morning. _ Smith: Well and I think if we're going fordeviations from an R=4 zoning, we need to know which lots are being asked to be smaller and at a minimum that. It would be nice to know which lots are going to need to have variances to setbacks as well, but I guess you really don't know that until you sell the lot and. you know which unit you're putting on it. But at a minimum we should know whether one or two lots are deviating from the R-4 or whether the majority of them are. I mean that's what I don't feel comfortable about forwarding on to city council right now, I mean could go through it myself and figure it out. But that should be something that would be made available to us. So that's my little speech, so I'm not going to going to make a motion for findings of fact. If somebody else wants that's fine. De Weerd: I will. I move-that the assistant city attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the conditional use permit for a planned unit development, the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner Development. Borup: Second. MERIDIAN PLANNIN~-ZONING COMivIISSION JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 108 MacCoy: Any discussion? Smith: Not from me. I said it. MacCoy: I think you did. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 2'ayes, 1 nay. ITEM NO. 16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1: MacCoy: Mr. Bradbury, do you haveany statement about this one? STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything to add. I'd simply ask that the testimony from the previous hearing be incorporated into this one so that we don't have to repeat it all. MacCoy: Very good, sir. Thank you. Since it is a public hearing, is anything from the public that would like to be stated at this moment even to the same point that he just did for his. WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Crookston: I would like to like Mr. Bradbury did, I'd like to incorporate he testimony that I gave in the previous public hearing in this public hearing testimony. Thank you. - MacCoy: Anyone else would like to do the same? Smith: Can't we speed this along and just make a blanket motion to incorporate everything that everybody said on the last thing. (Inaudible) GORDON MARGULIEUX WAS 2040 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Margulieux: I'd like to incorporate my previous testimony but I'd also like to ask about item number 16 that it's not 48 lots. They've removed three lots. That was kind of confusion on the letter they sent out too, because it had items on it. MacCoy: We didn't have the map. So when we received our material it was written as 48.